Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, April 07, 2006

ajc: Moore: Legends back up Bonds

Yesterday Lasorda…today Terence Moore gets to hang with Bonds, Mays and McCovey.

“You guys don’t even know the half of what Barry is going through,” said McCovey, shaking his head, glancing at a spot on the floor. “You saw what Hank Aaron went through (while chasing Babe Ruth’s record), so you can imagine what Barry is going through.”

Translated: Hate mail. Lots of it, and from the sea of derogatory signs hoisted toward Bonds in normally docile San Diego during the Giants’ first road trip of the season (“Cheaters never prosper,” “Mr. Asterisk,” Greatest hitter/cheater ever”), somebody hurled a plastic syringe without the needle his way. “I don’t know why people want to hear other people say it, but you know what’s going on, and everybody knows it, because people aren’t dumb,” said McCovey, suggesting that Bonds is getting bashed for racial reasons.

This is the same McCovey who grew up in the segregated South. In fact, he is a native of Mobile, Ala., Aaron’s hometown. “I got a lot of what Barry is getting now. For whatever reason, I got a lot of that stuff near the end of my career (in the late 1970s). As for Barry, it’s obvious that things aren’t the way that they should be in 2006.”

Repoz Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:33 AM | 249 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

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 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Willie Mayspedes Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:59 AM (#1944834)
Bonds is such a whiny #####. Ya everybody hates him, no it's not because he's black. Did anybody send much hate mail to Mays or McCovey? Maybe but that was 40 years ago and they weren't cheating.
   2. Best Regards, President of Comfort Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:31 AM (#1944868)
Maybe but that was 40 years ago and they weren't cheating.

You might want to rethink what you just said:

Cheating at baseball means you deserve death threats.

And some people do hate him because he's black. Or they just think it's okay to call a man a "ni**er" because he cheated at baseball.
   3. The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:31 AM (#1944871)
Like things have changed THAT much.....

We need Eraser-X over here...
   4. Rich Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:38 AM (#1944881)
Racism is abhorrent, and no one should ever be subjected to it, but it doesn't negate the fact that there is also a legitimate race-neutral basis on which to criticize Bonds.
   5. Roy Hobbs of WIFFLE Ball Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#1944888)
I am sure there are plenty of people out there that don't like Bonds because of his race. Sadly, that unfortunate fact really doesn't differentiate Bonds from any other successful black public figure. I think it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming negativity directed toward Bonds is mainly the result of his surly personality and the very strong likelihood he's been cheating the past several years.

Race is always a part of the picture for any minority group member. All too often it is a much larger factor than many would like to admit. That said, anyone that suggests race is a deciding factor in Bonds' chilly receptions these days is misreading the situation.
   6. Rear Admiral Piazza Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:59 AM (#1944904)
That's right - because Bonds is black, it's okay for him to cheat.
   7. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:04 AM (#1944994)
Not too much to add here. Look at the comment below the article that calls Willie an idiot and then retells a South Park episode.

Barry Bonds' steroids are something I don't approve of, but they don't really affect me. The fact that some people think that their deeply personal experiences of South Park and Kevin Smith movies make them the know-all-end-all of race issues and Catholicism is a little more directly troubling.

A question I'd really like answered: Why do we need every major media source to have some whiny white journalist with a racial chip on his shoulder write the same dumb article about how there can't possibly be any racism involved in the appraisals of Bonds, McKinney, etc.?

Can't they farm out those articles to someone who knows something on the topic? ####--I'd rather they just let Willie McCovey write all of them.
   8. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:05 AM (#1944996)
Like things have changed THAT much.....

We need Eraser-X over here...


Is that up to your specifications?
   9. MM1f Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:40 AM (#1945032)
"A question I'd really like answered: Why do we need every major media source to have some whiny white journalist with a racial chip on his shoulder write the same dumb article about how there can't possibly be any racism involved in the appraisals of Bonds, McKinney, etc.?"

Why does every major media source have to have the same dumb article about how hate of Cynthia McKinney and Barry Bonds is mostly race based?

and while im asking questions...who the hell hired Terrance Moore i nthe first place?
   10. MM1f Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#1945037)
While were on the subject...
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0407natmckinney.html

She apologizes...sort of
More of the "my party is mad at me and i dont want charges pressed anyway" apology

She still claims there shold have been NO physical contact. That that guard should just let random people walk on by at will.

Also, theres now a felony investigation into her private bodygaurd for claiming to be a cop and not being one.
Oh, and theres another investigation as to whether her private gaurd was armed without approval in the Capitol..

God that woman is a trip
   11. We don't have dahlians at the Palace of Wisdom Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:17 AM (#1945054)
Something seems odd when you yourself introduce in a non-sequitor and then in the very next post say "While we're on the subject..." and then delve further into tangential subject matter.
   12. MM1f Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:32 AM (#1945065)
# Eraser-X is dominating this site! Membership Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#1944994)
Why do we need every major media source to have some whiny white journalist with a racial chip on his shoulder write the same dumb article about how there can't possibly be any racism involved in the appraisals of Bonds, McKinney, etc.?

Sure it was a small part of his post but it was there and i expanded on it becuase it was on my mind from other things

I didnt introduce McKinney, thus i said while we're on the subject
   13. Foghorn Leghorn Posted: April 07, 2006 at 12:12 PM (#1945124)
If you don't think race is a factor, you need to review the media treatment of Mark McGwire in 1998, 1999.

Or even now. And that applies to people here. MCGwire elicits distaste; Bonds is described as hatred.

I don't think it is an accident.
   14. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: April 07, 2006 at 12:48 PM (#1945141)
Legends back up Bonds

And why shouldn't they? After all, Bobby Bonds was player/manager for the St. Lucie Legends of the Senior Pro League. (Really.)
   15. Backlasher Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:19 PM (#1945156)
A question I'd really like answered: Why do we need every major media source to have some whiny white journalist with a racial chip on his shoulder write the same dumb article about how there can't possibly be any racism involved in the appraisals of Bonds, McKinney, etc.?

I'll give it a shot. Human psychology applied individually and organizationally.

You can see an exemplar of this on this forum. Individually, people don't like to have their bias in decision brought up. You see that here. If/When we ever suggest to the steroid apologists that the reason they hold their position is because of fandom, they go apeshit. The same is true if we say something to them about their group desire to be in a clique after we point out the obvious flaws in measures like DIPS.

Even the more benign and less subject to vitriol primates suffer from this reaction. There are many that will say, "I just don't like that you call us dishonest." even if you have never said anything about the individual.

That is the situation the writers are in wrt race and Bonds. Even if you haven't name them individually, they feel indicted by the charges of racism and feel the need to explain that their decision and actions aren't subject to bias.

If they thought past the psychology, some may write, "Race may play a factor, but notwithstanding that bias, I still believe ______" or something along those lines. If they did, that still poses two problems. First, they have really crossed the line past reporting, past editorializing, to simply diaring. Second, they know have to deal with the whatabouts. Every apologist in the country would say "what about journalist x, he said it was all about racism" Then before long, people would think of journalist x as a racist, and not in a benign sense, but in the sense of lynchings and segregation.

The former is why they feel the need and probably won't grant the point. The latter is why they can't grant the point, even if the subject resonates with them.

That is the best answer I can give.
   16. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:33 PM (#1945178)
If you don't think race is a factor, you need to review the media treatment of Mark McGwire in 1998, 1999.

Or even now. And that applies to people here. MCGwire elicits distaste; Bonds is described as hatred.

I don't think it is an accident.


This may be the case---for about 5% or 10% of Bonds's critics. That still leaves the other 90%-95% to account for. Who are some of the specific people you see "here" who are applying this "race" factor, Chris? You must have noticed at least one or two.

This innocence-by-reverse association bit is getting pretty played out by now, 16 years after Clarence Thomas's "lynching" complaints. I'm only surprised that Bonds's supporters haven't called in Al Sharpton as a "fellow victim" character witness, since they're birds of a feather.
   17. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#1945205)
If you don't think race is a factor, you need to review the media treatment of Mark McGwire in 1998, 1999.

If Mac was active now, and threatening 755, he would be getting crucified.
   18. JC in DC Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:38 PM (#1945279)
Thank you, Andy, for your post. I too was wondering if Chris had the balls to attach his allegation to a particular person; it's not like there are that many of us who are anti-steroids.

I'm guessing Chris thinks it's Kevin, which were it true, might shock his wife. Maybe it's Joel Barrett Chris has in mind? Or BL. BL's from the South and some of the learned here have recently explained to me how racist and homophobic Southerners are, so it could be BL Chris is thinking of. Or you, Andy. You run a bookstore, and didn't Chris Rock say something about black folks not taking to books? Maybe he's thinking of you. I know it's not me he's thinking of, because I grew up in the liberal Northeast. I'm a New Yorker, for god's sake.

Who am I missing?
   19. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#1945306)
I'm guessing Chris thinks it's Kevin, which were it true, might shock his wife.

I was kind of waiting for that one myself, except that I think Chris already knows about her.
   20. pv nasby Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#1945346)
Have you seen some of the posters this Andy fella makes? That explains it all.
   21. JC in DC Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#1945349)
Have you seen some of the posters this Andy fella makes? That explains it all.


Worse, I've met him and come under his spell.
   22. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#1945355)
You can see an exemplar of this on this forum. Individually, people don't like to have their bias in decision brought up. You see that here.

Do you ever. Look at the posts in this thread.
   23. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#1945358)
You mean like this? Or this?

Oh, wait, maybe you mean this---or this.

Always glad to please.
   24. Mefisto Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#1945389)
This thread is interesting. I read McCovey's comments very differently than everyone else did. I understood McCovey to be saddened at the hate mail Bonds receives. Two points about this:

1. The hate mail may very well be racist in tone. The article didn't say and we don't know.

2. Whether it's racist or not, I thought McCovey was making a larger point: that no one deserves to get hate mail, whether racist (as in his own case) or not (as may or may not be true with Bonds).

I read McCovey as identifying with Bonds because they both received hate mail. The contents of that are less important than the fact itself.
   25. robinred Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:33 PM (#1945410)
Bonds is a pefect storm, and the fact that he is black clearly adds to that for some people. For others, it's a non-factor.
   26. robinred Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#1945411)
perfect
   27. robinred Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#1945424)
This may be the case---for about 5% or 10% of Bonds's critics.


I think for society/media in general, this figure would be far higher, particularly if you put the issue/degree of feeling along a continuum. In terms of people who talk a lot about Bonds here, however, I really don't think race is a factor. I think the Bonds discussions are negatively energized much more by meta issues related to the site's history itself.
   28. robinred Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#1945426)
Who am I missing?


Gee, I wonder.
   29. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#1945441)
Andy, those are awesome.
   30. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 03:49 PM (#1945444)
Who am I missing?


Gee, I wonder.


Out with it, boy. Don't leave us wondering.
   31. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#1945465)
If Mac was active now, and threatening 755, he would be getting crucified.

I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure that any difference in the way he was treated would reflect racism rather than personal animus towards Bonds that results from his personality rather than his skin-tone.

I'm guessing Chris thinks it's Kevin, which were it true, might shock his wife.

Interestingly, I heard a sports talk radio guy the other day going on and on about how the fact that Bonds is a racist, and the fact that he has a white ex-wife and half-white kids doesn't mean jack. Not that I'm trying to compare Chris to the sports talk guy or Kevin to Bonds. Just that people say some pretty weird stuff is all.
   32. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#1945475)
I heard a sports talk radio guy the other day going on and on about how <strike>the fact that</strike> Bonds is a racist


better?
   33. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#1945501)
I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure that any difference in the way he was treated would reflect racism rather than personal animus towards Bonds that results from his personality rather than his skin-tone.

Mac may not get it to quite the level of Bonds, but he'd be getting it pretty darn hard. The entire country seems to have lost all respect for him after the congressional testimony.
   34. JC in DC Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:22 PM (#1945510)
Gee, I wonder.


I wasn't being coy. Oh, I forgot RETARDO, but he's been away so long, he didn't cross my mind. Yeah, he might be the racist, what with all those illiberal attitudes of his about drug use.
   35. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#1945530)
Legends back up Bonds

Given Bonds defense prowess of not, someone needs to.
   36. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#1945532)
Er...try that again:

Given Bonds' defensive prowess of late, someone needs to.
   37. greenback likes millwall, they don't care Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#1945534)
When will Furtado setup a separate blog for Bonds?
   38. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:30 PM (#1945535)
Not to mention that he hails from Orval Faubus's home state.
   39. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:30 PM (#1945538)
1. The hate mail may very well be racist in tone. The article didn't say and we don't know.

2. Whether it's racist or not, I thought McCovey was making a larger point: that no one deserves to get hate mail, whether racist (as in his own case) or not (as may or may not be true with Bonds).


I think that is true. My guess is a lot of the folks that would be moved to actually write such letters (as opposed to those who might agree with the scorn, but not the delivery) would have a selection bias for those who would invoke racial issues.
   40. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#1945541)
When will Furtado setup a separate blog for Bonds?

Isn't there already a "Count the Rings" blog?
   41. robinred Posted: April 07, 2006 at 04:54 PM (#1945592)
For the record, I am not accusing RETARDO of anything. He was the just obvious omission from your post, as you well know.
   42. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:03 PM (#1945615)
I think that is true. My guess is a lot of the folks that would be moved to actually write such letters (as opposed to those who might agree with the scorn, but not the delivery) would have a selection bias for those who would invoke racial issues.
Don't tell that to Kevin; he doesn't believe in selection bias... for people who criticize Bonds/steroids. Only for randomly sampled public opinion polls.
   43. Russ Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:03 PM (#1945616)
Isn't there already a "Count the Rings" blog?

That's "Count the Rings", not "Count the SyRINGes"
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:22 PM (#1945664)
Mac may not get it to quite the level of Bonds, but he'd be getting it pretty darn hard. The entire country seems to have lost all respect for him after the congressional testimony.
I don't think he's getting it nearly as hard, but there are two obvious non-racial explanations for the disparity:

1) While McGwire did set a record, he no longer holds it, and is not threatening any other record.
2) McGwire isn't active. He doesn't show up near the press every day.
   45. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:59 PM (#1945775)
Thanks for the answer BL. I agree with most of the motivation points. I guess I just want to stress how we shouldn't settle for these types of anaylses on a thinking baseball site.

While I assume that JC's reference to kevin's spouses ethnicity was sarcastic, I've seen this point made seriously on the site multiple times and certainly it is the most common retort even of ultra-racists in mixed relationships. It should be clear that while being in a mixed relationship MAY help empathy, it surely doesn't somehow exempt one from racist motivations. The same of course goes for Barry Bonds and his not-so-black children.

If you haven't yet, you should see Eric Byler's new American masterpiece, "Americanese" which deals with these issues in a non-heavy-handed way--a strong contrast to "Birth of a Nation"-esque crap like "Crash".

Otherwise, I agree with Andy's greater point, but once again I don't understand why we have to group people into "100% racially motivated" or "0% racially motivated" and assume that these categories can be divined from intentionality.

This a completely separate point from whether Bonds cheated, or whether McKinney assaulted the security officer. When you have "journalists" mocking McKinney for even suggesting that security/law enforcement might have some element of unequitable treatment along the lines of race, or mocking the very idea that race might be involved in the analysis of Bonds, and those journalists drawing broad support, that's indicative of a massive social problem.

Being guilty of indescretion, cheating or just blatant stupidity, will have consequences and that's fine. Pointing out deep disparities on how those consequences are applied that are informed by race is something that is socially constructive and in no way "apologist".
___________________

So if we want to debate the depth of these disparities and what the most effective way to address them is, by all means, let's present our opinions and work this out.

But can we leave these arguments at home:
1. Anyone who takes one of the sides is evil and should be vilified.
2. I'm a good person so it's not possible that race affects my thinking.
3. Because of institutional racism, anything oppressed people do is ok.
4. I married, slept with, wanted to have sex with, or fathered someone of another ethnicity so I'm 100% empathetic on racial issues.
5. It's possible in someway for someone to take this position without using race, so therefore NO ONE taking this position is informed by race in any way.
6. White (or whatever other) people just can't understand.
7. You're just an angry minority so I'm going to ignore your points.
8. I did this good, anti-racist act once, so therefore none of my other actions could possibly support racial inequality.
9. I got a 1580 on my SATs.
10. You got a 1580 on your SATs which is a culturally biased test, so take off your hood, #######.
11. This looks fine to me, so I don't need to do any research or empathetic listening and I'm right.
12. (After running out of points) Why is everything about race? Lighten up! etc.
   46. Joey B. is being stalked by a (Gonfa) loon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:09 PM (#1945819)
It saddens me to see these old guys sticking up for this lying, spoiled little rich kid who cheats on his wife, launders money, and threatens to kill his mistress.
   47. Backlasher Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:11 PM (#1945826)
This a completely separate point from whether Bonds cheated, or whether McKinney assaulted the security officer. When you have "journalists" mocking McKinney for even suggesting that security/law enforcement might have some element of unequitable treatment along the lines of race, or mocking the very idea that race might be involved in the analysis of Bonds, and those journalists drawing broad support, that's indicative of a massive social problem.


IMHO, there are times when we have to treat them as seperate points. McKinney seems to be less volatile around here, so I'll deal with that situation.

If we presume the events went down as initially reported then:

(1) McKinney is technically guilty of assault; and
(2) I have strong suspicion that there probably was a profiling/racial/_____ undertone that motivated the security officer's conduct.
(3) Both of these things should be addressed.

IMHO, McKinney should give one of those narrow apologies, e.g. "I do not approve of the situation that led to the incident, but I should not have shoved the officer in the chest." The security staff should take the effing time to know who the members of Congress actually are, and their supervisors should damn sure make certain that they don't treat people disproportionately.

And the officer could have worked this out without filing a damn criminal complaint.
   48. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#1945885)
I don't think he's getting it nearly as hard, but there are two obvious non-racial explanations for the disparity:

1) While McGwire did set a record, he no longer holds it, and is not threatening any other record.
2) McGwire isn't active. He doesn't show up near the press every day.


Everything I said was following up on my original post in #17: assuming he was active and threatening 755.
   49. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1945892)
Love your list, E-X. One minor quibble prior to that, though:

When you have "journalists" mocking McKinney for even suggesting that security/law enforcement might have some element of unequitable treatment along the lines of race, or mocking the very idea that race might be involved in the analysis of Bonds, and those journalists drawing broad support, that's indicative of a massive social problem.

Maybe it's just being from DC and having read about Cynthia McKinney for about a dozen years now, and maybe it's because I've been following Bonds since he was a rookie, but I think the main reason for all this journalistic mocking is simple: Both McKinney and Bonds have cried wolf about racism so often that it's easy to dismiss almost anything they say about the subject, even when by almost random chance they may actually be correct in this or that particular instance.

It's like Sharpton, though on a somewhat lesser level. You could never convince me of that man's honest reaction to anything after all the racist BS garbage he came out with during the Tawana Brawley case---which he still refuses to own up to.

And as you know, we could name hundreds of other public figures of all colors, nationalities, etc., etc., who elicit the same reaction, both from journalists and just about everyone else who's being wholly honest with himself, at least when these public figures are trying to convince us to disbelieve our own eyes and common sense.

There may be some journalists who are subconsciously reacting to Bonds (or McKinney) on a racial level. But the overwhelming majority of flack that these two have taken has been brought about by simply examining what they've done, and how they have reacted to criticism. Both of them have consistenly acted under the assumption that normal rules don't apply to them.

You can see the same thing going on with the equally comical "war against Christians." It's a truly generic phenomenon among people who don't like the truth about their own behavior pointed out.
   50. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#1945895)
It should be clear that while being in a mixed relationship MAY help empathy, it surely doesn't somehow exempt one from racist motivations. The same of course goes for Barry Bonds and his not-so-black children.

I was involved with a couple chicks of other races in college, so I'm sure that healed me and I'm non-racist.
   51. RP Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#1945921)
a strong contrast to "Birth of a Nation"-esque crap like "Crash".

Thank you. I really hated that movie.
   52. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#1945934)
Looking at the thread above, I would think the most obvious examples of what Chris was talking about are the following:

Bonds is such a whiny #####. Ya everybody hates him, no it's not because he's black. Did anybody send much hate mail to Mays or McCovey? Maybe but that was 40 years ago and they weren't cheating.


and while im asking questions...who the hell hired Terrance Moore i nthe first place?

Not at all subject to Dial's comments, but marginally related:

I think it's important to point out that we can't depend on "Which side are you on?" in terms of judging Bonds to evaluate the strength of racial stimuli in the reaction to him. After all, there's plenty of opportunities for white guilt, or the need to believe in a PoC hero to resist the inequities in the society motivating assessments on the other side.

Both sides are likely to have their share of people who are understandably, but destructively draw by their own hidden motivators.
   53. JC in DC Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:44 PM (#1945947)
4. I married, slept with, wanted to have sex with, or fathered someone of another ethnicity so I'm 100% empathetic on racial issues.


Ok, like Andy I can assent to your list generally speaking, but this characterization speaks to the problem I have with Chris's accusation and the McKinney/Bonds defenses. You've literally got things ass-backwards where you impute racism, of however small percent, to anyone unless they can prove otherwise, rather than look for evidence of racism. So, take a guy, let's call him "Kevin", and imagine he's white and marries a black woman. You lump him in w/the "Thomas Jefferson" scenario (sex w/want to have sex w/a minority) and don't mention presumably you're talking about two people who've fallen in love and committed to each other despite the significant social costs to each. So, you blithely stand behind a general claim ("such people may not be 100% empathetic") which is virtually meaningless practically and theoretically, but allows you to continue to defend the accusation (Chris's, not yours) that someone here must be racially motivated (at least partly) in their disgust w/Bonds. It's meaningless theoretically b/c you've already granted previously you don't believe anyone is 100% empathetic (maybe I'm mistaken about that, I grant), so it's a bogus standard in your eyes. And practically, in this case, it's enormously inattentive to the facts of the case: Kevin is married to a black woman, I don't accept eliding that into the "wants to a #### a minority."
   54. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:46 PM (#1945956)
10. You got a 1580 on your SATs which is a culturally biased test, so take off your hood, #######.

That is a great line.
   55. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#1945966)
Andy, I agree that may be a large motivator to those with a long-term understanding of McKinney and Bonds.

But to then use them as examples of some national epidemic of playing the "race card" is extremely regressive and supportive of existing institutions of racism.

I've seen kevin often try to blame this dynamic of the "victimized white male" on Bonds or other people of color who cry wolf.

There are always going to be people from a minority group who try to turn unjust social institutions to their advantage. That's not a free pass to utterly ignore the plight of anyone who has the same skin tone as them.

There's two issues I have with the "cry wolf" fable.
1) People often apply it as, "If there was one kid who cried wolf, and we didn't actually see the wolf, it absolves us from ever listening to ANY kid EVER who screams "Wolf!"

2) Many who read the fable take a self-righteous, almost gleeful, "Haha! Serves him right!" reading of the fable. I'm sorry, the kid was an ass and his stupidity led to consequences, but I don't think we are supposed to look at the remains of his corpse and smile.
   56. JC in DC Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#1945983)
What's great abuot that line, bunyon, is guessing what's under the #######.
   57. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:10 PM (#1946033)
I'll agree that I was a little snarky JC, and I shouldn't have grouped the different groups together.

The point however is very important and I think you should be able to agree:

Such scenarios are not useful for arguing that someone is "a racist". But look above--that was not the context. The simple fact is that people use the ethnicity of spouse as some type of justification that they are not being guided by racial prejudice.

As should be clear to anyone who has been married, it certainly doesn't ensure that you have a shared perspective. Furthermore, people of an ethnic group are not uniform, so reasonable empathy between two people does not show some magic empathy ability that will reach to the plight of others of that ethnicity.

In fact, we can go further--after all BEING African American certainly doesn't exempt one from being racist against African Americans, so why would being married to one do so? Is Michelle Malkin definitely not racist against Asian Americans? How about her husband?

This isn't to say that kevin or his wife are similar to Malkin--just that them being married to each other doesn't teach us a lot about their empathy to various racial perspectives.

Once again, I recommend "Americanese" as it illuminates many of these issues in a much more beautiful and concise fashion than I could ever hope to.
   58. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:12 PM (#1946044)
What's great abuot that line, bunyon, is guessing what's under the #######.

Even more fun than guessing what's under the hood?
   59. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1946076)
Andy, I agree that may be a large motivator to those with a long-term understanding of McKinney and Bonds.

But to then use them as examples of some national epidemic of playing the "race card" is extremely regressive and supportive of existing institutions of racism.


Fair enough, but I've never considered playing the race card to be a national epidemic, except among a certain subset of racial demagogues.

And as I said, the dynamic involved here far transcends the race card issue: It's the phony victimology used by just about anyone caught in the act, as a quick and easy way of deflecting attention from the act itself. And in this country the vast majority of practicioners of this little sleight of hand are white.

I've seen kevin often try to blame this dynamic of the "victimized white male" on Bonds or other people of color who cry wolf.

I'm not sure here exactly what Kevin is being accused of.

There's two issues I have with the "cry wolf" fable.

1) People often apply it as, "If there was one kid who cried wolf, and we didn't actually see the wolf, it absolves us from ever listening to ANY kid EVER who screams "Wolf!"


But here, as you can see from my wording, I was specifically talking about Bonds and McKinney alone---and OK, Al Sharpton. And while Sharpton has been on the right side of many issues since the Brawley case, I also share George Bush's opinion of Saddam Hussein. It doesn't mean I'd take either of their words on anything without independent verification, though.

2) Many who read the fable take a self-righteous, almost gleeful, "Haha! Serves him right!" reading of the fable. I'm sorry, the kid was an ass and his stupidity led to consequences, but I don't think we are supposed to look at the remains of his corpse and smile.

OK, but whose corpse are you talking about? Everyone I mentioned is very much alive and well.
   60. JMM Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#1946171)
It saddens me to see these old guys sticking up for this lying, spoiled little rich kid who cheats on his wife, launders money, and threatens to kill his mistress.

Of course, Barry's father was also an old teammate and friend and these guys have known Barry since he was in diapers. If Barry was just some random guy, they might all be reacting somewhat differently, but he isn't.
   61. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#1946241)
Of course, Barry's father was also an old teammate and friend and these guys have known Barry since he was in diapers.

I'm really surprised it took sixty posts before someone mentioned this.

Whatever you think of this situation, Willie Mays and Willie McCovey are hardly the most objective sources in the world when it comes to Barry Bonds.
   62. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:08 PM (#1946282)
But here, as you can see from my wording, I was specifically talking about Bonds and McKinney alone---and OK, Al Sharpton. And while Sharpton has been on the right side of many issues since the Brawley case, I also share George Bush's opinion of Saddam Hussein. It doesn't mean I'd take either of their words on anything without independent verification, though.

Absolutely, I agree entirely with your assessment and trust your motivation.

In fact, I think we wouldn't have a problem if people followed the wisdom of your last sentence there.

I do believe however that a large majority of the folks in the country attach to moments like this as a way to justify their own aversive racism. That's why Barry or O.J. or Dusty or any of the other "black fools" are consistently dragged into unrelated discussion.

If you don't approve of the individual actions of these men and that's your appraisal, that doesn't suggest racist behavior.

On the other hand, if one gains satisfaction out of singling out people of color that they know little about and ridiculing them in a way and with a frequency that they would rarely target at someone of the ethnic majority, that's racist behavior. Just look at the comment mocking the author of the (F) article. The article's not a masterpiece, but UNLIKE the majority of the articles which are just variations on the "I'm not racist! There are ways to hate Bonds and not be racist! So there's no racism here at all!" he actually interviewed some people, got some quotes and supplied more than compensation.

So, why is he the target of "and while im asking questions...who the hell hired Terrance Moore i nthe first place?"


OK, but whose corpse are you talking about? Everyone I mentioned is very much alive and well.


My fault, I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your argument, but rather the mistelling of Aesop's fable. I often hear people gloating over the wolf devouring the boy in the fable.

Of course, in the actually fable, the sheep are just scattered and the boy learns his lesson. But I find the mistellings more interesting as they show this contemporary desire to witness the suffering of those who do wrong.

Regardless, I don't think the point of the fable is to delight in the boy's punishment.
   63. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#1946291)
I'm really surprised it took sixty posts before someone mentioned this.

Whatever you think of this situation, Willie Mays and Willie McCovey are hardly the most objective sources in the world when it comes to Barry Bonds.


Well, the flipside of this is that they are also a couple of the most informed sources on the topic.

I agree with what you are saying, but McCovey and Mays are great sources--they know Bonds well and have talked to him more than anyone AND are far more knowledgable about race in sports than your average sports columnist for a newspaper.
   64. Chris Dial Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#1946314)
This may be the case---for about 5% or 10% of Bonds's critics. That still leaves the other 90%-95% to account for. Who are some of the specific people you see "here" who are applying this "race" factor, Chris? You must have noticed at least one or two.

No, it's a higher percentage for whom that is a factor.

I don't know the names, but these Bonds threads get teh occassional lurker who just pops in and makes really disparaging comments regarding Bonds. I don't believe that it is all because he used steroids (or lied or was mean to the press).

that someone here must be racially motivated (at least partly) in their disgust w/Bonds.

What's wrong with that? You find it to be hollow because you know it to be true? Then why are you criticizing me?

Oh, and here's why I think that:
You said:
"I'm guessing Chris thinks it's Kevin, which were it true, might shock his wife. Maybe it's Joel Barrett Chris has in mind? Or BL. BL's from the South and some of the learned here have recently explained to me how racist and homophobic Southerners are, so it could be BL Chris is thinking of. Or you, Andy. You run a bookstore, and didn't Chris Rock say something about black folks not taking to books? Maybe he's thinking of you. I know it's not me he's thinking of, because I grew up in the liberal Northeast. I'm a New Yorker, for god's sake."

You may be trying to be funny, but these stereotypes are having a playground in your mind.

People like to think they are completely (call it 97%) not racist, but race is a factor, as "Southerner" is in your mind, JC.

BTW, I find the Northeast to be one of the more racist portions of the country - certainly from a covert manner, rather than an overt manner.

Are you unaware of the race issues in NY, Philly, Boston?

NO ONE here knows Barry Bonds.

Kevin, whom I know personally, is NOT a ####### #######. You think I'd have an easy time demonstrating that to people who only see him presented here?

BL, whom I don't know personally, I strongly doubt is the dirty ############ that he's believed to be.

So, I'll believe that Bonds may be someone who is fabulous with his friends, and not aprticularly trusting of others - he may or may not be an #######, but until I meet him, and he acts like the ####### Jeff Kent has to my face (or Peter Gammons), then I'll not judge him based on what others say about him.

What you read in print ISN'T who someone is.

If ANYTHING I'd hope that the Onionheads that have met and know kevin KNOW that what people read in his posts doesn't mean kevin is a ############## #######.
   65. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:46 PM (#1946407)
I need a ####### translator for that last ####### post.
   66. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#1946449)
I agree with what you are saying, but McCovey and Mays are great sources--they know Bonds well and have talked to him more than anyone AND are far more knowledgable about race in sports than your average sports columnist for a newspaper.

Sure, but whatever they say has got to be taken with a pretty sizable grain of salt. Not that they should be completely discounted, but Bonds is almost like a family member to these guys. Whatever they think he did or didn't do, they're going to do their best to protect him, and while that's totally understandable, it's going to color their reaction to the current situation.
   67. Dizzypaco Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#1946461)
Sure, but whatever they say has got to be taken with a pretty sizable grain of salt. Not that they should be completely discounted, but Bonds is almost like a family member to these guys. Whatever they think he did or didn't do, they're going to do their best to protect him, and while that's totally understandable, it's going to color their reaction to the current situation.

Using Mays and McCovey's comments to defend Bonds is like saying - "See? He's not a bad guy? There are two people we know who like him! One happens to be his Godfather, and the other was real close friends with his father, but those are just details..."
   68. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#1946467)
I need a ####### translator for that last ####### post.

Well, if "######" translates into "******", you know he'd be talking abuot Bonds...
   69. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#1946515)
Using Mays and McCovey's comments to defend Bonds is like saying - "See? He's not a bad guy? There are two people we know who like him! One happens to be his Godfather, and the other was real close friends with his father, but those are just details..."

It's a variation on the "My mom says I'm cool" defense.
   70. bunyon Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#1946517)
###### ###### ## ### ##### ####
### ### #### #####

#### ball.
   71. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#1946521)
Yeah, if your mom is one of the world's experts on coolness.

We are critical thinkers, so we can certainly attempt to discern between a fair assessment of a loved one and an assessment based on bias.

Perspective is a skill. Some can assess their loved ones in a balanced way, others cannot.

If you think May and McCovey cannot, that's fine, but it certainly is a negative comment on their characters.
   72. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#1946531)
If you think May and McCovey cannot, that's fine, but it certainly is a negative comment on their characters.

You think so? I just think it's human nature, to protect the people you care about. If one of my loved ones was getting hate mail, I'd be upset too.
   73. JMM Posted: April 07, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#1946554)
Perspective is a skill. Some can assess their loved ones in a balanced way, others cannot.

If you think May and McCovey cannot, that's fine, but it certainly is a negative comment on their characters.


And what they say publicly may or may not show anything about their perspective. One can assess one's loved one in a balanced way while still holding up the most protective line publicly. If McCovey and Mays choose to express any anger and disappointment in Bonds to him in private rather than making a public spectacle of it, that's hardly a negative comment on their character.
   74. Roy Hobbs of WIFFLE Ball Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#1946615)
So, I'll believe that Bonds may be someone who is fabulous with his friends, and not aprticularly trusting of others - he may or may not be an #######, but until I meet him, and he acts like the ####### Jeff Kent has to my face (or Peter Gammons), then I'll not judge him based on what others say about him.

What you read in print ISN'T who someone is.


You're correct, but only to a certain point. I'm reasonably certain that Paris Hilton isn't devoutly religious or incredibly smart. I've never met her, but those seem to be safe assumptions. There is a fine line between making incorrect superficial judgments based on hearsay and burying your head in the sand. Nobody would ever say "People claim Neifi Perez is a shitty player, but I'm not judging him until he strikes out against ME." That's because there is considerable objective evidence that Perez isn't very good. I don't need to meet Barry Bonds personally to draw a fairly accurate impression of him via his public demeanor over the past 15-20 years. Granted, the public demeanor isn't the whole man.

He may be GREAT with his family for all I know. Unfortunately, he has a rather long track record of being dick in public. I think there's plenty enough objective information available about his behavior to make this assessment. What you read in print isn't who someone is, but when hundreds of people who have met him independently come to similar conclusions about his character then one would be blind to disregard it.
   75. Chris Dial Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:30 PM (#1946709)
I think there's plenty enough objective information available about his behavior to make this assessment. What you read in print isn't who someone is, but when hundreds of people who have met him independently come to similar conclusions about his character then one would be blind to disregard it.

Objective? Who do you know that's objective? The hundreds of baseball players that think he's awesome?

I don't need to meet Barry Bonds personally to draw a fairly accurate impression of him via his public demeanor over the past 15-20 years. Granted, the public demeanor isn't the whole man.


I don't believe that *at all*.

I think you hsould be a lot more open-minded.
   76. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:45 PM (#1946778)
This thread is turning into a Deadwood episode, cocksuckers.
   77. Chip Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#1946792)
How did this thread become about me and my wife?

Ask JC in DC.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:53 PM (#1946827)
I need a ####### translator for that last ####### post.
Well, ##### and ##### #########, ### #######, except ########. Period.
   79. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#1946834)
It's a variation on the "My mom says I'm cool" defense.
Actually, JRE, that's not what your Mom says about you.
   80. Roy Hobbs of WIFFLE Ball Posted: April 07, 2006 at 11:59 PM (#1946850)
Chris-

Unless you really think dozens of interviewers and assorted media people are completely biased against him, there is significant reason to believe Bonds is a jerk to, at a minimum, them. Does that make him evil? Well, certainly not. But it is an ongoing insight into his character.

I'm not saying he's a terrible person. I'm saying, however, that there is plenty of evidence out there that he hasn't been very nice to many, many different people over a long period of time. I don't care if you are an accountant, a mechanic, an opera singer, or a left fielder; if one is rude, arrogant and demeaning to others as often as Bonds is (and I've seen a lot of it with my own eyes on TV) nobody should have to apologize for not liking him.

In my view, it isn't an issue of open-mindedness. It is an issue of not being able to ignore habitual jackass behavior over the course of nearly two decades. I'm not trying to send him to the gallows or anything, but it seems to me any impassioned defense of his behavior surely requires some intellectual gymnastics.

In the end opinions are like elbows anyway. I'll boo him, you cheer him and hopefully we'll both have fun at the ballpark. :-)
   81. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#1946888)
You're right, Eraser. I think I love my wife but, deep down, I really hate her because she's black. I get your message. Thanks for clueing me in. I've been deluding myself about this for a long time.

He didn't say anything like that. He said your marraige to her doesn't make you immune from racism.

What kind of bizarro world is this where I'm defending Eraser against Kevin?
   82. JC in DC Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#1946902)
Ask JC in DC.


No problem: Eraser brought it up. HA!

Woohoo!!! I'm on ####### fire!

And, Chris, you've got to work on the reading comp questions, baby! You're way off: you couldn't tell my tongue was planted firmly in cheek, my eyebrow arched high, my elbow extended toward the community's rib, a twinkle in my eye? I was riffin' on that last conversation betwixt bbc and whoever it was (Rich Rifkin?). C'mon, bro, stick that head back in the pencil sharpener and get sharp baby!!!

(I fear Dick Vitale may have recently passed away and his spirit inhabited my body.)
   83. Chris Dial Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:23 AM (#1946949)
It is an issue of not being able to ignore habitual jackass behavior over the course of nearly two decades.

No offensew, but I bet many many people you like act like that. Possibly even you.

The difference is Bonds' tirades are televised.

I had a bad day today - twice I climbed a couple of underperformers. If it were to make the news, you'd see those interactions, rather than me buying my Imps and a few others lunch and letting them go early to enjoy the day, and also spending 20 minutes telling my boss how awesome they are.

Hey, if it bleeds, it leads.

So *YES* I think dozens of reporters have shown you the information they believe will get the highest ratings. I believe Bonds answers questions in front of his locker for 30-40 minutes and you get *ONE* nasty comment out of the whole ordeal. Yes , I do think that's how it goes.
   84. Chris Dial Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#1946955)
And, Chris, you've got to work on the reading comp questions, baby! You're way off: you couldn't tell my tongue was planted firmly in cheek, my eyebrow arched high, my elbow extended toward the community's rib, a twinkle in my eye?

Ha! I know! Fished in! See, I knew you were (probably) trying to be funny (there was the chance you were being intentionally snarky).

I think my point about kevin rocks.
   85. robinred Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:34 AM (#1946986)
But it is an ongoing insight into his character.



I think it's more of an ongoing insight into how he deals with reporters, if you mean character in the sense of "to what degree he is being a bad guy or a good guy." A lot of guys here are too young to remember how the media treated Pete Rose and Steve Garvey in the 1970s and 1980s, and likely don't remember George Hendrick at all.

When I was a little kid/teen, Rose and Garvey were known for what great guys they were--becuase they were good ballplayers who hustled and were to nice to reporters. Hendrick, a pretty good ballplayer who did dog it occasionally, was a black guy who wore his pants too low--frowned on in those days--and never talked to reporters.

We know a few more things about Rose's and Garvey's respective characters now. Hendrick, as some may know, has done a lot of coaching and is known, quietly, now, as being a good guy.

I am not defending Bonds, and I would not try to dissuade those who want to make character judgments about him based on his use of PEDs and other factors. But I would not read too much into his dealings with the media, other than perhaps a lack of PR-savvy. There are other inferences one could make--narcissistic, self-destructive--but I think judging his character, for those who want to, is better done based on other actions.

I have said a few times that I think Bonds would be better off going the Hendrick/Carlton route. Instead, he has a reality show.
   86. robinred Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:37 AM (#1946993)
I fear Dick Vitale may have recently passed away and his spirit inhabited my body


I actually prefer Vitale to Billy Packer, although I mute both of them about 85% of the time. Vitale at least seems to be enjoying himself.
   87. Chip Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:38 AM (#1946997)
No problem: Eraser brought it up. HA!

Woohoo!!! I'm on ####### fire!


Or not.

<rimshot>

Unless you can show us where Eraser did it before you did #18, when you suggested Chris was alluding to Kevin in his earlier posts in the thread.
   88. Roy Hobbs of WIFFLE Ball Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#1947011)
Chris-

Maybe you're right that he's being screwed over by the press. God knows I'm not a big fan of the media. I have no problem with the proposition that Bonds has been portrayed unfairly at times. I'm certain that is true. I also think he's probably brought some of that stuff on himself. That doesn't make it in any way defensible, obviously.

I agree that we all have our bad moments. And, yes, that goes for people I like including (or perhaps "especially") me! But I do see a distinction between occasional bad moments and perpetual surliness.
   89. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 08, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#1947013)
So *YES* I think dozens of reporters have shown you the information they believe will get the highest ratings. I believe Bonds answers questions in front of his locker for 30-40 minutes and you get *ONE* nasty comment out of the whole ordeal. Yes , I do think that's how it goes.


Chris,

I think it's quite a neat trick how you can be so openminded about Bonds yet consistently believe the worst about dozens of sports reporters you've never met.
   90. Mefisto Posted: April 08, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#1947144)
Chris,

I think it's quite a neat trick how you can be so openminded about Bonds yet consistently believe the worst about dozens of sports reporters you've never met.

Apples and oranges. One involves making a character judgment of a person, the other involves making a business judgment of industry practices.
   91. JC in DC Posted: April 08, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#1947195)
Unless you can show us where Eraser did it before you did #18, when you suggested Chris was alluding to Kevin in his earlier posts in the thread.


I was kidding, Chris. I mentioned K-Gil's wife.
   92. John Reynard Posted: April 08, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#1947208)
Ah another pro-Bonds vs anti-Bonds slugfest.....at least I know why the site lagged when it loaded up tonight.

For what its worth, until Bonds fails a drug test or is convicted of having illegal PEDs in his possession in court I will give his performance the same weight I give Roger Clemens......might be cheating but who knows for sure.

I think anyone who thinks Barry is a cheater and Clemens isn't likely should assess their internal biases. I know I have some myself.
   93. JC in DC Posted: April 08, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#1947219)
Chris,

I think it's quite a neat trick how you can be so openminded about Bonds yet consistently believe the worst about dozens of sports reporters you've never met.

Apples and oranges. One involves making a character judgment of a person, the other involves making a business judgment of industry practices.


The best way to avoid this is to adopt my strategy: Believe the worst about everybody. It streamlines things.
   94. Chris Dial Posted: April 08, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#1947282)
Well, I started to respond, but Mefisto said it.

I'm not making a judgment about their personalities (as a blanket "I'm sure he's a jerk").

Yes, we all say "so and so is a d##k", but that usually about a specific issue. I don't think I've ever made commentary about sportswriters like Roy Hobbs did regarding his confidence that Bonds is a jerk.

Now, I agree with his assessment regarding Paris Hilton, because that isn't personality based - smarts is something that can come across like that (but may not - I hear Jessica Simpson isn't dumb).
   95. JMM Posted: April 08, 2006 at 02:17 AM (#1947334)
I actually prefer Vitale to Billy Packer, although I mute both of them about 85% of the time. Vitale at least seems to be enjoying himself.

Vitale is the old man who looks ridiculous by trying to emphasize how cool and with it he is, and how he really is young at heart, no really, he swears. Packer is a miserable old bastard who screams at (and threatens to call the cops on) any kid who dares "loiter" near his property, even if he/she just stopped for a second to tie his/her shoelaces.
   96. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 08, 2006 at 02:54 AM (#1947512)
Sounds like your typical Dooook fanboy and your average Wake Forest player.
   97. JMM Posted: April 08, 2006 at 03:31 AM (#1947623)
See, I like to root for both Duke and UNC, mostly because it annoys the few alums of either I run into out here on the West Coast. Do the same thing with Cal and Stanford. It's really lots of fun seeing the sputtering....
   98. Ron Johnson Posted: April 08, 2006 at 04:00 AM (#1947713)
No offensew, but I bet many many people you like act like that. Possibly even you.


No offense taken.

As Rusty Priske can attest to, I've been known to adopt a similar manner to what Bonds has used in response to what he feels are stupid questions. And he's far from the first person to invoke, "Are you deaf or just stupid" (or a variation).

I honestly think the world's not poorer for this, but the press really hates this. So you get guys like David Halberstam writing, "Barry is a meanie" articles.

And these guys are the only real path to a knowledge of Bonds.

Don't know that I have a specific point, beyond that if you collect the worst of Ron Johnson (or pretty much anybody who has a long posting history -- Hell even David Grabiner has been known to be occasionally testy) you can get some mighty mean-spirited stuff. Selective reporting would do the rest.
   99. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: April 08, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#1947807)
How did this thread become about me and my wife?

You're right, Eraser. I think I love my wife but, deep down, I really hate her because she's black. I get your message. Thanks for clueing me in. I've been deluding myself about this for a long time.

Do you have any suggestions how I can cure myself of this? I mean, since I'm married to this woman and plan to spend the rest of my life with her, maybe it would be a good idea if I learned to look past the color of her skin and stop hating her.

Please, I need your help. Apparently, you're the only one who has any real insight into this seeming paradox.


Actually, assuming you are completely serious (cause there was obviously no sarcasm in this post), I'm on a pretty good empathetic plane with my wife these days, so I could give you some lessons.

But hey, I think the topic must have just made you uncomfortable--I can feel that. I feel the same way (twice over) when people are talking about the importance of not marrying out in the Asian American community.

The thing is, it doesn't really bother us to hear general complaints above bad interracial relationships these days because we are pretty secure in our relationship.

That's not a knock on you. As has been said before, it's a lot different dealing with this kind of stuff on the internet. Obviously the two of you have found your own unique way to relate, the same way every other successful married couple on the planet has.
   100. Chris Dial Posted: April 08, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#1947854)
if you collect the worst of Ron Johnson

Doug Pappas to Joe Hershfield?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRoyals G.M. Dayton Moore believes hitting will come around
(6 - 3:18am, Apr 23)
Last: LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series)

NewsblogCameron: Numbers don't lie: The decline of Pujols is stunning
(208 - 3:13am, Apr 23)
Last: LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series)

NewsblogMike Trout And Bryce Harper Are Baseball’s Best Young Position-Player Duo Ever
(9 - 2:57am, Apr 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(188 - 2:46am, Apr 23)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for APRIL 22, 2014
(90 - 2:20am, Apr 23)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(6 - 1:59am, Apr 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(1048 - 1:51am, Apr 23)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(468 - 1:05am, Apr 23)
Last: robinred

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2054 - 12:45am, Apr 23)
Last: Morty Causa

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(106 - 12:37am, Apr 23)
Last: Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(176 - 12:33am, Apr 23)
Last: STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum

NewsblogMartin Maldonado suspended
(33 - 12:11am, Apr 23)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogESPN: W. P. Kinsella: Where It Began: “Shoeless Joe”
(82 - 11:54pm, Apr 22)
Last: Perry

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals: A history of power
(86 - 11:33pm, Apr 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Baseball Equivalent of Hitting on 16 | FanGraphs Baseball
(24 - 10:59pm, Apr 22)
Last: McCoy

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.5679 seconds
52 querie(s) executed