Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
It's wrong because the Mets said the reason he's not invited back is that he was critical of the team, a fact you keep ignoring in your false analogies.
So if the Mets said they won't credential him because they don't like his shirts, everything would be fine?
The point is, by Howard's own admission, he doesn't meet the BBWAA threshold for credentials right now. If the Mets had simply never credentialed Howard in the first place — just as they don't credential dozens if not hundreds of others who'd like credentials — would that have been "censorship"?
Also, #99 isn't even close to a rebuttal to the last paragraph of #89. I guess you believe anyone who ever writes or says something negative about a team should be, by that very act, guaranteed to hold credentials forever, or else the person can invoke a "censorship" claim.
Are you starting to follow yet?
No. I can't discern any consistent logic or principles in your various replies above.
All of your analogies and rhetorical questions are hooey, because they all require you to ignore that Megdal's credentials were revoked -- BECAUSE -- the Mets didn't like what he wrote about them.
How do you figure Howard's credentials were "revoked"?* Per the article, Howard didn't have a full-time credential in the first place.
IWhat's the difference between the Mets denying a credential for Joe Blow who's writing about the Wilpons and Madoff, and the Mets denying future credentials to Howard to report on the same topic? It makes no sense to say the former is perfectly acceptable but the latter is an affront to journalism.
Now it's you're turn to respond with an obtuse counterfactual.
Is the reporter being denied credentials BECAUSE of his unflattering coverage? Who says that's perfectly acceptable? You'd never find out about it, but nobody would say it was "perfectly acceptable" to exclude journalists -- BECAUSE (the point you're still ignoring) -- of negative coverage. What makes no sense is to say that because this would pass without comment, therefore it must be acceptable to to exclude a previously credentialed journalist -- BECAUSE -- of his negative coverage.
You'd never find out about it, but nobody would say it was "perfectly acceptable" to exclude journalists -- BECAUSE (the point you're still ignoring) -- of negative coverage. What makes no sense is to say that because this would pass without comment,
Joe, I don't think you've made any new points in . Your rebuttal is basically name-calling ("There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here.??");
focusing on the immaterial ("A team can't "revoke" something that hadn't been issued in the first place.");
If you'd like the last word, have at it. It's not really fun to debate this with you because, well, you're stupid (see I can call you names too).
But if the black guy wasn't a BBWAA member, he doesn't have a right to be in there in the first place.
"There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here."
If only black guys were rejected for discretionary credentials while others were able to get them, then that would be discrimination. How this relates to Howard's situation or counts as a "gotcha" is beyond me.
not sure what this means exactly
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.4112 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed