|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 19, 2007 12:08:07 GMT -5
I don't know everything at all, but some of the things we were talking about weren't opinions. They were facts. It would be like you arguing that Aaron hit 423 HRs, while I am showing you 755 over and over. I was reading this book called the Iowa Baseball Confederacy, by the same guy who wrote Field of Dreams. Not all that impressed with the book. excuse me. you are the one running around here saying stupid shit like aaron hit 423 hrs while people SHOW you the facts over and over and you ignore it. when is a fuckin anvil going to drop on your head.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 12:11:39 GMT -5
Unfortunately for you, it's the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 12:27:46 GMT -5
"It would be like you arguing that Aaron hit 423 HRs, while I am showing you 755 over and over."
HAHAHAHAHA!!! WOW! YOWZA!!!!! That's it...there for all to read. Considering the author of this quote, the hecklehouse is now the proud host of THEE MOST ironic, hypocritical statement in the entire history or PRINT, let alone the Internet!
WOW!!!!! I feel like Will Ferrell in "Elf" discovering the Worlds Greatest Cup Of Coffee! Truly amazing Balls....TRULY amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 19, 2007 12:28:25 GMT -5
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 12:32:39 GMT -5
You can laugh all you want, but you still are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 19, 2007 12:36:51 GMT -5
ch0. this is why i cant last on hh for more than a month or so. dude is DELUSIONAL.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 12:41:21 GMT -5
No, I'm really not...but that's ok.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 12:45:44 GMT -5
You really are. It's weak that it's come down to is not are too, but the case law doesn't support your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 13:14:39 GMT -5
Man it must be cool living in your self-fabricated Ballzaro world. I gotta get me one of those - a world where I can actually read something that refutes everything I stand for, and still be able to spin it so that I think I'm right. When you look up the term "Ignorance Is Bliss" you see a picture of Ballzaro. Just in case anyone doesn't get the "Ballzaro" remark - it's in reference to the Bizarro World created by DC comics where everything is opposite of reality. Bizarro was an "opposite Superman" - stood for the OPPOSITE of "truth, justice, and the American" way and hailed from the Bizarro World. (Wikipedia: In the Bizarro world of "Htrae" ("Earth" spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!". )Sir, from this point on you shall be known as BALLZARO!!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 13:24:10 GMT -5
I'm sure you took a lot of effort to make a little picture, but the fact remains, I have case law and a prosecutor on my side, while you have Larry. It's funny watching you doing what you're accusing me of doing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 13:26:11 GMT -5
correction: "I have misinterpreted, spin-doctored case law......"
Whatever you say, Ballzaro.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 13:44:29 GMT -5
Your definition of spin doctoring and misinterpreting is anything that proves you wrong. I guess that's easier for you to accept. Doesn't make you right. But if namecalling floats your boat, so be it. At least Larry agrees with you. I'll take case law and the prosecutor.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 19, 2007 14:05:41 GMT -5
I'd rather have Larry on my side. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 19, 2007 14:06:52 GMT -5
No, I'm really not...but that's ok. no dumbass...im talking about balls!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 14:19:23 GMT -5
I know Larry...I was responding to Ballzaro .....you cocksucker! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 19, 2007 14:26:20 GMT -5
Yeeesh, the friggin Mitchell Report is shorter than this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 19, 2007 14:31:40 GMT -5
and balls read every line of this thread and about 2 pages of the actual report. what a maroon.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 15:17:53 GMT -5
"ME KNOW CASE LAW!" Ballzaro - from the planet YTILAER!!!
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 19, 2007 15:20:22 GMT -5
Balls is catching a beating today.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 15:25:03 GMT -5
Yes, I am quite tickled with the Ballzaro concept.
Vinny needs to make a t-shirt!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 15:34:53 GMT -5
That's a great photoshop. But still doesn't change that you still are wrong. I'm stealing that for MySpace.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 19, 2007 15:43:40 GMT -5
Whatever you say Ballzaro! On YTILAER you get to be right ALL THE TIME! Enjoy
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 19, 2007 15:48:29 GMT -5
I do. And when you learn how to read a case, you can be right too. But at least you have Larry and photoshop.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 19, 2007 16:00:50 GMT -5
lmfao @ ballzaro world.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 19, 2007 18:37:57 GMT -5
LOL @ both PhotoShops!
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Dec 20, 2007 7:07:18 GMT -5
Why don't you nerds start a "Argue About Case Law With MSBGammons/Ballzaro Thread"?
Oh, yea. Even though he might have said something I agree with marginally, fuck that jealous load Curt Schilling.
And another, Oh, Yea: How funny is it that Ugueth Urbina, convicted of attempted murder and currently serving a fourteen year prison sentence for attacking farm workers with a machete and pouring gasoline on them, is eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2011? That must really chap Pete Rose's ass.
Anyway, here is an interesting commentary from Ross Newhan (The 2000 J.G. Taylor Spink Award winner):
Taking away their Hall passes
One man's 2013 ballot for Cooperstown won't include Clemens and Bonds because of steroid use.
By Ross Newhan, Special to The Times
December 20, 2007
Beyond the federal indictment in the case of Barry Bonds and the Mitchell Report testimony in the case of Roger Clemens, beyond even the suggestion by a blogger named Curt Schilling that Clemens should be stripped of his last four Cy Young Awards if he can't clear his name, there is the distant horizon and the Hall of Fame.
If Bonds and Clemens have been stained so severely now that no team will touch them, guaranteeing they have finally appeared in their last major league games, they will be eligible for election in 2013, having observed the five-year waiting period. Should these ambassadors of the Steroid Era, alleged to have used performance-enhancing substances over several seasons in their historic careers and who otherwise would win landslide approval on the first ballot, still be elected?
The answer here is no.
The answer here is that the closest they should get to a bronze plaque is the Hall's ticket window.
Barring new evidence by 2013, reversing what has been presented to this point, the answer here is that they can always join Pete Rose in selling their autographs from a Main Street memorabilia store during induction weekend in Cooperstown.
I am not licking my chops as I write this, not jumping up and down in glee.
Anyone with deep feelings about the game can't be anything but saddened to consider an industry legacy that excludes Bonds, the all-time home run leader and seven-time winner of the most-valuable-player award, and Clemens, a seven-time winner of the Cy Young Award and tenacious owner of 354 victories, from that Valhalla in upstate New York.
Linked to the industry-dictated exclusion of Rose, the all-time hit leader, it can be argued that the Hall would be devoid of the best pitcher ever and the best power and contact hitters ever -- diminished and renamed a Hall of Not All the Famous.
No one could take joy in that, but the possibility is real.
Eligible members of the Baseball Writers Assn. of America have no vote on Rose. He remains on baseball's restricted list for gambling on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds and is not likely to come off soon, if ever.
Unless Bonds and Clemens are similarly restricted, the BBWAA electorate will ultimately get its shot at them.
How it plays out is difficult to predict at this point.
However, there may have been a clue in last year's election when Mark McGwire, the first of the Steroid Era biggies to appear on the ballot, received only 23.5% of the votes, far shy of the required 75%.
McGwire hit 583 home runs to rank eighth on the all-time list, statistics that normally would have resulted in automatic election. He hit a then-record 70 in 1998 while acknowledging use of androstenedione, a testosterone precursor that could be bought off the shelf at that time and is now banned in baseball.
Beyond that admitted use of andro, and the steroids accusations by former teammate Jose Canseco in his recent book, there was nothing documented on McGwire before he refused to testify about the past in the 2005 congressional hearing into steroids in baseball.
That seemed to be an inexplicable stance considering it created the tacit perception he has something to hide and undoubtedly turned some of the Hall electorate against him -- at least on the first ballot.
Whether McGwire moves closer to 75% this year (voters now have the '08 ballot and must return it by Dec. 31), or in ensuing years, is uncertain, but until he explains his congressional stance, I too will withhold support while less dogmatic about his candidacy than that of Bonds and Clemens.
Bonds has been bisected and dissected, his suspect physical transformation, beginning at 35 in 1999, thoroughly documented in the book "Game of Shadows." Over the last nine seasons, a career period of normally declining skills, he hit 351 of his 762 home runs, including 73 in 2001.
Some in the media will insist that he should be elected to the Hall on the basis that he was a Hall of Fame player before '99, before he "unknowingly" began employing illegal substances, his power and physique expanding exponentially.
While there is truth to the contention that Bonds was on his way to Cooperstown before '99, do you dismiss an entire decade as if it wasn't part of the same career, as if what went into creating it and sustaining it, now underscored by federal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, doesn't matter?
The same question can be posed in regard to Clemens.
Former trainer Brian McNamee is quoted in the Mitchell Report as saying he injected Clemens with illegal substances 16 times during the 1998, 2000 and 2001 seasons. The Rocket, who has denied McNamee's allegations, won 53 games in those three seasons and was strong enough, at 40-plus, to win another 74 over the next six while continuing to be trained by McNamee at times.
That's 141 wins, including 14 in 1999, from the time McNamee said he gave Clemens his first injection in '98, and reason enough, wrote Schilling on his website, for Clemens to forfeit his final four Cy Youngs if he can't offer assurance they were cleanly obtained.
That seems a drastic proposal, but it's a legitimate point.
How much of post-'98 was performance-enhanced?
How much of that are you expected to dismiss if the contention is that Clemens is still Hall of Fame-worthy?
For now, the clock may have begun ticking on the five-year waiting period for two inflated giants of the game.
Whether we have a more complete picture by the time Bonds and Clemens appear on the ballot for the first time is uncertain.
For now, I don't like the picture and wonder how much it can really change.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 7:12:22 GMT -5
If you REPORT libelous/slanderous words presented to you by a witness, and qualify it as the words of the witness and NOT your words....you can not be found guilty of libel/slander. Just pointing out that the above statements, made as an attempt to argue that Mitchell and MLB can't be sued for libel, is still wrong. www.nypost.com/seven/12202007/sports/expert__lawsuit_by_rog_unlikely_546917.htmIf you notice, in the above article, where it is said Clemens won't sue, the reasoning is NOT due to the fact that they CAN'T sue MLB or Mitchell, but they can't win because Clemens is a public figure, and would have to prove actual malice. Cho attempted to defend his position several times on December 14, but again, it's simply wrong. Mitchell and MLB are not immune from a libel suit. It's not winnable because Clemens is a public figure, like I originally said, but I'm sure a photoshop will make that untrue.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 20, 2007 7:57:54 GMT -5
I for one never said these guys could not attempt to sue, but I made it clear that it would get tossed out in court. Chances of a successful libel suit against Mitchell or MLB = zippo.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 8:11:36 GMT -5
And you would be right on both counts. But the reason it would not work is the point. If Clemens weren't a public figure, he might have more of a shot if he truly were innocent. It's not that he can't win because MLB and the Mitchell report couldn't be a defendant. That has nothing to do with it. The reason he won't sue is because the standard to win the case is too tough for him. Not only would he have to show all the regular elements of defamation, he would have to show that Mitchell and MLB acted with actual malice in publishing the false statements. No chance of that being proven.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 20, 2007 9:27:55 GMT -5
Newhan's article and sentiment is exactly why, to me, this should have been left alone as it was in football. I'm sure some think I'm burying my head in the sand, but there are a hell of a lot more skeletons in the closets of that museum that have been locked away, and this mess should have joined it.
It pains me to compare baseball to football, because baseball should always be America's pastime. But football gets it right in a lot of ways, while baseball has fallen hopelessly backward.
And I'm sorry, but you cannot deny these people enshrinement based on something that baseball let happen (and turned a blind eye to in the late 90s to bail its own collective ass out). It is the ultimate hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it puts a black eye on the Hall if they are to be admitted.
Baseball fucked itself. Let them in, and you have tainted the hallowed Hall (which wasn't so hallowed to begin with). Keep them out, and you have committed a hypocrisy.
Thanks for ruining baseball.
|
|