Okay well let ' s take all the snaky shit out of the mix like gerrymandering states to death , adjust states to be won by portions , cut out the bullshit voting restrictions that oppress certain groups since their designed to do so . and then you might have something closer to democracy where the 49 % don ' t feel so cheated . I mean , the majority of citizens have chosen one candidate , you can ' t tell me gerrymandering on the republicans side didn ' t skew it . Yes , there were many variables in this election . But no matter which way you cut it , it doesn ' t feel like we ' re living in a true democracy . <| sep |> So I guess there is one good thing about the porn ban on the UK then . <| sep |> No , I said he stacks up to those guys in terms of being in the HOF . I never said anything about resumes . I don ' t think Curtis Martin was as good as Walter Payton or has a better resume , but I do think both deserve to be in Canton . Having permission to make a decision doesn ' t explain why that person is more deserving to make that decision compared to someone else . Whether it ' s me , you , or another sportswriter . Those are two different things . I thought that was obvious in the question I asked you . It also doesn ' t explain why different writers are chosen every year while some allowed to maintain voting for subsequent years . I did read what you said . I was replying to this statement largely I don ' t care who you think deserves to get in . I ' m talking about what it actually takes to get in , and your opinion of a player is irrelevant . There is nothing in that statement about HOF candidates needing to achieve some statistical benchmark You simply stated you don ' t care for my opinion about if Steve deserves to be and that he doesn ' t have what it takes . So you ' re saying that most of the stats and criteria used for enshrinement are objective , right ? How do you know this ? What is the objective statistical benchmarks so that voters can then proceed with making their subjective reasoning for why certain players should be in ? Is this on every ballot ? There is nothing about this I can find on the Pro Football HOF website . Simply that the list of modern era candidates is narrowed down by the selection committee several times a year before getting to the final few for enshrinment , which seems to be a subjective process by the committee start to finish . Both the narrowing down and final selections . And anyone can be chosen to be nominated as long as they ' ve been retired five years . This is also done to see if the selection committee may have overlooked a candidate with a realistic chance of being enshrined if there was an objective benchmark though I don ' t see why the need for outside input , let alone a narrowing down of nominees would be necessary . There isn ' t any documented benchmark process for the nominees though that trickle down each year . Each member of the committee is contacted by mail and that is how the list of players is sorted out throughout the year . It ' s a subjective process from start to finish like I said . Yeah you said Smith doesn ' t stack up to those guys . Ok . I said I think he does . You proceed to imply that isn ' t possible because Art Monk has three rings , Cris Carter is considered a top five receiver all time don ' t agree and Andre Reed went to four Super Bowls . That was your argument for why Steve Smith shouldn ' t be in and I ' m suffering from obviously suffering from recency bias if I believed otherwise . Like I just said though I never played the resume angle . I just said I thought he stacked up , even if he doesn ' t retire with as many yards or rings . And I never said he was a lock to get in the Hall of Fame . My exact statement was that he will probably be in the Hall of Fame . Did you read what I said or did you just ignore it ? Anyways , I already I said I thought Steve Smith was one of the best players for his era to me . He ran good routes , had fantastic speed , could grab a jump ball despite his height , had no fear mixing it up over the middle , had good hands , and was just a tough all round player . I think his numbers would have been a lot better if he had better quarterbacks throughout his career , but regardless he still overcame that issue most of the time with his play . Okay so what ' s the objective stat for telling me how good Stan Brock was at pass blocking ? Or rather , who good he should be along with anyone else to be recognized as a nominee at the very least . Or the stat for how good Eric Allen was at tackling defenders and how well he was in coverage ? And what stat tells me how good Leslie O ' Neal was against the run ? Yeah you can find exceptions . Problem with the Hall of Fame is that there is a lot of exceptions or contradictions . But of course not everyone acts like it works on objective reasoning , including the HOF itself . If the criteria doesn ' t change like you said I guess Ray Lewis won ' t have any hurdles going in first ballot . Strange that Terrell Owens did . Oops insert exception the rule card . You quoted my point and statement out of context and based a response on it . My statement about personal feelings used by voters to affect their judgment for electing a candidate was never something I was arguing against . I said that it adds fuel to the fire , the bigger issue , of the HOF voting process not at all being something objective or by the book , which I ' ve been saying isn ' t the case , which again the HOF also does not advocate anywhere as far as potential nominees are concerned . It ' s subjective , from the initial 48 selection committee narrowing down initial preliminary list of nominations if you think there is a benchmark to this process say what it is to the final meeting in February to determine who is enshrined for that year . I ' m not missing what you said . What you said essentially made no sense from the inception , and still doesn ' t . And putting words in someone ' s mouth like you did with me saying I said Steve Smith was a lock for the HOF which I literally never did and thinking someone said somethinginsinuating aren ' t the same thingmutually exclusive . You never said set in stone , which is why I said book the bookset in stone because I believe that is what you were insinuating . Which is the reason I used a slash mark . It ' s what I believed was the same idea . Saying that I said Steve Smith was a lock for the Hall of Fame when in reality I simply said he will probably be in the HOF isn ' t the same idea . Your claim is that I said something will happen compared to me saying something will probably happen .