08-18-2015, 08:09 PM
(08-18-2015, 07:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He said he agrees with me, and then you said I disagree with those facts.
and I also provided evidence of you disagreeing with those facts.
Quote:I've said all along that, even if it's not legal because of the lawsuit, that there is a connection, and the connection is that the titles are the Ravens because there's a relationship that the Ravens are the former Browns that won the titles. The new Browns have no connection to the old Browns, other than the name (you want to say history, too, but you just agreed that the Ravens spawned from the years of decisions that were the Browns).
You're trying to argue that the pre 1996 Browns and the post 1999 Browns have no connection other than their history, name, location, colors, and history. That's like saying that the 1955 Browns have no connection to the 1995 Browns other than the history, name, location, colors, and history...
Quote:End of thread.
This thread was about an article, not you trying to convince everyone that your opinions trump facts.