:Are you fucking blind? Here are the first four comments in this discussion: 

 The investigation was about "illegal videotaping." I can't see how you can argue this. Honestly, this is ridiculous. Spying has much broader, negative connotation connected to it and suggests more than what actually happened.  /  

 :"The investigation was about 'spying.' I can't see how you can argue this."  They weren't being investigated because they were "illegally videotaping" the Jets.  They were being investigated because they were spying on the other team and stealing their signals.  Videotaping is just the method they used, but spying is the offense.  '  

 ::I don't really feel too strongly on the subject and I have no plans to edit anything related to this again. I agree with Pats1's argument here, and I disagree with Ksy92003 in saying videotaping was just the method. That is not true. The specific rule they broke WAS for videotaping, it is a more specific and totally accurate so it really can't be argued.►''  

 :::If you agree with Pats, then why did you revert him?  You said "the investigation was about spying, there is no POV issue there."  Pick a side, dude.  You say one thing, and now, you say something else.  You are completely untrustworthy because you always lie (and don't go saying that I made a personal attack in saying that you can't be trusted and are a liar; that's simply what you appear to be).  '  

 :You made it personal, not Pats1 and not myself. If you can't see that you're the one at fault here, you're beyond hope. I will not be replying again. It is up to you to make progress in your behavior.►''''''''