“Great question,” Hardin said. “I don’t have an answer for it.”

No, actually he did have an answer:

“Andy said from the first moment McNamee was telling the truth,” Hardin said, adding, “But just because someone is telling the truth about one thing doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth about another thing.”

By the way, if anyone can find the point of this Mike Lupica column about Clemens, please share.

Lupica went on for 15 paragraphs, so I'm sure he must have had one.

It's just Lupica the whore crossing the street, to shake his ass wherever he senses it's sunniest. Back when it paid, he used to write about leaving father-son notes on his sleeping boy's pillow, to let him know that Big Mac went deep again last night after bedtime. Now he's following the foot traffic on the anti-steroids warpath.

Lupica artificially enhancing his column length:
Clemens was here right before a different kind of game begins for him, the biggest of his life, the game that puts his legacy and his good name on the line... Different kind of game than Clemens has ever played before. With stakes higher than they have ever been, because this is about his reputation, his legacy... Different game now, different rules, biggest stakes of his life, bigger than any at the casino here this weekend.

Hey, Mike, quick question. Do you think this is a different kind of game for Clemens?

Hardin is focusing on credibility. “You can never disprove a negative,” he reiterated.

Wait, you got that backwards. You can easily disprove a negative by proving a positive.

Watch out Mahnken or he'll smear you too!

No, you can't not prove a negative.

Yes, I'm positive.

Yes, I'm positive.

He's positive, positive, positive.

No, actually he did have an answer:


“Andy said from the first moment McNamee was telling the truth,” Hardin said, adding, “But just because someone is telling the truth about one thing doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth about another thing.”

Given that he's trying to make a credibility argument, no, that's not an answer. It may be true but it doesn't help Hardin/Clemens.

Given that he's trying to make a credibility argument, no, that's not an answer. It may be true but it doesn't help Hardin/Clemens.

But the question wasn't about "helping" Clemens. The question was, "Hasn't Pettitte established McNamee's credibility?" The answer to that question is no. (Actually, the answer is, "That's up to the people who will ultimately decide who's credible" in this instance.) Pettitte established that McNamee was telling the truth about Pettitte. The fact that he was telling the truth about Pettitte doesn't prove he was telling the truth about Clemens.

That having been said, it's certainly a point in McNamee's favor -- just as the fact that he previously denied giving anything to Clemens is a point against McNamee.

i am surprised that so many of you think that if a person tells the truth about one thing, that this means they are telling the truth about everything else?

so if i said

1 - i have had sex with my husband (and yeh, he SEZ he will admit it's true)

then if i said

2 - i have had sex with meatwad - then THAT must be true too?

cmon

The answer to that question is no. (Actually, the answer is, "That's up to the people who will ultimately decide who's credible" in this instance.) Pettitte established that McNamee was telling the truth about Pettitte. The fact that he was telling the truth about Pettitte doesn't prove he was telling the truth about Clemens.

Right, it doesn't prove anything. But the credibility argument isn't an argument of proof. As you say, he's trying to convince, not to prove, and Pettitte's admission of guilt clearly hurts him there.

then THAT must be true too?

No, but it adds to the case that Kevin and Andy have been making that you had sex with meatwad.

No, you can't not prove a negative.

Prove it.

so if i said

1 - i have had sex with my husband (and yeh, he SEZ he will admit it's true)

then if i said

2 - i have had sex with meatwad - then THAT must be true too?

I think there are some here who think that you're telling the truth about Meatwad, and that your husband is being coerced by the feds into lying about having had sex with you.

Believe it or not, I usually enjoy these steroids threads, but the ones about Clemens seem kind of pointless.

Look, I believe that Clemens took steroids. McNamee had no reason to lie, there may be severe penalties for him if he did, he provided a first hand and detailed account, and he told the truth about Petitte. Of course, this doesn't prove that Clemens used steroids and I'm not 100% certain that he did. But I'd be willing to bet my life savings on it.

Now here's the thing. There is nothing Clemens can say that will convince me otherwise. How can you disprove a negative? His denials mean nothing to me. I think he's lying to protect his own interests. If McNamee is lying, this is really, really unfair to Clemens. Clemens has no effective recourse to rebut the charges if they are false.

On the flip side, you have folks like Gambling Rent and BBC who think Clemens is likely innocent. Furthermore, there is nothing anyone can do to convince them otherwise. Their standards of proof are so high that they require evidence that most likely cannot be obtained. If Clemens did take steroids, there is probably nothing a prosecuter can do to convince the Clemens supporters that this is the case.

Not only are no minds going to be changed in these discussions, but there aren't even nuances to be discussed, new facts to be introduced, or old facts to be challenged. We agree on the facts. We just disagree on how much weight they should be given, and everyone's opinion on these weights are fully articulated. The whole conversation boils down to, "I believe McNamee, he had no reason to lie" and "I don't believe McNamee. He's an unreliable witness".

G-String, if we stopped discussing an issue simply because we didn't have any new evidence to bring to the table, Jim could run BTF off the computing power of a digital watch.

1 - i have had sex with my husband (and yeh, he SEZ he will admit it's true)

then if i said

2 - i have had sex with meatwad - then THAT must be true too?

Well, has meatwad denied it? Funny, no word from the prime suspect.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser.