Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 You didn't link any study in the post I've been responding to. Please re-link, if you don't mind, so I don't have to go back through the thread searching for it. Also, before I dig into that study, which I will, can you tell me if it accounts for any of the issues I described about the other study? There were a bunch of different articles and links. This was in one of the links I posted but it is just the abstract to the study. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v94y2004i4p991-1013.html This was another... http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(15)00079-3/abstract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 I totally agree with what Jerry Jones said. You have every right to protest, but while you are representing my team, you WILL stand for the national anthem!!!! If the Bills find that they are OK with a player disrespecting the country, than they lose me as a fan. Hats off to Jerry Jones!!! (I can't believe that I am saying that, but totally agree with his position......) Jerry Jones who regularly signs druggies, wife beaters, & pays hookers. But damn it, he's a true Patriot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Jerry Jones who regularly signs druggies, wife beaters, & pays hookers. But damn it, he's a true Patriot! A true Texas hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 There were a bunch of different articles and links. This was in one of the links I posted but it is just the abstract to the study. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v94y2004i4p991-1013.html This was another... http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(15)00079-3/abstract /facepalm Your first link is the study I linked the original content of, direct from the source. You second is a broken link which leads nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Jerry Jones who regularly signs druggies, wife beaters, & pays hookers. But damn it, he's a true Patriot! I kinda hate that there is now something I have to respect him for. As was well posted earlier, the First Amendment does not apply in the workplace. You do your job and play by the rules we make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 now he can claim he was cut for his protest or he won't and you'll be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 now he can claim he was cut for his protest It wouldn't be a valid claim. He's not an NFL caliber OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 So published studies in scientific journals and from the University of Chicago are not good enough for you? And all I did was click on the first two entries in a list of numerous ones.yes, they're not good enough for me And try looking better for this type of stuff. There is a lot of crappy reading to make your head hurt on it. CRT, for example....uh maze zing lee stoop ud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 /facepalm Your first link is the study I linked the original content of, direct from the source. You second is a broken link which leads nowhere. My bad. When I saw yours was from a link with Duke.edu I thought it was different and didn't read through. The welcome onewas working. There seems to be a bunch of different articles on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 /facepalm Your first link is the study I linked the original content of, direct from the source. You second is a broken link which leads nowhere. Again, do you deny this is real on any level? Or do you just want to argue the studies and the links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Mods must be out of town.amazingly no one is being a jerk face yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 amazingly no one is being a jerk face yet Ahh, but the night is young! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 It wouldn't be a valid claim. He's not an NFL caliber OT. same with Kaepernick being of NFL caliber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 yes, they're not good enough for me And try looking better for this type of stuff. There is a lot of crappy reading to make your head hurt on it. CRT, for example....uh maze zing lee stoop ud Scientific studies with real researchers from solid academia doing actual work with real numbers from documented cases are not good, versus Boyst62 random opinion with no research and no academia and no work and no numbers and no documents. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Jerry Jones who regularly signs druggies, wife beaters, & pays hookers. But damn it, he's a true Patriot! If Jerry Jones tried to discipline a player for refusing to stand for the anthem, the NFLPA would get it overturned in a millisecond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Scientific studies with real researchers from solid academia doing actual work with real numbers from documented cases are not good, versus Boyst62 random opinion with no research and no academia and no work and no numbers and no documents. Got it. This is why I stopped going to PPP. It is the exact cast of characters you are arguing with now, claiming over and over that scientific studies are wrong without providing any of their own evidence. That's not how science works. You're talking to a brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 If Jerry Jones tried to discipline a player for refusing to stand for the anthem, the NFLPA would get it overturned in a millisecond. As it always does, it will come down to what's in writing. What does the CBA and his contract allow? But that's not helping Kaepernick right now, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 /facepalm Your first link is the study I linked the original content of, direct from the source. You second is a broken link which leads nowhere. This link analyzes the study you analyzed. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 As it always does, it will come down to what's in writing. What does the CBA and his contract allow? But that's not helping Kaepernick right now, is it? I'm pretty confident that refusing to stand for the anthem does not run afoul of the personal conduct policy or constitute other misconduct justifying discipline under the CBA. But you're right, none of that is much help to Kaep right now. No arbitrator can order a team to sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) Serious question: do you really think there is nothing to this? When the study in question notes in it's own weaknesses that they have no idea if the employers ever saw the names on the resumes in an employment environment where automated processes have replaced human review, amongst other critiques? In a study that attempts to link name preference to racism at the expense of all other reasons for the discrepancy, and doesn't account for unusual "white" names, or ethnic "white" names in the process? Yes, I have my strong doubts. Edited September 1, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtDart Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) If 50,000 violent Skinheads all somehow bought tickets for a game and were waiting outside the Bills stadium (for accuracys sake, I will assume theyre Bills fans) with brass knuckles and barbed 2x4s, and the NFL had no time to switch venues, then maybe youd get an empty stadium. But even then, Im skeptical. The Bills tailgate lot basically looks like Mad Max: Fury Road these days, and they still let everyone in.-DeadspinSo now the skinheads don't have rights, and freedom of speech. Black lives matter, and ANTIFA get to express their views. Jesus pick one. Edited September 1, 2017 by DirtDart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) When the study in question notes in it's own weaknesses that they have no idea if the employers ever saw the names on the resumes in an employment environment where automated processes have replaced human review, amongst other critiques, yes. I have my strong doubts. That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names. Edited September 1, 2017 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Not saying there is, but I am saying he's got the freedom to wear them. Then I asked if it was just a picture of a pig with no police reference, if that would still be offensive? Well yeah, he has the freedom to wear them and deal with the repercussions for doing so. Label it black ball or whatever you want , but when you work for a company and your actions contribute to a financial loss for said company, don't expect to be a hot commodity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Well yeah, he has the freedom to wear them and deal with the repercussions for doing so. Label it black ball or whatever you want , but when you work for a company and your actions contribute to a financial loss for said company, don't expect to be a hot commodity. There was no financial loss due to his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names. They didn't do any other culturally significant names though. It was solely white vs black. If American vs Eastern European sounding name has the same issue, would you admit that there's a variable here that may not be racism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 There was no financial loss due to his actions. Ratings were down last year and the protests were one of the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 They didn't do any other culturally significant names though. It was solely white vs black. If American vs Eastern European sounding name has the same issue, would you admit that there's a variable here that may not be racism? You would have to make more of a clear hypothetical for me to know what I thought. If they used Aram, Hyak, Davrit, Anoush and Narek who got 33% less I would think we had something against Armenians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Ratings were down last year and the protests were one of the reasons. BS- prove it. Thursday night games were awful. That hurts the ratings a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 I am fine with peaceful protest. So is my dear friend Gandhi. And he loves the Bills.Roots for the underdogs, even still ! Go Bills ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Ratings were down last year and the protests were one of the reasons. That claim has been debunked. @richarddeitsch Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Ratings were down last year and the protests were one of the reasons. Thats hysterical, maybe political debates hurt ratings genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Scientific studies with real researchers from solid academia doing actual work with real numbers from documented cases are not good, versus Boyst62 random opinion with no research and no academia and no work and no numbers and no documents. Got it. dude I did not even reply to your nonsense list, because it would be so easy to shoot holes through that it was ridiculous, and if this sounds all funky at least I spelled correctly I'm doing voice to text as I drive around on a tractor... That's how much this means to me... And I'm bored but the truth of the matter is Tasker though not very smart and terrible at Fantasy Football, well he already brought up the points that are worth bringing up I just never bother to take the time... My first name is Jeff if I spell it with the G does that make me French or a gangster because it's a g... I really am bored actuallyThats hysterical, maybe political debates hurt ratings genius well, those debates hurt us all#terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 I will absolutely never get your obsession with standing for the national anthem, here in the UK we only know a few of the words and rarely ever actually sing it. We fought a war against you people for oiur freedom. That's what the song is babout and that's why we stand. It's as a sign of respect for that flag and those men who fought opression to give us our freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 That claim has been debunked.@richarddeitsch Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx Well whatever. We have a different view on this topic. Personally if this nonsense draws attention from the game in tuning in less. You guys go ahead and fight the good fight. Hopefully the world will be a better place. I'll watch the bills and Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 That claim has been debunked. @richarddeitsch Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 dude I did not even reply to your nonsense list, because it would be so easy to shoot holes through that it was ridiculous, and if this sounds all funky at least I spelled correctly I'm doing voice to text as I drive around on a tractor... That's how much this means to me... And I'm bored but the truth of the matter is Tasker though not very smart and terrible at Fantasy Football, well he already brought up the points that are worth bringing up I just never bother to take the time... My first name is Jeff if I spell it with the G does that make me French or a gangster because it's a g... I really am bored actually well, those debates hurt us all#terrible He didn't shoot any holes through it and you knew they were ridiculous because the University of Chicago is not a good school? The professional researchers aren't qualified? You just know this stuff without looking at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact. What evidence do you cite that refutes the study done by an industry expert? I know....none. Just your unqualified opinion based on your saying it was the case. Color me convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 I'm calling BS on this one. Ratings were down and he was a big reason. They can spin it however they want but it's a fact.I happen to think there were numerous reasons the ratings were down but how do you say he was a big reason and that is a fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 That's kind of a weak argument and you somewhat mischaracterize it. When I read what you wrote my first thought was, wow, maybe this isn't true. Then I read what they wrote. The facts are true. They couldn't be sure that the interviewers looked at the names because they weren't there when it happened. There was no weakness in the study. The ONLY way your criticism holds any water whatsoever is if you believe it was TOTAL COINCIDENCE that the black names got an enormous percentage less than white names. Luckily, that's exactly what you have to disprove to follow the Scientific Method, Tasker wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) BS- prove it. Thursday night games were awful. That hurts the ratings a lot. That claim has been debunked. @richarddeitsch Per a Fox Sports exec (yes, Fox) who specializes in TV ratings, Kaepernick did not impact NFL ratings last year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/08/28/Media/Sports-Media.aspx Maybe thats also why there are different forums on this board like PPP and the stadium wall, so entertainment doesn't mix with politics. What a novel idea. Edited September 1, 2017 by RaoulDuke79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts