OK, ignore the misspellings (I now have a better understanding of his use of “misremembered” now)… thinking of how Clemens might view McNamee, I saw what mother said, and latched onto it.

Um, Maury? It looks pretty silly to bang on Clemens for misspellings while at the same time (1) not realizing that "misremembered" is a word (definition: "to remember incorrectly") and (2) misspelling Andy Pettitte's name repeatedly:

“Getting in front of it” is a reference to the likes of Petitte and Jason Giambi who realized that if they admitted – even vaguely – to using PEDs, the public (and more importantly, Congress) will get off your back and eventually move on. Look at Petitte. His hGH use was barely mentioned during the World Series.

It's Pettitte, Pettitte, Pettitte, Pettitte.

And, once more, if Clemens is innocent, he can't "admit" to anything, now can he? So what good does your advice do him, in that case? I wouldn't think he'd have to explain this to you, but I see that he did.

So someone you think is stupid had to educate you about a simple concept.

Trying to decipher Clemenspeak, the reference to “how do you prove a negative” appears to be a reference to McNamee.

The reference to "proving a negative" is meant to convey how difficult it is to prove that one didn't do something. If I say "Maury Brown is an adulterer, now prove that you're not," how in the world are you supposed to "prove" that?

As for “wallet chaser”… well, I guess we know how he feels about Rusty Hardin these days.

Or not, since Clemens retained Hardin. Not the other way around.

I like your stuff generally, but your act here is pretty weak. This is beneath you.

Not to hijack this into a word use thread, but I use "misremember" all the time. Is it really an uncommon word? I find it to be a very useful word.

On the misspelling...

"Pettitte" is a major gaffe. Corrected.

The misspelling on Clemens' part is here:

”if your (sic) a ditch digger, be the best ditch digger you can be!”

On the "misremembered"... it became as talked of as anything Clemens said that day. Not framing it as an incorrect spelling, just understanding a bit more on how Clemens speaks.

As for "wallet chasers"... that one's up for interpretation.

Not to hijack this into a word use thread, but I use "misremember" all the time.

I doubt it; I've never heard you use it. I think you're remembering that incorrectly.

The misspelling on Clemens' part is here:

I saw that. I don't care that Clemens can't spell. I don't expect him to be able to. I expect you to be able to. But more than that, to mock someone for spelling mistakes at the same time that you're making repeated misspellings of your own really leaves you looking foolish.

As does mocking him for spelling mistakes in the first place.

On the "misremembered"... it became as talked of as anything Clemens said that day. Not framing it as an incorrect spelling, just understanding a bit more on how Clemens speaks.

It's a perfectly proper word, and he used it exactly correctly that day. He was saying that Pettitte remembers incorrectly.

As for "wallet chasers"... that one's up for interpretation

I just think it leaves you looking childish.

Seriously. You're better than this. Mocking someone for spelling and then calling lawyers wallet chasers? That's not informed commentary; that's cringeworthy.

"Wallet chasers" was made by Clemens, not I.

I'm mocking Clemens for not getting out in front of the issue. I'm probably not the first to do so.

As for being "childish"... Having some fun at being a columnist. There's a reason this on the personal blog, and not on one of the "Biz" sites. Work in progress? Probably.

Ray -

If you can consistently spell Pettitte correctly, my hats off to you. Despite being a pretty good speller, it's one name I can never, ever seem to get right. I just always toss 3 or 4 'T's into it and hope for the best.

Ironically, enough, though -- I can consistently spell Grudzielanek or Mientkiewicz without problems or looking them up.

As for being "childish"... Having some fun at being a columnist.

I would use the term "sportswriter" :-)

Ok, I've said my piece; I'll back off now.

Though I still don't see how he was supposed to "get out front" of the issue if he's innocent as he says. Which is a distinct possibility. After all this time there's no paper trail; no canceled checks; no witnesses other than the self-confessed liar Brian McNamee; nobody else to come forward. And if it's so easy to prove he perjured himself, I haven't the foggiest clue why the feds haven't indicted him yet. It's been 22 months, which is an eternity as far as the federal system goes. And it's not like they're not investigating this; we've heard about plenty of witnesses being hauled before them.

If you can consistently spell Pettitte correctly, my hats off to you.

I can. I mean, it only took me about a tenth of a second to spot the spelling mistake.

But I don't even care if people misspell it. It was just the irony of the situation here.

If you can consistently spell Pettitte correctly, my hats off to you. Despite being a pretty good speller, it's one name I can never, ever seem to get right. I just always toss 3 or 4 'T's into it and hope for the best.

On the other hand, he spells Ray DiPerna incorrectly. There's supposed to be a space in there, dammit.

After all this time there's no paper trail; no canceled checks; no witnesses other than the self-confessed liar Brian McNamee; nobody else to come forward.

Well, there's the affidavit of Andy Pettitteeettee

Well, there's the affidavit of Andy Pettitteeettee

Which says?

You had to ask...

I, ANDY PETTITTE, do depose and state:

1. In 1999 or 20OO, I had a conversation with Roger Clemens in which Roger told me tllat he had taken human growth hormone ("HGH"). This conversation occurred at his grm in Memorial, Texas. He did not tell me where he got the HGH or from whom, but he did tell me that it helped thee body recover.

2. I told my wife, Laura, about the conversation with Roger
soon after it happened.

3. Shortly after my conversation with Roger, I spoke with Brian McNamee. Only he and I were parties to the conversation. I asked Brian about HGH and told him that Roger said he had used it. Brian McNamee became angry. He told me that Roger should not have told me about his HGH use because it was supposed to be confidential. While I don't remember if Brian told me that he supplied Roger with HGH, it certainly was my impression from the conversation that he did.

4. In 2OO5, around the time of tJ:e Congressional hearings into the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball, I had a conversation with Roger Clemens in Kissimmee, Florida. I asked him what he would say if asked by reporters if he ever used performance enhancing drugs. When he asked me what I meant, I reminded him that he had told me that he used HGH.

5. Roger responded by telling me that I must have misunderstood him; he claimed that he told me that it was his wife, Debbie, who used HGH.

6. I said, "Oh, okay," or words to that effect, not because I agreed, but because I wasn't going to argue with him.

7. Shortly after, I told my wife, Laura, about this second conversation with Roger about HGH and his comment about his wife.

8. Regarding my own use of HGH, as I have admitted publicly, used it for two days in 2OO2 to attempt to recover from an elbow injury. also have told the committee's attorneys, and I restate it here, that in 2OO4, when I tore the flexor tendon in my pitching arm. I again used HGH two times in one day out of frustration and in a futile attempt to recover. Unfortunately, I needed surgery on the arm later in the year. I regret these lapses in judgment.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed on February 8, 2OO8.

Well, there's the affidavit of Andy Pettitteeettee

Hence the "misremembers." (Or misunderstood.)

You had to ask...

Maury, seriously. Have you read Pettitte's full testimony, in which he says that after the 2005 conversation Pettitte accepted that he must have misunderstood the 1999 conversation? Which is entirely consistent with Clemens's view that Pettitte "misremembered" the 1999 conversation.

Or are you content to just pretend that a one page summary of testimony that lasted for 2.5 hours presents a complete, fair, and accurate portrayal of that testimony?

Quoting now:

Q What was your reaction to what he said [in the 2005 conversation]?

A Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.

...

Q It sounds like when you -- it sounds like your recollection of the conversation you had with him in 1999, you are fairly certain about that, that he told you he used it. Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then? Are you saying you just
didn't want to get into a dispute with him about it so you dropped the subject?

A I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him.

Pettitte didn't think that he had misunderstood the 1999 conversation. But he left open the possibility that he had. And *for years* after the 2005 conversation Pettitte operated under the assumption that he had misunderstood the 1999 conversation.

I don't see how you could be familiar with the entire testimony if you're quoting the affidavit as if it represents a complete and accurate portrayal of what he testified to.

Well, Ray, we seem to have sown the whole thing up. Good thing there's no investigation going on, right? Seriously.

"We believe that his testimony in a sworn deposition on Feb. 5, 2008, and at a hearing on Feb. 13, 2008, that he never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone, warrants further investigation," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California and ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia wrote.

"That testimony is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of Brian McNamee, who testified that he personally injected Mr. Clemens with anabolic steroids and human growth hormone," the lawmakers wrote.

"Mr. Clemens's testimony is also contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony and affidavit submitted to the committee by Andrew Pettitte, a former teammate of Mr. Clemens, whose testimony and affidavit reported that Mr. Clemens had admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had taken human growth hormone."

Ray, if it were that cut and dry, we wouldn't be talking about whether Clemens might be seeing jail time.

Ironically, enough, though -- I can consistently spell Grudzielanek or Mientkiewicz without problems or looking them up.

OK zonk--without looking--Coach K

Ray, if it were that cut and dry, we wouldn't be talking about whether Clemens might be seeing jail time.

He won't be, unless they have evidence we don't know about yet. I've been saying that for a long time.

There's a reason this on the personal blog,

...where there's no obligation to be fair or honest or truthful or accurate or to spell correctly. And get paid nevertheless. What a wonderful life.

And by the way, I didn't say it was "cut and dry" - that's your position, remember? That Clemens is clearly guilty? Pettitte's deposition shows that it's not cut and dry.

What struck me most about Pettitte's testimony is what Pettitte didn't say. Here are two friends, longtime teammates, who live close to each other and even train together. Before Pettitte testified people predicted that he'd be able to recite chapter and verse of Clemens's usage. But Pettitte did no such thing. He was a witness to... nothing. He remembered one brief conversation from ten years earlier, that he thought he understood but later accepted that he may not have. (Pettitte and Clemens aren't the two brightest bulbs around, so it's not exactly shocking that there may have been a misunderstanding between them. And despite Clemens not even knowing what Pettitte testified to -- even though Elijah Cummings dishonestly sandbagged him -- Clemens's version that Pettitte "misremembered" was completely accepted by Pettitte himself.)

Pettitte's testimony was largely unremarkable; yet, it's been presented as a smoking gun.

Pettitte witnessed nothing.

...where there's no obligation to be fair or honest or truthful or accurate or to spell correctly. And get paid nevertheless. What a wonderful life.

It's the difference between acting in The Godfather and appearing in Debbie Does Dallas.

OK zonk--without looking--Coach K

Krzyzewski, I believe... He's a tough one because I don't think there's a 'c' like there should be.

I believe I've found an advantage to my Polish/eastern European lineage.

And get paid nevertheless

Paid?

"Wojciehowicz -- it's spelled just like it's pronounced."

Without looking it up or anything, isn't the expression actually "cut and dried"? I presume the derivation is agricultural, as in "a cut and dried crop" or something of the sort.

Aha --

It goes back to the ancient practice of cutting wood and letting it dry out thoroughly before using it in a fire." From "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" by William and Mary Morris (HarperCollins, New York, 1977, 1988).

We can therefore safely conclude that Maury & Ray are both nearly as stupid as Clemens!

(For my next trick, I will ruminate on why on earth people stopped using the "d" in "cliched" ...)

Krzyzewski, I believe... He's a tough one

damn zonk--that's impressive iffn you didn't cheat

To Maury at #16: It's "sewn" up, not "sown."

Not to pick nits, or call black things kettles, or whatever.

(For my next trick, I will ruminate on why on earth people stopped using the "d" in "cliched" ...)

How about the use of "nauseous" instead of "nauseated"? That's ubiquitous now, too.

That's one been ubiquitous for as long as I can remember, actually.

I'm really confused by "loose" being used for "lose". I first noticed that when I taught freshman comp. How did that one come about?

How did that one come about?

Stupid people.

Stupid people.

Yeah, Occam's Razor is a useful tool.

Except in the hands of stupid people.

Except in the hands of stupid people.

Why do you lob fat pitches like this to me? You want me to be mean to you, don't you? This is an unhealthy relationship, I think. You enable my abuse.

edit: Now sell me your picks so you can afford Kyle Lohse!

I drafted Tejada. Until I get him off my team, I deserve the abuse.

I drafted Tejada. Until I get him off my team, I deserve the abuse.

No no no. It's not THAT you drafted Miggy--he's a useful player and only a 1 year committment--it's WHEN you drafted Miggy that makes you Steve Phillips level dumb. Crissakes, you thick Canuck, you don't even know why you're dumb yet. How am I supposed to help you?

While I don't agree with RayDiPerna (who does?), I didn't really understand this article. Are you advocating that Clemens just come clean? That probably won't happen. At worst, it looks like you're just hounding him (or even taunting).

I do think you make a good point about "getting out in front of it." It really does seem to be as simple as: admit you did wrong and the media gets bored with you. When you take away the impetus for the media to write the story (there's something not known here, and someone seems to be hiding something), then the story just goes away.

it was just the irony of the situation here.

Tate's Law in action (again): The probability of committing a spelling, grammar, or usage error (or solecism) is greatly increased (for any given author) when the author attempts to correct or criticize the grammar/spelling/usage of others.

There's a simpler (albeit less complete) form, Spelling flames are lame. And I agree with Ray Maury, it's beneath you.

While I don't agree with RayDiPerna (who does?)

I do.

And I agree with Ray

Woohoo! We're up to two.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Piehole.

No no no. It's not THAT you drafted Miggy--he's a useful player and only a 1 year committment--it's WHEN you drafted Miggy that makes you Steve Phillips level dumb.

You mean the whole thing about drafting him right after grabbing both a better starting SS and a better starting 3B? Trust me - I'm well aware of the stupidity of that timing.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Piehole.

:)

[NB: there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for smoking...]

By the way, I somehow missed this Waxman/Davis statement that Maury posted in #16:

"Mr. Clemens's testimony is also contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony and affidavit submitted to the committee by Andrew Pettitte, a former teammate of Mr. Clemens, whose testimony and affidavit reported that Mr. Clemens had admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had taken human growth hormone."

We're quoting the distortions made by others now, instead of looking at the actual testimony? Eek. The whole of Pettite's testimony does not "contradict" Clemens. Clemens said that Pettitte misremembered the 1999 conversation. Pettitte left open the possibility that he had misremembered the 1999 conversation.

Maury, if you want to participate in a serious discussion, look at the actual testimony rather than presenting distortions. That letter you quoted was Waxman's and Davis's (laughable) interpretation of the testimony. I haven't the foggiest clue why we need to sign on to their distortions. We're capable of analyzing this ourselves.

What you did is as worthless as relying on Bill Conlin's view of Ryan Howard's value, rather than looking on b-r yourself.