Lakers,Pats,Denver,..winning is easy to root for

This is really ironic, since you are the one not thinking on your own. You are just repeating a conspiracy theory from Dan Moldea, who is a professional conspiracy theorist, making millions off of suckers like you. And other conspiracy theories you got from other books. If you could think on your own you would see it is all bullshit.

What have I done...????!!! LMAO

That's right,you just learned historic details on your own without a resource or referrence....?
Dude,come on,think before you spew,man.
Everything has a reference point. And you are trying to discredit a guy who got published quite successfully while writing about teamsters and police forces who went after him instead of ignoring him because they were obviously bothered by something.
The truth is you do very little research yourself. You are just lashing out cliches with no proof other than faith of your own,bro

Dan Moldea is not an historian. He's a crackpot. If you choose to get your "research" from a crackpot with no credibility then you are nuts.

Here is a little tip: Anyone can write a book. The fact that you read something in a book doesn't make it right or lend it any credibility. There is no peer review for these kind of books. Anyone can literally put any crazy thing they want in them.

My point was everything has a reference point and you are in fact using faith to believe that its false with no actual reference of your own while we are using common sense interpretation of unrealistic situations ending too perfectly. Using plenty of reference points and quotes and individuals etc
You just keep saying it's a coincidence with nothing else to counter the examples to everything said. You can't have 200 coincidences.
You don't even know what you are debating about. I'm pretty sure I've insulted you less then you have insulted me

The problem with your tip is you aren't taking your own advice and lack the wisdom to tell the difference.

Haha, Sweet Daddy Dumbass is saying I lack wisdom. :) That is rich.

Ooooh, is that who that is? Makes sense now.

You aren't smart enough to realize when you're committing multiple logical fallacies in your quest for truth. This hilarious thread is littered with fallacies and failures in critical thought.

What I said makes complete sense and is incredibly logical.
In the real world,televised games or any game wouldn't constantly come down to the final 2 minutes or last play. You're the one believing in fallacies.its the equivalent of you always getting the job or getting that raise or that chick or what ever you want ,to go your way.

Evidently you don't understand logical fallacies. Because you're literally committing one in the post above.

It's OK though. This thread is very entertaining.

You are explaining you believe something you were taught that is false logic. Or you are misinterpreting the definition.
Every week you say,"I can't believe that happened"...and yet,every week you keep believing it happened.
When it's too good to be true,that's means it is.
Manning hardly does anything right all year and wins a SB.
Newton does everything right all year,never loses...doesn't win SB.

That is an actual logical fallacy.Basically a lie.

Manning- perfect comeback story
Newton- perfect failure story.
The fantastic always happens and you just buy it without question.

Sorry, but you don't understand logic. It's a form of problem solving. It's not something specific that you believe. You're not using it correctly above.

For instance in your post above, you make the claim: That's actually an example of a logical fallacy called Appeal to Probability. It's not a valid argument.

Nothing you've said is a valid argument. you are wasting time on circular philosophy debates.
You can't tackle my examples in a counterpoint fashion because you only have faith that games aren't staged.
You can only prove my terms as logical fallacies when you can prove games aren't staged.
Your inability to understand me doesn't make my thoughts logical fallacies.
Not a valid argument? Your argument for games not being staged is "I don't believe they are staged because I saw the guy catch the ball"

Defining philosophy terms all day doesn't prove games aren't staged/manipulated.
You need to revisit the tree falling in the forrest while you aren't there.