You have a lot of assumptions on someones motives who has never concretely explained their motives - and to the degree they have, only happened after their initial premise started looking very likely to fail.
Youre insistent on a gray area existing and dismissing those who say Beaver is nothing but a troll. Youre also saying that my belief that there is equal validity in their stance is logical absurdism? There is literally zero evidence to favor your assumption over those that believe hes taking everyone for a ride. In fact, those that say he is a troll have much more evidence (both by his predictions not happening and general precedence of trolls existing in FAR greater numbers than insiders online).
Whats absurd is taking everything someone says under the guise of anonymity as gospel, watching their soothsaying prove false, allowing them to remedy their predictions to suit a current climate, then reshaping history under your own personal interpretation of said persons words and motives. Just as you seem to think my insistence on extremes is dangerous, so is assuming your own narrative of a third partys intention as being the only reasonable take. Beaver has had ample opportunity to spell this out for people when its blatantly obvious theres no concise, agreed-upon Road-map for this userbase to follow for all of his implications. Youre assuming clarity in a maze of smoke. Many here see smoke and think fire. Theyre just as right as you are.
No, I said logical absurdism exists when you have opposite premises in a proof. In the case where you have a proof saying S is valid and ~S (The opposite of S) is valid, you can maintain validity through any conclusion.
In formal logic, the following proof is valid (where P represents any proposition):
It is the case that P is true.
It not the case that P is true.
Thus, Elephants can fly.
That is my point, You are forming a belief system regarding someone and admitting that both extremes are equally valid. That is what I am disputing.
I actually believe that neither extreme is valid (or likely). I believe the middle path is most accurate. I will shoot down any argument that one of the extremes is accurate.
Also, there is a huge difference between believing that Beaver is a complete troll and believing that he did not have as much power as some people felt.
Beaver didn't say, "I don't miss." He said, "These guys don't miss." Anyone who ascribed the ability to beaver relied on induction.
Beaver also quickly qualified his "done deal" with a game theory approach. Meaning that under a GT analysis, there would be no likely outcome where a negative response was found.
Also, you are talking about Beaver as though it happened in a vacuum. There were numerous other posters, on this site and others, that were reporting the same information. It is clear that everyone in the game was surprised at the outcome.
So, if you would stop inserting beliefs into my argument I'd appreciate it. My point has remained steadfast. The Beaver is not a complete troll. The Beaver is not the decision maker. The Beaver did come here with an objective. That objective was revealed prior to any anti-Gruden news (Schiano Day). From all outward appearances, the objective was accomplished.
I can't express how middle of the road this belief system is in the realm of possible beliefs. It is a happy medium where I feel comfortable in the reasonable soundness of all beliefs, and the structure as a whole. I am not some fanboy. I am not a knee-jerk belief former. At my center, I am coldly rational. I hate being wrong, and as a result don't form too many speculative beliefs. I will rely on assumptions, but state them as such.
I'm not sure why you have so big of an issue with me defending the notion that Beaver is not a complete troll. Do you believe he is 100% troll? Really?
If not, then our beliefs are actually probably pretty similar.