#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
dcmissle said:
I don't know what promoted this effort, but it's a good thematic fit for the AEI, which views itself as the enemy of false orthodoxy driven by laziness and politics.
This is an excellent point. My take before I read your post was that AEI may be looking at Goodell as something of an "activist judge" – making shit up as he goes along to suit his needs. But you probably put it better.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,755
Rotten Apple
Ed Hillel said:
It is pretty funny that ESPN won't put this story on their main page, considering everything Patriots related that goes there. Big fannies of the NFL there at ESPN.
So true. Let's count the ways it's convenient for the WWL to always slant anti-Pats in this case:
 
- Don't want to piss off Goodell.
- Don't want to piss off the existing NFL power structure in any way since they are b'cast partners and the NFL is a ratings gravy train.
- Pats are cheaters stories currently drives eyeballs and ratings more than anything outside of perhaps LeBron.
- Most NFL analysts on the staff are former players and coaches who got waxed by the Pats over many years and still have the scars.
- What's in it for them to take up the opposing (and overwhelmingly unpopular) viewpoint?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,560
Here
It's why the best result now is to have a judge overturn the suspension and use particularly harsh language towards the NFL, while citing reports such as these. That will be too big to ignore.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
geoduck no quahog said:
 
Couldn't Goodell (NFL) sue Wells for malpractice?
 
Premise being that Goodell (NFL) based imposition of penalties on the accuracy and integrity of an unbiased report commissioned to an outside firm (Wells). Yet, under objective scrutiny, Wells appears not to have fulfilled the terms of their contract with the NFL and published a deeply flawed, technically incorrect, poorly researched and wrongly-concluded report, either intentionally or incompetently. Wells publicly embarrassed their employer (NFL) due to avoidable errors that could be classified as malpractice.
If the NFL sued Wells they would effectively be waiving attorney-client privilege.

Never going to happen.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Sportsbstn said:
At worst case this should be the end of Ted Wells ever doing an "independent report" for the NFL.  No way I could see them ever using him again.
 
At best case, Roger uses this as his lifeline to get out of this embarrassment before it goes to court and the he and the league office gets obliterated.
 
Kessler should just show this to Goodell and say, look, you *KNOW* we are going to annihilate and embarrass you in court.  If you make us go there, we will ruin you. We (the players) have a million reasons to want you gone, and we can make this case your Waterloo.  And we are very willing to do that.  Or you can simply wipe out the suspension for Brady during the appeal, cite this "new information", and we'll let you off the hook.  Your call, commish.
 

tedseye

New Member
Apr 15, 2006
73
From AEI website: "Kevin A. Hassett is the State Farm James Q. Wilson Chair in American Politics and Culture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is also a resident scholar and AEIs director of economic policy studies.

Before joining AEI, Hassett was a senior economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and an associate professor of economics and finance at Columbia (University) Business School. He served as a policy consultant to the US Department of the Treasury during the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations.

Hassett has also been an economic adviser to presidential candidates since 2000, when he became the chief economic adviser to Senator John McCain during that years presidential primaries. He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign, a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and an economic adviser to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign."

Other bio info (Wikipedia) notes he was born in Greenfield, MA, with B.A. Swarthmore and Ph.D. Penn, formerly faculty at Columbia Business School.

https://www.aei.org/scholar/kevin-a-hassett/

Edited for clarity of attribution.
 

ipol

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,237
The Dirty Mo'
ivanvamp said:
 
Kessler should just show this to Goodell and say, look, you *KNOW* we are going to annihilate and embarrass you in court.  If you make us go there, we will ruin you. We (the players) have a million reasons to want you gone, and we can make this case your Waterloo.  And we are very willing to do that.  Or you can simply wipe out the suspension for Brady during the appeal, cite this "new information", and we'll let you off the hook.  Your call, commish.
You've been a persistent champion of the proper cause, Ivan, yet I have to say your scenario seems unlikely.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
Isn't it fair to conclude the following:
 
1.  The NFL thought they caught the patriots red-handed, but didn't understand the ideal gas law when they had those thoughts;
2.  Exponent has been exposed as unreliable if not incompetent, at least with respect to objective scientific findings of fact.
3.  Ted Wells was either directed to conclude guilt, or alternatively, he and his team didn't understand the flaws in the "science" produced by Exponent.
4.  As a result of 2 and 3, the Wells Report is useless in determining whether or not the Patriots intentionally deflated footballs, or rather, the basis to conclude that it is more likely than not that the Patriots did not, in fact, intentionally deflate footballs.
 
I'm being completely serious.  Can any objective party conclude otherwise?
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,087
At this point it's beyond hilarious that the AEI study still can't even merit a mention on the ESPN NFL page, which has seen articles ranging from opinions throughout the league (Stevan Ridley, Jerry Rice, Jason Babin, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Cassel, LeVeon Bell, Jack Del Rio, Sean Payton, Jim Harbaugh, Joe Namath, Eli Manning, Scott Shanle, Darnell Dockett, Don Shula, Peyton Manning, Colin Kaepernick, Rex Ryan, Charles Haley, Ron Rivera, among others), not to mention the creation of a Free Brady beer, a billboard paid for by some Jets fans, an article about how Dolphins fans reacted on Twitter, and how the suspension fucking affects the Cowboys.  
 
But no mention of the AEI study.  Hilarious.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
ipol said:
You've been a persistent champion of the proper cause, Ivan, yet I have to say your scenario seems unlikely.
I don't think he was saying it was likely.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of they did go that route. Roger tries to steer the discussion back to new testimony but they won't cooperate: "We've given you our ultimatum. Let us know your decision by tomorrow."

However, the truth is, I want them to play along with Goodell and take this to court. Don't give him any incentive whatsoever to make a decision that puts that path at risk.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
Anyone think there is maybe even a .000000000001% chance they rescind (or dial down) the Pats penalties? In my opinion this write up conclusively proves the balls were not surreptitiously deflated.

The Patrios are now being fined $1,000,000 and docked a 1st and 4th round draft picks for not giving Wells another interview with Dorito dink.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
Bleedred said:
Isn't it fair to conclude the following:
 
1.  The NFL thought they caught the patriots red-handed, but didn't understand the ideal gas law when they had those thoughts;
2.  Exponent has been exposed as unreliable if not incompetent, at least with respect to objective scientific findings of fact.
3.  Ted Wells was either directed to conclude guilt, or alternatively, he and his team didn't understand the flaws in the "science" produced by Exponent.
4.  As a result of 2 and 3, the Wells Report is useless in determining whether or not the Patriots intentionally deflated footballs, or rather, the basis to conclude that it is more likely than not that the Patriots did not, in fact, intentionally deflate footballs.
 
I'm being completely serious.  Can any objective party conclude otherwise?
 
I would add "5" about Tagliabue's BountyGate findings, but, no, anyone being objective could not find otherwise.  This case is about Roger Goodell's moral bankruptcy and the league's desire to take the Pats down a peg or two by any means necessary.
 
Feb 16, 2006
201
Walpole
ifmanis5 said:
So true. Let's count the ways it's convenient for the WWL to always slant anti-Pats in this case:
 
- Don't want to piss off Goodell.
- Don't want to piss off the existing NFL power structure in any way since they are b'cast partners and the NFL is a ratings gravy train.
- Pats are cheaters stories currently drives eyeballs and ratings more than anything outside of perhaps LeBron.
- Most NFL analysts on the staff are former players and coaches who got waxed by the Pats over many years and still have the scars.
- What's in it for them to take up the opposing (and overwhelmingly unpopular) viewpoint?
I wrote to them asking if they were waiting for editor in chief Roger Goodell to give the OK to run the story. Their bias is so transparent here it's pathetic - tho not surprising. They are going to run it once they find some information that undermines it a bit. I dont hold out hope this will get much traction with other media but you never know. At the very least it's egg on the face of the NFL and especially RG so thats one more chit toward the eventual non renewal of his contract
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
ivanvamp said:
 
Kessler should just show this to Goodell and say, look, you *KNOW* we are going to annihilate and embarrass you in court.  If you make us go there, we will ruin you. We (the players) have a million reasons to want you gone, and we can make this case your Waterloo.  And we are very willing to do that.  Or you can simply wipe out the suspension for Brady during the appeal, cite this "new information", and we'll let you off the hook.  Your call, commish.
What is Kessler's motivation to let Roger off the hook? It would seem to me that the long game the NFLPA would want to play here is anything that gives them a better hand in the next CBA. A commish on his last legs would seem to be a lot better for the union than helping him sweep this under the table.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,485
Port Orange, FL
Anyone know how to contact ESPN's ombudsman?  Seems like ESPN's refusal to even acknowledge this story and the possible conflicts of interest would be relevant to his/her job.
 

bougrj1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
190
ESPN's ombudsman hasn't written anything this calendar year. So pre-deflategate. It would be great to get his/her take on Mortensen's role in all of this but I'm not holding my breath.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Reiss:
3. After reading the American Enterprise Institute’s analysis of the Wells report (released Friday), the first thought that came to mind is that attorney Ted Wells might soon be holding another fiery conference call to defend his report, which cost the NFL around $5 million. AEI is a credible, independent entity whose analysis was tapped in arbitrator Paul Tagliabue’s ruling in the Saints’ “Bountygate” scandal when suspensions ultimately were overturned. The final line of the AEI analysis of the Wells report: “It is therefore unlikely that the Patriots deflated the footballs.” If I'm an NFL owner and read that, I'm asking myself how my league could spend so much money for such a non-definitive final result.

5. When Wells was defending his report and findings that Tom Brady was at least “generally aware” of wrongdoing in a May conference call, he said, “All of this discussion that people in the league office wanted to put some type of hit on the most iconic player of the league, the real face of the league, doesn’t make any sense.” But here’s the counterpoint to Wells: It makes sense if the alternative was that the league would look like it didn’t know what it was doing in the first place by calling for a full-scale, $5 million investigation on something easily explained by science. So essentially it was bury Brady or bury themselves. Which brings me back to my original point from early May: “I’ve digested the 243-page Wells report multiple times, and with its bias and lack of fairness in certain areas, I truly can’t believe what the commissioner has done to the legacy and reputation of one of the greatest quarterbacks and ambassadors in the history of the game -- all over air pressure in a football and without definitive proof he had anything to do with it.”
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782206/patriots-connections-to-john-carroll-university-and-nfls-continue-to-grow
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,485
Port Orange, FL
Had Outside the Lines and Sports Reporters on this morning. No mention of the AEI thing on either show, natch. Lupica's "parting shot" was actually about Brady's upcoming appeal, and somehow he managed not to bring it up or even appear to be aware of it.
 

Norm loves Vera

Joe wants Trump to burn
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,370
Peace Dale, RI
I will be the first to admit I want blood out of the NFL Office..I know that wont happen in a public flogging way and the best case is that TB is not suspended and the Patriots get their #1 back with no apology or vindication.
 
I am hopeful, at the end of the day, that the owners, who really are "the Shield" realize Goodell is diminishing/tarnishing their shield and is expendable like a Kevlar vest, before the next CBA.. I am hopeful Kraft stepping away from the sword publicly, wasn't stepping away from his support of Brady, but really stepping away from Ginger, leaving him on an island alone to defend himself and his administration (so to speak) in what is about to go down in @ 10 days in a very public way.
 
I am hopeful that when Goodell comes out at the end of this ordeal looking inept at best or vindictive at worst publicly, the Owners can (for cause) oust him, save face and give themselves a new bearer of the shield before the CBA.
 
All this reminds me of the Thomas Dolby song.. "Blinded me with science" and I could never dance to that tune.
 
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
tedseye said:
From AEI website: "Kevin A. Hassett is the State Farm James Q. Wilson Chair in American Politics and Culture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is also a resident scholar and AEIs director of economic policy studies.

Before joining AEI, Hassett was a senior economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and an associate professor of economics and finance at Columbia (University) Business School. He served as a policy consultant to the US Department of the Treasury during the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations.

Hassett has also been an economic adviser to presidential candidates since 2000, when he became the chief economic adviser to Senator John McCain during that years presidential primaries. He served as an economic adviser to the George W. Bush 2004 presidential campaign, a senior economic adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, and an economic adviser to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign."

Other bio info (Wikipedia) notes he was born in Greenfield, MA, with B.A. Swarthmore and Ph.D. Penn, formerly faculty at Columbia Business School.

https://www.aei.org/scholar/kevin-a-hassett/

Edited for clarity of attribution.
 
Well, the bolded is how you attack the AEI report, I guess, if you're going to be cynical and do some ad-hominems.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I think you would have to know more than where the author is born to level any kind of attack.  If his parents moved when he was say, three years old, it goes nowhere.  If the author lived in Massachusetts through his formative years, I guess a throwaway line might be in order.  And cynicism is certainly warranted given this shit show.  But at the end of the day, one of three authors being born in Pats country seems pretty unlikely to matter without some more grist for that mill.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Goodell's best play right now is to reduce but not vacate Brady's suspension. Whereas right now he is in the unenviable position of having to defend the report, if he were to reduce Brady's penalty to, say, 2 games, he not only gets to acknowledge some shortcomings of his investigator's report but also gets to placate those who still want some blood. 


More importantly, reducing but not eliminating the suspension puts the ball in Brady's court – putting him between the agenda of the union, which will want him to bury the league by dragging them into court, and the Pats, who will want him to get back on the field as quickly as possible. The media will eat the "Will Brady put his legacy above the needs of his team?" storyline up. 


Given how PR-conscious Goodell has been thus far, this is my bet. 
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,371
Van Everyman said:
 

More importantly, reducing but not eliminating the suspension puts the ball in Brady's court – putting him between the agenda of the union, which will want him to bury the league by dragging them into court, and the Pats, who will want him to get back on the field as quickly as possible. The media will eat the "Will Brady put his legacy above the needs of his team?" storyline up. 
 
 
This has been Benz's almost-daily mantra on WEEI for months now.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Van Everyman said:
Goodell's best play right now is to reduce but not vacate Brady's suspension. Whereas right now he is in the unenviable position of having to defend the report, if he were to reduce Brady's penalty to, say, 2 games, he not only gets to acknowledge some shortcomings of his investigator's report but also gets to placate those who still want some blood. 


More importantly, reducing but not eliminating the suspension puts the ball in Brady's court putting him between the agenda of the union, which will want him to bury the league by dragging them into court, and the Pats, who will want him to get back on the field as quickly as possible. The media will eat the "Will Brady put his legacy above the needs of his team?" storyline up. 


Given how PR-conscious Goodell has been thus far, this is my bet. 

If he offers to reduce the penalty, is that something that he can rescind, in the manner of a plea deal? I mean, obviously he can kindof do whatever he wants. But he would have to publicly offer the reduction, which is an admission of 'not a solid case', and THEN he gets taken to court. It's not like if Brady loses the subsequent court battle then Goodell can raise the suspension back up, can he?

I suppose he could offer the deal in private but would Brady be bound by keeping it private? What if Brady says 'ok, I'll take two games', Goodell announced it, and then Brady does an about face?
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Harry Hooper said:
 
This has been Benz's almost-daily mantra on WEEI for months now.
Oh and re: Brady being selfish. I'm pretty sure what's best for the team is Brady having zero suspension. How is taking a two game suspension, for no wrong doing, what's best for the team?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
simplyeric said:
If he offers to reduce the penalty, is that something that he can rescind, in the manner of a plea deal? I mean, obviously he can kindof do whatever he wants. But he would have to publicly offer the reduction, which is an admission of 'not a solid case', and THEN he gets taken to court. It's not like if Brady loses the subsequent court battle then Goodell can raise the suspension back up, can he?

I suppose he could offer the deal in private but would Brady be bound by keeping it private? What if Brady says 'ok, I'll take two games', Goodell announced it, and then Brady does an about face?
in your scenario, Roger would effectively be punishing Brady for exercising his right to seek justice in the U.S. court system. I don't think that would play well publicaly, nor that a judge would allow that to stand.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
simplyeric said:
Oh and re: Brady being selfish. I'm pretty sure what's best for the team is Brady having zero suspension. How is taking a two game suspension, for no wrong doing, what's best for the team?
according to radio mediots, november games are much more important that september games.
 
Also, as to how the local media will handle this news. It's simple.  The science has never been solid so throw that out and you still have "ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE!!!!  TXTS... DEFLATOR... BATHROOM BREAK" against the team and TB
 
of course, they'll never admit that if there is no evidence that a crime was committed and in fact there seems to now be evidence (proof?) that no crime was committed, all the txts, jokes, pee breaks don't matter at all
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Van Everyman said:
More importantly, reducing but not eliminating the suspension puts the ball in Brady's court – putting him between the agenda of the union, which will want him to bury the league by dragging them into court, and the Pats, who will want him to get back on the field as quickly as possible. The media will eat the "Will Brady put his legacy above the needs of his team?" storyline up. 


 
 
While i dont doubt that this is how it would go, the next person who uses "legacy" as a relevant consideration should have their lips sewn shut/keyboarding fingers cut off. People dont appeal punishments they think are wrong because of their "legacies."  They do it because they want the punishment lifted -- either because they're innocent, or because they're going lie about being innocent, and hope for a win anyway.
 
Brady want to play football and be declared innocent. He understands that his legacy is written by the likes of Peter King. He does not care what Peter King-- or his sycophantic public -- thinks of him. If he's learned nothing else from Bill Belichick, he's learned that monomaniacal pursuit of winning may be at cross-purposes with being well-liked by the influential media hordes. Barring Goodell going apeshit on wells, no matter what happens, this will always be "the controversy surrounding deflated balls" and not "the time Brady got railroaded and had to get a federal judge involved to stop Goodell from behaving illegally."
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,656
where I was last at
Another question for the lawyers: To what extent can Brady's defense team manage a timeline? Can the application for court hearing/remedy to an NFL penalty be managed so an application is made in Aug, 2015, so that if this goes to court the hearing would start in lets say Feb 2016 and not Nov 2015, with a ruling in either case a 1-3 months later?  Can strategic delays be part of the process? The point being can the case be heard/adjudicated in the "off-season" ?  
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Van Everyman said:
Goodell's best play right now is to reduce but not vacate Brady's suspension. Whereas right now he is in the unenviable position of having to defend the report, if he were to reduce Brady's penalty to, say, 2 games, he not only gets to acknowledge some shortcomings of his investigator's report but also gets to placate those who still want some blood. 


More importantly, reducing but not eliminating the suspension puts the ball in Brady's court – putting him between the agenda of the union, which will want him to bury the league by dragging them into court, and the Pats, who will want him to get back on the field as quickly as possible. The media will eat the "Will Brady put his legacy above the needs of his team?" storyline up. 


Given how PR-conscious Goodell has been thus far, this is my bet. 
 
 
Honestly, Goodell reducing the sentence to 2 games would just piss me off more.   It would signal that he has NOTHING to go on and never did and he is trying to placate both Brady and the haters at the same time.   No reducing the suspension I do not think would do much for the folks who see this is a complete and utter sham that it is.
 
Goodell does put the ball back in Brady's court with a reduction, but NOTHING Brady is going to do is going to bury the league, it is going to bury Goodell.  It can be argued easily that the league needs a much better process in handling discipline and Goodell clearly is not capable of leading the change.  
 
I hear from friends all the time now, "Just accept the penalty and move on".  Of course, when I ask them if it was them and there was no proof of any kind, would they?  Would they accept half a penalty but still accept being called a liar if they were not?   Thats right about the time they stop talking.   No nothing Brady would do in court would destroy the NFL as a league, it hopefully would fix glaring issues.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,671
The "accept the penalty and move on" crowd reminds me of reading about the US 4x100 team
at the 1948 London Olympics in some Bud Greenspan book. They were disqualified in an early round for passing the baton outside of the designated area but appealed. As Greenspan told it they were hammered for appealing because why can't these Americans be sportsmanlike and give up and they'd won before blah blah. It turned out there was a replay that proved they were right and they went on to win the gold medal.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Science has shown nothing nefarious happened.

Text message from 9 months prior that uses word "deflate" is only "evidence".

Nobody talks about fact that 8 games are played with non-Patriot ball boys.

Ergo, Patriots are cheaters.

That about sums it up. Regardless of what happens going forward. I will be terribly disappointed if Goodell were to actually vacate Brady's suspension (1% chance), as I want this in court and I want the highest level embarassment and repercussions possible for RG and the NFL (even though ESPN won't cover it).
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
Gorton Fisherman said:
Had Outside the Lines and Sports Reporters on this morning. No mention of the AEI thing on either show, natch. Lupica's "parting shot" was actually about Brady's upcoming appeal, and somehow he managed not to bring it up or even appear to be aware of it.
Lupica will never recognize anything from AEI. Politics is the rule for him. Read his amateur hour left wing tripe he's been writing for the front section of the Daily News the last few years.

Blinded by his political views
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
I'm feeling pretty good today, or insane, because I think with this latest rebuttal in the New York Times Roger is going to vacate Brady's suspension entirely. $50 to the charity of your choice if he doesn't for the first taker. I'm pretty sure I'm on an island alone in this line of thought. Who wants some sweet action?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
ipol said:
You've been a persistent champion of the proper cause, Ivan, yet I have to say your scenario seems unlikely.
I hear you. But man I want Kessler to absolutely bury Goodell and expose this for the fraud that it is. It really is unconscionable that this has become what it is.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Sea Bass said:
 
Even worse!   Man, he really is a troll.   
Well actually, I think it's worse if it's not the same Kraft Foundation – tho a quick Google seems to indicate that neither enterprise is actually called "The Kraft Foundation."
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Sea Bass said:
I Tweeted back to him asking "You sure that isn't Kraft Foods?"  (I'm not sure myself but I think it is)
It seems far more likely to have come from the Phillip Morris-Kraft Foundation than the Myra Kraft Foundation.