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.

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.

But is it really fair to extrapolate from the Lounge to the rest of BP? The Lounge represents a separate subculture (even when many of the participants are the same). The fact that someone was willing to cite SATs there doesn't mean that they would do so in a real BP discussion.

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.

Yeah, but if that were his biggest 9/11-related sin, it would have been pretty minor. He also went around repeatedly minimizing the number of people who died as well as mocking them, basically calling them all useless because they just gambled on the stock market.

Still, it was his intellectual dishonesty, not his attitude, that irked people. There was the MLE thread, where he tried to claim that a half-paragraph summary of MLEs in one of the Green Handbooks was the full explanation of them; when people pointed out that there was actually a long explanation and derivation in one of the Abstracts, he basically said that since he hadn't seen it, he'd pretend that the Handbook definition was the full one.

I am on the corner even as we type

I'm jealous! If they opened a Take-It-Away in DC, I would singlehandedly keep it in business. Their sandwiches are like crack.

---

As we argue over silliness, the US is getting drubbed by Canadia. O! the shame!

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.

Baseball, until recently, was an olympic sport. Are you saying that the IOC bans things with an eye towards timed events only or as its base line? DB

By the way, I still don't think this book has anything new in it.

Since it's several days before the book's actual release, David, you seem to have obtained a pre-publication review copy. So be sure to keep that review slip and all the attendant publicity paraphenalia. It'll help you if you ever want to sell it. I bought a ton of review copies from the Post the other day but unfortunately the Bonds book wasn't among them.

Of course if you instead have an uncorrected proof copy, and it has significant differences from the book itself, then be doubly sure to hang onto that proof. You never know.

And since you seem to have already read the book, perhaps you should post the first review on Amazon. If you say that there's "nothing new," maybe you'll depress the sales a bit.

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.

Interesting. When I first saw that comment to Kevin, I recognized as a (inexact) quote from "A Few Good Men." Because of that, I did not take it all that seriously. As I reconsider, I am not sure that my initial reaction was correct.

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.

Careful, that borders on a gotcha!

I was thinking the exact same thing, ans was going to post something similar until I read yours.

Baseball, until recently, was an olympic sport. Are you saying that the IOC bans things with an eye towards timed events only or as its base line? DB


It doesn't alter its drug policies for sports not identical to those driving the policy. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Well, a good start would be winning more than one game against the 2002 (post-Big Mac) Cards.

Whoops, thought McGwire was still there. OK, 2002 NL pennant by default to St. Louis. That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

IIRC, the Giants were the Wild Card that year, so no divisional titles have to be transferred.

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.

Absolutely. I was there. It WAS Lone Justice. I remember it vividly, 'cuz my then girlfriend and I were sitting up in the closed off section behind the stage, hating Lone Justice. I was there w/about 3 other people. That is so funny!

Kyle & JC,

I am on the corner even as we type

The White Spot, home of the "Grillswith" is gone, right?

BLB: I'm waiting for MY check in the mail!

I doubt that! I got a 1593!

Hell, I got an 1800!

Well, actually it was only a 550, but I got 1450 bonus pointes when I invented the terlet. You can't "krap in komfort" without a terlet, I don't care how high your IQ is.

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.

And it depends. You bet it matters whether someone is lay or a lawyer in how much I'm going to believe their recitation of the issue. Especially here, where many confuse an interest in "business" with a knowledge in the law, or want to cite some other lawyer that has an advocacy interest in the outcome as the recitation.

The argument on the law is independent of any license or education. Its either good or bad. The fact that Nieporent, Srul, Sam M., Field, UCCF, Daryn etc. give better legal arguments would be apparent whether I knew their background or not. There are plenty of licensed attys on this site that butcher the law terribly. And Emeigh who is not a lawyer shows decent dexterity with legal issues.

So context is important. I have no qualm or animus against Daryn, but IMHO don't think the "as a labor lawyer" hacks it as an intro phrase. Can't you usually just tell who knows what they are talking about. I mean The Jim has already branded me as a bad lawyer. Its usually not important unless you are trying to appeal to authority, and create authority in oneself.

Its the Primer version of the fanhome,

"I work for x, and I can tell you, you all have no idea what you are talking about."

I do want to know if someone has a unique position to observe, but that's about all I care about. Once we get past the testimony stage, the arguments stand or fall on their own.

I stopped reading this thread after the first 100 or so posts, but I'm sure it just rehashed all the same steroid arguments we've had a thousand times before, so I doubt I missed much. Next time I feel like re-stating my opinion on 'roiding, I'll do it in a thread that isn't so inflated so it won't get swallowed.

Basically, I just wanted to be a part of history, since it looks like this thread may break the old record for posts. Carry on, y'all.

Well, a good start would be winning more than one game against the 2002 (post-Big Mac) Cards.

Whoops, thought McGwire was still there. OK, 2002 NL pennant by default to St. Louis. That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

IIRC, the Giants were the Wild Card that year, so no divisional titles have to be transferred.

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.

In that case, I would like to point out that the original "I think Bonds is on steroids" posts did call forth some inexcusable of vitriol from other posters. Others posters were not vitriolic, but attacked the premise.

Arguments and discussions overlapped, and things often got overly heated and emotional. The Union formed largely for defense against the more vitriolic and asinine attacks. However, some of the constituents of the Union -- particularly BL, kevin and Retardo (a handle which I still find offensive even though I know its inoffensive derivation) -- have particularly pungent style of posting. Style sometimes overshadows substance.

The RossCW phenomenon is a different matter. Leaving politics aside, he sometimes, but very rarely, said things which were not foolish -- the most obvious was when said that Vince Coleman was not completely useless as Goldman said, because his speed did allow him to score more often than another player with the same OBP would -- but in almost all other threads he was everything that Miserlou and I say he was, at the Neyer Board and here.

At going over the top is not confined to people bashing the union. The thing about the DWI shoud have his kids taken away from him is taken out of context. There was an article about a player who continued to drive, with his kids in the car, after he knew he was impaired. Somebody who apparenlty had a particular animus against drunk drivers said he should have his kids taken away from him (which has now become another Primer catchphrase). That was over the top and excessive, but the crap that was posted in response was even more over the top and excessive, resulting in true crapstorm of a thread.

BL has his style. Get past it. If you attack, expect to get it back better than you gave. He does not claim to be 100% right all of the time, and has modified his position in response to reasonable argument. He is one of the brightest people posting here, and probably has even higher SAT scores that I did. ;^)

And yes, Retardo and DMN are on another plane. Why that one does not get hijacked, G-d only knows.

"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."

This was me, and IIRC I posted it as part of a hit-and-run post about how the SAT isn't a good measure of generalized intelligence.

Well, a good start would be winning more than one game against the 2002 (post-Big Mac) Cards.

Whoops, thought McGwire was still there. OK, 2002 NL pennant by default to St. Louis. That really would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

IIRC, the Giants were the Wild Card that year, so no divisional titles have to be transferred.

Are we gonna get on greenies again?

Listen baseball does not specifically prohibity sodomy and the lash, only rum probably, does that mean Bonds could have dressed up as a pirate and taken the cat o' nine to opposing pitchers before penentrating their bung holes with his L'ville slugger? What part of steroids are generally illegal to distribute and take under US law is hard to understand, and hard to understand why baseball need not specifically state it? Oh, what about yet to be invented space roids made with alien technology? Those aren't specifically banned, I guess I lose!

Doesn't that argument sound a little bit weak? Or thin?

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.

But is it really fair to extrapolate from the Lounge to the rest of BP? The Lounge represents a separate subculture (even when many of the participants are the same). The fact that someone was willing to cite SATs there doesn't mean that they would do so in a real BP discussion.

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.

Yeah, but if that were his biggest 9/11-related sin, it would have been pretty minor. He also went around repeatedly minimizing the number of people who died as well as mocking them, basically calling them all useless because they just gambled on the stock market.

Still, it was his intellectual dishonesty, not his attitude, that irked people. There was the MLE thread, where he tried to claim that a half-paragraph summary of MLEs in one of the Green Handbooks was the full explanation of them; when people pointed out that there was actually a long explanation and derivation in one of the Abstracts, he basically said that since he hadn't seen it, he'd pretend that the Handbook definition was the full one.

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."

Wow, that metaphor is so apt I can't believe I have never heard it before.

I'm stealing it.

RossyW was an innocent coincidence.

RossCWXYZ and "RossCW Is An Idiot" and other handles were juvenile insults (which is fine) but done in a manner of questionable ethics. I ####### *promise* you that if someone had used equally questionable handles like "David Nieporent Is A Nazi", or "Craig Burley, The Canuckistani Jackass" or "Steve Treder: Barry Bonds's Number One Semen Receptacle", people would have been livid, Letters To Jim would have been written, the poster banned. But for Ross, nothing.

And sorry, but it's flattery to accuse these three of mere "intellectual dishonesty;" if Ross deserved what he got, these three deserved far more.

But the real disgrace is when someone posed *as* "RossCW". This isn't a parody, it's an imposturing in the chat room sense of the word, and is pretty much the ultimate no-no when it comes to CRs and message boards. Dan Szymborski, Lord of Fairness, didn't say one f'n word about it, nor did Jim Furtado. Yet when someone did it to Nieporent on the old site, Szym was dishing out warnings and, I assume, logging IPs.

Why the difference? I have a good idea: it's the same reason he can come in here now and lecture the union on civility but never did utter a peep back in the old days of pure pro-steroids venom.

Syzm has been personally polite and even friendly to me in our exchanges before today, but he's lost me here now, and lately with this hectoring crap aimed at the union in general and BL in particular. Be fair, and I'll listen to your advice. Since you're not fair, your lectures are massive insults and will be treated as such.

So context is important. I have no qualm or animus against Daryn, but IMHO don't think the "as a labor lawyer" hacks it as an intro phrase... I do want to know if someone has a unique position to observe, but that's about all I care about. Once we get past the testimony stage, the arguments stand or fall on their own.

I agree. If X is a lawyer and says so, but he then goes on to argue that the Fifth Amendment gives us the right to buy beer on Sundays, then I'm not going to give much credence to the rest of his legal arguments.

But it's useful for someone to say up front something like "as a labor lawyer I'm xxxxx" if that's what we're talking about. If it's a subject I don't know anything about (and there are plenty of those), I'll give someone with some stated expertise in that area the benefit of the doubt until they prove to me that they don't deserve it.

Obviously, the BL persona (and many, many others) bring something to the site that generates clear interest. He should pay too?


The sad thing to me is the apathy or lack of appreciation for posters and it appears contributors.

We constantly hear about, "posters aren't the only ones that come here, you know"

Well what do you think anybody is coming here for. I love Repoz, but I don't think its just to read his witty blurbs. Fine, you can paint me as a disgrace and menance, but there are people that other people do come to see. This is lost on Jim.

And after everyone complained that the base thing and Prof. Hat thing was a bad idea, he's not even updating the bases on his contributors.

I think he really believes this is a sabersite where everyone just comes to listen to statisticians argue about which mean to regress too.

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

No offense, but that is what feeds the problem. I've got no qualms about saying how smart Srul is, but whether its SAT, karma, or Prof. Hats people are just looking for currency of worth. If this where Slashdot, it would just be 1337 hacking skills. And trederdave does often make it about the Benjamins on this site.

Whatever you think the currency is, no need to post it.

Here's a question somewhat on topic - do amphetamines speed reaction time (seems like a they would)? If so, isnt' this a performance benefit that directly relates to important baseball hitting attributes?
DB

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 simply cannot believe that 4 pages and nearly 24 hours later, you're belaboring this ridiculous argument. USA Track and Field rules clearly forbid leaving the course -- whether it be a marathon or other track event -- particularly to gain an advantage. Yes, I pulled rules from 2005 and not 1980 -- do you *honestly* believe that these rules were any different back then?

I admit that I can't find circa 1980 rules online, but I submit that I've done more than enough to satisfy a burden of persuasion on this issue. If you truly believe that there was no rule prohibiting a runner from leaving the course, I think the ball is in your court at this point.

I guess you can lead a horse to water . . . but in the end, he still has a horse's petoot. If you want to split hairs and strike the finest lines you can, there's only so much I can do.

This applies to your "greenies don't affect performance" argument as well.

Sorry, vlad, i wasn't trying to single you out or call you a braggart or anything (but hey, youve got lots to be proud of! you beat my score by 7 points ;). I didn't remember the context at all. But reading this discussion, i realized that i knew your SAT score even though I didn't know why. So as it turns out I probably didn't even see the "real" SAT threads. Oops. I apologize.

the most obvious was when said that Vince Coleman was not completely useless as Goldman said, because his speed did allow him to score more often than another player with the same OBP would

And that was one of the first times in another identity I started defending him. He was making a solid point.

Then I saw him talk about the design of the Twins management in relation to the A's management. Again he was making solid points.

In fact most of what I determined wrt sites overinfatuation with Beane was related to many of the Ross threads.

I wasn't on the Neyer board. I don't really care for Neyer. If Ikey ever wants to make those broad cutting statements toward me, he's welcome to come give it a shot. I think he has too much to lose to even try.

And in this fast moving thread, I do appreciate all the compliments from JC, Srul and Rauseo. Sorry if they were not acknowledged.

Oh, man, the bush pilot thread. Duck, that's the most concise example I can imagine of how frustrating those threads were.

I had my "Ignore Poster" function working on RCW here, so I can't speak to BP/BTF threads, but I can corroborate that Ross was only intellectually dishonest, never outright insulting on the Neyer Board. The same couldn't be said for his opponents. BL's outline of "life in the minority" in the latter portion of 782 is excellent, by the by.

What part of steroids are generally illegal to distribute and take under US law is hard to understand, and hard to understand why baseball need not specifically state it?

Well, it's hard to understand how U.S. law would be relevant if people weren't in the U.S. at the time they used the substances in question. So, yes, I think baseball would need to "specifically state it."

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.

In that case, I would like to point out that the original "I think Bonds is on steroids" posts did call forth some inexcusable of vitriol from other posters. Others posters were not vitriolic, but attacked the premise.

Arguments and discussions overlapped, and things often got overly heated and emotional. The Union formed largely for defense against the more vitriolic and asinine attacks. However, some of the constituents of the Union -- particularly BL, kevin and Retardo (a handle which I still find offensive even though I know its inoffensive derivation) -- have particularly pungent style of posting. Style sometimes overshadows substance.

The RossCW phenomenon is a different matter. Leaving politics aside, he sometimes, but very rarely, said things which were not foolish -- the most obvious was when said that Vince Coleman was not completely useless as Goldman said, because his speed did allow him to score more often than another player with the same OBP would -- but in almost all other threads he was everything that Miserlou and I say he was, at the Neyer Board and here.

At going over the top is not confined to people bashing the union. The thing about the DWI shoud have his kids taken away from him is taken out of context. There was an article about a player who continued to drive, with his kids in the car, after he knew he was impaired. Somebody who apparenlty had a particular animus against drunk drivers said he should have his kids taken away from him (which has now become another Primer catchphrase). That was over the top and excessive, but the crap that was posted in response was even more over the top and excessive, resulting in true crapstorm of a thread.

BL has his style. Get past it. If you attack, expect to get it back better than you gave. He does not claim to be 100% right all of the time, and has modified his position in response to reasonable argument. He is one of the brightest people posting here, and probably has even higher SAT scores that I did. ;^)

And yes, Retardo and DMN are on another plane. Why that one does not get hijacked, G-d only knows.

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.

I just pictured that as an approximation of what Charlie Brown's teacher sounded like.

He also went around repeatedly minimizing the number of people who died as well as mocking them, basically calling them all useless because they just gambled on the stock market.

As someone who works on the periphery of that industry, I suppose I should do the world a favor and drink some hemlock.

Just out of curiosity, if this book is coming out later this month, how come none of us heard about it until now? I know little about the publishing industry, but I imagine that word would have got around about a book like this.

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'll go one step further -- and this should have particular appeal to the anti-steroid crowd: Even if it turns out that you are correct, and there was no written rule specifically preventing a runner from leaving the course, there was surely a spirit of the rules that would have prohibited such a thing. (No, I'm not going to try to dig up pre-1980 quotes talking about the issue; I'm simply going to presume it.)

OTOH, though you may now (and may have always believed) that taking steroids is "cheating" and violates the spirit of play that existed in 1998, I'm not at all convinced that MLB was concerned about the issue. Revisionist Bud may now say that he's been active about keeping PEDs out of the game, but I'm not aware of his vigilence on the issue in 1998. Steroids may have breached the spirit of play as you, me, and most fans would have held back then, but I'm not sure they breached the spirit of the rules as MLB would have them.

Put another way, even if Bonds was open about it and on Opening Day 1998, said "I've been taking Winstrol and 13 other similar drugs," not only would be not have been punished, but I don't think MLB would have *wanted* to punish him.

Machemer didn't know about the SAT braggarts.

Okay, so now he knows. How does that enrich his experience of anything? How does that inform his perception of anyone's posts? So some people bragged about their SAT scores in a thread on one to five occasions, so what?

Better yet: why am I wading into this?

I simply cannot believe that 4 pages and nearly 24 hours later, you're belaboring this ridiculous argument. USA Track and Field rules clearly forbid leaving the course -- whether it be a marathon or other track event -- particularly to gain an advantage. Yes, I pulled rules from 2005 and not 1980 -- do you *honestly* believe that these rules were any different back then?

I admit that I can't find circa 1980 rules online, but I submit that I've done more than enough to satisfy a burden of persuasion on this issue. If you truly believe that there was no rule prohibiting a runner from leaving the course, I think the ball is in your court at this point.

I guess you can lead a horse to water . . . but in the end, he still has a horse's petoot. If you want to split hairs and strike the finest lines you can, there's only so much I can do.

This applies to your "greenies don't affect performance" argument as well.


Well, that solves it. You can't find the evidence needed to disprove my point, (and BTW how do you know the Bos Marathon was/is governed by the rules of USA Track & Field?), so my point is stupid. Gosh, why didn't I think of that?

(And quite frankly, I doubt that the rules did say explicitly that a runner had to run the whole course. Everyone very well may have just assumed no one would hop a subway for a chunk of the race, get off, finish, and say they won. And, geez ... might not closing that loophole be a reason 1980 and 2005 rules might be different? Oh, yeah, and there's never been a rule in the history of rules enacted to close a loophole no one had thought of. Gosh, what a horse's petoot I am. I must now hit my forehead with my palm.)

Then, not only is that point stupid, but my other point is stupid too. Congratulations on your transcendent wisdom.

I agree. If X is a lawyer and says so, but he then goes on to argue that the Fifth Amendment gives us the right to buy beer on Sundays, then I'm not going to give much credence to the rest of his legal arguments.

I believe you're thinking of the Third Amendment. HTH.

dJf, you're making me think about doing a ProQuest and paperofrecord.com search on Rosie the Riveter.

IIRC, she ran into some legal trouble later in life.

Absolutely. I was there. It WAS Lone Justice. I remember it vividly, 'cuz my then girlfriend and I were sitting up in the closed off section behind the stage, hating Lone Justice.

Please stop posting facts about yourself that are only there to try and create a sense of awe about yourself.

And yes, Retardo and DMN are on another plane. Why that one does not get hijacked, G-d only knows.

I think I heard this story already:

Arguing men put on separate flights

A sabermetrician and a baseball traditionalist who were travelling to Cooperstown were forcibly put on separate flights after they began fighting over Barry Bonds at the international airport here, reports said Thursday.

The men, bound for a flight to Cooperstown, began arguing on the bus as they were being transferred from the terminal to the plane.

According to reports, the two men started fighting over who was the more uncivil of the two when the Cardinals fan, fed up with being attacked, suddenly exclaimed that he was going to blow up everyone on the plane.

And that was one of the first times in another identity I started defending him. He was making a solid point.

He was making a <u>seemingly</u> solid point. Then he tried to back it up with numbers -- something I applaud wholeheartedly. But when he posted them, some of us pointed out problems with his theory -- I know that I noted that when you factored in pinch-running, virtually all the significant differences disappeared. He may have briefly acknowledged that this was a point, but then went back to repeating his argument as though the point had never been discussed.

closing in 756

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.

I am loathe to violate the TOS, but I'm sorry, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen in my life. If you seriously think that it wasn't against the rules to leave the course, take a shortcut, and then re-join the course at an advantageous point, well, I just don't know ...

***

BTW, Ruiz took the subway during the New York Marathon, not the Boston Marathon. In the Boston Marathon, it was determined that she never even started the race. Here is the Wikipedia entry.

I thought I would make perceptual comment on the SAT thing, since I am part of it on a peripheral level.

I thought it was an odd thing to do, but I didn't really see it as a big deal. I teach a basic math class to adults in continuing ed as one of my jobs, and worked for several years with people with learning disabilities, and I saw the struggles they had with their self-esteem in many cases, being called "dumb" as kids just because they read a little more slowly than most, or reversed letters, or whatever. So I am a little sensitive about references to inferior/superior intelligence, and, as is the case with RETARDO's handle, the "lesser primates" tag, BL's references to "basic reasoning skills", "are you an idiot" comments from whoever, kevin's asking if I was "mentally challenged," I found it mildly offensive, as well as mildly amusing, that guys would post their SAT scores.

That said, I have tried to learn to adapt my sensibilities to the environment. I see the site now as an on-line version of one of my dorms at college--a few insults and some raunchiness are part of the package, as well as some simmering feuds, and there will be people you like and people you think are jerkoffs. That helps to keep me from getting worked up and allows me to enjoy the whole spectrum of styles here.

By the way, I still don't think this book has anything new in it.

As I read more, I think it does have some new things, but those are apparently the things supported by anonymous sources. It does not have anything new that is documented by an open source.

Everything solid was in out there before.

But if, as BL said, it makes the Union's life easier by providing one-stop shopping for source material, then it was certainly worth it. I expect every Union member will show his appreciation by buying not just one copy for him or herself, but at least 5 or 6 to hand out as gifts.

The Wikipedia entry is wrong.

The Wikipedia entry is wrong.

How so?

It's account is corroborated by this link, though not this one.

In either case, my point stands: it is so obviously against the rules of any race to "cut the course" that disputing so strikes me as incredible.

This article also indicates that it was the New York Marathon in which Ruiz took the subway.

Just took a look at that Enders thread (I miss that guy, BTW). The first few posts took about reliever usage; another BL-esque topic. I was surprised that you didn't make an appearance on that Baseball Crank thread last week.

BTW, I am no officially wrong about how many posts this thread would get. We're probably at 770 now.

The Wikipedia entry is wrong.

I seriously hope that's a joke. If it's not, here is a newspaper article about it. In relevant part:

New York Marathon director Fred Lebow called Cloney and said he would take "Boston" off the hook by disqualifying Ruiz from New York City, which would nullify her Boston entry.

If this is still something you don't believe, then there's not much more we can do.

I am loathe to violate the TOS, but I'm sorry, but this is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen in my life. If you seriously think that it wasn't against the rules to leave the course, take a shortcut, and then re-join the course at an advantageous point, well, I just don't know ...


Call it stupid all you want, but there are plenty of reasons to believe the rule book did not specifically state that the runner had to run the whole course. There are plenty of examples of loopholes in rules and laws being closed to explicitly say something is forbidden that everyone just assumed theretofore was forbidden.

In any event, Ruiz was just an example that came to mind of a sports record or achievement being expunged for conduct not expressly in violation of the letter of the rules. If that example fails, there have to be others out there.

All of which was aimed merely at the not-thought-through-in-my-humble-opinion, blithely held, that if 'roid use wasn't against baseball rules, the record books must continue to reflect the accomplishments of 'roid-aided home run hitters and all talk to the contrary was off limits ... which is nonsense regardless of what rules Rosie Ruiz may or may not have broken.

Call it stupid all you want, but there are plenty of reasons to believe the rule book did not specifically state that the runner had to run the whole course. There are plenty of examples of loopholes in rules and laws being closed to explicitly say something is forbidden that everyone just assumed theretofore was forbidden.

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Rosie Ruiz wasn't the first person in the 4,000-year history of the marathon to ponder cutting the course.

Well, I guess the marathon is only ~2500 years old ...

Uggh... this is the argument that bothers me:

And no, I don't care if Bonds is juicing or not. Ruth was using booze, drugs, and whores, so his performance is tainted, too.

Like Johnny Walker and some flapper-tart help you hit a fastball.

SugarBear, your stubbornness is ... interesting. The winner of a marathon is the one who completes that marathon first. If Rosie didn't run 26 miles and 385 yards, she didn't complete the marathon. I know dictionary definitions are generally unconvincing, but I think in this case, it could be reasonable. A marathon, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, is "A cross-country footrace of 26 miles, 385 yards (41.3 kilometers)." The keyword for me there is footrace.

Rosie probably didn't even travel the full distance if she took a more direct route on the subway. By your logic, if I enter a mile race on a round mile track, I could win by crossing the starting line, then stepping off the track, walking back past the line, stepping on the track and crossing it again. That's silly.

In any event, Ruiz was just an example that came to mind of a sports record or achievement being expunged for conduct not expressly in violation of the letter of the rules. If that example fails, there have to be others out there.

It doesn't matter whether the rule is in there, because the example fails either way. If she didn't run the race, then there was no "sports record or achievement." The achievement simply didn't happen. But the home runs did happen. There's a difference between correcting the record book so that it says 4190 next to Cobb instead of 4191 because the former is how many he really had, and correcting the record book so that it says 4189 instead of 4190 because you think that racists shouldn't be credited with all their hits.

Regardless of what the rules said -- they may not have explicitly said "You may not take a shortcut," but they probably said, "You must run 26 miles" -- it's a terrible analogy. Not running 26 miles is obviously malum in se in a marathon. The whole point of a marathon is to test how fast you run a marathon distance. But not taking steroids is merely malum prohibitum. There's no obvious reason why steroids would be banned if there were no explicit rule against it.

My point is that Rosie's violation was definitional, whereas use of steroids use is not. You're still playing baseball when you're on steroids.

Anyone interested in the meta-issues here should read the thread kevin linked to.

David Nieporent Posted: March 08, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#1889537)
<blockquote>What part of steroids are generally illegal to distribute and take under US law is hard to understand, and hard to understand why baseball need not specifically state it?

Well, it's hard to understand how U.S. law would be relevant if people weren't in the U.S. at the time they used the substances in question. So, yes, I think baseball would need to "specifically state it."</blockquote>

D. Nieporent,

You just did not make that argument, did you? Of course perhaps you have obtained a loophole for the people shooting up in international waters, but for the majority of folks taking steroids on US soil I think it's pretty much not relevant. Also, what about on-field sodomy and the lash, you haven't specifically argued how baseball can band the use of the cat o'nine on opposing pitchers.

Some of these arguments striked me as a cashewy nut log of constipation. Forced being the operative term.

OK, this one by kevin cracked me up

It doesn't bother me that much that the homerun hitters are juicing up. But I think it has to be taken into consideration when you are evaluating across eras.

Im an equal opportunity offender.

So murder is legal in baseball. Got it.

For those interested... MLB has sent to members of the media a transcript of the question and answer with Commissioner Selig regarding the excerpts of Game of Shadows and the details of Bonds' steroid use.

To view the entire Q&A you can read it on The Baseball Journals

So saying something is "obviously rare" but "not unprecedented" is the same as saying that it's not unusual?

hen he tried to back it up with numbers -- something I applaud wholeheartedly. But when he posted them, some of us pointed out problems with his theory -- I know that I noted that when you factored in pinch-running, virtually all the significant differences disappeared. He may have briefly acknowledged that this was a point, but then went back to repeating his argument as though the point had never been discussed.

He may have done that. I'll take you at your word. But, I could easily name three people that start with premises that are way kookier than that; post some numbers that are flawed; have that pointed out to them; never acknowledge the point; hurl insults; and then start it up again.

That sounds like everything you described about Ross plus a little extra. And those people get nominated for "Primate of the Year" back when that award was given out. Ross just got insults.

That's what I mean about inequity; and that's what I mean about groupthink.

So some people bragged about their SAT scores in a thread on one to five occasions, so what?

THe one to five is a bit you just added. And so what? You answered that. Now he knows. This is a thread with two of the smarter posters of the site that are saying "Ross deserved what he got b/c of his history." "BL/The Union deserves scorn b/c of their history."

But other people's history, its so what?

Moreover, I think your missing the bigger picture. This place isn't a summation, it isn't a classroom, it isn't a political campaign, it isn't a bar, it isn't a lockerroom, it isn't a technical journal; it isn't a bar; and isn't just the "internet" (where one's favorite pseudo-intellectual has opined with no evidence about the social dynamic). Its something new and different and in its infacy as a social construct. Its an amazing new creature that shares aspects of all of those things. Its glorious to behold and watch. And its equally frustrating b/c of each of you want to apply the social norm to where you are the most comfortable.

I think its delicous to watch the social groups and subgroups and leaders and norms to form. I think is amazing to watch the thought and decision progress.

I'll talk to you in almost any norm you want, and I let you de facto choose the method. I think I can communicate in all those forms. But just b/c you don't like progressive repetition of memes, quit trying to impose it on others.

IF you don't like the way I"m talking, chances are I'm not talking to you, or you invited the means.

But everyone wants it to move and flow according to their whims, and they get exasperated when they run into that person they "like/don't like" because they can't conform their behavior to their ideal.

I'm not marrying you Hoss, and even if I was its not likely I'm going to change.

Hell, I wish it was some small little thing with just the Union and some of teh better Primates, but I don't think I can control that. However, if you listen to Szym, I am the most powerful Primate of them all with my magic keyboard. I'm King Kong here, and I'm putting out cases on you and you and you.

And that amazes me. No Prof Hat. Little to any profanity. No insults except those that deal with reasoning. No admin priviledge. THe only power I have is what you give me. So you want some technical means to ignore me, or vote me off the island.

From the thread kevin linked to:

"kevin Membership Posted: August 21, 2003 at 07:07 AM (#316094)

[snip]

What is obvious is that candor in these threads just invites a lot of unwanted rants. This is my final statement on the subject so don't bother to flame."

I guess you changed your mind, kev.

However, if you listen to Szym, I am the most powerful Primate of them all with my magic keyboard.

There's meds for that type of thing

And its equally frustrating b/c of each of you want to apply the social norm to where you are the most comfortable.

What norms should people be applying?

(This is not meant to sound as persnickety as it probably reads.)

Ohh, nice post by Sam M correcting the nitwits who instantly accused kevin of libel/slander.

Yeah, newbies should read that thread. The whole Hee Haw gang of deniers and apologists seem to have made an appearance. Danny fanboy, Spreadsheet Walt, Treder, MNP, Mahnken.. this Jefferson guy's a piece of work as is Jason JL.. and this is just a page and a half into it.

Good link, kevin.

Cowardly Anonymous Primate Who Likes Doing Silly T Membership Posted: August 20, 2003 at 05:11 PM (#316041)
For the record, I think Bonds juices. Don't ask me to defend my position because it's based on the incredibly scientific view in my gut. It'd be pretty easy to come up with valid counterarguments to my assertions.

See? Anybody who said they thought Bonds was juicing had to hide behind a veil of anonlymity.

Well, Kevin, it might help if you quoted the rest of the post:

The reason I'm not loud about it is simple: I think it's possible that Barry can make the gains that he has at his age.

Why?

I'm about Barry Bonds' age. Although I've always been physically active/exercised regularly I was diagnosed a couple of years ago with diabetes and artho something-or-other (hardening of the arteries). Out went the fats, out went the sugars, I needed more protein in my diet to help break down the sugars that are in fruits and whatnot since my pancreas went AWOL.

Damn but my body fat went way down and I gained 15 lb. of solid muscle since the diagnosis. I'm pretty sure that my exercise regimen is not as rigourous as Bonds'.

So, yeah, I think diet, exercise, and legal supplements can give the gains that Barry has enjoyed at his age. Sometimes it's simply having terrific genes--which I think Barry has (as do I, I could bench press twice my weight in high school and I didn't work out nearly as hard as most, feel free to make wisecracks after that statement). So, until there's irrefutable proof (such as a full confession or an incredible trail of evidence that even the OJ jury couldn't miss) I'll cut him some slack.

Big of me eh? I'm sure Barry will sleep better tonight.

(For the record, I think Barry Bonds ROCKS!)

Best Regards

Somebody Who Does Lame Top 10 lists

2010 World Series. Cardinals vs. Angels. Angels up 3 games to none. Game 4 in STL. On way to game LAA plane crashes, entire LAA team killed. To try to win series, LAA brings up minor leaguers. Loses 4 straight. STL champs.

2030. Investigation reveals that STL star pitcher sabotaged LAA plane in 2010. Convicted of multiple murders.

Does the MLB record book continue to list STL as the 2010 WS champs?

I don't have much to add at this time, except for one slightly disturbing fact (to me at least). I did a google search of my handle and the word "steroids" for this site and got 416 results. At this time I have less than 950 posts since registratrion. I find it sad that something like 40% of my posts are in threads that mention steroids (give or take, I don't know how many hits were pre-registration). I don't if this says more about me or the discussions on this site.

That has got to be Brattain, aka whatever he calls himself these days.

I probably tick alot of people off when I come into these threads, but don't take it personally.

It is weird seeing a non-priapric Bangkok9 in that thread.

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.

Actually, that's the MAIN reason why RossCW was so reviled (and something which BL has seemed to pick up on). They argue their way and then when someone else makes a good point or refutation of their point, they ignore it.

It feels like that they aren't arguing in good faith, which is why I'm surprised why some Union members loves BL and RossCW so much since I remember some of them (I think RETARDO was one) complaining that others weren't arguing in good faith. Well, they only have to see people from "their own side" to enjoy that wonderment.

Strange bedfellows these steroids debates make, no?

THAT's really the reason why people disliked RossCW and BL (or at least, that's my feeling and I may be projecting it onto other people on the site).

BTW, RossCW was reviled WELL before the steroids debate. He was actually heavily reviled before he was even on BTF specifically for this tactic. Just ask any of the other Neyer board refugees (Srul and penguin are the only ones that I can think of that have posted recently).

As I've said before, when I enter into discussion, I go seeking enlightenment or entertainment. What RossCW and BL do usually leads to neither.

Also, this is just an outside observation, but it seems to my mind that Dan Szymborski is making this way too personal. Is BL an annoyance? Yes. Is he probably the main reason why a lot of people don't enjoy BTF as much as they could? Good chance of it.

There still is no cause to drop to the level that Dan has in calling BL all those names. And it does nothing whatsoever for the debate. OTOH, BL seems to enjoy it (so maybe he DID like being called racist or sexist, or whatever other epithet he was called in the "bad old days"). In that case, I guess Dan should keep going at it if it entertains him, but it really isn't conducive to any conversation and just makes him look like someone who can't accept arguments and has to resort to namecalling to try to be convincing. (There might be more history behind it, but from what I've read - which admittedly is not inclusive of everything here - I haven't seen anything beside the namecalling)

BTW, I find it interesting that nobody answered my question:

Why is it so much better to be right and an ahole vs. being wrong and an ahole?

Is it because it isn't? Is it because people don't know? Is it because it's more fun to hurl invectives at the "other side" rather than seek enlightenment?

Or is it perhaps because there's no right answer and people want to be right more than anything else? Guess we have a lot of closet Bushes here....

F

I suppose we're going to be hearing about the Great Union Tar and Feathering of Ought Three for the next ten years, or at least until Bonds is elected to the Hall of Fame or eliminated from consideration.

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.

Actually, you're the revisionist. RossCWXYZ WAS a parody. He would basically take RossCW's argumentation style and then, take it to extremes with way over the top absurd arguments. He wasn't necessarily a GOOD parody, but that's not really an insult unless you think of argumentation style as a the highest form of attainment....

"RossCW is an Idiot", however, was an insult and most of the others that came after were, also.

F

BTW, the notion that people are staying away from BTF in droves because of the presence of Backlasher strikes me as completely absurd. Szym's comment from pages ago seems to indicate that, as an administrative figure, he receives numerous complaints about Backlasher, or at least a plurality of the complaints are about him.

I don't understand. If you don't like the guy's posts, just skip over them. It's not that hard.

I went away angry and frustrated from that thread, Srul. I was trying to argue coherently and thoughtfully and I just got kicked in the shins by just about everyone on this site, with the notable exceptions of JC, Sam M, Backlasher, Stepthen (whoever he is, god bless him) and a couple of other anonymous posters.

Many of the comments made to you were more than inappropriate. Not all. I had problems with some of the facts you were relying on at that time.

I also had a problem (expressed in later threads) with those who tried to compare the truly extraordinary nature of what Bonds had done with other players who had "late peaks". There is a difference between a late peak and a wholeslae re-writing of the records for OPS, SLG and OBP.

I still maintain that some of Bonds' achievements were simply handed to him by opposing managers who walked him so often that they distorted his OBP and SLG by removing an inordinate number of outs that he otherwise would have made. But that is another issue.

Additional facts which came out about BALCO, Greg Anderson, etc., made it clear beyond reasonable argument that Bonds was a juicer. AND YET still some people, and even some players, defend him.

Backlasher wasn't Vida; I was. I'm not exactly proud to own up to that, but in case BL really thinks he posted that, let me assert that it was definitely me. I thought at the time that some of those guys were being intentionally obtuse pricks, and I unwisely weighed in. It was like they were all high-fiving over another heroic Barry moment (nothing wrong with that), kevin came in and ruined their fun, and they turned on him with extreme prejudice. (Of course, kevin has since then MORE than made up for that injustice.) Geez, that 2.5 years seems so long ago.

I dunno, I find this stuff more interesting than the levski-base feud; although I find that entertaining if I'm in the right mood.

Check out the site-meter at the bottom of the page.

Best Regards

Somebody Who Does Lame Top 10 lists

When I read this, I thought it was obvious who wrote it.

By the way, 1270. And a car salesman. I am the utimate authority on everything!

Careful, that borders on a gotcha!

Crap! Do unintentional gotchas count?

Just ask any of the other Neyer board refugees (Srul and penguin are the only ones that I can think of that have posted recently).

I suspect that lots of us are here. We just didn't all have handles that were cool enough to be worth carrying over.

BL,

No offense taken, but the thing about Srul's SAT scores was a rather obvious (and lame) joke. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a post like that it could meaningfully contribute to the problem you are decrying. Are lame jokes specifically prohibited in steroid threads?

JC,

The Spot is not only still here, but it's expanding. I work right across the street. If you're ever back in town, I'll buy you a Gus-burger.

BTW, the first post in this thread is still the best, near as I can tell.

Well, welcome to the Union, GEB.

Thanks, but I'll invoke the old Groucho Marx line here and retain my independent status.

Thanks, but I'll invoke the old Groucho Marx line here and retain my independent status.

Are you a barritone? Because they need one for their tear-jerking version of "Auld Lang Syne".

I thought at the time that some of those guys were being intentionally obtuse pricks, and I unwisely weighed in. It was like they were all high-fiving over another heroic Barry moment (nothing wrong with that), kevin came in and ruined their fun, and they turned on him with extreme prejudice

That's true. Kevin was definitely treated unfairly. Most people here acted like using circumstantial evidence to think Bonds used steroids made you a war criminal. However, at this point in time, I think the union has gone too far to make their point w/r/t Bonds, and Backlasher w/r/t Oakland. Although, some people defending Barry use the stupidest arguments, so I don't really agree with either side.

Which is probably why I won't read this thread unless I get drunk at my parent's house during Spring Break and I need something to do at 2 AM.

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.


Well, MHS, you're obvously not familiar with A Few Good Men , which is the movie that I was quoting. My experience is that the "disgusting and disturbing"ness of a quote is mitigated when you're mocking a movie, but maybe thats just me.

That aside, I would never say anything in this forum that I wouldn't say to someone in person-meaning I would say that to kevin's face.

And IIRC, kevin was being an especially huge jerk in that thread (even compared to normal), waltzing into a CTR thread and bashing Giambi. It was that thread that spurred the Sox Therepy Pedroia counterattack...but then again, you wouldn't be famliar with using artificially harsh, reactionary invective as a response to ignorant, loud people, would you?

Is BL an annoyance?

Yes. (check)

Is he probably the main reason why a lot of people don't enjoy BTF as much as they could?

Good chance of it. Actually, I enjoy this site more because of BL, especially when he is annoying people who deserve to be annoyed.

I don't dispute that. Of course, considering how "buddy buddy" you are with him and other union members, I'm not very much surprised by it.

Interesting thing comradeship will do, no?

My point was that he hinders the ability of a LOT of people to enjoy this site (even though he might make in more enjoyable to. And even despite that, I think that Szym's comments are out of line.

I guess you see me as someone who "deserves" to be annoyed. I still remember our dustup way back when and I had apologized for it, but I guess you aren't the forgiving type and I can't really think of anything else which would leave me as "deserving" to be annoyed.

I guess I should just not respond everything you have to say from now on, since you seem to view me with such disdain, and I see no point in trying to convince you, otherwise.

Have a good life.

(If BTF ever does implement an ignore feature, I guess I'll do us both a favor and put you on the list since you can't seem to forgive and I don't see anything more that I can do than what I did.)

F

I can't let this go without dissecting these two back-to-back posts

Kevin, you're going way beyond the bounds of reasonable good taste here. We're talking about an argument you had over the internet three years ago. You were right about some things, and others were wrong. Get over it.

It doesn't matter whether the rule is in there, because the example fails either way. If she didn't run the race, then there was no "sports record or achievement." The achievement simply didn't happen. But the home runs did happen. There's a difference between correcting the record book so that it says 4190 next to Cobb instead of 4191 because the former is how many he really had, and correcting the record book so that it says 4189 instead of 4190 because you think that racists shouldn't be credited with all their hits.

______________________________________________________


But there was before the reason there wasn't was proven and that's what the powers that be were faced with. They were contemplating a "sports achievement." She ran part of the race at the start, hopped the subway, then ran a few miles at the end. To the naked eye she started the marathon running and 2 hours and whatever later she crossed the finish line ahead of all the other women.

To make it less controversial and -- admittedly -- more relevant, just postulate a marathon course with a big hill from mile 22 to 24. Someone builds a tunnel underground along the same path and runs through the tunnel, the same distance. Runs 26 miles, 385 yards and wins. Does the question as to what to do REALLY turn on whether the governing rule book did or didn't say, "Runners must complete the course as layed out prior to the race?" I shouldn't think so. The runner cheated whether the mode of cheating was explicitly prohibited by the rules of the race or not.

The "achievement actually happened" idea was disposed of in the same writing as the Ruiz analogy, loose as it is, was proffered. Ben Johnson's 9.79 actually happened. He ran 100 meters under the rules of the event in 9.79 seconds. But the record books don't show it.

Take baseball out of the equation, the bases, the fences, etc. Imagine an Olympic event in which one team had a pitcher throw a hardball as hard as he could and the opposing team sent up nine batters whose object was to hit the ball as far as they could. Each hitter has twenty hit balls. The winning team is the one whose player hits the ball the farthest. Who in the world would argue that using steroids in this game wouldn't make you a better player? And who wouldn't strip away a world record distance achieved by a steroid user in such an event?

</i><i>

To make it less controversial and -- admittedly -- more relevant, just postulate a marathon course with a big hill from mile 22 to 24. Someone builds a tunnel underground along the same path and runs through the tunnel, the same distance.

Um, that's not how geometry works. Perhaps you mean to say that this cheater built a wormhole.

OMFG! He's always been a family man! When he isn't nailing his concubine and cheating the government out of backtaxes, maybe he is.

He just has a different, and larger, definition of family than you do: Wife #1, Wife #2, children, concubine, drug supplier. Instead of doing a reality show, he try a remake of the Brady Bunch.

And Steve, that certainly is compelling evidence that Bonds wasn't juicing. Much stronger evidence than grand jury testimony, doping schedules with Bonds name on it and several firsthand eyewitness accounts.

To be fair, none of that evidence came out until well after the thread you are talking about.

He may have done that. I'll take you at your word. But, I could easily name three people that start with premises that are way kookier than that; post some numbers that are flawed; have that pointed out to them; never acknowledge the point; hurl insults; and then start it up again.

Ok, I'll bite.

Who did it more than RossCW?

While RossCW did not very often hurl insults, he did everything else, but he did it a WHOLE LOT MORE.

Funny, to see how so many people came out who were from the Neyer boards. Was constip8ted a parody of emancip8d?

Also, interesting, BL, how you haven't acknowledged that you were WRONG about RossCWXYZ or the reasons for why RossCW was mainly disliked. Very RossCW-like of you.

Again I ask (of anyone):

Why is it so bad to be wrong?

Hmmmmm, just thought of something else, but another reason why I disliked RossCW's argumentation style is that he would throw out all sort of arguments which MIGHT support his argument, and then, when he actually found a good one (and occasionally, maybe 10% of the time, he'd find one) he'd keep hammering it as his main point. Heck, he even did that with points people REFUTED (which of course, he never acknowledged), so I guess it's not surprising he did that. But he would do it to the point where it seemed like he expected his one good point to outweigh all the counterarguments raised against his point. BL doesn't quite do that, and he makes a lot more good points than RossCW did, but there's a similarity there....

Also, to Srul, while I understand that BL is much more intelligent than RossCW and while I acknowledge that he DOES (albeit extremely rarely) admit when he's wrong (and most of the time saying it's unimportant), why is it that you like BL, while you don't like RossCW, when their argumentation styles have become VERY similar? Is it because you didn't mind RossCW's argumentation style but rather something else about him? Is it because he makes a lot more good points than Ross? Or is it something else?

F

What norms should people be applying?

If you listen to The Jim, its his household. Go check the Lap Dances thread. Its always, "as I tell my kids..." Heck I got that phone-to-phone.

Talk to someone in the manner they create and to which they can participate. RR wants to deride me b/c I do that. If you got the acumen to carry on a legal discussion, I'll treat you like co-counsel. If you just say, "There is no first amendment violation b/c its a message board and how much did you donate" don't expect a lot coming back.

If you are going to talk about "irrefutable" and "undeniable" on points that aren't even true, while proclaiming yourself an expert...expect me to have a hell of a lot of fun with language.

If you're just going to whine like a child and throw out idiot, I'll play too.

If you're going to try to show your wit with zingers; I'll do that too.

If you're going to make a proclamation, then show a few equations to support it. I'll easily show the flaw.

If your going to play rhetorical games with flimsy little tricks like "BL is dishonest"; I'll eviscerate the logic.

If you are going to make legal arguments, you'll find me joining them in that style.

If you are going to make mathematical arguments, you'll find me joining.

If we are going to make raps, talk about sociology, or anything on an academic level I'll do it too.

But most people want it to be their comfort zone everywhere. Some want a polite MENSA meeting. Others want a MBS club. Others want an academic forum. Others want an in depth scholarly forum. And it seems to really bother you and everyone else when someone can contribute in your space and the style you enjoy, but then goes out and participates with other styles as well.

Watch even IRC, if the topic is _____________ I'm leaving. Does JC ever do that? No, because he's strong enough to change the topic on his own.

And watch the insults that are hurled toward me, "I'm dishonest b/c I'll ignore something." "I'm worthless b/c I answer every post." "I don't like it b/c he changes his style." "I don't like it b/c he goes after low hanging fruit" "I don't contribute enough" "I've got to have the last word." "I'm sadistic" "I'm masochistic" "I'm a megalomaniac." "I'm depressed" "I'm angry." "I'm sad." "I'm laughing too much, and I enjoy it too much."

I could go on and on, but realize some of these statements are mutually exclusive. And those that are not still aren't very congruous to the same person. (although I expect David will provide the proof as to how I can be all things bad.)

And god knows, they should build a template for I don't mind A, B, and C of the Union, its just D and E drive me nuts.

Man we've all spent beaucoup time on both sides of that equation.

There's meds for that type of thing

Tell Szym about it on Primer-List. That's a captive audience. Let's see, Maury Brown's linking to his own thread on the same topic - 28 posts. Let's just count unsolicited responses to any single Union member on this thread.

I think that it's a substantial point; the largest weight on the side of the scale that reads "probably doesn't." But at the end of the day, we still don't know. None of us really knows Bonds, and certainly, none of us knows anything at all what it's like to be an athlete at the very highest end of the world-class spectrum, with all of the competitive pressure that goes along with it, with the relentless challenges to your achievement -- challenges that may come, of course, from competitors without much of a sense of grounding or perspective.

We just don't know.

Treder and his lapdog Phil.

This is sort of an odd post to use to point out Steve's pro-Bonds mania. The main point of the post is "none of us really knows Bonds." How is that some sort of hyperbolic defense of him?

Andere, all I'm doing is reproducing quotes from previous threads, quotes which I think represent the dominant groupthink that existed then at this site. RETARDO is quite correct about that.

That they seem ridiculous now is not my fault. It is the fault of those that wrote them.

Is it really that important? I've been participating in various on-line baseball forums about baseball for over ten years and I don't see a need to go back and rehash every situation where I was proven right over time. I remember posting speculation about Canseco being on steroids some time in the early 90s and getting flak for it, and I don't see any reason to go back to rsb and dance on anyone's grave.

It's not just a matter of being a little wrong about something. It's about being braindead, it's about the most profound form of cognitive dissonance. It's a matter of shouting down anyone who disagreed, chasing away any doubters.

Big ####### deal. You defended yourself well where you were right, and others brought up legitimate arguments that you couldn't refute. And it was three ####### years ago. If there's something new to discuss about Bonds, go for it. Being right about him three years ago gives you some clout. But this going back to past discussions and gloating does not reflect well on you, and my vague memory of the thread is that there was cognitive dissonance on both sides of the argument.

And it seems to really bother you and everyone else when someone can contribute in your space and the style you enjoy, but then goes out and participates with other styles as well.

Well, I don't remember being bothered by this at all, but, oh well.

Um, that's not how geometry works. Perhaps you mean to say that this cheater built a wormhole.

Wait -- never mind. I'm being the idiot here. Sorry.

That Phil guy was not me in 2003.

I mean I would never say something like this...

Barry Bonds has always taken care of himself year-round. AFAIK, there's never been anything written about Barry the Party Animal, even in the salad days of his early 20s. No all-night drinking, no tooting coke - nothing. IOW, he's treated his body with respect.

That just goes against everything I stand for.

All the way back to 442, sorry, some of us sleep during the day . . .

"Given that it is a taint on the game, isn't it good that people are trying to wipe it out?

The steroid controversy has led to real steroid testing with big honking penalties. It's even led to an amphetamine ban, which should work toward undoing the wrong perpetuated for decades of turning a blind eye. These policies won't end steroid abuse in MLB, but it seems pretty evident that they'll cut it down significantly - in part by changing the culture in MLB to make steroid use necessarily a hidden act."

Yes Matt, I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I said I choose not to dwell on it, I did not mean that everything possible within reason (meaning don't literally crucify or castrate anyone) shouldn't be done to get rid of the problem. I'm just saying that I don't dwell on the fact that it caused a whole bunch of HR to be hit in the late 1990s, any more than I dwell on the fact that 1970s and 1980s NFL players were doped up too. Or that players for the last 1/2 century have been using greenies. Or that Gaylord Perry scuffed up baseballs, etc.

To make it less controversial and -- admittedly -- more relevant, just postulate a marathon course with a big hill from mile 22 to 24. Someone builds a tunnel underground along the same path and runs through the tunnel, the same distance.

Wow, am I confusing myself.

Okay. I take it that you mean the route goes straight for 22 miles, goes up for 2 miles and then goes down for 2 miles, for a total of 26.

The distance of the tunnel will be the hypotenuse of the triangle formed by the hill, so the square root of 2^2+2^2, or the square root of 8, or 2.83.

So of this runner runs 22 miles straight, then goes through a tunnel and reaches the finish line, he will have run 24.83 miles, not 26, and therefore has not completed the marathon.

Regardless, we all know that the rules of a race require a participant to run the course to qualify. We know that as assuredly as we know internet polls are invalid measures of public opinion.

Kevin, is it your position that no one who disagreed with you in 2003 had a legitimate argument? I wasn't a participant, and have not read that thread in its entirety, but I find that difficult to believe.