Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's an assumption, there's at least one reason not to, plus other possible reasons we haven't thought of. That's why they have a saying about assuming things.
It's not his job on the line if his boss knows it wasn't his mistake.
If you want to use assumptions and speculations to support things, the fact that Feaster hasn't been fired for risking $2.5M and a 1st and 3rd round pick on a presumed roll of the dice (roll 2d6, oohhh critical miss) "suggests" that he wasn't actually taking any risk.
If you stick with your conclusion based on what was said but ignore what actually happened (Feaster not being fired), then that's confirmation bias isn't it?
Makes no sense to you, and you are in a position where you have to admit you just might lack all the relevant information.
No problem discussing things in the absence of all relevant information, but drawing firm conclusions doesn't follow.
And people were just complementing on how reasonable people were being in the thread. |
Well 80% of this thread is based on speculation and perception since not a single person here has all the information. Everyone is stating speculation as a result.
As far as the last comment, I find the "we're not going to address this again" as borderline childish. People have questions, the media will have questions and rightfully so. Judging but the post I quoted, I'm not alone.