Sad.

Why are you sad, if not for the family of the person he killed?

I wonder if that Playmate knew he only had 600K left.

Could this be a ploy to hide assets for a possible upcoming civil suit from the victim's family? Are there assets which were not listed by Leyritz at the time of his divorce?

I just thought that these are questions which might be raised.

Sure is great that the players aren't "enslaved" to the owners anymore!

I wish I were famous enough to be referred to as "troubled" when I act like a##hole.

missing "an" obviously. Clearly, I'm troubled.

He gets to be a bigger ####### every day.

Misleading headline.

he spent large amounts of money on alcohol, swank clubs and ritzy hotels

Of those 3 things I'll bet the booze was by far the cheapest. The fourth undocumented item, drugs, was likely the most expensive.

I don't get it, wasn't Leyritz working as a commentator for MLB.tv or some such? The "only $600K" seems a little misleading. The guy still had an income.

...and beyond!!

#### Leyritz. The victim's family should sue him for every single dollar he has. He won't need that cash in jail anyhow.

missing "an" obviously. Clearly, I'm troubled.

No, per #6, you're an #######!

The glimpse into Leyritz’s 2003 financial records shows he spent large amounts of money on alcohol, swank clubs and ritzy hotels in Florida, New York and beyond.

A convenient glimpse, wouldn't you say, as the family of his victim contemplates seeking damages in a wrongful death suit?

Even for Kevin, the conspiracy theory here seems a little obscure. You think that four years ago, Leyritz knew he'd be in an accident four years later so he... what? Doctored his financial records? Spent all his money on booze?

Or... you think that in the week since Leyritz ran over this woman, he snuck into the courthouse and switched the documents in his file for phony ones?

I don't get it, wasn't Leyritz working as a commentator for MLB.tv or some such? The "only $600K" seems a little misleading. The guy still had an income.

RTFA: "Leyritz, who spent yesterday with an ex-girlfriend, earns about $5,250 a month working as an MLB.com analyst. His contract expires in March and is not expected to be renewed, a spokesman said."

RTFA: "Leyritz, who spent yesterday with an ex-girlfriend, earns about $5,250 a month working as an MLB.com analyst. His contract expires in March and is not expected to be renewed, a spokesman said."

D'oh. Thanks, David.

Or... you think that in the week since Leyritz ran over this woman, he snuck into the courthouse and switched the documents in his file for phony ones?

He did. He was wearing a Lone Ranger mask and black sweatsuit, and when he tiptoed you could hear the sound of pizzicato stings being plucked.

It is unfortunate that given the nature of the job in question, he had to leave the sack with the dollar sign printed on it at home.

Leyritz, who spent yesterday with an ex-girlfriend

I hope he made it count, 15 years is a loooooong time.

BTW, aleskel, that RTFA wasn't meant to be hostile. Just shorthand for "it's in there."

Though I don't have a hard time believing Leyritz blew his wealth on partying, the article is clearly a bit of a hatchet job. I quote the convicting facts of the article:

"In the divorce papers Leyritz filed in Florida when leaving his second wife, Karrie, the hard-partying catcher claimed nearly all of his money had disappeared because of exorbitant taxes and a shady financial adviser.

His financial records from August 2003 to December 2003 tell a different story.On a two-week trip to New York in October, he dropped thousands of dollars at the China Club, Tao, Elaine's and other nightspots. He also spent more than $3,000 at the Shelburne Murray Hill hotel.

In Florida, Leyritz blew through hundreds of dollars at liquor stores, including Fine Spirits in Cooper City. One day that August, he spent $256.23 there on alcohol. He returned two days later to buy an additional $169.53 worth of booze."

So he spent several thousand dollars on parties and travel over a five month period. That seems like small potatoes compared to the headline. It could well be that he did lose millions to shady financial advisers and bad business deals; yet certainly wasn't helped by his spending habits.

Also, I like the use of the phrase "when leaving his second wife" as opposed to divorcing. I am no fan of Leyritz and am appalled by his crime, but they are obviously trying to sell papers here.

$5250 a month? That's the best his agent could do for that gig?

Why are you sad, if not for the family of the person he killed?

Because human compassion isn't ####### zero-sum. You're not a better person if you have limited your compassion to those you feel "deserve" it.

MCoA sighting. Right on.

You're not a better person if you have limited your compassion to those you feel "deserve" it.

Jim Leyritz is up for what might be called "tough compassion", then. It is hard enough to feel sorry for him that it's no shame to give it up as a bad job. An empty life taking away someone else's life is a hard sell.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago. It's doubly nice to know that his bloated salaries were put to such good and socially useful uses. Between Jimmy's fine works and A-Rod's slumlord empire and all the other noble expenditures, my heart's all atwitter today.

The glimpse into Leyritz’s 2003 financial records shows he spent large amounts of money on alcohol, swank clubs and ritzy hotels in Florida, New York and beyond.

I have no problem with this. The only thing he's done wrong is drive a car. Of course that was a whopper of a mistake in judgement.

The former catcher also struck out on his finances, watching more than $10 million he earned $5 million he kept after taxes 11 years in the majors shrink to about $600,000, records show.

Fixed.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago.

Someone bump SugarBear Blanks, he's skipping.

Also, I like the use of the phrase "when leaving his second wife" as opposed to divorcing. I am no fan of Leyritz and am appalled by his crime, but they are obviously trying to sell papers here.

Actually, they're trying not to use a form of the word "divorce" twice in the space of about six words.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago.

This is ridiculous. If one person who benefits from an event goes on to do a really bad thing that is unrelated to the event, that in no way reflects on the meaning of the event.

It's like saying that an increase in the minimum wage is bad because I know this guy who worked for minimum wage and also beat his wife. There are arguments against increases in them minimum wage that make plausible use of logic and fact. This is not one of them.

You're taking advantage of a tragedy to take unrelated cheapshots at baseball's labor leaders. It's distasteful and inane, in equal measure.

why is no one commenting on the fact that this man spent $9.4 MILLLION DOLLARS on booze?!?!

hilarious. i wish toe nash would have become really rich. you know he would be blowing money in crazy ways. rocket car and a gold house, indeed.

Of those 3 things I'll bet the booze was by far the cheapest. The fourth undocumented item, drugs, was likely the most expensive.

It was Faberge eggs that wiped out his bank account.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago. It's doubly nice to know that his bloated salaries were put to such good and socially useful uses. Between Jimmy's fine works and A-Rod's slumlord empire and all the other noble expenditures, my heart's all atwitter today.

Yeah, because the same money in the pockets of the owners would only be used to build orphanages. I hope you were being sarcastic. However, seeing as you posted the same thought twice maybe you're just looking for a reaction or should Marvin Miller be seen as an accomplice to this crime?.

Though I don't have a hard time believing Leyritz blew his wealth on partying, the article is clearly a bit of a hatchet job. I quote the convicting facts of the article:

"In the divorce papers Leyritz filed in Florida when leaving his second wife, Karrie, the hard-partying catcher claimed nearly all of his money had disappeared because of exorbitant taxes and a shady financial adviser.

His financial records from August 2003 to December 2003 tell a different story.On a two-week trip to New York in October, he dropped thousands of dollars at the China Club, Tao, Elaine's and other nightspots. He also spent more than $3,000 at the Shelburne Murray Hill hotel.

In Florida, Leyritz blew through hundreds of dollars at liquor stores, including Fine Spirits in Cooper City. One day that August, he spent $256.23 there on alcohol. He returned two days later to buy an additional $169.53 worth of booze."

Agree. he "blew millions", and their examples are of blowing hundreds or thousands. How about that time he blew $12 for 2 Sam Adamses in the MIA airport?

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago. It's doubly nice to know that his bloated salaries were put to such good and socially useful uses. Between Jimmy's fine works and A-Rod's slumlord empire and all the other noble expenditures, my heart's all atwitter today.

SugarBear sure likes them MLB owners.

This is ridiculous. If one person who benefits from an event goes on to do a really bad thing that is unrelated to the event, that in no way reflects on the meaning of the event.

It's completely related to the "meaning of the event," which was to place MLB players into a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class to which they're not worthy, generally speaking. If you think the sense of entitlement that engenders in scores of players, and obviously engendered in Leyritz, had nothing to do with this you're blinded by your fanboyism.

Your minimum wage example is inapposite. Baseball players before Miller/Fehr weren't remotely minimum wage earners as has been discussed at length already.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago. It's doubly nice to know that his bloated salaries were put to such good and socially useful uses. Between Jimmy's fine works and A-Rod's slumlord empire and all the other noble expenditures

It would be food for Steinbrenner to have more money to illegally invest in political outcomes. Seriously of course, Leyritz's error in incomparable to Big Stein's.
I know it's fun to smack down ARod and such, and I don't hold out much hope that he's this deep-thinking, empathetic soul who has a master plan for massively improving this country's bottom end housing stock, but just because a couple of people complain about their rich landlord doesn't exactly make ARod a slumlord. Perhaps you have visited these homes and have some pictures or maybe I missed the article where he's been indicted for some slumlordy activity?

EDIT: I can't think of a construct where "It would be food.." could work as a bit of fat-finger humor, so let's change it to be "good".

SugarBear sure likes them MLB owners.

Not really. He's just aware of the obvious empirical and historical fact that their excess wealth is more likely to be spent on socially useful ends, as he pointed out in an earlier spirited discussion of these matters. He believes one of those discussions was in re the A-Rod deal, and took place a few days before the NYT exposed A-Rod's use of his money to run a series of slumlord operations.

overprivileged class to which they're not worthy

It's so good to have the Viscount of Astoria here to let us know who can be let through the doors of the castle, and who must use the servants entrance.

It's so good to have the Viscount of Astoria here to let us know who can be let through the doors of the castle, and who must use the servants entrance.

As metaphor and humor, that's pretty good. As social commentary, not so much, though you're right, I might have more aptly used the term "criminal" class in lieu of "overprivileged." But since my heart was still all atwitter, I softballed it.

His financial records from August 2003 to December 2003 tell a different story.On a two-week trip to New York in October . . . He also spent more than $3,000 at the Shelburne Murray Hill hotel.

How bad is this? It's about $220/night. It's much more than the Motel 6 I usually stay at, but: 1) SABR usually costs $100/night and that's despite negotiating at a discounted group rate, 2) NYC has got to be the priciest place in the hemisphere. I'm sure there were cheaper options, but for a 2-week hotel in NYC, you're going to end up with a hefty hotel bill.

"In the divorce papers Leyritz filed in Florida when leaving his second wife, Karrie, the hard-partying catcher claimed nearly all of his money had disappeared because of exorbitant taxes and a shady financial adviser.

His financial records from August 2003 to December 2003 tell a different story.

Actually, I see an underlying consistency - he's very careless to his money. The line about exorbitant taxes makes it sound like he was unaware how much he was going to lose to the governemnt. Let's overlook for a second the debate on whether or not taxes are too high - it really shouldn't come as a surprise to him that he's losing much money on taxes. I can understand being floored the first year or two in the bigs when he's first making serious dough, but at a certain point in time he's got to realize the million dollar check is really only 600 thousand or so. If he's complaining about losing money on taxes, it sounds like he just was clueless/indifferent to his own finances.

He engages himself with a sharp talking, smart looking financial adviser who screws him over. He doesn't spend much time thinking about his money, hired someone to do that for him, and it comes back to bite him in the arse. Oldest story in the world.

And then, of course, he spends it on good times.

So he spent several thousand dollars on parties and travel over a five month period. That seems like small potatoes compared to the headline. It could well be that he did lose millions to shady financial advisers and bad business deals; yet certainly wasn't helped by his spending habits.

I agree with this assessment. You could easily find periods of my life where I have spent similar amounts in similar time periods on similar things... though China Club is lame, Tao is a good time, Elaine's is horriable. Though I haven't made 10mm buckeroos.

How bad is this? It's about $220/night.

It's EXTREMLY CHEAP. Most reasonable Manhattan hotels, are in the 400-700 range per night.

I wonder how much I've spent on booze and (embarrassingly) cigarettes in my lifetime. Figure 10 years of drinking experience, with ~ $10 per week spent on booze. That's $5200. During my 6 smoking years, I probably spent around about $8 per week on cigarettes. That's about $2500. I don't regret the booze, but that's a lot of money, looking back. Smoking was so frigging stupid and expensive. What an idiot I was.

Actually, his spending habits remind me of the old Tug McGraw quote - I'll spend 90% on wine, women, and good times. The rest I'll probably waste.

Not really. He's just aware of the obvious empirical and historical fact that their excess wealth is more likely to be spent on socially useful ends, as he pointed out in an earlier spirited discussion of these matters. He believes one of those discussions was in re the A-Rod deal, and took place a few days before the NYT exposed A-Rod's use of his money to run a series of slumlord operations.

I am not sure whether you are just entertaining yourself on a slow workday, or hopped up on something strong. So now you are going to decide who should have money?! And wherein comes the assumption that baseball owners spend their $ more responsibly? Wasn't Steve Swindon arrested for a DUI few months ago..
As for ARod's operations, that is a business, which he funds. I don't see the rich people of the world all trying to stop make more $ and give away their wealth? Ask Paul Allen why he is hoarding up on bandwidth and not funding more charities next time you meet him.

The labour laws were designed for a more equitable distribution of the money which the game was generating. Whether they spend to money to fight leukemia or hire the best strippers is neither here nor there.

Figure 10 years of drinking experience, with ~ $10 per week spent on booze.

now imagine if you were drinking the good stuff instead of colt 45 and donaghy estates sparkling wine?

I don't see the rich people of the world all trying to stop make more $ and give away their wealth? Ask Paul Allen why he is hoarding up on bandwidth and not funding more charities next time you meet him.

Read more. Or at least read more non-fiction.

The labour laws were designed for a more equitable distribution of the money which the game was generating. Whether they spend to money to fight leukemia or hire the best strippers is neither here nor there.


The labor laws, and all laws, are meant to improve society. It's self-evidently better for society if more money is spent to fight leukemia than on strippers and porn. I'm baffled at how anyone could think for a moment otherwise.

It's self-evidently better for society if more money is spent to fight leukemia than on strippers and porn. I'm baffled at how anyone could think for a moment otherwise.

i would imagine the strippers and pornstars don't see it that way.

It's completely related to the "meaning of the event," which was to place MLB players into a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class to which they're not worthy, generally speaking.

Who exactly is worthy of being placed in a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class? Jeff Loria? Donald Trump? Paris Hilton? George W. Bush?

Who exactly is worthy of being placed in a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class?

this guy! *points at self*

i would imagine the strippers and pornstars don't see it that way.

Obviously, the most beneficial use of your money would be to spend it on a stripper with leukemia.

i would imagine the strippers and pornstars don't see it that way.

Al Franken had a terrific bit in one of his books about how important the porn industry was. Not only the actors, but think of all the production people (sound, lighting, craft services) who are being supported by it!

Who exactly is worthy of being placed in a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class? Jeff Loria? Donald Trump? Paris Hilton? George W. Bush?

Not major league baseball players, that's for sure.

Not major league baseball players, that's for sure.

Not heirs and heiresses, that's for sure. Not people who got rich by ripping off the government, that's for sure.

Who is, then?

The labor laws, and all laws, are meant to improve society. It's self-evidently better for society if more money is spent to fight leukemia than on strippers and porn. I'm baffled at how anyone could think for a moment otherwise.

So a law mandating x% of all income be given to charities you deem worthy is one worth getting behind then?

I'm all for being generous with whatever financial means one has but that doesn't mean everyone else needs to share that sentiment.

If you're trolling, congrats. If not, you better be giving every dime you make above and beyond what it costs to feed, clothe and shelter you and your dependents.

this guy! *points at self*

and this guy is worthy of being your pathetic and cowering but loyal sycophant!

Read more. Or at least read more non-fiction.

Now you are telling me what to do? How about adding something meaningful instead of taking some ridiculous stance, and shooting your mouth off? Are you saying I missed some grand event where the millionaires of the world got together, decided to forego their profits, and fund charities all over the place?

The labor laws, and all laws, are meant to improve society. It's self-evidently better for society if more money is spent to fight leukemia than on strippers and porn. I'm baffled at how anyone could think for a moment otherwise.

Because you are on a high horse and whaling away at the windmills. Noone is saying the society is better for people spending money on tawdry entertainment rather than charity. But denying a more equitable distribution of wealth hoping for some "trickle down" charity to happen is ludicrous. You can't define a wealth distribution on who you think is going to do better things with it. Players are as likely to help charities as owners. And just as likely to waste it as the owners.

It's self-evidently better for society if more money is spent to fight leukemia than on strippers and porn. I'm baffled at how anyone could think for a moment otherwise.

As a researcher who fights diseases like leukemia, I heartily endorse endorse this view. I would add that I could be persuaded to fight a little harder for some large bags full of cash.

EDIT: Also, I'm not really a big drinker. And I'm cheap.

I'm glad Marvin Miller and Don Fehr freed Leyritz from the bondage that he would have faced 35 years ago. It's doubly nice to know that his bloated salaries were put to such good and socially useful uses. Between Jimmy's fine works and A-Rod's slumlord empire and all the other noble expenditures, my heart's all atwitter today.

To quote a famous philosopher, are you the biggest idiot ever?

Your mindless comments about how Marvin Miller didn't improve the lives of impoverished Sudanese children make little enough sense when the discussion is about Marvin Miller. But WTF does Marvin Miller have to do with the question of whether Jim Leyritz drank away all his money or misinvested it or whatever?

now imagine if you were drinking the good stuff instead of colt 45 and donaghy estates sparkling wine?

Maybe he did his drinkin' in the fifties, when a bottle of that good sasparilla went for less than a bit.

It's very hard for me to feel anything other than contempt for Leyritz. A millionaire athelete who blows his fortune on women and partying then kills a mother of two on her way home from a late night job. Irreprably shatters the lives of her two children. Luckily, a higher court has all ready sentenced this man to a fate worse than any damp prison cell... A perpetuity of being Jim Leyritz.

For all his faults, Barry Bonds never killed anyone.

Not heirs and heiresses, that's for sure. Not people who got rich by ripping off the government, that's for sure.

Who is, then?

Heirs and heiresses and people who earned their money through more substantive means than playing a game don't act out whatever sense of entitlement they have to anywhere near the degree of major league baseball players and other overpaid athletes.

I'm not even sure they should be placed in my "arrogant and overprivileged class," but I'm sure the socially envious would.

It's completely related to the "meaning of the event," which was to place MLB players into a rich and arrogant and overprivileged class to which they're not worthy, generally speaking. If you think the sense of entitlement that engenders in scores of players, and obviously engendered in Leyritz, had nothing to do with this you're blinded by your fanboyism.

Of course they're worthy. Who elected you Kim Jong Il?

If you think drunk driving is caused by a "sense of entitlement," then you are the biggest idiot ever. Do you think poor people don't drive drunk?

SABR usually costs $100/night and that's despite negotiating at a discounted group rate

Suggestion: ALWAYS check the hotel website or other nearby hotels when you go to a conference where rooms are reserved at a discounted group rate. The discount is often not as good as, say, the AAA rate, web rate, etc. I think this is particularly true in the second-tier convention towns that SABR tends to frequent.

Not really. He's just aware of the obvious empirical and historical fact that their excess wealth is more likely to be spent on socially useful ends, as he pointed out in an earlier spirited discussion of these matters.

And it was a retarded argument then, and it's still a retarded argument. By definition, only someone with more than $X million can give $X million to a "socially useful end." So a particular owner can give more in a lump sum than a particular player can. But that in no way means that 5 people can't give $X/5 million to that same end.

heiresses ... don't act out whatever sense of entitlement they have to anywhere near the degree of major league baseball players and other overpaid athletes.

Have you somehow managed to completely miss the existence of Paris Hilton these past few years? If so, God bless you, and could you please share your secret?

I'm just going to assume that this is some very clever trolling. The notion that it's a serious argument is too depressing.

Heirs and heiresses and people who earned their money through more substantive means than playing a game don't act out whatever sense of entitlement they have to anywhere near the degree of major league baseball players and other overpaid athletes.

First, your statement is based on a faulty premise; baseball players do not earn money for "playing a game." If you don't believe me, go play a game -- baseball or otherwise -- and see how much you get for it. Baseball players get money for providing entertainment to millions of people. That's "socially valuable," to the extent that the phrase "socially valuable" has any meaning at all. We know it is, because millions of people are willing to pay for it.

Second, you're pulling these "facts" out of your ass.

Third, athletes are by definition not overpaid.

To quote a famous philosopher, are you the biggest idiot ever?

Not as long as your heart's still ticking.


Your mindless comments about how Marvin Miller didn't improve the lives of impoverished Sudanese children make little enough sense when the discussion is about Marvin Miller. But WTF does Marvin Miller have to do with the question of whether Jim Leyritz drank away all his money or misinvested it or whatever?


Asked and answered. By enriching mere baseball players way beyond any reasonable measure, the result of Miller's comically overrated work was to turn them into a "rich, arrogant, and overprivileged class to which they aren't worthy." It's not Leyritz's drinking that shows it, it's his chronic lack of consideration for the law and other people that shows it. (As well as his pissing away money he never should have been paid, and wasn't worthy of.)

The only thing missing here was the definitive apres-crime line of the pampered post-Miller era athlete, "Do you know who I am?", which we can rest assured Leyritz would have uttered had he been sober.

And it was a retarded argument then, and it's still a retarded argument. By definition, only someone with more than $X million can give $X million to a "socially useful end." So a particular owner can give more in a lump sum than a particular player can. But that in no way means that 5 people can't give $X/5 million to that same end.

Then you obviously didn't understand the argument. Obviously players can put the money to worthy uses. But, taken together they don't, with rare exceptions.

Heirs and heiresses and people who earned their money through more substantive means than playing a game don't act out whatever sense of entitlement they have to anywhere near the degree of major league baseball players and other overpaid athletes.

Since when did heirs and heiressess earn their money?

Have you somehow managed to completely miss the existence of Paris Hilton these past few years? If so, God bless you, and could you please share your secret?

No, I've seen her. And for every Paris Hilton there are dozens of athletes.

By enriching mere baseball players way beyond any reasonable measure

You are saying the owners should have pocketed all the money, and players get comparable pittance. next you want the studios stop paying money to actors and actresses, and pocket all the revenue. You are onto a great new concept.
And then the few rich people will be benevolent dictators, and assign the money to the most needy and worthy causes. Bravo!

Now go and sleep the rest of the acid off.

EDIT :
But, taken together they don't, with rare exceptions.
Give me any substantstative proof of this, and I will give up alcohol/smoking for a month

I'm just going to assume that this is some very clever trolling.

But the key to proper trolling is subtlety.

Asked and answered. By enriching mere baseball players way beyond any reasonable measure,

There's only one reasonable measure, which is how much someone is willing to pay them.

the result of Miller's comically overrated work was to turn them into a "rich, arrogant, and overprivileged class to which they aren't worthy." It's not Leyritz's drinking that shows it, it's his chronic lack of consideration for the law and other people that shows it. (As well as his pissing away money he never should have been paid, and wasn't worthy of.)

But he was worthy of it, by definition. Jim Leyritz's behavior shows that Jim Leyritz is an ass. But that has zilch to do with whether he's worthy of the money. Asses who earn money are just as worthy of it as saints are; money is not a measure of moral worth at all.

It shows as much about ballplayers in general as Roberto Clemente's death while carrying supplies to earthquake victims does.

Your "logic" is the same as the ######## in the media who indicted the Duke lacrosse players as rapists because they were privileged, so they must be overprivileged and hence bad people.

First, your statement is based on a faulty premise; baseball players do not earn money for "playing a game." If you don't believe me, go play a game -- baseball or otherwise -- and see how much you get for it. Baseball players get money for providing entertainment to millions of people. That's "socially valuable," to the extent that the phrase "socially valuable" has any meaning at all. We know it is, because millions of people are willing to pay for it.

Millions of people pay millions of dollars for porn, too. "Socially valuable" has little to do with that on which the masses expend their money. If that's your sole criteria for the term, fine, but ... what was that about idiot philosophers, again?

Then you obviously didn't understand the argument. Obviously players can put the money to worthy uses. But, taken together they don't, with rare exceptions.

Did you go to the Kevin School of Evidence Presentation?

Millions of people pay millions of dollars for porn, too. "Socially valuable" has little to do with that on which the masses expend their money.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Only the Pope gets to issue edicts from on high to people about what's valuable and what isn't -- and only Catholics have to listen to him. Otherwise, people can decide for themselves individually, without self-appointed jackasses of no particular worth themselves.

Millions of people pay millions of dollars for porn, too.

Can you do me a favor and remind me why this is bad?

But the key to proper trolling is subtlety.

Isn't the key the ability to draw people into idiotic arguments?

If Sugar Bear doesn't like DMN does that mean that he's one of the Van Buren Boys or Union (the non-Marvin Miller one) sympathizers? I was curious what side he was on in the steroid wars, yet not curious enough to slog through the threads.

There's only one reasonable measure, which is how much someone is willing to pay them.

Reductionist, idiotic, question begging, and utterly hollow.

And ahistorical, as ridiculous salaries have been part of the landscape for about 15 years, mass sport for 120 or so, and industrial society for 210 or so.

Can you do me a favor and remind me why this is bad?

Touching yourself is a sin?

No, I've seen her. And for every Paris Hilton there are dozens of athletes.

What does that have to do with anything? For every Jim Leyritz, there are dozens of athletes who are fine upstanding citizens.

Only the Pope gets to issue edicts from on high to people about what's valuable and what isn't -- and only Catholics have to listen to him.

But everyone else ends up in hell.

Touching yourself is a sin?

Even if you wear a glove?

Touching yourself is a sin?

What about someone else, while it is on in the background?

Reductionist, idiotic, question begging, and utterly hollow.

But at least it's not arrogant and fascist.

And ahistorical, as ridiculous salaries have been part of the landscape for about 15 years,

People like you have been calling salaries "ridiculous" since the beginning of professional baseball. The decimal point has moved; the rhetoric hasn't.

I'm not saying SugarBear Blanks is a troll, but I wouldn't be surprised if he lived under a bridge and harassed billygoats.

I would just like to come out and say I am Pro-porn and Pro-spending most my disposable income on alcohol.

What about someone else, while it is on in the background?

Hmmmm...better check with the Pope on that one.

he lived under a bridge and harassed billygoats.

If there were video of that, would it count as porn?

I would just like to come out and say I am Pro-porn and Pro-spending most my disposable income on alcohol.

Well, put this in your calander then. Good to know, you at least have a lick of sense.

Hmmmm...better check with the Pope on that one.

Germans love the porn.

Why are you sad, if not for the family of the person he killed?

Are you serious? I typed "Sad." How can you conclude that I am not sad for the person that was killed? You do know that "Sad" is synonym for lamentable, deplorable.

If you want a modern day lynching, fine, but I am not going to join in this lame game where we all try to outdo eachothers rage and I guess my "Sad." is not up to snuff.

Might as well hang me too. You are deplorable.

Jim Leyritz killed a woman! What in the blooming blazes does Marvin Miller have to do with any of it?!

why not blame Gatling for World War I and Einstein for the atom bomb while you're at it?

Why not blame Henry flipping Ford for every traffic death since 1900?

Why not blame Henry flipping Ford for every traffic death since 1900?

He's on the hook for global climate change, too.

Jim Leyritz killed a woman! What in the blooming blazes does Marvin Miller have to do with any of it?!

why not blame Gatling for World War I and Einstein for the atom bomb while you're at it?

Why not blame Henry flipping Ford for every traffic death since 1900?

You know what's really funny? The case for blaming Marvin Miller is even less than the indirect cases that can be made for the other 3.

There's only one reasonable measure, which is how much someone is willing to pay them.

And all the philosophy regarding virtue, a life well-lead, and the like comes down to this: a multi-millionaire purveyor of kiddie porn is orders of magnitude more worthy than those who teach the poor and heal the underprivileged sick.

Your idea does have the benefit of simplicity though, so there's that.

it's a dream of mine to spend most of my available alcohol on income. i'm not quite there yet.

Jim Leyritz killed a woman! What in the blooming blazes does Marvin Miller have to do with any of it?!

why not blame Gatling for World War I and Einstein for the atom bomb while you're at it?

Why not blame Henry flipping Ford for every traffic death since 1900?

As to the first, asked and answered.

No one's "blaming" Marvin Miller. Don't be silly.