That's the point I've been addressing. Darrell Evans did not establish "new" HR levels after age 36. The fact that 4 out of his 5 best HR years after that age does not establish what you say it does, especially when the point of the exercise is to compare post-36 years with pre-36 years. He was not demonstrably a better HR hitter (and clearly not power hitter measured more properly) after 36 than before and noting that his best 5 years were at 26, 36, and three years after 36 doesn't show that he was. Since one of those years was his age 26 year, the levels after 36 are not "new."

I understand what you're saying now. You're arguing "ability", as in "he demonstarted the ability to hit 40 HR at age 26." I'm arguing performance, as in "He went from a 15-20 HR/year guy to a 30-40 HR/year guy at age 36."

He didn't reach a new level of ability, but he did reach a new level consistantly performing that ability. Fair enough?

And why limit the lookback to 7 seasons when his career obviously extended further back? Just to eliminate the 3 previous years which negate your theory? What ... 'roids in '73-'75, no 'roids between '75 and '82, then 'roid back up in '83? Or did the 'roids end after '73?

Whoosh! Talk about missing the point. Nobody was accusing Evans of using steroids at any point.

MLB's numbers suggest that use has gone down a lot since the punishments were instituted

I'd argue that the biggest drop-off came with the first testing. Even before penalties were introduced (and subsequently stiffened) it appears that a fair number of players stopped using as soon it was clear which way the wind was blowing.

OK, a cynic can argue that some players might have simply become more sophisticated about their use and were avoiding detection.

And, if the Feds don't (as they promised to do--remember, it was the prospect of the seriously adverse consequences of lying to the GJ that led Giambi to opening up in that proceeding), should we not question the authors' conclusions to a great extent?

Interesting point. If people are going to cite Bonds' failure to take legal action (against the authors) as evidence of guilt, then to be evenhanded, they should also take the government's failure to take legal action against Bonds as evidence of innocence.

As I've said, it seems to me that there's little new here, so if they haven't taken action against him already, they're probably not going to. ("Someone claims he started after the 1998 season instead of after the 1999 season" is hardly compelling new evidence that will change the legal picture.)

sure many players were brought up.

Yep, the other two were John Lowenstein and Champ Summers. And it went down even worse than described by Retardo, and that is the problem.

The Union was very reasonable, and we got called racists and idiots. Heck even after we have been shown to be 100% right, the people that were 100% wrong are still throwing out "idiot" in this thread.

Then, as more and more evidence showed up, I admitted I was wrong about Bonds juicing.


The problem with this is that the BALCO tie and Conte's history was made known in the very first thread. That is what is amazing about "the right at the time crowd." They act like we started posting in 1996.

That is why we are not about to "win with grace." The steroid apologists were looney, doing that same nihilistic crap they were doing earlier in this thread.

e.g.
That means nothing...see champ summers.
That's hearsay...of course this person is lying look at x.
You guys are racists.

And then there was the
Steroids are LASIK
Steroids are aspirin
Steroids are coffee
STeroids are spitballs
Steroids are jaywalking
Steroids aren't illegal
Steroids aren't against the rules
Steroids don't improve performance
Steroids don't harm your health

The looniest things I have ever seen, and usually from people that want to proclaim they are "experts" or flash their SAT scores.

And then there was the misdirection. "Your wrong, an internet poll means nothing"

And every single thread, a few wackjobs will claim, "That never happened. We just think you guys were unreasonable." And "we were right at the time."

Then they will misdirect, and tell you to "prove something"

I agree with Retardo on that one. If you weren't here, don't claim it didn't happen, and don't send us off on a wild thread chase just to prove you wrong one more time.

Its not just that we were right. We were Hit the Ball Out of the Park right; insulted for being right; and had to work unnecessarily hard to be right amongst the worst arguments I have ever seen.



...new material...

The book does a couple of things Srul. First, it will likely present new material to almost everyone. I doubt there are very many people that are aware of all the events. That is definately true out here where people make arguments using false facts all the time.

Another thing it does is source some specific statements about Bonds, namely his own belief about his eyesight. I think we suspect he may have seen improved vision, but I never saw a statement to this effect before.

The biggest thing the book does though is make life easier for the Union. Its the second best project ever in terms of thread relief with Retardo's thread wiki being the first.

Now when the looney tunes show up, we don't have to spend so much energy finding source material to show true things.

It's not just his HRs from 1973 that set his inherent potential; it's also his SLG and OPS which he never came really close to matching

Oh, and just to be a little more pendantic, his SLP advantage in 1973 vs 1985 is nearly all batting average. He ISO in 1973 was .275. In 1985 it was 271.

Barry's (lawyer's) response to this story, here. Exactly what I would have written if I were his attorney.

(It was pretty much this or confession and throwing himself on the mercy of the public (ha!); nothing in between would have made sense.)

Steroids discussions on this site are like a huge sucking vortex

Without last poster, a steroids thread is about the only thing that can mark action.

If not, you can't be sure whether: "Jorge Cantu's foot fungus treated" (7 posts) in the Blogicana Dome is where the real posters are at, or if you have to go to Billy Blog to read, "Dan Johnson gearing up for his role riding the Pine" to find the good posters.

Because we had to trade Last Poster for the New Improved Stuck Posts feature.

TSE= Total Survey Error

Steroids are

don't forget Creatine.

"...including Chris Reitsma being Chris Reitsma with near-disastrous results for the Canucks..."

That's one point in favor of the WBC: before the teams were picked, I didn't even know they had baseball players in South Africa.

It seems to me that people are failing to learn an important lesson in all of this: that the Record Book is a flawed concept. People are horrified at the prospect of Bonds the Cheater breaking Aaron's record, which was of course set in an era that is quite different from the current one, and probably would be with or without steroids. The game changes over the years, often for the worst of reasons. It could well be that steroids have had more of an effect than any other factor in history, more than greenies, more than ballparks, more than the height of the pitching mound, maybe even more than integration, but I see no reason to think that's the case. And of course, if there has been a massive expansion in steroid use over the last 10+ years, we know that there has also been a massive expansion in the use and development of legitimate strength-building techniques over that same perioid, and we can't know how much of a difference steroids have made. Would Bonds have hit 10% fewer HR if he had undergone an intensive legitimate strength-building program instead of doping? 20%? 50%? Nothing? We can take a stab at it, but we will never know, and of course Bonds made the choices he made and, in my opinion, deserves us assuming the worst about him.

But I am really tired of hearing about the legitimacy of the Record Book, which had no legitimacy to begin with. The lesson to be learned here is that there is nothing timeless about the records, not that Bonds has torn out the pages of the book and used them to wipe his bum. The current era is tainted with steroid use, just as the first half of the century was tainted with segregation. I don't have any particularly hard feelings about the cheating that happened in recent years. I watched a lot of baseball, including some of it fueled by steroid use, and enjoyed it. Nothing will change that. Still, I'll be glad to see it end, and hope to see a lower-scoring, more speed and pitching-oriented game return in its wake.

The Union was very reasonable

Ha!

The biggest thing the book does though is make life easier for the Union. Its the second best project ever in terms of thread relief with Retardo's thread wiki being the first.

Another patented "Union" Well-Said!

Why don't you start an EZBoard forum to more efficiently house The Union's Self-Congratulatory Society? I've never in my life seen such a self-righteous, arrogant bunch of people - you guys could give Bonds lessons.

Since you have so many issues with the site design, could you please tell us what would drive you away so that we could include it in the next update?

Is that like the Stanford version of the Cleveland Steamer?

No, it's more like a blumpkin.

Interesting point. If people are going to cite Bonds' failure to take legal action (against the authors) as evidence of guilt, then to be evenhanded, they should also take the government's failure to take legal action against Bonds as evidence of innocence.


And you know neither are reasonable things to argue.

could you please tell us what would drive you away

Send me a 1956 Jaguar and I'll drive it right up to Derek Bell's yacht and we'll sail off to Bolivia to see Tyson.


Ha!

Does that mean "yes" in saberspeak?

Barry's (lawyer's) response to this story, here. Exactly what I would have written if I were his attorney.

(It was pretty much this or confession and throwing himself on the mercy of the public (ha!); nothing in between would have made sense.)

Confession really isn't an option. For Potato Head to tell the whole would be to open himself up for easy instant prosecution. For all we know, there may still be an ongoing criminal investigation of him by the Feds. For him to anything other than clam up would be rather foolish.

Oh, and I always love it when the lying, cheating scumbag's slimy defense lawyer gratuitously smears the "other woman" as being the real crook. It's kind of amazing how often this seems to happen in pro sports these days.

But I am really tired of hearing about the legitimacy of the Record Book, which had no legitimacy to begin with. The lesson to be learned here is that there is nothing timeless about the records, not that Bonds has torn out the pages of the book and used them to wipe his bum.

Gee, we aren't too far apart. I said a very similar thing:

Let the publisher of the baseball book make their own decisions about what information they want to include.

If MLB decides to officially license anyone of those publications as "The Official MLB Record Book" than MLB can make a decision about what the licensee has to do. That may include printing asterisks or additional information. MLB should probably license the book that its fans are going to purchase, and it seems those fans want something to be said about Bonds cheating.

But I'm all for running Nieporent's market experiment. Let's have the MLB licensed version for sale that has the asterisks. Let's have the Witch Hunters guide that doesn't even mention Barry Bonds at all in the records. And let's have the Steroid Apologists Guide that doesn't annotate Bonds at all. Let's see which one sells the most copies. I can live with that. I bet Nieporent can live with that too.

I'm not sure about the rest of the Pro-steroids crowd. I think some may:

(1) Quit the site in protest.
(2) Others will send whiny emails to Jim saying its all Backlasher's fault.
(3) Some will learn to love it, because the Union is the best thing happening.

Oh, and I always love it when the lying, cheating scumbag's slimy defense lawyer gratuitously smears the "other woman" as being the real crook.

Well, from the sounds of it, she is a crook. Of course, birds of a feather...

TSE= Total Survey Error

Thanks.

The Union's Self-Congratulatory Society? I've never in my life seen such a self-righteous, arrogant bunch of people - you guys could give Bonds lessons.

As opposed to the Denier's Society, of whom you managed to say no critical thing. You know, the Society that high-fived Craig Burley when he called us all character assassins, that gave dozens of well-saids to Steve Treder's pathetic Bonds hagiographies, that created a RossCWXYZ, that allowed the repeated postings of Dayn's silly article, that complimented Larry Mahnken on the sarcastic steroids-defencers and casual insults he inserted into article headings on Primer -- you know, that Society?

You know the one you could never bring yourself to condemn when it was a 100 times as self-righteous, noisy, and self-aggrandizing as we could ever hope to be? The one that was more insulting, more "loud", more swarming than we ever were? You know, them?

The one that, when you *did* say something, it was not to lecture any of them, to complain about the spoofing of Ross, but rather to call me the Left's version of Ann Coulter, to threaten BL with banning, to sternly warn the unknown poster who spoofed that ratbag Nieporent. Yeah, that one.

Don't you ever pretend you've been fair about any of this, Dan.

Steroids are

Steak is steroids is my fave.

If Barry was juicing from jealousy or something like it, this supports the PED's are coercive arguments.

I've never in my life seen such a self-righteous, arrogant bunch of people

I thought you had met everyone on the Primer-List.

You know what you are doing right now. You know what that is. Its vigilantism..you're doing vigilantism. You know that that makes you?

(and you can't take my answer, at least not until we get Union Icons)

this supports the PED's are coercive arguments.


Yep, its the best support since the push-up bra.

I'm not sure about the rest of the Pro-steroids crowd. I think some may:

(1) Quit the site in protest.
(2) Others will send whiny emails to Jim saying its all Backlasher's fault.
(3) Some will learn to love it, because the Union is the best thing happening.

How's this for a TOS violation? Go #### yourself.

(and you can't take my answer, at least not until we get Union Icons)

The only icon we'd ever grant you is a that of a circle jerk.

Why don't you start an EZBoard forum to more efficiently house The Union's Self-Congratulatory Society? I've never in my life seen such a self-righteous, arrogant bunch of people - you guys could give Bonds lessons.

I thought that was the point of the Backlasher persona and maybe the kevin persona (he can't be that dense IRL) as well. They're supposed to be a contorted, shadowy reflection of this site's mainstream. Why anyone would go to that trouble is beyond me, but I'm a nihilist, so many things are beyond me.

It would be cool if you started posting as Dan Szymborski 9, so Backlasher could respond "TOS, DS9, TOS."

I'd just like to bring attention to the 25th post on the first page, and how wrong he was. :)

Well, I misunderestimated the tenacity of some folks on both sides of the argument. It seems like there's a few here who try and make sure the other side doesn't have the last word.


I don't care for arguing on the internet, but I guess some folks live for it.

But I'm not sure how this thread is any different from x number of threads that Primer has had already. DMN or BL could easily cut and paste previous posts into this thread to save their typing fingers.

Congratulations, you guys have been proven right to the three people on the planet that buried their heads in the sand and refused to accept that Barry Bonds was cheating. Don't get ahead of yourselves and declare victory over those of us who see PED use, before it was against the rules of baseball, as just another point along the continuum of technological advances that have helped the modern player.

The worst thing to me about steroids threads is that otherwise sober productive posters go as low as say posts 37 and 38.

that created a RossCWXYZ,

People's dislike of Ross CW pre-dated PED arguments and was based on many factors. Also, unless he's here under a pseudonym and has changed his style, my understanding is that he chose to leave the site after the reg. requirement. He liked throwing insults back and forth with people, so I find it unlikely that he sees himself as a martyr who was run off the site.

Both David Jones and Shredder have bailed too, and I know both of them had some major run-ins with Union guys. I don't know if it is a cause/effect thing, and I won't speak for either of them, but I seem to recall Jones, in particular, saying that invective (the Union guys, I have to say, have generally treated me with respect when they are in the mood to address lesser primnates, have generally only mouthed off at me when I have mouthed off at them, and their insights are always interesting) was part of his reason for not wanting to be here anymore.

But the whole community issue goes both ways.

Some will learn to love it, because the Union is the best thing happening.

Sometimes you just go too far Backlasher.

Never paraphrase Ric Flair again! :)

Actually I'm pretty sure that was covered in a Stats Scoreboard article. In any case, the Scoreboard has data up until its publication ceased and I can tell you that it's a fact that prior to 1998 Bonds did not make regular appearances on the list of moon shots.

Oh, I'm not quibbling with that. But he's claiming that it's unprecedented, a claim which, to back up, one has to have seen data that doesn't exist - we have very few years of those numbers.

I don't care for arguing on the internet, but I guess some folks live for it.


I don't think any member of the Union lives for the abuse we have taken over the years. I don't think Ross lived for the abuse that drove him away from the site. I'm sure there are some fanboys that live to get in a big crowd and insult people in a dogpile. I'm sure that there are some that live to dole out "well said" to get support for their strange social theories.

And I do enjoy talking about this issue with Field, Nieporent and Chrissy most of the time. And this thread has even brought out some of the other Primates with ability. Its brought out some of the better critics too. Its also brought out some of the bad elements as well, but most of them are too busy writing new emails to The Jim to stay in the thread this late.

This book is a good thing. It will consolidate information that was free floating around the internet. It will present a tome that documents the evidence for Bonds steroid abuse and some of his other transgressions.

It should not have been necessary. Bonds could have taken the honorable route and admitted his steroid use and taken his sanction. The Bay Area Hagiographers could have shut down their wild PR campaign about his virtue as an employer, family man, and all around human being. A large part of me actually feels bad that he will have to endure this dirty laundry being aired in public. I wish that on no person. Likewise, a large part of me feels the same way about Pete Rose.

But, just like Rose, everytime you want to give the man a break, he not only wants to deny the obvious, he wants to do it by thumbing his nose at you. When that happens, you have to make your case.

The reporters don't want to have to live through the same smear campaign that Camp Bonds put out on Nowitski.

And that is also what happened with the Union in Primerland. We didn't want to have to shatter the fanboys illusion of Bonds. But we were backed into a corner, and we had to make our case. And our case carries the day.

And we just have to live with the insults, because its not like some of the more notable apologists will ever admit they were wrong.

In Primerland, the issue is not closed. We still have disagreement on how the public will choose to act based on the steroids problem. Will the HoF honor the cheaters? What is the magnitude of the PED enhancement? etc.

And now that MLB is monitoring drugs, this will become an open issue in terms of what substances are allowed and disallowed.

And the Greenie Group is still going to play gotchas. And this one I don't get. There doesn't even seem to be relevant disagreement. I think everyone agrees:

(1) We don't want them in the game.
(2) We don't want to kick people out of the HoF.

It sounds like that is what is happening. The only acception is the libeterian faction who will state, "we don't care if they are in the game, and believe that is a matter of collective bargaining." They got what they want too.

To Backlasher:

You seem to have ignored my posts directly replying to things you wrote (see, for instance, number 33 on page 4, which also refers to other posts directed to you on page 3). Was this an oversight? (Given the number of posts in this thread, I can easily understand how that might be the case).

If it's not simply an accidental oversight(i.e., if you're willfully ignoring my posts), isn't that an argument for the "block user" function to which I alluded earlier?

-----

To Dan Szymborski:

Is Backlasher doing anything more or different than, say, Hageman or rlm might? (Heck, is Backlasher Hageman? I suppose the difference in politics is clear enough indication that he's not, but the style --"100% correct as always" -- seems eerily similar at times).

Anyway, Backlasher is fairly clearly baiting you (and Nieporent and others) here. Whatever may be the merits of his arguments, is he worth the invective? There are reasonable arguments to be made regarding steroids and Barry Bonds, and many posters here who seem happy to make them without turning such arguments into personal pissing contests (in which both sides complain that the other totally misrepresents their arguments); if you find Backlasher's crowing to be so irksome, ignore it and focus on the arguments which aren't.

I guess I was something of a Bonds agnostic: the physical signs sure pointed to roiding up, but even though the "flaxseed oil" claim is pretty silly, Bonds wouldn't be the first person with more money than sense to accept someone's word on a miracle drug only to find out it was something entirely different.

I couldn't put a lot of weight on the statements of vindictive ex-mistresses (I assume "vindictive" since she also turned him over to the IRS; you generally don't get that on a friendly parting of ways, to my understanding).

But the details here, in cumulation, do seem damning. Maybe it's the needles; I hate needles. ;) The documentation by Anderson and the other circumstances make any conclusion other than knowing usage pretty tough to support.

What I am surprised at is the number of people here (who ought to know better) who think Internet polls mean anything at all. I've freeped many a poll in my day; they're easily manipulated by anyone with a point to make. At most, you can say somebody, somewhere, is really exercised about this issue. I knew that.

I don't think Ross lived for the abuse that drove him away from the site.

Oh, he most certainly did.

Actually, I take exception with "drove him from the site." He was in there, plugging away right up to the changeover...and then never resurfaced on the other side.

Some will learn to love it, because the Union is the best thing happening.

That's so wrong. Dan Werr's Desultory Philippic is the best thing to happen to Primer ... and other things along that vein, that have become more rare as nastiness has replaced whimsical as the tone of choice. The 28 greatest team experience is probably the best thing now. And interesting discussions about baseball -- there are a few, usually buried in some innocuous looking thread that sticks around longer than it ought to. And I know you know there are some of these, you are involved in many.

People trying to "win" a discussion board, and people actually thinking the board is winnable and keeping score, whether they feel justified in doing so or not, whether they are justified in doing so or not, are among the worst.

And that is also what happened with the Union in Primerland. We didn't want to have to shatter the fanboys illusion of Bonds. But we were backed into a corner, and we had to make our case. And our case carries the day.

Your case didn't carry the day, the evidence that eventually came out did. People weren't swayed by the so-called Union's rambling about hat size and homer bursts, people were swayed by the documents that came out in the Balco trial.

99% of the so-called Bonds apologists merely wanted to see actual evidence instead of innuendo and they did. The fact that your innuendo later matched the evidence when it became available doesn't make the argument any less irresponsible than it was.

I understand what you're saying now. You're arguing "ability", as in "he demonstarted the ability to hit 40 HR at age 26." I'm arguing performance, as in "He went from a 15-20 HR/year guy to a 30-40 HR/year guy at age 36."

He didn't reach a new level of ability, but he did reach a new level consistantly performing that ability. Fair enough?


Very fair and I should have been more clear.

Backlasher's crowing to be so irksome, ignore it and focus on the arguments which aren't.

I stand rebuked - you're right, I don't need an ignore feature to ignore a couple of posters.

Barry's (lawyer's) response to this story, here. Exactly what I would have written if I were his attorney.

I agree, that's a great reply by the lawyer. I love lawyers (one in particular).

Anyhoo, I'm very sorry to see Dan going all apeshit at us Union guys. RETARDO did a nice job above pointing out the hypocrisy of lecturing us on our "self-righteousness" and bile, when it's only returning in (much less volume) kind what we received from many, many people on this site. I was one of those accused of racism, for instance, b/c of my views on Barry, a player I feel like I constantly have to remind people I once admired.

But whatever. All this rests on the facts of the case, and that's where the argument ought to remain. Bonds took illegal substances that some of his peers avoided b/c illegal or unhealthy. Those substances made a great player uniquely great. These are I believe fairly presented facts. B/c of those facts, and b/c of oft-articulated principles to which I subscribe, I am pleased to see him suffer the consequences of his action, and hopeful that similar choices will not be embraced by similarly tempted players.

Do I know what I would have done in his shoes? Of course not, but that is why we embrace good laws; b/c we understand our own weaknesses. In our sober moments let us frame laws that we can lean on when drunk on the temptations of success and fame.

but I seem to recall Jones, in particular, saying that invective (the Union guys, I have to say, have generally treated me with respect when they are in the mood to address lesser primnates, have generally only mouthed off at me when I have mouthed off at them, and their insights are always interesting) was part of his reason for not wanting to be here anymore.


RR,

Here's the scoop from my POV. Jones and Retardo have mutual respect. Although Jones and I have had some run-ins, in our less thread, we had and acknowledged peace.

I only know one instance where Shredder had any run-in with a Union member, and that was a long time ago. I know of no carryover.

But here is the bottom line. You bet people will leave because of invective. People left because of invective before there was any Union.

To my knowledge, the first point of unity among any of the five of us was Retardo and I both taking up for Ross when he was getting the beat downs. (and steroid threads pre-date the registration system).

That is the problem. People loved invective when it was just then spewing it against people with minority opinions. Everybody felt they had to get in on the beatdown. And if the person tried to stand their ground, it just brought in a larger circle of people talking smack.

What people didn't like is when there were people strong enough to take on the whole fanboy army. It really troubled them when their enemies kept being right over and over again.

In The Jim's grand vision of a peaceful Primer, Mahnken can call people idiots and edit people's posts to satisfy his desire to win arguments, etc. Dimino can editorialize threads claiming an advocacy piece is the most objective take ever. And all of that is just "discussion"

Administrators can hurl profanities if The Jim likes you, but if he doesn't and you say "fart", he will defrock you.

The problem occurs if people don't just stand still and take the abuse. The admins only come out to protect their own. They will never defend a Ross. Heck, even in this thread its happening.

And you can't claim its just a "Union phenomenom". Larvell is a newbie taking abuse. You haven't seen any of the Powers that Be throw a TOS at any of the posters issuing those invectives.

You just notice us, because we are good and we are right.

If I recall correctly (and the Wiki site seems to agree), he also stopped posting other places at the same time. Like the changeover or not, I doubt they were sufficiently severe to chase people off the entire internet.

Larvell is a newbie taking abuse.

From whom? Certainly not from me. And I think I've engaged him in this thread a lot more than anyone else.

You just notice us, because we are good and we are right.


You also get noticed for having a personality much like that of Barry L. Bonds. Is is the familiarity that breeds such contempt?

Thanks for bringing up Champ Summers. I just read an enthralling article from a July 1977 Sporting News entitled, "Champ Swallows Cud". The story is about the Champ's difficulties making his way around the bases on an improbable pinch hit (led Reds to combeback victory over the Phillies) inside the park homerun. Reporters asked him about the apparent trouble he was having completing the circuit and wondered about his "virtual collapse" at home plate. Champ told them the reason he "almost didn't make it out there was because I swallowed about $2 worth of tobacco."

I rememebr that Champ moment very clearly. My brothers & I would re-enact it in backyard wiffle ball, to much hilarity.

Jeez, BL. I meant that for both sides.

I *know* Dial loves a good argument.

In our sober moments let us frame laws that we can lean on when drunk on the temptations of success and fame.

This is a very well-turned phrase.

Re: Shredder, nothing's driven him from the site per se. He's just doing other things with his time. He got in a dustup within the past week or so on some thread or another. I don't think invective is a reason why he left, disinterest with reading the same thing again and again might be more apt.

Now watch him show up and tell me I'm putting words in his mouth.

99% of the so-called Bonds apologists merely wanted to see actual evidence instead of innuendo and they did. The fact that your innuendo later matched the evidence when it became available doesn't make the argument any less irresponsible than it was.

This is revisionist, Dan. Yes, many people had a higher evidentiary threshold than I described above. I grant that, and Andy was among those. However, it wasn't "innuendo", it was a lower evidentiary threshold and quite frankly an apt one. It works in such cases. But the real reason I'm replying to this is to remind you that when I or anyone else made the claim Barry was cheating based on our lower threshold, we were insulted and mocked and piled upon. By the vast majority of posters in those threads. Your apprehension of a dialogue problem has always seemed to me grossly one-sided. Like I just don't get why you think it's appropriate for you to tell BL to "FuKKK off" but inappropriate for him to call someone a fanboy.

This is a very well-turned phrase.

I must have stolen it from someone in obvious violation of the sober law prohibiting plagiarism.

To Backlasher:

You seem to have ignored my posts directly replying to things you wrote (see, for instance, number 33 on page 4, which also refers to other posts directed to you on page 3). Was this an oversight? (Given the number of posts in this thread, I can easily understand how that might be the case).

If it's not simply an accidental oversight(i.e., if you're willfully ignoring my posts), isn't that an argument for the "block user" function to which I alluded earlier?

BL doesn't deign to speak to lesser primates. He's far more of an elitest than the prof hats he ridicules.

I've freeped many a poll in my day; they're easily manipulated by anyone with a point to make.

You may want to read my original post to Mahnken and re-read my instruction to his ilk.

Its more amazing to me how easily somebody has misdirected the argument to such a non-issue that just keeps reappearing, and has been able to create an argument being made by the other side.

I have learned a lot of things out here. And one was by a very wise man who has posted on this thread.

It serves no purpose to take this bait. Despite me making no comment whatsoever on the subject other than "Hurry, hurry...chance to juice some numbers." Everyone has already decided how they are going to argue this one. I'd have to spend 100 posts explaining what I mean which is self evident and expressed exactly how I wanted to express it. Then you would spend 100 more with people telling you how you are suppose to post. I've lived that day hundreds of time. Its not worth it, because the issue is not relevant to anything in this thread.

If somebody did want to talk about the actual survey error, or wanted to deduce the rate of information from the poll, I'd do it. I don't think there are that many who can actually do those things. But the latter is not 0, its probably even got utility that's higher than DIPS for any subject except fantasy baseball.

I was and am amazed at how the initial reaction was trending.

But this really shows you what Primer is all about. I immediately posted something relevant. I posted the Gallup poll that covered the same subject. And you know what, no one wanted to talk about it. Instead, they thought they had a gotcha, and they are still riding that gotcha into 600 posts.

That's how it works. And if Sugarbear of the Union had said, "when Bonds was on the Giants in 91" they would still be talking about that minor factual error.

Because, its the same every thread. Our arguments have not changed substantially since the beginning. We cited the BALCO relationship since the beginning, and Andy didn't even post until after the GJ leaks.

But all these people that couldn't see a thing are trying to save face. And they can only do it by revising history, trying to paint themselves as reasonable, and others as unreasonable.

Its been Szym dropping the insults and profanities and now he's trying to make it look like that is what the other side is doing so he can ignore it.

Then you have others who say "focus on the arguments." Focus away, knock yourself out. We've been making them for several years, and people want to deal with LASIK and internet polls instead.

RETARDO did a nice job above pointing out the hypocrisy of lecturing us on our "self-righteousness" and bile, when it's only returning in (much less volume) kind what we received from many, many people on this site.

I'd agree with this, but you've turned up the volume, not used "much less". You guys are like the Republican Party saying their abuses of power and utter disregard for input from the opposition are justified because the Democrats did worse when they were it power. One, the abuse is not necessary. Maybe it was once, but it's very much not now. Two, it's wrong. You guys are worse. You're meaner, you're more personal, you're actually organized, and you yell louder. Three, you guys are doing it and at the same time moralizing about how just you are. That just bugs me. At least the original pilers-on weren't claiming to be just, only claiming to be smart/correct/whatever. You won, okay? So stop pretending you're still an oppressed minority and start being responsible. Please?

Outside of your union personas, I've found you all to be likeable and engaging. At least some of the time. And among the better discussions I've had on this site. But when I come into a Union thread, I find myself hating you. Despite the fact that I more often than not agree with you. But I want not to, because the Union approach is so thoroughly rotten. That's why you see me nit-pick you so much. Because I want to say something, and I don't want to associate with your group.

P.S. DS #50 this page is a pretty good summary of what's happened on steroids. Unless you actually uncovered the evidence against Bonds, or planted it, you didn't change many minds.

BL doesn't deign to speak to lesser primates. He's far more of an elitest than the prof hats he ridicules.

That's cute, but not quite accurate. Nobody spends more time responding to posts (from anyone) than BL. I've written him emails asking why he responds to such things. His energy is inexhaustible. The last thing he is is a poster elitist.

The looniest things I have ever seen, and usually from people that want to proclaim they are "experts" or flash their SAT scores.

In which Steroid/Bonds/iknowyouarebutwhatami thread did anyone boast about his or her SAT score? I checked Retardo's Wiki Gonzalez entry and didn't find it.

Like the changeover or not, I doubt they were sufficiently severe to chase people off the entire internet.

You underestimate the power of the libertarian fanboys and their unholy incantation of WellSaid. They're EVERYWHERE.

We've been making them for several years, and people want to deal with LASIK and internet polls instead.

And yet you <u>still</u> haven't been able to refute the LASIK argument. :)

I'd agree with this, but you've turned up the volume, not used "much less".

I'd love to know how. I don't know if you've ever been accused of racism (or sexism) at this site, but I have, and of both. Try defending yourself against such a claim. Try typing, "But I have black friends," or "but I married a woman!" It's incredibly silly and self-defeating. You can't defend yourself against such accusations. SOrry to sound self-righteous, but I don't see how I've "turned up the volume" on such behavior. And pardon me again, but I will point out that Dan Zim who I consider a "friend" nor any other prof hat ever admonished the people who made such claims nor defended me against them.

If you want to accuse me of being stupid, as Dial does about 2x a week, fine. We can argue the case and let people decide for themselves. But calling someone a "fanboy" or "googleboy" doesn't quite rise to the level of the accusations we've suffered (and Kevin knows this even better than I).

(The RETARDO - DMN thing is on another plane.)

In which Steroid/Bonds/iknowyouarebutwhatami thread did anyone boast about his or her SAT score? I checked Retardo's Wiki Gonzalez entry and didn't find it.

This came up in the Lounge a couple of years ago, and it wasn't "boasting" about SAT scores. Someone in high school posted an SAT score and said something like "I'd like to get into X college, do you think this is good enough?". Which led to other people posting their SAT scores and saying "I got this and ended up at X", etc. It also led to a lot of joke posts about people claiming to have had 7.24 GPAs and 1700s on the SATs. And, for some reason, it's been hailed as evidence that people around here love nothing more than bragging about test scores. Unless there was another instance that I'm forgetting, the hubbub about it has far exceeded the actual substance of the perceived violation of BTF protocol.

There was a thread where someone tried to prove how great he was by posting his IQ, but I'm blanking on who it was. It was pretty funny, though, like that idiot on The Apprentice this season who points out he's in MENSA every time he opens his yap.

JC, why didn't you send a message at the time? I don't read every thread and there are a lot of things that I wouldn't know about unless someone told me.

I never have and never will, Dan. Of course you don't see every thread, and I have no expectation you should. So let's no one simply assume BL or the Union is the worst violator of site ethics.

BL doesn't deign to speak to lesser primates.

Hah. Wanna bet?

BL doesn't deign to speak to lesser primates. He's far more of an elitest than the prof hats he ridicules.


And that is the other very interesting thing. At one time, I responded to any and every thing. Then you get folks like Trederdave making personal attacks about your family and career. Then you had people like Treder that once claimed "you ignore them" if you let 12 hours go buy before you post.

And then there is this. Yep, I probably do ignore assinine arguments b/c it does save some time. But I've been away for about 14 hours, I come back, there are a lot of questions, aimed directly at me, and you get a couple of people that will turn me not answering something about the protoplasm board into an insult.

And if you respond to the protoplasm stuff, then you get Daly saying, "You have to get the last word."

Its just a bunch of catch-22 games where people choose the insult based on which choice you make, or if you don't satisfy them in posting fast enough.

I'm not even sure what to say. Here is the response:

(1) I know how an ignore feature works, but thanks for the explanation.
(2) I answered the question and told you what administators were called.
(3) Feel free to lobby for any means of censoring that you like. You won't be alone.


Is there anything else?

Where you all just sitting on pins and needles waiting for that?

But calling someone a "fanboy" or "googleboy" doesn't quite rise to the level of the accusations we've suffered (and Kevin knows this even better than I).

Would you care to guess which poster wrote this?

Steve, You are either the biggest moron I've ever seen, the most dishonest prick, or fukking both.

Does that rise to the level of accusations the Union has suffered?

Goodness knows most of us have thrown around way more insults than are warranted. Let's hope we have the decency to remember that before we try to pretend the worst thing we've ever done is call someone a "fanboy."

I'd love to know how. I don't know if you've ever been accused of racism (or sexism) at this site, but I have, and of both.

I've had my family ridiculed, my accumen at my job ridiculed, the amount of donations to the site ridiculed. There are some people that just won't stop. I've been called a racist. And I actually embrace the dumb thing.

This came up in the Lounge a couple of years ago

No, SAT scores have been posted often. In fact, I hope RR comes back. We once mentioned it and RR didn't believe it. We told him to check the lounge. He said, "Do you guys really post SAT scores?" which set off a volly of posts where people posted their SAT scores.

The last thing he is is a poster elitist.

Depends on how you define elitist in this context. If it's based on "how many posters he answers" no, he's not elitist. If it is based on "tone/content of his answers to certain people", then you can make a case that he is most certainly elitist.

Either way, his analyses add a lot to the site.

This came up in the Lounge a couple of years ago, and it wasn't "boasting" about SAT scores

Well, this is one I know about. Being 40, square, monogamous and having boring taste in music, I don't go to the Lounge. But I heard BL make a crack about SAT scores , so I went in there and said "do you guys talk about SAT scores in here?" I thought it was odd, because when I was 20, all I talked about was sex, sports, sex, girls, sports, feeling alienated and occasionally about classwork. To this day, I have no idea what many of my closest friends got on the SAT.

As soon as I brought it up, a bunch of guys started posting their scores--and it went on for some time.

Steve, You are either the biggest moron I've ever seen, the most dishonest prick, or fukking both.

Yeah, I remember that. Werr can become a bit unglued when it comes to steroids.

Where you all just sitting on pins and needles waiting for that?

Are you implying we injected in our buttocks?

Cross posted with 577.

And I think 577 is more exactly what happened, as I recall.

In Soviet Russia, Lesser Primates speak to you!

No, SAT scores have been posted often. In fact, I hope RR comes back. We once mentioned it and RR didn't believe it. We told him to check the lounge. He said, "Do you guys really post SAT scores?" which set off a volly of posts where people posted their SAT scores.

I was going to ask who RR was, but I think he showed up and answered my question.

And that's something I don't remember in the Lounge, though it's been six months or so since I was an active participant there.

(Of course, the posting of SAT scores is pointless given that they reworked the scale to make parents feel better about the fact that US children these days are scoring lower than most forms of algae in math and science. I hope that any scores posted were era-adjusted onto an SAT+ scale, or at least value over replacement test/entrance exam (or VORTEX).)

In Soviet Russia, Lesser Primates speak to you!

What a country.

JC, why didn't you send a message at the time? I don't read every thread and there are a lot of things that I wouldn't know about unless someone told me.


That's part of the point Dan. Most everyone isn't in every thread. UCCF is wrong about the frequency of people boasting about test scores. You are wrong about the origin of most of these things. Miserlou is wrong about the Lee Lacy statements and what was faced earlier.

And its the same story every time. Once we dismiss the bad arguments, then come the insults. You were the primary purveyor this time after Mahnken's initial I-bomb. Then people want to start wanting to have a referendum on methods of censorship and the evilness of the Union.

And even if the topic is "us" its the same. We are evil if we respond back, defend ourselves, etc.

The only thing that both The Jim and now it appears you think should happen is that 50 or so people should get a chance to throw unfounded insults directly at individuals, rewrite history to suit their purpose and then we can start a new thread.

And just like always, its Mahnken that drops the first insult. And in this rare case, its you that just stops even pretending to post and just goes straight for insults with cursing attached.

And its just people looking for a way to "win" something or be "right" about something or save face.

I posted the Gallup poll that covered the same subject.

Man, I regret that I've been unable to find that poll.

Being 40, square, monogamous and having boring taste in music, I don't go to the Lounge.

That's not far from the day Lounge demographic.

OK, I'll get the ball rolloing...in 1975, under the influence of marijuana, I scored 1100 on my SAT's...(550 in each).

In my senior year of high school, we in the college prep program took 2 semester claases and had to have a 65% average to pass. I hated my child psych teacher. I thought him to be a dork. I got an 83 in the first semester, and, going into the final of the second semester, I knew exactly what I needed to score in order to get a 47 for the semester, which would give me a 65% average for the course.

I ended up with a 65 for the course.

Go ahead. Beat THAT.

BL, why are you taking my posts personally?You're not the only "last word" guy that I had in mind. You're not trying to get me ticked off because I said that no on can tick me off here anymore, are you?

I got a 7.24 GPA and a 1700 SAT.

in 1975, under the influence of marijuana

How many 1975 SAT scores were not influenced by marijuana?

OK, I'll get the ball rolloing...in 1975, under the influence of marijuana, I scored 1100 on my SAT's...(550 in each).

cheater.

in 1975, under the influence of marijuana

I think your name ought to be stricken from the record books.

I honestly can't remember my SAT score.

cheater.

And look where it got me. (Well, you can't see, but you can imagine.)

75. Backlasher: (1) I know how an ignore feature works, but thanks for the explanation.
(2) I answered the question and told you what administators were called.
(3) Feel free to lobby for any means of censoring that you like. You won't be alone.

(1) No problem. It wasn't clear you understood to me, and I'd rather err on the side of over-explanation than under-. I certainly didn't mean an insult by it.

(2) Yes, but I immediately asked what you meant. I admitted it was perhaps dense of me not to understand, but it was unclear whether you were calling them "Professor Hats Sen. McCarthy" or simply calling them "Professor Hats" (and intending the "Sen. McCarthy" for me).

In either case, I don't understand what the "Professor Hats" part of it means. (My apologies if this is an obvious reference to something -- if it is, it's one I'm not catching. Would you mind explaining what your intent was?)

And in the case where you were calling me "Sen. McCarthy," it was unclear to me why you would do so. As I pointed out previously (cf. post 69 of page 3, page 33 on page 4), I wasn't necessarily advocating it, I was merely asking (in light of something Dan Szymborski said) whether it had been looked into. I also explained in (I believe) these posts that I don't view the existence of a "block user" feature to be akin to censorship, though I allowed for your having a different belief -- do you feel otherwise? If so, why?

(3) Thanks for telling me to feel free to do that (though again, I fail to see the connection between having that means and the "block user" feature which I brought up). Whether or not I've already lobbied for it (I haven't), and whether or not I would ever lobby for it (I'm undecided), it's nice that you allow me that freedom.

Revisiting point (1), It's still unclear to me that you understand how the "block user" feature works since you seem to keep equating it with censorship. No one would be preventing from speaking his/her mind. No one interested in hearing what anyone had to say would be denied. It seems to me that this is very different than what a "censor user" feature might be like. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I got a 7.24 GPA and a 1700 SAT

You must have been jealous of some other guy and started taking BEDs.

JC --

I may have missed your racism accusation -- I can remember two major such events on this site, E-X dropping the R-bomb on everyone a short while back, and many people telling him he's wrong. I've had in-person confrontations with folks of a similar sort ... racism as E-X talks about it is not what you and I understand racism to be, and I think he's wrong for co-opting the language to fit his concepts. And Retardo dropping it on some folks in the Katrina thread, who, appalled by the looting, off-handedly stated "I hope they get shot" wrt to the looters, who were not id'd by race at all. 1000+ posts later, he was still dwelling on it.

Also I recall something about Hank Aaron living in an all-black community that may have tried to exclude whites. I think that may have gotten racially charged.

Was it befoer the Union? Because before the Union, my sense was you were one of the most respected posters, across the board, by everyone. One of the guys whose words and judgements were nearly unimpeachable by anyone who knew you from Adam. Not quite HW, but who is? I would have dismissed an allegation of racism out of hand.

In both cases, I thought the accusations were unfounded, and it seemed that there were plenty of people stating as much. I don't remember if I did, probably not, and if not it was because others were saying what I'd have said, and wanting to stay out of the fray.

But as someone who reads a good number of threads (but never the lounge anymore), but not all of them, I definitely find that you guys are worse with the negativity, at least with the negativity directed at other primates, than I ever saw before. There are plenty of "lesser primates" who drop "John Kruk is stupid" "Bill Plaschke is stupid" "Rob Neyer is stupid" etc. But that piling-on isn't as bad, because even those who lurk (Neyer) are public figures, and I consider them more or less fair game. It's certainly not on the level as it is calling out someone who is primarily a primate. Maybe that's a mis-perception, but I don't have a stake in any particular side, and it just seems that you guys give significantly more, and significantly worse, than you get. I also don't really mind the "stupid" ... it's the "dishonest" and worse, the innuendo that those who disagree do so not out of ignorance but out of delusion (mental failing), inhumanity (don't care about health of other people) or active endorsement of sin (pro-drug use).

I think your name ought to be stricken from the record books.

At first I laughed. Then, I felt dirty. Thanks, Mr.
Nieporent.

In either case, I don't understand what the "Professor Hats" part of it means. (My apologies if this is an obvious reference to something -- if it is, it's one I'm not catching. Would you mind explaining what your intent was?)

See the little baseball diamond next to your name? Some people have a little mortarboard instead (the "Professor Hats"). Those are largely people who either write for the site, post articles, etc.

Professor Hats carries a pejorative sense, because many people dislike the diamonds/hats icons in the first place (and the "implicit" meaning that people with hats are better/more valuable than people with diamonds, just like people with all the bases filled in on their diamonds are better than people with no bases).

I never have and never will, Dan. Of course you don't see every thread, and I have no expectation you should. So let's no one simply assume BL or the Union is the worst violator of site ethics.

Nor would I ever snitch.

And I'm not about to let DZ play the King of Evenhandness card.

DZ -- until you rectify your incredibly lax nannying on the old threads in which we were constantly abused, kindly STFU about our alleged rudeness now, k?

Well, obviously, you can do what you want, but you're a hypocrite for it if you do keep flaming and threatening BL.

Would it fukking kill you to be consistent? -- and I don't mean, consistently guarding the steroids-apologist side.

Oh, and whoever tried to excuse the RossCW spoof on the changeover, kindly F.O.D. Ross didn't endorse it, it wasn't cool just because he didn't make the changeover; it was a dirty rotten trick that, when done to Nieporent, DZ was so *very* forceful in condemning. The only people who raised hell intially about the Ross spoof were me and BL and Dan Werr; and IIRC it was only stopped out of force majeure from Dan Werr's keyboard -- DZ didn't say a thing at the time. I wonder why that was? Could it be that it was because Ross wasn't a yay-steroids/yay-DIPS, fellow-libertarian jackass? Nooo, surely not.

Bias.

No, SAT scores have been posted often. In fact, I hope RR comes back. We once mentioned it and RR didn't believe it. We told him to check the lounge. He said, "Do you guys really post SAT scores?" which set off a volly of posts where people posted their SAT scores.

That's sounds like a joke to me. If anyone has the link to the original SAT score outbreak, I'd like to see it. The whole thing just seems like a joke to me. I mean, even when I was in high school I wouldn't have gone around posting my Socioeconomic Aptitute Test score.

But this really shows you what Primer is all about. I immediately posted something relevant. I posted the Gallup poll that covered the same subject. And you know what, no one wanted to talk about it. Instead, they thought they had a gotcha, and they are still riding that gotcha into 600 posts.

You tried to defend it, and to ridicule the people who pointed out the "gotcha". When someone finds a minor weakness in my arguments, I like to say "Fair enough, but my main point stands." Somehow that kind of concession isn't allowed in OMG TEH STERIODS threads.

Yeah, I remember that. Werr can become a bit unglued when it comes to steroids.

I laughed out loud at that.

The pro-Bonds arguments have always been very ad hoc, and very much supporting a dogma. Whose arguments have constantly changed and lowered the bar? It's like anti-global warming: it doesn't exist, well if it does exist, it's natural, oops, if it's not natural, we still can't do anything about it. Technology and know-how will save us anyway. Nothing matters. Awesome! "he didn't take drugs, you're racist. he might have taken drugs, but other people cheated too, and there isn't really evidence. He did cheat but lot's of other people cheated and hey, here is a false equivalence with greenies (look over there! ZOINK). He totally cheated and he took a million drugs and he has by far been the greatest example of cheaters in terms of historical records being broken in baseball, but you just hate him because he's a dick and Ty Cobb and Pete Rose were dicks so you lose too."

Sports are already quite abusive to athletes, those arguing that steroids should be legal so they can enjoy the feats of athletes that lose their human nature, but of course, the athlete's choices will always be "their free will acting" to take drugs you happily pour down their throats. It really does seem obvious to me the completebullsh*t of this argument. Nothing is worse than a libertarian cobag arguing that an entire class be allowed to modify their bodies to the point of non-recognition for their own amusement. It's true people should be allowed to hunt homeless people as long as the homeless erson signs a waver, right libertarian munchwad?

If anyone has the link to the original SAT score outbreak, I'd like to see it.

My skills with the archive aren't up to this task. But it did happen.

The thing you have to remember about Backlasher is that all of his posts are dictated using voice recognition software, which is why many of his words are spelled funetikly.

dsyzm, since so many people get wy with tos violtions how is it i went to see if they nnny used the correct number of # for swear words and lose my keys?

Also, he's a rabid homophone.

By the way UCCF, I've had off-line discussions with at least three people who've mentioned that your presence in the Lounge is missed. Just so you know.

I remember only one SAT Lounge as well, and it seemed more goofy than anything.

This thread is getting better. Still not good. But better.

proof that bonds is a fraud who poops hits pants