RIP Chris Henry

[stonyhands]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

According to your definition...

Green could definitely make mistakes and be kicked out of the league. Your definition of fact is that because there's a mere possibility of it happening that makes it a fact. It's not probable. At this point Green has at least the possibility to be kicked out of the league whereas Henry there is no possibility at all. To keep defending that your definition of fact is truth you are going to have to admit that the other posters example of Green was correct and you were wrong. You cannot have it both ways.

See the key here is that when it comes to fact there is no room for probability. The probability that something could have happened being higher than another event doesn't make it a fact. There's still probability that the opposite could hold true unless your probability is 100%. If its not 100% it is disputable...see the definition of fact on my other post.


It is a fact that if Green committed various crimes he could be kicked out of the NFL, that is a fact. I never argued that at all. I simply pointed out likelihood, and thus the relevancy of making such a point.


You are clearly missing the point that a "could" statement can indeed be a fact, as it hinges on an outcome in the future. Since you claim my statement about Chris is not a fact, prove it wrong. If it is not a fact, like you claim, it should be easy to do (fact).


But as the acorn example didn't ring with you, even though it supported my statement. I agree with you he isn't going in any direction because he made a final bad decision (fact). My statement was based on the concept "if he were alive today," as others were working off the same idea.


That's another fact by the way...

You are the one claiming you are stating a fact...hence the burden of proving it to be true is 100% on you. You will never be able to prove your statement ever.

Your acorn statement is a general statement. An acorn that falls from a tree and is picked up by a child and glued to a piece of paper could not go on to become an oak tree. An acorn I pick up and smash with a hammer will not go on to become an oak tree. Two statements completely contradicting the statement that you made.

If I said Chris Henry if still alive today could have been a model citizen on his way to winning the Nobel peace prize for creating a worldwide program to help troubled youths. Your definition states that to be fact because with the words "if" and "could" it could have been a possibility if he were still alive. How about you prove that statement to be not true?

You clearly do not understand what indisputable means and I no longer have the energy to keep correcting you.

[BengalRugby]

You are the one claiming you are stating a fact...hence the burden of proving it to be true is 100% on you. You will never be able to prove your statement ever.

Your acorn statement is a general statement. An acorn that falls from a tree and is picked up by a child and glued to a piece of paper could not go on to become an oak tree. An acorn I pick up and smash with a hammer will not go on to become an oak tree. Two statements completely contradicting the statement that you made.

If I said Chris Henry if still alive today could have been a model citizen on his way to winning the Nobel peace prize for creating a worldwide program to help troubled youths. Your definition states that to be fact because with the words "if" and "could" it could have been a possibility if he were still alive. How about you prove that statement to be not true?

You clearly do not understand what indisputable means and I no longer have the energy to keep correcting you.


Ah, so when confronted with having to prove something you said, you wilt. Got it.

The acorn statement is factual, even though you still do not get it. It is a statement about the future and the potential held, hence the word could. I will try to explain it one more time, as it is a very simple concept.

Consider a standardly marked 6 sided die. I can state, as an absolute fact, that if you roll that die it could come up with the number 5. The same factual statement could be made about the remaining numbers, and none of those seperate, factual statements are wrong. They are all factual and true.

Thus, in the same vein, the statements I made about Henry's future, presuming he had not gotten himself killed via a bad decision, are factual and relavant considering his history. Your statement could be factual, but when considering the possibilities, it is highly improbable given his history with children and no link to Nobel worthy research/ability.

I never said your claims of Green were false, which you seem confused about. I only stated it was an apples and oranges comparison due to the probabilities involved. Akin to stationg this 6 sided die could roll a2,3, or six, and equating it with saying the same die could roll a 1 10^20 times in a row. While both outcomes are possible, thus the statements factually accurate, one outcome is highly more probable than the other. You are mixing probability with factual to disprove something, when all it expresses is that you understand neither.

The logic is simple, really. If you still do not understand, I will try to break it down further to explain.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

You are the one claiming you are stating a fact...hence the burden of proving it to be true is 100% on you. You will never be able to prove your statement ever.

Your acorn statement is a general statement. An acorn that falls from a tree and is picked up by a child and glued to a piece of paper could not go on to become an oak tree. An acorn I pick up and smash with a hammer will not go on to become an oak tree. Two statements completely contradicting the statement that you made.

If I said Chris Henry if still alive today could have been a model citizen on his way to winning the Nobel peace prize for creating a worldwide program to help troubled youths. Your definition states that to be fact because with the words "if" and "could" it could have been a possibility if he were still alive. How about you prove that statement to be not true?

You clearly do not understand what indisputable means and I no longer have the energy to keep correcting you.


Ah, so when confronted with having to prove something you said, you wilt. Got it.

The acorn statement is factual, even though you still do not get it. It is a statement about the future and the potential held, hence the word could. I will try to explain it one more time, as it is a very simple concept.

Consider a standardly marked 6 sided die. I can state, as an absolute fact, that if you roll that die it could come up with the number 5. The same factual statement could be made about the remaining numbers, and none of those seperate, factual statements are wrong. They are all factual and true.

Thus, in the same vein, the statements I made about Henry's future, presuming he had not gotten himself killed via a bad decision, are factual and relavant considering his history. Your statement could be factual, but when considering the possibilities, it is highly improbable given his history with children and no link to Nobel worthy research/ability.

I never said your claims of Green were false, which you seem confused about. I only stated it was an apples and oranges comparison due to the probabilities involved. Akin to stationg this 6 sided die could roll a2,3, or six, and equating it with saying the same die could roll a 1 10^20 times in a row. While both outcomes are possible, thus the statements factually accurate, one outcome is highly more probable than the other. You are mixing probability with factual to disprove something, when all it expresses is that you understand neither.

The logic is simple, really. If you still do not understand, I will try to break it down further to explain.

Didn't read a lick of this but thanks for continually bumping the tribute thread to remember ol 'Chris. What a nice guy.

Some people just go too soon..

[stonyhands]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

You are the one claiming you are stating a fact...hence the burden of proving it to be true is 100% on you. You will never be able to prove your statement ever.

Your acorn statement is a general statement. An acorn that falls from a tree and is picked up by a child and glued to a piece of paper could not go on to become an oak tree. An acorn I pick up and smash with a hammer will not go on to become an oak tree. Two statements completely contradicting the statement that you made.

If I said Chris Henry if still alive today could have been a model citizen on his way to winning the Nobel peace prize for creating a worldwide program to help troubled youths. Your definition states that to be fact because with the words "if" and "could" it could have been a possibility if he were still alive. How about you prove that statement to be not true?

You clearly do not understand what indisputable means and I no longer have the energy to keep correcting you.


Ah, so when confronted with having to prove something you said, you wilt. Got it.

The acorn statement is factual, even though you still do not get it. It is a statement about the future and the potential held, hence the word could. I will try to explain it one more time, as it is a very simple concept.

Consider a standardly marked 6 sided die. I can state, as an absolute fact, that if you roll that die it could come up with the number 5. The same factual statement could be made about the remaining numbers, and none of those seperate, factual statements are wrong. They are all factual and true.

Thus, in the same vein, the statements I made about Henry's future, presuming he had not gotten himself killed via a bad decision, are factual and relavant considering his history. Your statement could be factual, but when considering the possibilities, it is highly improbable given his history with children and no link to Nobel worthy research/ability.

I never said your claims of Green were false, which you seem confused about. I only stated it was an apples and oranges comparison due to the probabilities involved. Akin to stationg this 6 sided die could roll a2,3, or six, and equating it with saying the same die could roll a 1 10^20 times in a row. While both outcomes are possible, thus the statements factually accurate, one outcome is highly more probable than the other. You are mixing probability with factual to disprove something, when all it expresses is that you understand neither.

The logic is simple, really. If you still do not understand, I will try to break it down further to explain.

You are wrong...period, end of story. On all your so called explanations you have yet to define what a fact is and have repeatedly ignored when others have. While i have looked into many sources i have yet to find a definition of fact or even an example using the word could or probabilities. The fact is I am right and you are wrong. Indisputably.

RIP #15

[BengalRugby]

You are wrong...period, end of story. On all your so called explanations you have yet to define what a fact is and have repeatedly ignored when others have. While i have looked into many sources i have yet to find a definition of fact or even an example using the word could or probabilities. The fact is I am right and you are wrong. Indisputably.


If I am wrong, prove it.

I have explained, in clear and simple terms, why you are wrong. The fact you cannot only further cites the error of your position, which is further magnified in your cries for a definition so you can turn to arguing semantics.

Let me know what part of my explanation you believe in in error, and why, and I'll try to explain it in less complexity. I stand behind all of my previously stated facts, which you say are not facts, and fail to disprove, yet confuse in probability...

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

If I am wrong, prove it.

I have explained, in clear and simple terms, why you are wrong. The fact you cannot only further cites the error of your position, which is further magnified in your cries for a definition so you can turn to arguing semantics.

Let me know what part of my explanation you believe in in error, and why, and I'll try to explain it in less complexity. I stand behind all of my previously stated facts, which you say are not facts, and fail to disprove, yet confuse in probability...

It's really easy: saying Henry would be out of the NFL or in jail isn't fact, yet you're claiming everything you said - including Henry being out of the NFL or in jail - is fact.

That isn't fact - it's conjecture.

I don't think I can make it any simpler. You're a smart guy, and I didn't think it needed explained. If you're still too thick in the head to realize where you're wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Shake n Blake]

RIP Chris. Wish we had him on the field this Sunday.

[BengalRugby]

It's really easy: saying Henry would be out of the NFL or in jail isn't fact, yet you're claiming everything you said - including Henry being out of the NFL or in jail - is fact.

That isn't fact - it's conjecture.

I don't think I can make it any simpler. You're a smart guy, and I didn't think it needed explained. If you're still too thick in the head to realize where you're wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.


Show me where I said the underlined, note the key word would, a definitive. Please do not confuse it with could, which allows that something is possible. Further, go back and see how many people state what Henry "would" be doing, and cite them for that conjecture and leave my factual statements out of it.


Stating a die would roll a 6, when rolled, is conjecture.Rolling it decides if the statement was accurate or not. I never made such a statement about Henry, so your claim I did so is false.

Stating a die could roll a 6, is a fact. Rolling that die and resulting in a 3 doesn't change the fact that die could still roll a 6. This is all I did concerning Henry, stating he could be in jail, out of the NFL, or dead by some other poor decision.


Pretty basic logic. If it's off, let me know where. I'm guessing you mis-read soemthing, or simplymistook something I said. Again, I ask if I said Henry would do/be something, show me where I said it. I will correct the statement, as I hvae only ever meant to state could the entire thread.


Of course if I never said would, then some people here need to get back to remedial reading and logic courses before discussing such matters with me again. I don't mean to be crass, but I am re-typing the same things over, and over, and am growing very concerned for this country's educational system...

[Sher Khan]

I like to think Chris will be there watching us.

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Show me where I said the underlined, note the key word would, a definitive. Please do not confuse it with could, which allows that something is possible. Further, go back and see how many people state what Henry "would" be doing, and cite them for that conjecture and leave my factual statements out of it.


Stating a die would roll a 6, when rolled, is conjecture.Rolling it decides if the statement was accurate or not. I never made such a statement about Henry, so your claim I did so is false.

Stating a die could roll a 6, is a fact. Rolling that die and resulting in a 3 doesn't change the fact that die could still roll a 6. This is all I did concerning Henry, stating he could be in jail, out of the NFL, or dead by some other poor decision.


Pretty basic logic. If it's off, let me know where. I'm guessing you mis-read soemthing, or simplymistook something I said. Again, I ask if I said Henry would do/be something, show me where I said it. I will correct the statement, as I hvae only ever meant to state could the entire thread.


Of course if I never said would, then some people here need to get back to remedial reading and logic courses before discussing such matters with me again. I don't mean to be crass, but I am re-typing the same things over, and over, and am growing very concerned for this country's educational system...

Okay, let me try this:

You said Chris Henry could have been kicked out the NFL/incarcerated - that's established. However, since he is dead, speaking about the path his life could have taken is pure conjecture - there is no could or could not - there is what is. Therefor, saying he could be in jail isn't fact - it is conjecture based simply on the fact that the particular pathway was never taken.

Then, to make a point, I said AJ Green could be kicked out of the league/incarcerated in the next 3 days. He could - that's a fact, according to you. Likely? No. Fact? No. Conjecture? Absolutely.

At this point, it's become more about how the original statement was interpreted by people. Your original intent is meaningless at this point - everyone is digging this same hole and the only place its leading is into a sewer line full of ****, and nobody wants that **** on their hands.

[BengalRugby]

Okay, let me try this:

You said Chris Henry could have been kicked out the NFL/incarcerated - that's established. However, since he is dead, speaking about the path his life could have taken is pure conjecture - there is no could or could not - there is what is. Therefor, saying he could be in jail isn't fact - it is conjecture based simply on the fact that the particular pathway was never taken.

Then, to make a point, I said AJ Green could be kicked out of the league/incarcerated in the next 3 days. He could - that's a fact, according to you. Likely? No. Fact? No. Conjecture? Absolutely.

At this point, it's become more about how the original statement was interpreted by people. Your original intent is meaningless at this point - everyone is digging this same hole and the only place its leading is into a sewer line full of ****, and nobody wants that **** on their hands.


Hey, you get it, in the first sentence or two, then you start missing again.

My point was the fact that there were many other possibilities, some more likely than others, than Henry becoming the bestest receiver eva. You miss the point that people set the scenario of what Henry would be today, if still alive.. I simply played along, but limited the scope to factual possibilities, instead of definitive ones. Could versus would.

But then you drop the ball completely with the Green bit, as if he killed 25 people a la the school shooter he would in fact get kicked out of the league. But the possibility is so minute, it is hardly conceiveable. But if he did do something bad enough, Green would in fact get kicked out of the NFL.

Again,. you are simply expressing further that you do not know the difference between fact, conjecture, and possibilities. I had hopes in that first paragraph, but I was let down. Now show me all those statements I made about Henry in which I stated what he would do. Or simply admit your errors and thus the faulty foundation of your position...

[wayneraintree]

Let's honor #15 with a big W on Sunday

... and forget the interweb banter

[stonyhands]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

It's really easy: saying Henry would be out of the NFL or in jail isn't fact, yet you're claiming everything you said - including Henry being out of the NFL or in jail - is fact.

That isn't fact - it's conjecture.

I don't think I can make it any simpler. You're a smart guy, and I didn't think it needed explained. If you're still too thick in the head to realize where you're wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

This....

[stonyhands]

Originally Posted by BigPapaKain

Okay, let me try this:

You said Chris Henry could have been kicked out the NFL/incarcerated - that's established. However, since he is dead, speaking about the path his life could have taken is pure conjecture - there is no could or could not - there is what is. Therefor, saying he could be in jail isn't fact - it is conjecture based simply on the fact that the particular pathway was never taken.

Then, to make a point, I said AJ Green could be kicked out of the league/incarcerated in the next 3 days. He could - that's a fact, according to you. Likely? No. Fact? No. Conjecture? Absolutely.

At this point, it's become more about how the original statement was interpreted by people. Your original intent is meaningless at this point - everyone is digging this same hole and the only place its leading is into a sewer line full of ****, and nobody wants that **** on their hands.

...and this.

[Bonnie Bengal]

I'm going to ignore the silly arguments and go with the spirit of the original thread. RIP Chris.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Okay, let me try this:

You said Chris Henry could have been kicked out the NFL/incarcerated - that's established. However, since he is dead, speaking about the path his life could have taken is pure conjecture - there is no could or could not - there is what is. Therefor, saying he could be in jail isn't fact - it is conjecture based simply on the fact that the particular pathway was never taken.

Then, to make a point, I said AJ Green could be kicked out of the league/incarcerated in the next 3 days. He could - that's a fact, according to you. Likely? No. Fact? No. Conjecture? Absolutely.

At this point, it's become more about how the original statement was interpreted by people. Your original intent is meaningless at this point - everyone is digging this same hole and the only place its leading is into a sewer line full of ****, and nobody wants that **** on their hands.


Hey, you get it, in the first sentence or two, then you start missing again.

My point was the fact that there were many other possibilities, some more likely than others, than Henry becoming the bestest receiver eva. You miss the point that people set the scenario of what Henry would be today, if still alive.. I simply played along, but limited the scope to factual possibilities, instead of definitive ones. Could versus would.

But then you drop the ball completely with the Green bit, as if he killed 25 people a la the school shooter he would in fact get kicked out of the league. But the possibility is so minute, it is hardly conceiveable. But if he did do something bad enough, Green would in fact get kicked out of the NFL.

Again,. you are simply expressing further that you do not know the difference between fact, conjecture, and possibilities. I had hopes in that first paragraph, but I was let down. Now show me all those statements I made about Henry in which I stated what he would do. Or simply admit your errors and thus the faulty foundation of your position...

It's a fact that your speculative comment could have happened.

Congratulations on fighting so long and hard for that victory.

[BengalRugby]

It's a fact that your speculative comment could have happened.

Congratulations on fighting so long and hard for that victory.


Facts are facts, in spite of the capacity to accept said facts.


If nothing else, I am an educator.

[stonyhands]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

It's a fact that your speculative comment could have happened.

Congratulations on fighting so long and hard for that victory.


Facts are facts, in spite of the capacity to accept said facts.


If nothing else, I am an educator.

Not this...

[BigPapaKain]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Facts are facts, in spite of the capacity to accept said facts.


If nothing else, I am an educator.

It's not a fact unless, in reality, it actually happened. Anything else is, in fact, conjecture.

[SunsetBengal]

Wow, I can't believe that people are still going on about this....

Yes, Chris Henry was a talented player, AND it is sad that he died so young.

But, the fact of the matter is that many people who choose to live a rebellious and reckless life tend to either end up in jail, or dead.


Put it to rest folks, its been three years. I loved him as a player, but questioned him as a citizen.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by SunsetBengal

Wow, I can't believe that people are still going on about this....

Yes, Chris Henry was a talented player, AND it is sad that he died so young.

But, the fact of the matter is that many people who choose to live a rebellious and reckless life tend to either end up in jail, or dead.


Put it to rest folks, its been three years. I loved him as a player, but questioned him as a citizen.

You used the new f-bomb, this thread must go on for a whole nother 2 pages!

I agree with you though and this thread was meant to be about remembering his Bengal life but a few people get a hard on talking about their opinions of his civilian life.

[BengalRugby]

Wow, I can't believe that people are still going on about this....

Yes, Chris Henry was a talented player, AND it is sad that he died so young.

But, the fact of the matter is that many people who choose to live a rebellious and reckless life tend to either end up in jail, or dead.


Put it to rest folks, its been three years. I loved him as a player, but questioned him as a citizen.


Very well said.


Trust him to catch a deep ball, run the 9? You bet!


Trust him with your underage daughter, credit card, or to ride in the back of your pick up truck? Not so much....

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

It's a fact that your speculative comment could have happened.

Congratulations on fighting so long and hard for that victory.


Facts are facts, in spite of the capacity to accept said facts.


If nothing else, I am an educator.

I would call it more, stretching the boundary of the words meaning or intent. But hey, if i keep this up i'm only adding to the "fight", thereby becoming a hypocrite. So if you want to believe you stated facts, well, you know the saying. You can lead a horse to water...

[Treee]

BengalRugby has no class. End of story. You have some kind of inferiority complex regarding your intelligence, and are constantly looking to troll the boards in many facets. You must prove a point, even when remembering a troubled young man and the fact that he died in a tragic accident. Go back under the bridge, troll. No one here respects your opinion.

[Bonnie Bengal]

Originally Posted by Treee

BengalRugby has no class. End of story. You have some kind of inferiority complex regarding your intelligence, and are constantly looking to troll the boards in many facets. You must prove a point, even when remembering a troubled young man and the fact that he died in a tragic accident. Go back under the bridge, troll. No one here respects your opinion.

Spot On!