I am just enjoying the new set of posts, where you have somebody proscribing what others can do with their property, and some kids not even understanding that is what is happening. I'm wondering where all the libeterians are for this one. Where is Szym and Nieporent?

What does this have to do with libertarianism? Has a single person against the defacing of the ball suggested that the state should step in an prevent it? Libertarianism is about allowing people free choice, not displaying support for anything people do with that free choice. It's not the least bit incongruent for a libertarian to believe that nobody can stop Ecko from branding an asterisk on the ball and expressing the belief that an asterisk is ridiculous and calling on the Hall not to display the ball in that condition.

I haven't gotten involved in this thread mainly because I'm still too furious about how the National Health Service treated my sister in the last week to get my dander up over an asterisk or anything else.

This is somewhat confusing on your part, but if your argument is that it didn't really have value for the 30 seconds it took Bonds to get around the bases, well, I'd advise you to argue it yourself, because you're going to have a hard time finding a lawyer willing to make an argument as frivolous as that one.

You have to pay taxes on income. The ball was income when he got it. That it's a "capital asset" is irrelevant to that point. If you win a house in a sweepstakes, you have to pay taxes on that capital asset right away. (You also pay capital gains taxes when you sell the asset, assuming there are in fact gains.)

There's nothing strange about this. If one could escape paying incomes taxes on something one received merely because it wasn't cash, then employers would start paying people in goods rather than $. Now, I guess you could argue that unearned goods (prize winnings, treasure trove) should be treated like gifts rather than income -- that is, they shouldn't be taxed. That would be reasonable. But the government likes taxing more things rather than fewer things.

You are missing the point. The basis of the ball when it came into Murphy's possession was that of an ordinary baseball (effectively zero), very different than the basis of the house won in a sweepstakes. Only after Bonds crossed home plate did it escalate in value by becoming "HR ball #756". As a capital asset, Murphy would only be on the hook for tax when he sold the ball.

You also can't look at the ball as a gift, because then someone would be on the hook to pay gift tax on it, which is ridiculous.

Good luck with that. Aside from the absurdity of the claim, you ignore the fact that Barry circled the bases before the scrum in LF was broken up by security and Murphy deemed the possessor.

Where is Szym and Nieporent?

Szymborski was very active in the other thread. I agreed with some of his points. I don't think David has said much about the asterisk.

David was active in that other thread, too; I agreed with all of his points. Which were basically that Andy was full of it.

Now, I guess you could argue that unearned goods (prize winnings, treasure trove) should be treated like gifts rather than income -- that is, they shouldn't be taxed.

Gifts are taxed, aren't they? Except it's the giver who pays the tax, right?

Yes, but (unlike income) only gifts of some magnitude are taxable. Gifts under $11K to one person in any given year are permanently tax free. Gifts over $11K in any given year year are taxable, but they first serve to reduce the lifetime exemption. Only after that reaches zero are they actually taxed.

Sounds like a win-win in this case -- Murphy gets to keep the ball and Bonds writes a check for $240,000 to the IRS.

EDIT: do you think he could find a lawyer to make that argument?

Uh... no. (I know you're joking, but Bonds never owned the ball, so it wouldn't be a gift from him; it would be a gift from the team, if anything.)

You are missing the point. The basis of the ball when it came into Murphy's possession was that of an ordinary baseball (effectively zero), very different than the basis of the house won in a sweepstakes. Only after Bonds crossed home plate did it escalate in value by becoming "HR ball #756". As a capital asset, Murphy would only be on the hook for tax when he sold the ball.

No; I didn't "miss" that point; I got that you were trying to make it. I was just dismissing it as frivolous.

Taxed or not taxed, I still wish I was the Murphy that had possesion of the ball.

BTW, baseball fanatic, you might want to disabuse yourself of any notion that I have any generational or team loyalty stake in any of this. I don't, and if you think I do, it only shows you haven't been reading these threads.

Who mentioned the Yankees, Andy? If Maris had been a Red Sock, I would have posted the same thing.

And I would have had the same response. In the case of "defacements," context is everything.

As for the generational aspect, while you may have publicly stated back then that you would have had no problem with an asterisk on #61 (which I don't doubt, BTW), I do doubt that your heart would have been it.

When you wake up from writing that sentence you might want to translate it into English.

But yes, again, if Ford Frick (or a disgruntled Ruth fan) had etched an asterisk on Maris's 61st home run ball, I would have unequivocally loved it with all my heart. Because just like the Bonds ball, it would have been a perfect symbolic representation of the controversy surrounding the event, just as Marc Ecko's asterisk on #756 perfectly represents the controversy surrounding Barry Bonds. This is a point that by now has been discussed in approximately 10 threads and 3,000 posts, with all POVs from Anarchism to Zoroastrianism well represented. Feel free to research to your heart's content.

When you wake up from writing that sentence you might want to translate it into English.

I'm trying to understand where I failed grammatically, but I'll take your word for it.

But in a nutshell, while I don't doubt your sincerity that you would have proclaimed the same thing almost 50 years ago, I don't think you would have had a smile on your face and been as "vocal." Can I prove this? No, but you can't either, so there we are.

I said what I needed to say in the other thread. For 5 years, there's been a few people telling us that their concern is *not* "getting" anyone, but trying to advocate for a fairer, more drug-free contest and how they're simply disinterested observers.

And now, some of those people turn around and gleefully declare how the asterisk is modern pop art when the chance to really "get" one over on Bonds finally comes up. And then make the ridiculous argument that an asterisk is no different than the player signing the ball. As if da Vinci's signature on the Mona Lisa would be the same thing as someone writing HAHA NO EYEBROWS on the Mona Lisa as a result of an internet poll.

That's not directed at you BL, I don't think you were even involved in the previous thread. Or even Kevin as for all his faults, Kevin never claimed he was being fair or impartial.

But in a nutshell, while I don't doubt your sincerity that you would have proclaimed the same thing almost 50 years ago, I don't think you would have had a smile on your face and been as "vocal." Can I prove this? No, but you can't either, so there we are.

Well, I do admit that writing and mailing 9625 letters to the editor on various baseball subjects (at a cost of $38.50 in stamps alone) might have taken a bit more out of me than these 9625 BTF posts I've ground out over the past few years, but OTOH my vocal cords might have held up better at age 17. So there we are.

You are missing the point. The basis of the ball when it came into Murphy's possession was that of an ordinary baseball (effectively zero), very different than the basis of the house won in a sweepstakes. Only after Bonds crossed home plate did it escalate in value by becoming "HR ball #756". As a capital asset, Murphy would only be on the hook for tax when he sold the ball.

The people in the stands certainly didn't think they were fighting over an "ordinary baseball."

And under that argument, lottery winnings couldn't be taxed as income either, since the lottery ticket was a worthless piece of paper when it came into the person's possession and "only after the drawing was held" did it escalate in value to become a WINNING TICKET!

As if da Vinci's signature on the Mona Lisa would be the same thing as someone writing HAHA NO EYEBROWS on the Mona Lisa as a result of an internet poll.

FWIW, Da Vinci actually did paint eyebrows for her, but they disappeared because someone tried to clean the painting years ago.

FWIW, Da Vinci actually did paint eyebrows for her, but they disappeared because someone tried to clean the painting years ago.

Ah, I didn't know that (my artistic knowledge is all music). Still, the people who respond to that internet poll might not know that either!

The people in the stands certainly didn't think they were fighting over an "ordinary baseball."

And under that argument, lottery winnings couldn't be taxed as income either, since the lottery ticket was a worthless piece of paper when it came into the person's possession and "only after the drawing was held" did it escalate in value to become a WINNING TICKET!

You aren't paying taxes on the ticket. You redeem the ticket for the prize winnings. Those winnings are what is taxed.

It is very different than catching a piece of memorabilia at a ballgame.

Well, I do admit that writing and mailing 9625 letters to the editor on various baseball subjects (at a cost of $38.50 in stamps alone) might have taken a bit more out of me than these 9625 BTF posts I've ground out over the past few years, but OTOH my vocal cords might have held up better at age 17. So there we are.

Hey, a wise-ass comment in response, even though you knew exactly what I meant. Cool!

Taxable = Whatever the hell the government feels like calling taxable. Hell, if they figure out how to monitor sexual activity with RFID tags, we'd probably find out that ejaculation is taxable.

Ah, I didn't know that (my artistic knowledge is all music). Still, the people who respond to that internet poll might not know that either!

I just found out about it a few weeks ago on The History Channel, Dan, so don't feel bad about it. :-)

Hell, if they figure out how to monitor sexual activity with RFID tags, we'd probably find out that ejaculation is taxable.

That's basic trickle-down economics.

Since I'm the one who fits the shoe of that last post, Szym....

I'm not out to "get" Bonds in the sense that I have anything in particular against Barry Bonds per se, in terms of his personality or any other aspect of him that one normally channels "hatred" towards. If he'd never juiced he'd be one of my favorite players. I have nothing against badasses as long as they play the game hard and straight, but unfortunately Bonds is only 1 for 2 in that regard.

And if it had been Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro who got up to 756 I'd be saying the same thing about them.

But as for the act itself (juicing), and its representation in the form of that baseball---to me that's total fair game, as long as Ecko bought the ball legally. There's nothing sacred about that baseball. I see absolutely no contradiction in that.

Well, I do admit that writing and mailing 9625 letters to the editor on various baseball subjects (at a cost of $38.50 in stamps alone) might have taken a bit more out of me than these 9625 BTF posts I've ground out over the past few years, but OTOH my vocal cords might have held up better at age 17. So there we are.

Hey, a wise-ass comment in response, even though you knew exactly what I meant. Cool!

Actually, I only knew what you meant when you explained it the second time around, and my followup reply was trying to be conciliatory (it was directed at myself, if you didn't notice) rather than wise-assed. But whatever.

Then I apologize, Andy.

Accepted, and it's no big deal. I've written many an ambiguous sentence myself.

I see absolutely no contradiction in that

.

There isn't one--unless you start talking about how it ensures a balanced discussion and protects the HoF from Chris Dial clones in the future. If you think the asterisk is cool and funny and slick--either because you hate Bonds or you hate steroids or both--that is one thing. It is quite another to ascribe moral or educational value to what Ecko is doing, or to suggest that it provides a way to create nuanced, balanced discussion.

Robinred, beyond one short point I'll let the past threads speak for themselves on that one. You know and I know we've been through this topic many times before.

And that point is this: The Ecko ball is a very good straw for stirring the drink. Not the only one, and not even a necessary one, but from the evidence of all these threads, a pretty damn good one. And whether the discussion becomes nuanced, passionate or flameworthy is entirely up to the rest of us.

And that point is this: The Ecko ball is a very good straw for stirring the drink.

Yeah, because prior to this, no one was talking about Bonds.

Seriously, as some other people said, one thing it does--and we have ample evidence of that here--is that it creates discussion about the asterisk itself and the nature of historical artifacts, instead of about PEDs. Nothing wrong with that per se, of course. But, while I am sure you are sincere in saying that you would like the asterisk on a McGwire or Palmeiro ball just as much, the reality of the asterisk is that it reeks of people gleefully messing with Bonds and engraves a political agenda on the ball. So, it's divisive.

For 5 years, there's been a few people telling us that their concern is *not* "getting" anyone, but trying to advocate for a fairer, more drug-free contest and how they're simply disinterested observers.

the hypocrites are alive and well in this thread..

Basicaly what has happened, is these fools that claim they are trying to "protect" the game, have become blinded by their hatred for one man. They have now given the green light for anybody or organization to buy their way into the HOF.

How long till we see the first, "GoDaddy.com" or "GoldenNuggetCasino.com" tattooed on baseball memorablia ..
could be the cheapest form of advertising ever.

personally, I have looked into setting up a site that sells mini branding irons.
"Yankees Suck", "Red Sox suck", \"#### the Mets", \"##### the Phils" ..and below it "Artstamp.com" that sort of thing.

I figure they can sell for about $20.00 a piece, and then people can brand any piece of history they choose.

Corporations could buy this memorabilia up for very cheap and just get to stamping ...

publicity, and a place in the HOF ..

cheap.

I'm not out to "get" Bonds in the sense that I have anything in particular against Barry Bonds per se

I don't think I have read anything from your writings recently, that would lead me to believe this.

you like Kevin get glee from all of this. At least Kevin is man enough to admit he just doesn't like the guy.
You keep hiding behind some facade of cleaning up the game.

Robinred, as I wrote a moment ago:

The Ecko ball is a very good straw for stirring the drink. Not the only one, and not even a necessary one

and

whether the discussion becomes nuanced, passionate or flameworthy is entirely up to the rest of us.

I'm not sure where we differ here. Speaking for myself, I've found the whole subdiscussion about the nature and sanctity of historical artifacts to be interesting in and of itself---analogies with a hypothetically asterisked Maris ball, a hypothetically vandalized original copy of the Constitution, etc. None of these discussions would have likely happened without the Ecko ball's existence, and they're not likely to end with the end of these BTF threads, either. And so again: Good for Mark Ecko.

If he'd never juiced he'd be one of my favorite players .. .. And if it had been Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro who got up to 756 I'd be saying the same thing about them

one of these things is not like the other.

any guesses?

No disrespect, Gambling Rent, but I've been posting about Bonds for several years before I even noticed your appearance here on these threads, and your "belief" about my so-called real opinion about Barry Bonds (other than that which concerns his use of steroids) is just that---a belief. A belief with no evidence you can ever produce to back it up.

And if you want to cross-examine me in front of witnesses, go ahead. My name isn't Greg Anderson.

If he'd never juiced he'd be one of my favorite players .. .. And if it had been Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro who got up to 756 I'd be saying the same thing about them

one of these things is not like the other.

any guesses?

Yeah, one of them lies in front of Congress, and the other one knows what the penalty is for lying in front of Congress, and accordingly (and wisely) keeps his mouth shut.

there you go, I went and added the words .. "recently".
does this now change anything I am saying?


Bonds has never been convicted of a thing ..
You don't like Bonds, apparently because the Media told you too ..
and you take glee in seeing him squirm ..

nothing in there suggests you are about "cleaning up the game", which i have seen you profess.

If he'd never juiced he'd be one of my favorite players .. .. And if it had been Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro who got up to 756 I'd be saying the same thing about them

one of these things is not like the other.

any guesses?

Yeah, one of them lies in front of Congress, and the other one knows what the penalty is for lying in front of Congress, and accordingly (and wisely) keeps his mouth shut.

wrong again Andy ..
One of them got caught with the junk in his locker.
One of them failed a piss test ..
and the other has had the federal government investigating him for four years, and can't even come up with a superficial indictment ..

sooner or later, you will come to the realization that Bonds did nothing, and you just hated the man because the media told you to.

EDIT:Just like the media told you to cheer for 62, and you did .. even though you already knew the truth ..

yep, the hypocrites are out in force today.

It's not the least bit incongruent for a libertarian to believe that nobody can stop Ecko from branding an asterisk on the ball and expressing the belief that an asterisk is ridiculous and calling on the Hall not to display the ball in that condition.

The ball is history. Ecko branding an asterisk on the ball is history. The baseball hall of fame is all about history. Not displaying the ball is what would be ridiculous.

The ball is history. Ecko branding an asterisk on the ball is history. The baseball hall of fame is all about history. Not displaying the ball is what would be ridiculous.

By this limited standard, everything is history, including
Urinating on Reagan's Grave.

By this limited standard, everything is history, including Urinating on Reagan's Grave.

Good strategy. Ignore the issue and bring up something that has nothing to do with Bonds, steroids, baseball or the HR record. I am impressed by your ability to stick your head in the sand.

That guy urinated on Nixon's grave. He only danced on Reagan's grave.

I also note that the picture of him dancing on Reagan's grave has - much like the Bonds home run ball - been defaced, with "All-Time Greatest American" crudely scrawled across it. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Good strategy. Ignore the issue and bring up something that has nothing to do with Bonds, steroids, baseball or the HR record. I am impressed by your ability to stick your head in the sand.

As opposed to your coherent statement that allows anything to be displayed in the HOF as long as it depicts and event since I typed this?

But as for the act itself (juicing), and its representation in the form of that baseball---to me that's total fair game, as long as Ecko bought the ball legally. There's nothing sacred about that baseball. I see absolutely no contradiction in that.

If the 756 ball isn't worthy of protection, then no ball in the Hall of Fame is sacred.

But then again, clearly, preserving baseball history is less important to you than making sure your side crowds out others in the marketplace of ideas. The non-Backlasher people in this thread only are interested in opening up a discussion about performance-enhancing drugs if that discussion is about how everyone who ever used steroids or is suspected to have used steroids is a filthy cheater, especially Bonds, and everything else was kosher.

I would feel the exact same way if "756 Totally Legit!" had been branded on the ball. But then again, I'm more interested in preserving history than advancing propaganda upon others.

That guy urinated on Nixon's grave. He only danced on Reagan's grave.

Is the whole thing a hoax? If he pissed on Nixon's grave and then posted pics on the net, wouldn't someone track him down and try to arrest him or something?

Is the whole thing a hoax? If he pissed on Nixon's grave and then posted pics on the net, wouldn't someone track him down and try to arrest him or something?

You can't actually tell, so I doubt anyone could do anything with it other than declare him to be an "enemy combatant" and waterboard him until he gives a confession to plotting with Al Qaeda.

Well Al now they are all up set because the Hall of Fame in Copperstown wants to put an asterix on the baseball that Barry Bonds hit for his last home run using his stereo arms and large Crannium. Well let me tell you a few things about the Hall of Fame Al which the general pubic does not get to hear. After we Sox won the '05 World Serious me and A.J. Pierogi drove to Copperstown that fall with a bag of base balls which had been toucht in batting practice by many a member of the Champs including Mr. Geoff Bloom and Tim O. Perez and each one was signed by its toucher. We drove up and said we would like to donate these balls to the Library there because it was a tax rideoff for Pierogi & me he said he could sell a ball like that for $59.95 on E Bay. Well they had some Clown at the desk with a Sharpee and as A.J. was handing up the balls this gent would write on them SUX! or K'S! or a 3 letter word that means Homo Erotic American that Ozzie Guillen said I was never to use because it got him in deep sorghum. Finely we got to a ball sined by Paul Conoco and the joker put an asterix on it because he said there was no way Conoco could hit 40 Home runs with out a little tiger in his tank if you know what I mean he meant PEZ Al. By the time he got done the balls was worth nothing and we got no rideoff and we had to pay extra luxurious tax for Treasure Trope. There is no percentage in Copperstown and I hope Barry Bonds keeps his baseball for his self and maybe gives it to some kid to play catch with what good is it in some lousey Museum any ways.

Edit it was not me that took a Leek on Ronald Rayguns grave Al.

But as for the act itself (juicing), and its representation in the form of that baseball---to me that's total fair game, as long as Ecko bought the ball legally. There's nothing sacred about that baseball. I see absolutely no contradiction in that.

If the 756 ball isn't worthy of protection, then no ball in the Hall of Fame is sacred.

I can almost hear the Messiah playing in the background as I read that heavenly note.

But then again, clearly, preserving baseball history is less important to you than making sure your side crowds out others in the marketplace of ideas. The non-Backlasher people in this thread only are interested in opening up a discussion about performance-enhancing drugs if that discussion is about how everyone who ever used steroids or is suspected to have used steroids is a filthy cheater, especially Bonds, and everything else was kosher.

Dan, here's what I wrote in one of those earlier Ecko threads. You can compare your fantasy to the reality:

Of course I think that a full and detailed "straight" account of Bonds's feats should accompany the display of that ball at all times. Have I ever written anything to suggest otherwise? You can think of me as a vandal, but seriously, are you really reading Big Brother or Mr. Let's Coverup Selig in any of my comments? I'd like to see some evidence of that.

-----------

Gonfalon, to what I just wrote above, I'd add my sentiment that there should also be a "full and detailed" account of Selig's studied inaction during the critical parts of the steroid crisis, prominently given its own display in a spot adjacent to the display of the ball. Let it all air out, I say. Ecko's done his part to take care of Bonds, to the extent that an outsider could ever do, but perhaps you and robinred could figure out a method of ensuring that Selig's and the owners' roles weren't given the old airbrush. I certainly wouldn't snark at that. You could even combine with Ecko under the name of Steroids Truth Central or something.

And then there was this exchange:

Since you've claimed to be interested in presenting a "balanced" debate on the issue, I guess you're going to advocate something to back up Dial's position as well? I'm sure you'll agree that future HoF curators might whitewash every other position on the issue but yours. I'm sure your heart breaks at that possibility.

It certainly would, and to prevent that, I'd Ted Williamize Dial, place him right next to the ball, and thaw him out once every ten minutes during the exhibit hours just to make sure that every future HOF visitor knows that Mickey Mantle took greenies and that Barry Bonds was the greatest player of his time, and maybe all time.

And if the cryotechnology blew a gasket and Dial happened to be reduced to a helpless puddle of water, I'd have a case of his DVDs ready as a backup. No asterisk shall go unchallenged.

I'd even let him bring along a thawed out Kimberly Bell just to keep him company in between speeches.

Fair enough? Have I left anything out? Any more requests?

I'm sure that you'll still somehow find a way to interpret this as a call for a "one-sided" display of history, but I think that to others the words can speak for themselves.

I'm sure that you'll still somehow find a way to interpret this as a call for a "one-sided" display of history, but I think that to others the words can speak for themselves.

I think your words are empty. You have openly proclaimed a position to spite someone on the other side of the issue, which would make it impossible to include in anything balanced.

I think your words are empty.

No. Andy was totally serious about freezing Dial.

In some respects, this really comes down to something else Andy said in that thread: that in his mind, and in the minds of many others, Bonds "defaced" something far "more important than a baseball."

I think it follows, then, from that POV, that the ball deserves no respect as an historical artifact just as Bonds' record warrants no respect. The ball is phony history; there would be no record without the cheating. To leave it unmarked would be to ignore what it really is; as such, the asterisk brands it as phony--which makes it a more "real" reflection of its context.

I see it differently, of course.

Well, if you can't deny the words, DTM, I guess you can always use your vivid imagination. You may want me to proclaim my hatred for Bonds in order to fit into the little preconceived vision you have of my opinions. I'm sorry that I can't seem to cooperate.

But while you're into fantasies, why not go for broke and compose a death threat to Barry and claim that I wrote it? You'd probably have at least a few people here believing that, too.

Once again, the difference between Robinred and some of the other folks here is evident. Robinred doesn't need to stretch my words beyond recognition in order to feel confident enough to argue with them. Too bad that others don't follow his good example.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons that someone might feel offended by the idea of the Ecko ball. There are also plenty of legitimate reasons to feel offended by juicers, and to cheer the Ecko ball as one particularly creative way of displaying that opinion. Nobody here that I know of on the latter side of this question is in any way into "censoring" anyone else's opinions on the subject, either on BTF or in the HOF itself. Again, those sentiments I re-posted above speak for themselves.

Well, if you can't deny the words, DTM, I guess you can always use your vivid imagination. You may want me to proclaim my hatred for Bonds in order to fit into the little preconceived vision you have of my opinions. I'm sorry that I can't seem to cooperate.

You already have.

You applaud the Hall of Fame opening up a discussion so long as only your end of that discussion is presented.

Well, if you can't deny the words, DTM, I guess you can always use your vivid imagination. You may want me to proclaim my hatred for Bonds in order to fit into the little preconceived vision you have of my opinions. I'm sorry that I can't seem to cooperate.

But while you're into fantasies, why not go for broke and compose a death threat to Barry and claim that I wrote it? You'd probably have at least a few people here believing that, too.

Yeah, it takes lots of imagination to find where you have admitted to wanting to spite Bonds.

This is like a dream come true.

If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

Jesus, Ray, I've already had more than my share of fun since this story first broke, reading you and the other Bonds fans sputter and fume about the so-called "desecration" of this sacred object. And it hasn't cost me a penny.

Whereas you, on the other hand, are a "disinterested scholar" looking at this "anthropologically" who only wants to "clean up the game."

Robin, even disinterested scholars like myself are allowed to have some anthropological fun now and then, in between our thankless hours of latrine duty. The pay ain't much but it's worth it for the good times.

As opposed to your coherent statement that allows anything to be displayed in the HOF as long as it depicts and event since I typed this?

What? The ball Bonds hit for the record breaking HR is not "anything". Once again, a disengenous attempt by someone to write history as they wish history had been written. Sad really. The ball is a piece of history. And the events surrounding Ecko's decision to have the ball branded with an asterisk are not some sort of mystery. They are also a part of history. Bonds doesn't like that.... You don't like that..... Bonds whining. You copping out......

If the 756 ball isn't worthy of protection, then no ball in the Hall of Fame is sacred.

But then again, clearly, preserving baseball history is less important to you than making sure your side crowds out others in the marketplace of ideas. The non-Backlasher people in this thread only are interested in opening up a discussion about performance-enhancing drugs if that discussion is about how everyone who ever used steroids or is suspected to have used steroids is a filthy cheater, especially Bonds, and everything else was kosher.

I would feel the exact same way if "756 Totally Legit!" had been branded on the ball. But then again, I'm more interested in preserving history than advancing propaganda upon others.

You are the person that doesn't seem to care much about history. You seem to want to sweep the real circumstances of Bonds breaking the record under the rug. You seem to want everyone to forget those circumstances. That to me seems worse than Ecko branding the ball. Or the Hall of Fame displaying the ball. It is an attempt to change history. Propaganda at it's worse......

I think someone should have held an internet poll on whether "Stupid Kikes" should have been branded on the Dead Sea scrolls before they were displayed. I feel it would have opened up a serious, fair, discussion about the foreign policy of Israel. It also would have been valuable pop art instead of boring old Hebrew bible text.

You are the person that doesn't seem to care much about history. You seem to want to sweep the real circumstances of Bonds breaking the record under the rug. You seem to want everyone to forget those circumstances. That to me seems worse than Ecko branding the ball. Or the Hall of Fame displaying the ball. It is an attempt to change history. Propaganda at it's worse....... I am happy I don't think that way....

Hilarious. Altering historical artifacts to reflect internet polls run by rich guys preserves history? I'm guessing you're also in favor of enriching history by smearing cow #### on the U.S. Constitution or writing FAGGOT on the original Christopher Marlowe texts.

There's a difference between using texts to put historical artifacts in the proper historical perspective and altering historical artifacts in order to present a one-sided view of history. A display discussion the PED scandals and the historical perspective of how PEDs have been used throughout history is warranted and responsible. Actually branding something on the ball isn't.

I think someone should have held an internet poll on whether "Stupid Kikes" should have been branded on the Dead Sea scrolls before they were displayed. I feel it would have opened up a serious, fair, discussion about the foreign policy of Israel. It also would have been valuable pop art instead of boring old Hebrew bible text.

I will repeat myself....

Good strategy. Ignore the issue and bring up something that has nothing to do with Bonds, steroids, baseball or the HR record. I am impressed by your ability to stick your head in the sand.

I mean really IoRL. What is the point of your post? It really has nothing to do with the subject. It is just a poor attempt to be clever and deflect any real discussion on the issue.

I'm guessing you're also in favor of enriching history by smearing cow #### on the U.S. Constitution or writing FAGGOT on the original Christopher Marlowe texts.

What the hell does this even mean in connection with Bonds, baseball and steroids? The Bonds ball is not the U.S. Constitution or the original Christopher Marlowe texts. So I guess this is just another pathetic attempt to ignore the real situation. Just more hyperbole. And if you can't figure that out then I give up........

Well, now that the earlier thread is being culled and quoted, I'll repost the short observation I made twice there:

The asterisk does not embarrass who you think it does.

Good thing there's no drug testing on this thread. Sacred baseballs?

The asterisk does not embarrass who you think it does.

I agree.

The asterisk does not embarrass who you think it does.

Then why does Bonds say he won't be involved with the Hall of Fame if it is displayed?

If the asterisk does not embarrass Bonds it is only because he is beyond embarrasment. But it certainly got a reaction from him or else this thread wouldn't exist. So the asterisk makes some point whether you want to admit it or not.....

Yeah, it takes lots of imagination to find where you have admitted to wanting to spite Bonds.

This is like a dream come true.

If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

Jesus, Ray, I've already had more than my share of fun since this story first broke, reading you and the other Bonds fans sputter and fume about the so-called "desecration" of this sacred object. And it hasn't cost me a penny.

Whereas you, on the other hand, are a "disinterested scholar" looking at this "anthropologically" who only wants to "clean up the game."

Robin, even disinterested scholars like myself are allowed to have some anthropological fun now and then, in between our thankless hours of latrine duty. The pay ain't much but it's worth it for the good times.

Well, the first quote ("a dream come true") was in response to Bonds's threat of a boycott, which is both principled and guaranteed to keep the discussion going. Jesus, DTM, I've also said right here on this thread that if I were Bonds I'd boycott the ceremony myself if that Ecko ball were there. Unlike you, I can actually admit to the logic and legitimacy of opposing viewpoints on this subject. I've yet to see any similar evidence of this on your part.

As to the rest of these words, it appears evident that only the tenor of a Swedish judge or a (very) mild prosecuting attorney would satisfy you that my "hatred" of Bonds begins and ends with my hatred for his juicing. But that's it. There's nothing else that I "hate" about Barry Bonds. And I'm truly sorry if the fact that I'm enjoying both the Ecko ball and this thread seems to get under your feathers---excuse me, under your skin.

What the hell does this even mean in connection with Bonds, baseball and steroids? The Bonds ball is not the U.S. Constitution or the original Christopher Marlowe texts. So I guess this is just another pathetic attempt to ignore the real situation. Just more hyperbole. And if you can't figure that out then I give up........

Ah, so you only support defacing history if the subjects aren't "important" enough for you. What a courageous stand.

If historical artifacts of baseball aren't important enough to warrant preventing defacement and preserving responsibly, then there's no reason for a Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum to exist. I assume, then, we have you on record as supporting the closing of Cooperstown?

If the asterisk does not embarrass Bonds it is only because he is beyond embarrasment. But it certainly got a reaction from him or else this thread wouldn't exist. So the asterisk makes some point whether you want to admit it or not.....

haven, these folks don't admit anything. They have their story and they're sticking to it. At least Srul has the grace of gently mocking self-awareness when he writes those words about himself.

Good thing there's no drug testing on this thread. Sacred baseballs?

An artifacts from what is commonly considered the most important record is sacred in the context of a baseball museum. If the 756 ball isn't worth preserving intact, then practically nothing in baseball history is. I don't think I'd have much respect for the Hall of Fame if every artifact for a record that fell during the segregation had "No Darkies Allowed" written on them, even though it was undeniably true.

Then why does Bonds say he won't be involved with the Hall of Fame if it is displayed?

Oh, this is absolutely precious.

If Obama refused to speak at an event that had a "No Blacks Allowed" sign, would you take that as evidence that he was embarrassed to be black?

Then why does Bonds say he won't be involved with the Hall of Fame if it is displayed?

Probably because he is pissed off about it.

If the asterisk does not embarrass Bonds it is only because he is beyond embarrasment.

I think Bonds simply does not believe that he did anything wrong. I think he knows McGwire juiced and probably Sosa and a lot of other guys and believes that he (Bonds) is getting pilloried for it because people don't like him and the media don't like him. As I have said many times, in many respects Bonds is like Richard Nixon (And, yes, I think Bonds used steroids and is lying about it, and yes, I think they helped him on the field. Don't know about Nixon and steroids. I know his baseball-playing brother, Otis, had a drug problem).

So the asterisk makes some point whether you want to admit it or not.....

Of course it makes a point. It says Bonds' record is phony. That is what people think of when they think of asterisked records. It is the idea that it "preserves history" or "ensures balance" or prevents someone from "sweeping it under the rug" (yes, Bonds' steroid use has not been investigated or written about enough--it is really getting swept under the rug) that people are objecting to.

I will repeat myself....

Good strategy. Ignore the issue and bring up something that has nothing to do with Bonds, steroids, baseball or the HR record. I am impressed by your ability to stick your head in the sand.

0 * 2 = 0 * 1

HTH

An artifacts from what is commonly considered the most important record is sacred in the context of a baseball museum. If the 756 ball isn't worth preserving intact, then practically nothing in baseball history is. I don't think I'd have much respect for the Hall of Fame if every artifact for a record that fell during the segregation had "No Darkies Allowed" written on them, even though it was undeniably true.

haven, I think our man here has done jumped the shark. I'll let you carry on for the rest of the evening. Us geriatrics need our six hours sleep, and Szym's just given me a running start.

Unlike you, I can actually admit to the logic and legitimacy of opposing viewpoints on this subject. I've yet to see any similar evidence of this on your part.

My problem is that you're talking about having a rational debate about steroids while you support an act that would make this stance impossible. I personally believe that Bonds juiced, and that it was wrong, but I think history is far greater than Bonds. Doing nothing to the ball is not the same as saying you think the record is clean. The only reason I see to put an asterisk on the ball is to spite Bonds, which does nothing for the debate, and sets a precedent that says we will deface items if we dislike the person they are associated with. Honestly, you sit there telling everyone else to stop making up your opinion, yet you've done that in every steroids thread, and far more frequently than the other side.

haven, I think our man here has done jumped the shark. I'll let you carry on for the rest of the evening. Us geriatrics need our six hours sleep, and Szym's just given me a running start.

I hope you have pleasant dreams full of jackbooted thugs destroying all history that you feel is inconvenient.

Talk about timely, I just got my form letter response back from the HoF in regards to the letter I sent them. The most interesting section:

As you know, the baseball from Bonds’ 756th home run is being donated with an asterisk affixed to it. We do not condone defacing artifacts and would have preferred the baseball be donated in its natural state. We were willing to look beyond that in this instance, because of the historical relevance connected to the baseball. We will explain why it is defaced and what led to it being donated to the Museum in that condition.

Andy,
apologies.

I took your advice and went back and read some archives last night.
I figured 2001 would be the best indicator. I grabbed a glass of red, and began word searching "Bonds", April 2001, and read from there.

I was some what surprised to find out you were quite the Barry fan.
Your only constant knock on him was his October production. And he deserved it. Still does.

But, I swear I saw a few 'Go Barrys', throughout.
and what about this line ..

"That said, I hope Bonds hits 89 home runs, adds about 10 more in October, and then lines out to Bernie at the wall with the tying run on third to give the Yankees their 4th straight Series." Andy

Nice!

:)


I will say, it is sad you turned. Of course I mean the recent stream of negativity towards Barry from your keyboard ...
I think maybe the media bombardment got to you. Seriously.

still. Apolgies.


I might add ..
Barry Bonds is not the poster boy for roids, you and many other have made him out to be.

He is .. just a ballplayer.
A competitor.

arguably, the best ever.
thats all.

Bonds is the greatest LF ever, but that doesn't mean he hasn't dogged it so far in October .. Andy

As I've said in countless posts on numerous threads before, I think Bonds is the best overall left-fielder in history, bar none. .. Andy

The fact is that Bonds is today competing against a talent pool which is not artificially restricted, whereas Ruth and Cobb benefited by not being forced to do likewise. You can't blame Ruth for this on a personal level, OF COURSE, OF COURSE, YES, YES, I KNOW THAT, but in practical terms he was not competing against ALL of the best. In that sense his records ARE tainted. How could they not be?..Andy

:)

There was more.. Lots more.
I and I didn't even search "Barry". Just tried to narrow it to "Bonds"

I think your words are empty

um, no. No they are not.

again, apologies Andy.

BTW, he is not just the best LF ever...

Steve Treder Posted: May 23, 2002 at 01:04 PM (#117781)
"In his 585 AB, Bonds has hit .335/.525/.868 with 89 HR, 165 RBI, 166 runs, 508 total bases, and 234 walks."

While playing his home games in one of the worst hitters' parks in baseball.

he is the best .. .. EVER.

A museum (which is what the Baseball HOF is) is a institution dedicated to preserving and interpreting the primary tangible evidence of humans and their environment; ie Baseball, BBonds records acheivement(s) and ball plus the percieved issues of PED;s and how they (fair or not) relate to MLB, Barry Lamar Bonds, the homerun record, society, its use etc.

Whether the someone likes the asteric (sp?) or not, will attend their HOF induction, is upset if they accept it (and display it) is irrelevant to the HOF Museum - it is reveleant to preserving and interpreting the primary tangible evidence of humans and their environment.

"You can’t, you cannot give people the freedom, the right to alter history, you can’t do it."

The Asteric and the publicity stunt IS a part of baseball and your history now... Get over yourself Barry

on the otherhand if I want to tell my kids there really were aliens at Roswell, we didnt go to the moon, and Barney was Pres instead of Billary, I'm the Messiah and not JC, I can (not that I beleive any of these things) .... isnt free speech grand?? F-ing Shmuck!!!!... You should know the with the garbage that comes out of your mouth.

Long live the Cubs winners of 27 WS Championships!!!!!

Gambling Rent,

What you just did showed both class and character, and not only do I accept your apology, I am quite moved by it. The sort of genuine curiosity and openmindedness you exhibited is a rare trait in the world these days. Well played.

I might add ..
Barry Bonds is not the poster boy for roids, you and many other have made him out to be.

GR, Barry Bonds is the "poster boy" for roids, meaning that for better or worse, he is by far the most visible and spectacular face of the steroids issue. I acknowledge your claim of "not proven," but that's a distinctly minority viewpoint, at least for now. I only wish I could believe it myself.

This certainly doesn't mean that Bonds is the only roider. Only the most visible. And as such, a natural target for those of us who want to voice our opinions on steroids. Last Winter I was focusing on Mark McGwire, because he was up for the HOF, and that was in the headlines. At this point the 756 record and the Ecko ball---and now Bonds's recent statement about a boycott---have brought the spotlight back on him. And in December it'll return to McGwire. As I've said, and as you now realize, it's never been personal with me about Bonds. I'm not saying that it isn't for others, but I can't speak for them.

It'll never be about the roiding scrubs, either. Not because what Bonds or McGwire or Palmeiro did was any worse than what any of them did, but because in any attempt to dramatize any public issue, you always are going to focus on the most visible symbols. I'm not saying that this is "fair," but it's a fact of life.

He is .. just a ballplayer.
A competitor.

arguably, the best ever.
thats all.

Nothing I've ever written about Bonds would lead me to deny any of that. One of my bigger complaints about his juicing is simply that it adds a special "what if" category to his statistics which is out of the ordinary categories such as era and quality of competition, and further muddles any meaningful comparisons with both his contemporaries and his predecessors.

If I thought that Bonds were actually clean, at this point I don't think that there'd be any question that he'd be right up there with Ruth, and better than Ruth if you removed Ruth's pitching from the comparison. As you quoted me from my posts of several years ago, the quality of today's competition would be the deciding factor.

Nuf sed for now, but again, I appreciate the time and trouble, and most of all the intellectual honesty.

Gambling Rent,

What you just did showed both class and character, and not only do I accept your apology, I am quite moved by it. The sort of genuine curiosity and openmindedness you exhibited is a rare trait in the world these days. Well played.

I guess I was wrong. The asterisk is bringing people together. Ecko is a genius.

Hell, if they figure out how to monitor sexual activity with RFID tags, we'd probably find out that ejaculation is taxable.

I think taxes have been jacked up quite enough thank you.

Best Regards

John

I appreciate the time and trouble

no stresses. It was a good read.

wanna read something almost as solid ?

Notre Dame: 1-8 :)

Ecko is a genius

lol, yeah, you'll never get that from me.
Ecko is a self promoting douche.
He cares nothing about baseball, or its rich history.
I'd even gamble he knows nothing about baseball, much less its rich history that he choosing to deface.

He is a name whore.
nothing more.
a made for TV, whore.

Ecko is a self promoting douche.

Probably true.

I'd even gamble he knows nothing about baseball, much less its rich history that he choosing to deface.

The first part is possibly true. Ecko may know nothing about baseball or it's rich history. I guess where I diverge is that I think the person that has defaced the rich history of the game is Bonds, not Ecko. Clearly you among others disagree with that.... Some vehemently. Which clearly is how these arguments start.

Oh well. At this point all I can say is to each his own.

The biggest asterisk should be for all the years only white players were allowed in MLB. A huge asterisk on all records should show that racism allowed early athletes to hold unfair records. This continued for many years, even today. People of Color deserve better than how they've been treated by MLB and by society. The truth on Bonds will eventually come forth.
http://ireadaloud.com/

Stick around for more than one hit and run appearance, larrangag. The "asterisk" you're talking about has been brought up many times here by lots of us on both sides of the Bonds question. And a person's position on one of these questions can't be predicted by his position on the other, since they're completely separate issues.