Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

SI: Bonds exposed in book

Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, a powerful steroid, Barry Bonds took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.

(An excerpt of Game of Shadows that details Bonds’ steroid use appears exclusively in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated, which is available on newsstands beginning on Wednesday. The book’s publication date is March 27.)

Thanks to Jimmy P.

VG Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:31 PM | 862 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 7 of 9 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 
   601. Chief Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#1888970)
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.

I don't have a link, but it's happened, and it's happened more than once.

But I think BL is wrong to say that it happens often. (Though once is too often.)

I'm a pretty frequent participant in the Lounge, but I don't recall it happening at all recently. But the term "SAT score lounge" is used described any sort of dick-measuring discussion that gets raised there.
   602. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1888980)
Not that it matters much, but I was the first to complain about the RossCW spoof, in post 72 of this thread. Bully for me.
   603. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:25 PM (#1888981)
it happened once and anyother time its happened it was a joke, and by the way i got a 1030, makign shapes on the page, as well as a 90 on the asfab yeha i rock
   604. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#1888982)
proof that bonds is a fraud who poops hits pants

An Icelandic language wikipedia entry for Madeline Albright?
   605. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:27 PM (#1888984)
you ruined it miserlou
   606. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#1888992)
Hey, that's right. Sorry. You were Hee Seop's Fables.
   607. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#1888993)
and by the way i got a 1030

That is either far inferior to my 1100, or far superior, depending upon circumstances. From the "making shapes on the page" phrase, I will opt for the latter.
   608. The Ghost of the Bearded Wizard Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1888995)
In Soviet Russia, the SATs take you!
   609. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#1888997)
And Dan Werr's post 110 in that thread is excellent.
   610. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#1888998)
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've had people e-mail me and say the same thing. I'm touched.

I'll be around more when the season starts. Masochist that I am, I won't be able to avoid the Cubs Chatters this year.

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

I think most of the Lounges are still offline, and I'm not sure the new Lounges are searchable in the archive (seems to me I went looking for something the other day and couldn't get a single Lounge to come up as a result). So it's not you.
   611. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#1889003)
uccf, you stilllivingin maine?
   612. WalkOffIBB Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#1889004)
That is either far inferior to my 1100, or far superior, depending upon circumstances. From the "making shapes on the page" phrase, I will opt for the latter.

I got a 340 in math and a 370 in verble for a 740 total.

(Actually, I justed want to post to see how many bases were filled in next to my login name)
   613. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#1889009)
Not that it matters much, but I was the first to complain about the RossCW spoof, in post 72 of this thread. Bully for me.

I was going to ask how you know you were the first, but I see that was the first and only post from that imposter. I think what the union boys are talking about are the numerous posts (pre registration I believe) by RossCWXYZ or maybe RossyW. A clever take on his name, but not nearly as clever as the guy who registered as constip8ed on the old Neyer Board.
   614. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#1889011)
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.

The racism charges occurred in early steroid threads, and it was meant more as a discredit to the posters than E-X use implying bias in decision making. I did escape most of this by some weird quirk.

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?

Yes, I feel otherwise, and I also feel that it is an outcome that is not utilitarian for the sight. Most of these discussions have taken place in teh Jim's Lap Dance Blog. I presume they are still there and it is a small blog, so you can get the level of exposition that you seek there far better than a simple reply post. if you are unable to easily find it or if The Jim has deleted it, I will be happy to provide additional information.

I think others have provided complete answers to your other questions.

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.

You are free to come to that conclusion, but I do not see the basis. We have been ridiculed without end, and its gotten far more personal to us than we have returned. There are lines I have never crossed.

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.

That's just it RR, I can't win. I give back less than what is thrown at me. I have kept the vow I made months ago, and I'll continue to keep it, so I can't respond to Bootsy's charge fully.

But I think you can scouer this place and find my responses to any individual to be less than what precipitated them.

Now, when I talk about groups, i do take the initiative more, and then deal with pointless arguments about, "you should call out the people." And then when I call out the people, I get the DCA version of "your more vicious."

But here is the big new thing that your post has inspired. The problem is precisely that people perceive based entirely on their polity. Most have no idea what is kayfabe and what is real, but even in the former, I'm limited and still don't ever post outside the underlying point. My "TOS, TOS, TOS" will be considered "personal" but the "go #### yourself" people won't really mind too much. Its always that way.

And moreover, what really surprises me about this site is that even the people I respect most have trouble being objective. I doubt even my ardent Jimminy Crickets like yourself and Greenback are going to allege I'm dishonest, but they don't trust my veracity because of the fiction that is created out here.

They really don't believe that:

(1) People post their SAT scores.
(2) People proclaim themselves experts at certain things.
(3) People were called racists for suspecting Bonds steroid use.
(4) That people actually advocate a policy that has steroids being used and compulsory human testing on the survivors of the program.
(5) That people believed Mrs. Buenos accepted risk by marrying Steve Buenos, and shouldn't be entitled to anything beyond medical expenses for being hit by a chair.
(6) That people really think someone should have their kids taken away because they get a DWI.
(7) That people really think that The Jim hasn't already deleted posts, and closed threads.
(8) That Prof. Hats have not already edited posts to make themselves look better in a discussion.
(9) That people should not suspect Bonds b/c he had the same career path as Lee Lacy.

Because these things look facially unfair and silly, so it can't possibly be true. And they think that even if they believe we are truthful.

Then they think, "well it was just some one and done posters, not somebody I respect" and they are amazed when we show them where this eminates from. Then they think, "Well 99% thought x" then they are amazed when we show them the number of people carrying this thought.

Meanwhile, the reverse also happens, We will say:

(1) Billy Beane is an above average GM, but he is overrated.
(2) Its reasonable to suspect Bonds of steroid use because of the change in performance, the timing in the change of performance, the physiological changes, and his association with Victor Conte;

...

And then you will have 30 or 40 people say things like:

(1) Billy Beane doesn't suck.
(2) You can't convict Bonds just because he got bigger as he aged.

Then all of a sudden people believe we have these crazy, wild viewpoints so we deserve to get ridiculed. So they "don't mind" when we get ridiculed. And think its over the top to show any logic problems for somebody who just "innocently posted an SAT score after somebody asked if it was good enough for admission."

Then they will say, "I wasn't there for every thread, I just know how you operate."

And you saw that dynamic here. There was this self perpetuating meme that "Backlasher thinks that internet polls have strong validity." when the post I made was telling the fanboys it was a chance for them to juice numbers, and I never made a single argument about validity.

The core group of good posters have made friends with some of the self righteous and wacky and therefore blind themselves to how looney they really are.

That's what we are facing. We get the silliest things thrown at us, and people then pretend we take wild positions.
   615. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#1889016)
Actually, I could be wrong, but I think RossyW pre-dated RossCW, and neither one was mocking the other; it was just a coincidence.
   616. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1889020)
You tried to defend it

See what I mean. I ignored it and it was "I tried to defend it" and "wouldn't admit I was wrong"

Its not me playing a game. Its everyone else. Discourse for them is just a few scripted moves with the same endgame, and anything anybody does just fits in the paradigm.

And this is why I ignored it and should have continued to ignore it. Because now people will start arguing about what I did and what I meant, then they will start quoting things, etc. so that they have an argument they can handle.

And its worse with 'roids, because they come nowhere close to being able to deal with the broad social issues at play.
   617. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1889022)
uccf, you stilllivingin maine?

That I am.
   618. HCO Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1889025)
I think what the union boys are talking about are the numerous posts (pre registration I believe) by RossCWXYZ or maybe RossyW.

This comes up in every flamewar. RossyW was a legitimate user who, according to Wiki Gonzalez, still uses the name on other sites.
   619. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#1889026)
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).
Ahh, thank you for the explanation. I'd seen those pitcures, of course, but I'd never really paid attention to them.

I do find it hard to believe that anyone has ever really dismissed others' arguments because of the icon associated with them, but short of its ever expressly being stating so, there'd be almost no way of knowing for certain. It certainly seems like a silly thing to do. Oh well.
   620. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:49 PM (#1889031)
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?


And Mahnken keeps his when he edits Bernal's post for rhetorical purpose. And The Jim swears he is going to be equitable in how he handles matters.

That's your equity.

btw, see even now people doubt the SAT phenomena because they don't think their friends would do it.

Some of these guys are my friends, so I'm not going to out them, but I've seen an SAT IRC too.
   621. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:49 PM (#1889033)
backlasher while i hd my prof hat i never edited my posts, cause it took too much effort, but who knows what has happened
   622. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1889038)
the sat irc was a joke i think, but in irc anything goes
   623. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1889041)
and yes i have willingly participted in the sat stuff
   624. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1889042)
I do find it hard to believe that anyone has ever really dismissed others' arguments because of the icon associated with them, but short of its ever expressly being stating so, there'd be almost no way of knowing for certain. It certainly seems like a silly thing to do. Oh well.


More evidence. Why don't you ask Trederdave, he's still around. My little diamond wasn't always accurate. Ask him if he ever insulted me because of the amount of money I've donated to this site.

This thread is great. Its the perfect illustration. Everyone saying "that never happens" and it's very easy to show it most certainly does.

I'm just glad I've got some neutral eyewitnesses because usually it requires an inordiante amount of research time to prove it does occur.

backlasher while i hd my prof hat i never edited my posts, cause it took too much effort, but who knows what has happened

meat, I have no indictment against you whatsoever. I hope that it doesn't even seem like I implied that I did.

Mahnken insults, yells, screams, curses and edits; and he's an admin. The Jim arbitrarily defrocked you.

That is how TOS works around here.
   625. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1889043)
This comes up in every flamewar. RossyW was a legitimate user who, according to Wiki Gonzalez, still uses the name on other sites.

I did not know that. Heck of a coincidence.

RossCWXYZ was certainly a parody.
   626. Kyle S Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#1889044)
What does it mean if your bases are filled in on your diamond?
   627. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#1889047)
it means you have a large penis
   628. scotto Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#1889049)
Backlasher, Ted and a few others share your memory of multiple SAT Lounges. I guess my recollection is off.
   629. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#1889052)
the sat irc was a joke i think, but in irc anything goes


You weren't in the one I was talking about.

What does it mean if your bases are filled in on your diamond?

Bases indicate donations.

RossCWXYZ was certainly a parody.

No, most of those were used to insult. There were some that were "RossCW is an Idiot" etc. etc.

Again, revisionism.
   630. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#1889053)
bl, i dont think youre accusing me of such, i was just stating my history of it or something of that nature
   631. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1889055)
What does it mean if your bases are filled in on your diamond?

Lou Piniella had a tantrum.
   632. Andere Richtingen Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1889057)
I ###### up on the SAT. I got a zero.
   633. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#1889061)
What does it mean if your bases are filled in on your diamond?

SAT multiple choice:

A. You procured it at Service Merchandise.
B. You gave generously to a cause you value.
C. You gave generously but can't remember why.
D. You are an elitist.
E. You get to defend yourself from attacks that you are an elitist.
F. All of the above.
   634. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1889064)
damn i dropped to 26 in total posts while i was gone inthose 5 months, however i look to make somehead way on days like this
   635. _ Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#1889066)
Lines connecting bases mean donations. Everyone has bases.
   636. The Ghost of the Bearded Wizard Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#1889067)
In Soviet Russia, the bases fill you!
   637. Traderdave Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#1889069)
More evidence. Why don't you ask Trederdave, he's still around. My little diamond wasn't always accurate. Ask him if he ever insulted me because of the amount of money I've donated to this site.

When you were caterwauling about "censorship" on a privately owned site, I noted that you, of all people, with your tremendous post count, ought to be bringing something to the party. If you took that as an insult, you are even more touchy than previously thought.
   638. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:02 PM (#1889070)
that was ment for the lounge
   639. Punky Brusstar (orw) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:05 PM (#1889075)
All Rob Base are belong to us.

I ###### up on the SAT. I got a zero.


I spelled Yale with a 7 on the application.
   640. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#1889081)
Then all of a sudden people believe we have these crazy, wild viewpoints so we deserve to get ridiculed. So they "don't mind" when we get ridiculed. And think its over the top to show any logic problems for somebody who just "innocently posted an SAT score after somebody asked if it was good enough for admission."

Then they will say, "I wasn't there for every thread, I just know how you operate."


I certainly hope this isn't pointed in my direction. I was just answering the question someone raised about when SAT scores were posted. I wasn't aware of the instance you were speaking of (and what robinred said), but I certainly didn't jump in because "I just know how you operate" and wanted to try to discredit you.

I do think the "can you believe people here post their SAT scores?" thing has been beaten like a government mule, even if there actually was a thread where all of the people at this site got together and, with complete seriousness, posted their SATs, ACTs, GREs, LSATs, MCATs, GMATs, PSATs, and GPAs dating back to elementary school. It's a stupid thing to do, but does it really mean that everything they say from here forward should be forever discounted by the fact that they posted their SATs in response to a question like "is it true people post their SATs here"? You complain that people hold things against you that you may have said years ago, that they're using preconceived notions about the Union on things that don't even relate to the topic at hand. How is this any different?

And for the record, I've complained to Jim about this thread (TOS, TOS, TOS!) despite the fact that no one attacked me. And also for the record, I didn't complain until the argument had completely gone away from Bonds and into yet another meta-discussion about who mistreats whom the worst at this site and Dan showed up and told you to #### off. Threads like this have a bad habit of angrying up the blood all over the site, and once everyone stops talking about Bonds and the book there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
   641. Punky Brusstar (orw) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#1889089)
Heh, that's all this thread needs, levski and base.
   642. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#1889096)
"kindly STFU about our alleged rudeness now, k?"

Jeez, talk about proving somebody's point for them...
   643. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#1889109)
I spelled Yale with a 7 on the application.

Maybe your father will donate an airport. Yale could use an international airport.

I do find it hard to believe that anyone has ever really dismissed others' arguments because of the icon associated with them, but short of its ever expressly being stating so, there'd be almost no way of knowing for certain. It certainly seems like a silly thing to do. Oh well.

More evidence. Why don't you ask Trederdave, he's still around. My little diamond wasn't always accurate. Ask him if he ever insulted me because of the amount of money I've donated to this site.


I do remember that. That was not a highpoint in the discussion, and it's still a good argument against the little bases. Though I guess if we get to the point where most people have no idea what they mean (did that donation system thing ever even amount to anything?) it's less of a concern than a hassle in that people will constantly be asking "what's up with the little diamonds, and why don't I have any lines?".

But you were right on the money with that one, and it took (IIRC) less than a day between the time they showed up and the time someone used a perceived lack of donation as a reason to mock another poster.
   644. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#1889111)
I donated, and I haven't reached first base. Maybe donations before a certain date don't count (which is fine with me--just sayin).
   645. Srul Itza Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#1889115)
[1]If I'm not mistaken, the information that Greg Anderson kept files, calendars, and documentation of Barry's drug use in his home and on his computer is new.

No, that was out there before. It was reported on with respect to the 2004 Grand Jury testimony:

"The prosecutors queried Bonds about calendars -- taken in a raid on Anderson's home -- that contained his name and notes about performance- enhancing drugs. He replied, "I've never had a calendar with him, never had anything.""
   646. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#1889122)
I donated, and I haven't reached first base. Maybe donations before a certain date don't count (which is fine with me--just sayin).

I think there's some requirement that the donation be matched up with your registered e-mail address, so if you donated under a different one it doesn't show up. If it bothers you, I also think you can contact Jim or Dan and tell them and they'll give you the appropriate credit.

Then post your SAT score and you're off and running! :-)
   647. Punky Brusstar (orw) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:19 PM (#1889127)
UCCF, just out of curiosity, why did you post this in post #2?

*pops popcorn, turns off phone, gets comfortable*

OK, go.


You didn't envision the thread turning out the way that it has? I did, but I expected it to be Frank Shorter (as opposed to Rosie Ruiz).
   648. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#1889128)
I certainly hope this isn't pointed in my direction.

That statement was not. There have been multiple people making proclamations about behavior; and I don't recall you having made one.

The statement about even some of the smarter people at the site not believing real events transpired probably does relate to you in some way.

It's a stupid thing to do, but does it really mean that everything they say from here forward should be forever discounted by the fact that they posted their SATs in response to a question like "is it true people post their SATs here"?

No, it doesn't mean that. But if you trace this back a little bit, my original comment was about a CLASS of people that post their SATs AND proclaim they are experts in something.

And that does mean something. Because its evident of the rhetoric that goes on here and how people come armed to the table.

I don't post CVs, SAT scores or anything else. There are maybe four or five people that have any idea of where I went to school, what I was trained in, what I've done for a living, and what I do for a living.

Some of those details have been inescapable, but I've never tried to trump someone b/c of something arbitrary.

A very large number of people here do that. People have called themselves Prodigies, they have proclaimed they are an "expert on the Negro Leagues" etc.

In fact, you have even been used as a basis of comparison. Again, I'm not going to out this person b/c I like him even if he's not fond of me, but I was once told,

"I doubt anybody here is as smart as me, except maybe UCCF or ______" and that is just b/c they know your educational background (which I don't think you pronounce).

Most of these folks are gaming. They won't to be top dawg; they want cred, and its not the social interaction you are making it out to be. They are doing it in hopes of getting others respect.

"When you were caterwauling about "censorship" on a privately owned site, I noted that you, of all people, with your tremendous post count, ought to be bringing something to the party."

See what I mean. And

"If you took that as an insult, you are even more touchy than previously thought.
"

See what I mean.

No, you've got the evidence that you want that it actually occurs. Of course, its ok b/c of bar bar bar bar.

And its a nice preamble to launch another insult.

I couldn't script this any better.
   649. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1889138)
Then post your SAT score and you're off and running! :-)

Unfortunately, my SAT score probably corrolates directly to the amount of money I donated.

My email address didn't change until well after I donated...maybe a year or so. The lack of chalk doesn't bother me. I was just sayin.
   650. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#1889140)
25. Robert Machemer: 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?

Backlasher: Yes, I feel otherwise, and I also feel that it is an outcome that is not utilitarian for the sight. Most of these discussions have taken place in teh Jim's Lap Dance Blog. I presume they are still there and it is a small blog, so you can get the level of exposition that you seek there far better than a simple reply post. if you are unable to easily find it or if The Jim has deleted it, I will be happy to provide additional information.
Ah, found the thread, thank you, and am reading it.

So far, most of your posts in the thread seem to be more addressing the idea of banning posters than the idea of a "block user" feature, though it's entirely possible I missed something. Would you be greatly averse to summarizing your reason for thinking a "block user" feature is akin to censorship?

Again, a "block user" feature is nothing more than a way for person A to skip over person B's posts. I'm not advocating it's inclusion here -- it may simply be too unwieldy a tool for this site, and it's entirely possible that there are ramifications to its existence which I am not considering -- but I'm not sure I see the problem with it at this point. Would you consider sharing your point of view?

In other words, at this point, people already can elect to read or not read the words of any other poster already; where's the harm in allowing the technology to make it easier to do that? The flipside might be a scoring system that makes it easier to locate posts by particular posters. Would you be averse to that as well? Why or why not?
   651. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:25 PM (#1889146)
UCCF, just out of curiosity, why did you post this in post #2?

*pops popcorn, turns off phone, gets comfortable*

OK, go.



You didn't envision the thread turning out the way that it has? I did, but I expected it to be Frank Shorter (as opposed to Rosie Ruiz).


I did envision just that. We haven't had a knock-down, drag-out steroids thread on this site in months. It's like living over a dormant volcano. You know the eruption is coming and the site will get buried in ash(holes), you just don't know when.

The part about internet polls was a nice twist, as was the demand for proof that there actually is a rule stating that you have to run all the miles in a marathon in order to qualify as the winner.
   652. HCO Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:27 PM (#1889156)
They really don't believe that:

(1) People post their SAT scores.

This is unbelievable. You brought it up. NO ONE denied it ever happened. To the best memories of everyone who attempted to answer my question, it was NEVER done in the spirit of proving one's superiority in a flamewar. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
(2) People proclaim themselves experts at certain things.

Why shouldn't they, if they are? I'm an expert on some subjects. None of them (except maybe Wiki Gonzalez) are relevant to this thread, but if they come up, why shouldn't I proclaim what I am?
(6) That people really think someone should have their kids taken away because they get a DWI.

Which instantly became a site-wide joke. It still comes up in the Lounge.
(7) That people really think that The Jim hasn't already deleted posts, and closed threads.

Who exactly thinks that hasn't happened?
   653. The Ghost of the Bearded Wizard Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1889158)
In Soviet Russia, users block you!
   654. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1889159)
The part about internet polls was a nice twist, as was the demand for proof that there actually is a rule stating that you have to run all the miles in a marathon in order to qualify as the winner.

That never happened.
dB
   655. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1889164)
UCCF, just out of curiosity, why did you post this in post #2?


*pops popcorn, turns off phone, gets comfortable*

OK, go.



...

Threads like this have a bad habit of angrying up the blood all over the site

I'm with Daly on the question. But moreover, maybe they should.

Do you think the inequity of how meat is handled compared to Mahnken should be swept under the rug?

Then most of the Primates will say, "The Jim would never do this."

And as far as I'm concerned, Szym has latitude to do what he wants. The Jim himself has insulted me far, far worse.

And that occurred in the same thread where I did nothing but make posts about censorship and ignore every single insult hurled my way.

It didn't slow down the insults one iota. All it did was bring The Jim out to join the party.

And that's what you got, post after post after post of insult railed at me.
You were there. I don't even think the spinners can make that thread to be out more.

All those that can't believe that would happen should go read the thread.

I'd be real interested to see how the Jim responds to the disparate treatement between Mahnken and Meat.
   656. Kyle S Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1889175)
For some reason I know that a certain Pirates fan on this site had a 1600 on his SAT. I have no idea how I know this but I do. SO yeah, people post their SATs.

who cares about educational background though? great, you went to HBS or yale law or wherever, don't talk about that.. but... I am proud to have gone to UVA undergrad because it's where Ryan Zimmerman and Javier Lopez (the bad one) went to school and don't mind saying so. Athletics play a big part of college identity (much moreso than they do on SAT scores :)

If I had gone somewhere more prestigious maybe I'd feel differently (hell if i'd gone to somewhere more prestigious i'd be embarrassed about my schools crappy athletics!)
   657. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1889176)
RossCWXYZ was certainly a parody.

No, most of those were used to insult.
You act as if those are mutually exclusive. I can't imagine parodying RossCW without insulting him, because his posts already read like a parody.
   658. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1889180)
RossCWXYZ was certainly a parody.

No, most of those were used to insult. There were some that were "RossCW is an Idiot" etc. etc.

Again, revisionism.


And your point is what, parodies can't be mocking? Of course it was used to mock him. The posts were usually a parody of him for the purposes of mocking him.

The revisionism is claiming that he was "driven off" the site by said mocking. He wasn't. At least I'm reasonably sure. As sure as I can be without knowing him personally. Maybe you do?

I have had probably more experience debating with Ross than anyone here, save a few long time Neyer boarders. He lived for the mocking, thrived in the environment, and invited it.

Interestingly enough, you should understand and sympathize, given the way you feel that your position has been mischaracterized amd marginalized. You mock The Jim, the prof hats, Treder. Well, that was Ross' style,to mischaracterize and marginalize, and it invited mockery.
   659. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#1889196)
Do you think the inequity of how meat is handled compared to Mahnken should be swept under the rug?

I, for one, do not think it should be so.

bl - I have insulted you in the past for what I perceived to be unnecessary invective and self-righteousness. I apologize for that.

A propos of nothing, I think my only participation in these threads has been to ask questions about the importance of bat speed vs. strength in the travel of the baseball. I still don't know the answer to these questions. I seem to recall some anti-Bonds people saying something like "I can't believe people don't think strength makes you hit a ball further." I might be misremembering that.
DB
   660. Mister High Standards Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:40 PM (#1889208)

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.

This is while perhaps true, it is also true that people "hats" have stuck up for the union, and the lack of consitancy, both in public and in private.


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?


Oh please, thats childs play - someone said this to a union member:

How can any reasonable person not want to gouge out your eyeballs and piss in your skull?

Sorry, while the union certianly gives it out, they also take it. Yet, generally speaking they are the ones who are called on it, while often others are given a pass.
   661. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1889210)
The statement about even some of the smarter people at the site not believing real events transpired probably does relate to you in some way.

Fair enough. I wasn't doubting that there was an SAT lounge, just doubting that the events transpired exactly as stated. I was unaware (or at least forgetful) of the one you and robinred were talking about, so I stand corrected on that.

No, it doesn't mean that. But if you trace this back a little bit, my original comment was about a CLASS of people that post their SATs AND proclaim they are experts in something. And that does mean something. Because its evident of the rhetoric that goes on here and how people come armed to the table. I don't post CVs, SAT scores or anything else. There are maybe four or five people that have any idea of where I went to school, what I was trained in, what I've done for a living, and what I do for a living. Some of those details have been inescapable, but I've never tried to trump someone b/c of something arbitrary. A very large number of people here do that. People have called themselves Prodigies, they have proclaimed they are an "expert on the Negro Leagues" etc. In fact, you have even been used as a basis of comparison. Again, I'm not going to out this person b/c I like him even if he's not fond of me, but I was once told, "I doubt anybody here is as smart as me, except maybe UCCF or ______" and that is just b/c they know your educational background (which I don't think you pronounce). Most of these folks are gaming. They won't to be top dawg; they want cred, and its not the social interaction you are making it out to be. They are doing it in hopes of getting others respect.

I agree with all of this. What we all do in the "outside world" - where we went to school, what our jobs are, where we live, how much money we make/have - should be essentially irrelevant for purposes of determining our credibility, likeability, believability, or any other -ability as posters. And yes, I don't go around spouting my educational background, though given my law firm woes ad nauseam in the Lounge it's not really a secret.

And yes (another and yes), I do assume any time something relating to grades, test scores, what college someone attended, etc. comes up and people start posting their personal specifics they do do it with some motivation of hoping someone says "wow, you're awesome". I knew plenty of people like that in school, including a guy with whom I studied - once - who ended a dispute about something by pointing out that he'd gone to Harvard and that should be the tiebreaker.

That said... as with so much of the stuff in these endless battles on this site, what is served by continually bringing it up? You think it damages their credibility, but it's not doing a lot for yours either. It's like Eraser-X and his racism definition - if you paint everyone with the moniker "racist", then the word loses much of its impact. If you're frequently breaking out the "yeah, but there was an *SAT lounge*" argument to help make your point, then it just enters into the white noise of this site like so much other background crap that pollutes these discussions.

And it's just not the trump card that you perceive it to be. You think it's a big deal, but I'm not sure there are many other people who do. (Though I'm sure that also plays into your belief that you represent the minority view here, which on many issues you probably do. And I'm not saying don't ever bring it up (not that you'd listen to me, or not even that you should), but I'm just telling you as someone who observes these discussions more than participates in them, and as someone who holds no real animosity toward you personally (I mean, you're a Flair fan - what's not to like?), it's far past the dead horse stage at this point.)
   662. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:44 PM (#1889216)
Do you think the inequity of how meat is handled compared to Mahnken should be swept under the rug?

Until meat showed up here and said something about it, I had no idea that his keys had been taken away.

And, unfortunately, because it's meatwad, I still have no idea *why* his keys were taken away. I tried picking through the garble and gather that he tried to do something to the Nanny?
   663. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#1889217)
The part about internet polls was a nice twist, as was the demand for proof that there actually is a rule stating that you have to run all the miles in a marathon in order to qualify as the winner.

That never happened.
dB


Revisionist.
   664. Mister High Standards Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:46 PM (#1889218)
is it bad when you read something you wrote and have no clue what it was supposed to mean.
   665. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:47 PM (#1889223)
I believe BL has made more posts referencing the SAT lounge than the actual number of posts in said lounge.
   666. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#1889228)
And that occurred in the same thread where I did nothing but make posts about censorship and ignore every single insult hurled my way.

It didn't slow down the insults one iota. All it did was bring The Jim out to join the party.

And that's what you got, post after post after post of insult railed at me.
You were there. I don't even think the spinners can make that thread to be out more.


I was there, and unless I'm misremembering I agreed with your arguments about how the TOS were being applied inequitably (and would likely continue to be in the future). That was a terrible thread, a low point in the history of this site.
   667. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#1889229)
Until meat showed up here and said something about it, I had no idea that his keys had been taken away.

Don't look at me, I'm not the one who wanted to take his keys away.
   668. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#1889232)
I agree with all of this. What we all do in the "outside world" - where we went to school, what our jobs are, where we live, how much money we make/have - should be essentially irrelevant for purposes of determining our credibility, likeability, believability, or any other -ability as posters.
Well, now, that can't quite be true. Some of those things are irrelevant to anything, but how can (e.g., and I pick this simply because it's the obvious one for me) whether someone is a lawyer be irrelevant on a legal thread? The discussion about (for instance) the lawsuit against MLB over fantasy statistics involved complex legal questions; I certainly credited the analysis of my fellow lawyers more than I did the analysis of random primates. I don't think I was wrong to do so. (If by "Credibility" you mean "believability," then I agree with you. But since you used both words, I assume the first meant something different.)
I knew plenty of people like that in school, including a guy with whom I studied - once - who ended a dispute about something by pointing out that he'd gone to Harvard and that should be the tiebreaker.
Yeah, but Harvard people are like that...
   669. Richard Gadsden Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:52 PM (#1889235)
When do the Arizona Diamondbacks get the 2002 NL pennant?
   670. Srul Itza Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#1889237)
People's dislike of Ross CW pre-dated PED arguments

It predated primer, and related in part to some very hateful and childish things he said after 9/11 on the Neyer Board. He did not, however, insult, until he got insulted. He was a unique form of troll and is not missed by people of good will.
   671. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#1889239)
great, you went to HBS or yale law or wherever, don't talk about that.. but... I am proud to have gone to UVA undergrad because it's where Ryan Zimmerman and Javier Lopez (the bad one) went to school and don't mind saying so. Athletics play a big part of college identity (much moreso than they do on SAT scores :)


You post that as if I disagree. In social outlets, we do fire up college rivalries or sing the school songs.

But yes, I've seen someone proclaim themselves an expert on "Negro Leagues" or "The Tower of Power" to make a point.

I've seen someone talk about their "3 degrees" to make a point.

I've seen people declare themselves a "prodigy" to make a point.

I've seen someone declare their mental aptitude to make a point.

But digamma is right, I only recall one instance where someone has posted SAT scores directly for the same point, and that one doesn't really count.

But when that former group is also posting their SAT scores in companion instances, then it amounts to the same.

You act as if those are mutually exclusive.

NO, I preceive the original statement as minimizing the RossCXY thing as being merely a parody. I parody Morgan, but I don't mock them. They can be mutually exclusive. Most of the Ross stuff was just to be mean. Its what you think I do to easy targets.

I seem to recall some anti-Bonds people saying something like "I can't believe people don't think strength makes you hit a ball further." I might be misremembering that.


No need for an apology, I am not aware of any feud with you.

But here is the dynamic problem that I spoke of, and you can see it in play. I've spent too much time here already b/c almost everything is aimed toward me. And you see what happens when I don't respond, or choose where to respond.

I don't recall your specific question. I do know that question has been discussed in earlier threads.

But let's say you asked that question in the first 120 posts.

Among those first 120 are multiple statements that it hasn't been proving that strength increases baseball ability. Someone may post (and that statement doesn't sound like me, but I'll take the rap if need be) "I can't believe that people don't believe strenght increases how far the ball goes."

That is the demand on the minority opinion holder, we would have to quote 30 people, directly respond to each, etc. etc. It would be a full time job.

And then people start taking offense when things aren't even aimed at them. Witness UCCF's reaction to my general statement earlier which doesn't apply to him. And watch what happens if I don't reply to somebody.

Its like holding a press conference.
   672. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#1889241)
Revisionist.

I never said that. Show me where I did. ;-B
DB
   673. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:56 PM (#1889242)
Don't look at me, I'm not the one who wanted to take his keys away.

I'm not looking at anyone.
   674. Kirby Kyle Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#1889251)
What we all do in the "outside world" - where we went to school, what our jobs are, where we live, how much money we make/have - should be essentially irrelevant for purposes of determining our credibility, likeability, believability, or any other -ability as posters.

I agree in principle with what you're saying, but not entirely. If you, or Backlasher, David Nieporent, Srul, or Mephisto, post an opinion on a matter of law, it should carry more weight than those of people that don't work in the field. It certainly doesn't mean that you can't be wrong or that you're immune to questions. But the depth of experience within the topic at hand has to be taken into account.
   675. BWC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#1889256)
When do the Arizona Diamondbacks get the 2002 NL pennant

Well, a good start would be winning more than one game against the 2002 (post-Big Mac) Cards.
   676. DCA Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#1889259)
Of course, its ok b/c of bar bar bar bar.

Just as an aside, can somewhat tell me what this means? The first dozen or so times I saw it it was always bar bar bar, which I assumed was code for random meaningless argument (reference to a slot machine, if you keep pulling you might eventually get something). But with 4 bars, I'm not so sure. I still think it means random meaningless argument, but it could be something else.
   677. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#1889262)
When you were caterwauling about "censorship" on a privately owned site, I noted that you, of all people, with your tremendous post count, ought to be bringing something to the party. If you took that as an insult, you are even more touchy than previously thought.


So you actually support your initial question? Crazy.

And, Bivens, like you I've given to the site and never had it reflected in my OBP, and have pointed this out to Dan and never had an explanation. The bases are therefore silly, since they don't accurately represent giving and since people like Traderdave actually equate giving with "bringing something to the party."

Obviously, the BL persona (and many, many others) bring something to the site that generates clear interest. He should pay too?
   678. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#1889263)
NO, I preceive the original statement as minimizing the RossCXY thing as being merely a parody.

Your perception was incorrect. I used that word to differentiate that handle from the other one, which I learned today, was a different, legit poster.
   679. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:02 PM (#1889267)
Well, now, that can't quite be true. Some of those things are irrelevant to anything, but how can (e.g., and I pick this simply because it's the obvious one for me) whether someone is a lawyer be irrelevant on a legal thread? The discussion about (for instance) the lawsuit against MLB over fantasy statistics involved complex legal questions; I certainly credited the analysis of my fellow lawyers more than I did the analysis of random primates. I don't think I was wrong to do so. (If by "Credibility" you mean "believability," then I agree with you. But since you used both words, I assume the first meant something different.)

OK, good point. If we're having a legal thread, and I know someone is a lawyer, then that does matter. But that credit comes from the profession itself, and not where he went to school or what he scored on the SAT (or LSAT or bar exam). I guess that's the point I was trying to make - all those things that supposedly show how smart you are don't really matter. If you have some expertise in an area, it's always welcome. But don't bluster in and say "I'm a lawyer, *and* I went to Harvard, so listen up you little pissants while I tell you about it, Crimson-style."
   680. HCO Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:02 PM (#1889268)
I tried picking through the garble and gather that he tried to do something to the Nanny?

It used to be that the Nanny reduced all profanities she recognized to ####, regardless of the number of letters in them. Now the number of pound signs she uses is equal to the number of letters in the censored word. So if you use a seven-letter profanity, she used to make it #### and now she makes it #######.

I believe Meatwad was stripped of his keys for experimenting with this new feature.
   681. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:06 PM (#1889288)
Oh please, thats childs play - someone said this to a union member:


How can any reasonable person not want to gouge out your eyeballs and piss in your skull?


Sorry, while the union certianly gives it out, they also take it. Yet, generally speaking they are the ones who are called on it, while often others are given a pass.



whoa, whoa, whoa. I said that, but to kevin. I don't give a crap what Union kevin belongs to, I said that because I loathe kevin. I don't care very much about the Union. That wasn't even in a steroids-war thread.

Don't quote me out of context.
   682. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:06 PM (#1889289)
That is the demand on the minority opinion holder, we would have to quote 30 people, directly respond to each, etc. etc. It would be a full time job.

Actually, that's why I brought it up. It fit within your Primer Thread Algorithm. DB
   683. JC in DC Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#1889292)
Kyle S: My new favorite poster. I lived in Dobie my first year.


BL: Did you ever see my question about the U2 Scope show; i.e., who opened? I may have been at that show....
   684. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#1889294)
It used to be that the Nanny reduced all profanities she recognized to ####, regardless of the number of letters in them. Now the number of pound signs she uses is equal to the number of letters in the censored word. So if you use a seven-letter profanity, she used to make it #### and now she makes it #######.

I believe Meatwad was stripped of his keys for experimenting with this new feature.


I'd noticed the difference in the number of #s at some point. Sorry to hear about meatwad, though I'm really in no position to say whether de-keying him was a good idea. I'm not really sure keying him in the first place was a great idea, given his pervasive problems with spelling and grammar (you really don't want someone posting threads where every third word is misspelled or contains a typo).

But now that he's firearms proficient, I fully support whatever makes him less likely to aim them in Maine's direction. :-)
   685. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#1889297)
Yeah, but Harvard people are like that...


You're confusing Harvard and Princeton.

And it's just not the trump card that you perceive it to be.

Its not played as a trump. Its used as an illustration.

You have seen scores of "I don't believe that happened" on this thread. Maybe I do or maybe I don't know something about advocacy, but there are short forms and there are long forms. And if you want to press ideas, you build associations.

How much they may hate me, or think I'm dumb, or think they though of it themselves based on something Neyer wrote is not important to me.

Hate away, its much easier for most of them if I am the bad guy, evil person. But if they see what The Jim is really doing and they have some freedom of expression then great.

Soon somebody is going to say I'm overplaying the Mahnken editing card or the Meat defrocking card. It was ok b/c of Bar Bar Bar. But each audience and exposure is new.

You didn't know meat was arbitrarily defrocked. I don't know what you know about Mahnken.

Machemer didn't know about the SAT braggarts. You have to put it on the table to make progress. To you its like watching the same movie 7000 times, to others it might be new.
   686. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:09 PM (#1889303)
not nearly as clever as the guy who registered as constip8ed on the old Neyer Board

Ahh, good times...

A few random points --

albuterol is not a steroid, anabolic, cortico, or otherwise

I am quite amused by BL's defenses of RossCW, since the overwhelming majority of the vitriol heaped on Ross was a direct response to his intellectual dishonesty, which BL frequently and rightly attacks in others. Now, just so I don't get branded a revisionist, my experience with Ross was almost all at the old Neyer board; I wasn't around for the really nasty stuff that apparently happened here at primer, but I do not doubt that it happened or that it crossed a line).

I'm pretty sure that SrulItza has the highest SAT scores of anyone around here, and not because he posted them

we have to have higher standards for how we handle meat -- it's a public health issue
   687. Kyle S Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#1889309)
Webb. Wahoowa.
   688. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#1889315)
I don't know what you know about Mahnken.

Not much. I vaguely recall some post-editing back around the time of the censorship thread, but I don't recall who it was (maybe Larry). If there's more beyond that that's happened, I'm in the dark.
   689. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#1889316)
By the way, I still don't think this book has anything new in it.
   690. Daryn Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#1889318)
To the best memories of everyone who attempted to answer my question, it was NEVER done in the spirit of proving one's superiority in a flamewar.

Maybe not in a flamewar, but I recall at least two occasions were multiple people trotted out their SAT scores in the Lounge (or its predecessors) to prove that they were smart, not just to be ironic.

And BL's general point is really not challengeable -- people on a daily basis drop information about themselves in an attempt to establish their intelligence or expertise on a subject.

I'm guilty of it myself in at least one sense -- when I include the phrase "as a labour lawyer" in a post. I say it to provide context, but it admittedly is not very different from saying "my SAT score was 1500" or "when I was at Harvard". It is intended for the audience to take my post more seriously. Which is kind of funny -- because I didn't think I cared and I think my posts speak for themselves in any event. I think I'll stop doing that right after I go to my Mensa meeting and Rhodes Scholar reunion. And teach my tantric sex class.
   691. Backlasher Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#1889322)
BL: Did you ever see my question about the U2 Scope show; i.e., who opened?

No sorry I missed it. I think it was Lone Justice, but we got there late, and it might have been at Hampton Roads Col. It was around 84-85 Unforgettable Fire time.
   692. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:14 PM (#1889330)
It predated primer, and related in part to some very hateful and childish things he said after 9/11 on the Neyer Board.

Indeed. I specifically remember the tantrum he threw, and continued to bring up for months (years?) afterwords, concerning the immediate grounding of all air traffic post 9/11. "How do bush pilots in Alaska or Forest service pilots in Montana pose a threat?" And he was right, they didn't. But when pressed for a solution, as in "Well, which planes would you let fly, which ones would you ground, how much manpower would it take to regulate such a plan, and how would have implemented it in the chaos that was the morning of Sep. 11, 2001?", he would respond with "So, you think Alaskan bush pilots are a threat?" After running off all opposition through sheer annoyance, he would then claim victory, and in the future invoke a sort of internet message board stare decisis. "Hey, that was proven by me months ago."
   693. Kyle S Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#1889334)
I'm pretty sure that SrulItza has the highest SAT scores of anyone around here, and not because he posted them

I doubt that! I got a 1593!
   694. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:16 PM (#1889339)
As the writer who started the whole Rosie Ruiz bit (at least on this thread), let me state again that it's squarely on point as to the issue of whether Bonds's HR records should be officially recognized by baseball. Unless it can be shown that Ruiz broke a specific Bos Marathon rule that was on the books in 1980, the "it has to be a specific violation of the rules of the sport" defense for Bonds's records disappears. There are other legitimate defenses, but that one is gone.

I also want to take a shot at the greenie/steroid equivalence and the claim that "well the IOC bans both so it sees them the same" argument. The IOC regulates sports in which gold metals are won and lost by differences of hundreths of seconds ... and in which speed is the sole criterion of victory. Given the razor-thin difference between the best and also-rans, the IOC, in its caution, bans anything that could even conceivably give someone an advantage. It does not remotely follow that everything it bans has a potentially simlar competitive impact.
   695. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:17 PM (#1889344)
Obviously, the BL persona (and many, many others) bring something to the site that generates clear interest. He should pay too?

no publicity is bad publicity
the BL "persona" increases hits
hits equal cash
================
btf owes BL residuals?
   696. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1889349)
I'm guilty of it myself in at least one sense -- when I include the phrase "as a labour lawyer" in a post. I say it to provide context, but it admittedly is not very different from saying "my SAT score was 1500" or "when I was at Harvard". It is intended for the audience to take my post more seriously.

Well, I think (as David and someone else correctly pointed out) context is important here. If we're having a discussion about labor law, and you show up and say "as a labor lawyer blah blah", that's relevant to the discussion. If you're in the Lounge talking about politics and say "as a lawyer I believe X", then it's probably a device to make other people believe you're smart and should be taken seriously.
   697. RobertMachemer Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1889350)
Machemer didn't know about the SAT braggarts.
For the record, I never said anything about SAT braggarts.

Also for the record, I don't much care if people post their SAT scores or not. It doesn't make me think especially more or less of them, nor does it affect my view of the site. (It's a big site with lots of posters; I'm not surprised if there is some percentage of people who name-drop or SAT-drop or whatever -- more power to them, I guess -- even if it's something that I might normally, though perhaps not always, try to avoid.
   698. Mister High Standards Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1889353)
I didn't quote you out of context. I quoted you exactly in context - it was a disgusting and disturbing thing to say. The fact that you said it to Kevin, made it "ok" in the mind of a lot of people, but if Kevin said that to someone the story would very well have been different. Which goes to the double standard that a number of people claim is in place. Personally I think it is inplace, but it likely isn't deliberate.

I also believe Meat lost his keys for a inappropriate handle at the time, which has since gone away. But I'm just supposing. Personally I think it's a good idea to not have people with handles like: "Farting with a walkman on" posting articles. YMMV.
   699. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1889354)
Kyle & JC,

I am on the corner even as we type
   700. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:20 PM (#1889358)
As the writer who started the whole Rosie Ruiz bit (at least on this thread), let me state again that it's squarely on point as to the issue of whether Bonds's HR records should be officially recognized by baseball. Unless it can be shown that Ruiz broke a specific Bos Marathon rule that was on the books in 1980, the "it has to be a specific violation of the rules of the sport" defense for Bonds's records disappears. There are other legitimate defenses, but that one is gone.

I also want to take a shot at the greenie/steroid equivalence and the claim that "well the IOC bans both so it sees them the same" argument. The IOC regulates sports in which gold metals are won and lost by differences of hundreths of seconds ... and in which speed is the sole criterion of victory. Given the razor-thin difference between the best and also-rans, the IOC, in its caution, bans anything that could even conceivably give someone an advantage. It does not remotely follow that everything it bans has a potentially simlar competitive impact.
Page 7 of 9 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(34 - 8:27pm, Sep 02)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(11 - 8:25pm, Sep 02)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(312 - 8:22pm, Sep 02)
Last: BDC

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(21 - 8:21pm, Sep 02)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogSpector: Negative run differential doesn't tell whole story for first-place Cardinals
(8 - 8:21pm, Sep 02)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(40 - 8:14pm, Sep 02)
Last: The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee)

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(25 - 8:10pm, Sep 02)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(122 - 8:09pm, Sep 02)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(4 - 8:06pm, Sep 02)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(10 - 7:50pm, Sep 02)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogBrewers prospect plays every position, all in one game
(16 - 7:31pm, Sep 02)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogRobothal: Tension growing between Astros' manager, GM
(43 - 7:31pm, Sep 02)
Last: Zach

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(8 - 7:24pm, Sep 02)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(28 - 7:15pm, Sep 02)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(6 - 7:05pm, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

Page rendered in 0.6150 seconds
52 querie(s) executed