Kevin, I'm not going to be drawn into the ridiculous walk down memory lane to go back and find the counterpoints that were made at the time, so I'll concede that you were 100% right three years ago.

Move the #### on.

It's a matter of shouting down anyone who disagreed, chasing away any doubters.

Its also a matter of in this very thread, people claiming that things like this didn't happen.

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

And to be fair, people just today claim these types of arguments were never made.

why is it that you like BL, while you don't like RossCW, when their argumentation styles have become VERY similar?

Maybe its because they aren't very similar, and you just don't even have close to the capacity to understand it.

For instance,

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.

Pure rheotoric...no point whatsoever...just you trying to be right.

I've clearly stated my position on RossCWXYZ and the other Ross baiting handles. There is little to no ambiguity on that point.

When Nieporent makes a logical rebuttal. I address it fully, and distinguish the meaningful difference. Now you've done everything except the usual next two steps:

(1) Pull out a dictionary
(2) Quote a post

and after I post this, you will probably show off your failure to understand how that is markedly different than the posts we were quoting.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell. You show this uncanny ability not to be able to distinguish things that are very distinguishable. And you'll likely whine and cry if I point this out to you.

If I ignore you'll keep coming. "See, BL want say he's wrong. He's dishonest. See. See."

If I dispatch you, which is very, very easy. You'll get the RR's going, "that's what bothers me about BL." And most of the time people of your ilk come in waves.

I doubt there are very many people that don't understand the issue with the Ross baiters. There are a few of you, but you think some kind of dictionary attack makes a point.

Its just like another who I use to use as an exemplar that thinks a critique of Beane is evicerated because he misreads a post to think I conclude that Kielty played at the same time as Gant or something. Or seeks and searches out anything to try to show some factual error even if its from something artificial.

You don't even have a clue that this is the exact same thing as saying, "He misspelled 'you're' he's an idiot"

Its no fun dealing with the likes of you, but you want go away. You'll just keep hammering and hammering and hammering trivialities and definitions and think that it a priori shows "He's dishonest"

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between comedy and insult. That's not my fault. There's nothing I can do about it.

Backlasher w/r/t Oakland

Spivey, I don't think I've said anything about Oakland in six months.

This seems to be this years version of last years Minnyball thread. Because I like to read old threads, I'm submitting 3 featuring RossCW without comment:

1 2 3

Read the thread and see if any of those arguments make any sense at all.

I don't have time to do that now, but perhaps I will take up this offer at a later moment.

ORW, did you used to be someone else?

And IIRC, kevin was being an especially huge jerk in that thread

That's exactly what I'm talking about:

Its ok to insult Ross because ________
Its ok to insult Kevin because _______
Its ok to insult BL because _______
Its ok to insult Morgan because ________
...
Its ok to defrock meatwad because ________
Its ok to edit Bernal's post because __________
Its ok to delete the thread because __________

Then:

You should never insult _______ because you just have to be bigger than that.
Even if he said "Go #### yourself" and you were just quoting Flair/Denzel/ its still not going to be understood by everybody.
Its just I don't like when you call people idiots.
I'd just send an email warning then take what steps I had to take if the behavior didn't change.

Its a double standard all over the place.

Where was meat's email warning. Where was the defrocking of Mahnken.

Site dynamics are just like the Bonds situation. You can throw evidence after evidence after evidence at the situation. First, you'll get called a liar. Then the evidence will be marginalized. Its all about conformance; it has nothing to do with discussion. It has nothing to do with equity.

And if you ever get proven right, it'll just be worse on you.

group hug?

The best comment in those RossCW threads:

jake Posted: March 24, 2003 at 11:42 PM (#241664)
No one is commenting here, so I hopy you don't mind when I state how happy I am that Livan Hernandez is no longer a Giant. Ainsworth steps in and Foppert is around the corner. Now if only Sabean can get something for J.T. Snow...

--jake

Spivey, I don't think I've said anything about Oakland in six months.

That's cause the Raiders suck and Beane bought Loaiza. You were too busy laughing.

This seems to be this years version of last years Minnyball thread. Because I like to read old threads, I'm submitting 3 featuring RossCW without comment:

1 2 3

Wow. I'm just getting through that one. Here is the parody that I want admit to being wrong about:

Research? Much too lazy. Ignorance is more my speed.

and another

Of course, I proffer no evidence to support this. But then again, that's sort of my schtick.

That is taking his style and going beyond it?

Was constip8ted a parody of emancip8d?

Yes.

why is it that you like BL, while you don't like RossCW, when their argumentation styles have become VERY similar?

I reject the premise. I have had a number of very thoughtful discussions with BL on a variety of topics. Civil give and take on the subject. A recognition on both sides of instances where the facts were not sufficient to take us to where we want to go.

RossCW would NEVER acknowledge any error. You could demonstrate a premise was wrong, and he would come back to it, regardless.

BL has supported his arguments with cogent facts, and made reasonable assertions. If he attacks, it is because he has been attacked. Sometimes people go after him, because of past associations, without considering the content of the post.

But, and he may deny this, he likes to poke a stick in the hornet's nest to get a response. As an example he will throw a snide remark about Billy Beane into the mix, when he was really not the topic, just to be snarky about it. He knows, and will admit, that given the resources he has to work with, Beane has done a pretty good job. But he seems so obsessed with sticking it to the "Billy Beane is a genius" crowd, that he cannot pass it up. At that point, people go after him, and the thread, which was not really about Beane or Moneyball to begin with, becomes a thread about him.

I can remember fights between my Mother and Father, where my Mother would bring up something that happened 10, 20 years ago. It would drive my Father up the wall. BL has something of the same syndrome. Hence the constant references to the SAT score thing. Was it REALLY relevant to what was going on this thread? Tangentially, maybe. But not necessary. But he will dredge it up, each and every time the thread goes meta.

Sort of like every time Giambi's name comes up, kevin absolutely cannot keep himself from posting that the only reason he is doing well is that he is juicing again. It is past being a talking point, and has become a compulsion.

Sort of like every time kevin's name comes up, I can't keep myself from twitting him about his posts that St. Louis could not afford to sign David Eckstein as their short stop if they wanted to make the playoffs, becuase he was such a lousy fielder and a lousy hitter that he was barely replacement level if that. FYI- D.E. was 5th in the NL among SSs in VORP last year. We all have our little quirks.

Bottom line: BL can be a quite civil debater and he stays on point, so long as you are not going meta on him. But provoke him over nonsense at your own risk: He has sharp elbows.

Here is the best evidence of parody out there:

I... am... a... troll.

God loves kittens and Jon Daly.

I don't want to condemn bonds for what he's done because i feel as if trying to cheat is simply too human. Let's examine his crimes, as they appear:

1. He knowingly took steroids against whatever rules the league had, before testing was brought in.

Yes, it was against the rules-and let's assume it gave him an edge. But aren't the rules broken all the time in baseball, intentionally?

Think of the catcher who blocks the plate--he isn't supposed to block the path of the runner unless he's got the ball under control. But every catcher in the league does it (those who do it best are lauded by announcers etc), and no ump will ever call obstruction at the plate.

Think of the catcher who frames pitches--maybe it's not against the rules, but he is actively trying to deceive the umpire. Framing is lauded and encouraged--yet its purpose is to fool the umpire. Same goes for the batter who tosses his bat and starts off to first before an ump has called ball four.

This has been mentioned in a lot of places--spitballers are celebrated for their deception in the past (and i'm inclined to admire them for it). They were breaking the rules for an edge, and they knew it!

So I'm not inclined to say barry had an unfair edge from steroids, because every player on the field is trying to get an edge, even if that means breaking the rules.

What's left? Steroids are dangerous? sure they are. but weren't spitballs? isn't it dangerous to take out the 2b to break up the double play? How about diving into the outfield wall? Baseball, like most sports, is inherently dangerous. It could be played in a safer manner--but it'd be so much less entertaining.

2. He still is taking steroids, maybe, even with steroid testing on.

So what? Why should that change his reasoning? Shamed in front of the public? that's already happened. Suspended 10 games? that's a pitiful slap on the wrist, and given how much rest he's needed the last couple years, might almost do him good.

3. He lied to everyone about the steroids.

Well lying is bad, but who among us hasn't lied? Is Bonds worse than the players who cheat on their wives (surely there are many)? Is he worse than Jeff Kent, who claimed to have hurt himself washing his car rather than on his motorcycle? Kent lied to make sure his contract didn't get voided, but people didn't raise much of a stink over it.

So Barry did some things wrong. But he's not a special case among big leaguers, even though he cheated his way into the record books. In that light, I'm reversing my position on Rafael Palmeiro. He hit over 500 homers on steroids, yeah, but none of them were hit during his 10-game suspension, which is all the league is willing to threaten him with. If that's all they'll hit him for, taking steroids isn't cheating, it's gamesmanship. If you want players to stop taking steroids, if you want the stars to play clean, don't just ask them and hope they're honest people--they're not. The league needs to look at full-season suspensions for roids the way cricket does.

When Shane Warne was banned, people were up in arms at first as Shane claimed innocence. But the final conclusion was guilty or not, it's his own damn fault. Does anyone use PEDs in cricket now? absolutely not. Make the punishment substantial and you'll see results.

Maybe its because they aren't very similar, and you just don't even have close to the capacity to understand it.

That's certainly possible. I was asking for an explanation, but, actually, I was specifically asking Srul. Forgive me for saying it, but you're not exactly an unbiased commentator on this.

Pure rheotoric...no point whatsoever...just you trying to be right.

I've clearly stated my position on RossCWXYZ and the other Ross baiting handles. There is little to no ambiguity on that point.

I'm probably going to get a snipe about going to the dictionary, but what specifically about this is rhetoric? I assume you're not commending me on using the language effectively and persuasively, so I assume you think I'm being "elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous." Which one of those am I being?

I'm not trying to "be right," I'm trying to show why I think a certain way. You said that you think that RossCWXYZ and other Ross handles were an insult. I agreed with you on the others, but disagreed with you on RossCWXYZ. In addition, OTHER PEOPLE have disagreed with you on your position wrt to RossCWXYZ. AFAICT, you haven't addressed any of them. In addition, I posted immediately after I read your comment about it, so I don't understand how your position can be indisputedly right without addressing the refutation I and others have made.

I also don't understand the point about ambiguity. Who cares if it wasn't ambiguous? I don't care if you were ambiguously wrong or unambiguously wrong, you were wrong UNLESS YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN "I'm right, RossCWXYZ is an insult." or do you believe all parodies are insults of others?

Then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But even if you believe, that you could spell it out in response to what others have posted. But I guess you don't deign to enlighten us "lesser primates."

When Nieporent makes a logical rebuttal. I address it fully, and distinguish the meaningful difference. Now you've done everything except the usual next two steps:

(1) Pull out a dictionary
(2) Quote a post

and after I post this, you will probably show off your failure to understand how that is markedly different than the posts we were quoting.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell. You show this uncanny ability not to be able to distinguish things that are very distinguishable. And you'll likely whine and cry if I point this out to you.

Ok, so I'm obtuse. I'll admit it. I need things spelled out for me. It's one of my faults.

Its no fun dealing with the likes of you, but you want go away. You'll just keep hammering and hammering and hammering trivialities and definitions and think that it a priori shows "He's dishonest"

Wait a second. YOU were the one who brought up RossCWXYZ as an insult. If you didn't want it debated, you shouldn't have brought it up. If you're the one who brings up the trivialities or definitions (as you call them), you should be expect to be called on it.

To do otherwise IS intellectually dishonest and shows exactly what I'm talking about behavior-wise in arguments (using the shotgun approach I outlined in post #814). Otherwise, why the F*** would you bring it up?

I'm sorry you have to deal with us "lesser mortals" here who "obviously" aren't as capable intellectually or otherwise to handle your brilliance, but this isn't Plato's Republic we're living in here.

I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between comedy and insult. That's not my fault. There's nothing I can do about it.

It seems to me there's more than just me who can't "understand that difference." Why don't you point it out to all of us "lesser primates?"

F

It seems to me there's more than just me who can't "understand that difference." Why don't you point it out to all of us "lesser primates?"

829, 836, 839

Maybe you had your ignore on in that thread. Or maybe you were using the English language so effectively it just went right by you.

But I better question to Szym and The Jim.

Somebody that was posting "I love rutabega" is a site admin?

IIRC, that class of stuff (including Piazza and Bearded Wizard), Yun, and RossCWXYZ were the stated bases to going to registration.

Well, EnglishLanguage FJ says RossCWXYZ was a lovable parody and people agree with him. Rutabega gets you keys, but farting gets you defrocked. There has got to be some explanation that I'm not seeing.

I do understand Yun though.

Ok, so I'm obtuse. I'll admit it. I need things spelled out for me. It's one of my faults.


Thinking or typing speed may be another.

LAW, I thought that it was pretty obvious what my old handle was. Who else would self-apply sobriquets like Punky Brusstar, Blue Oester Cult, and Evar Swanson's Hungry Man Dinners? The same guy that would call himself Bevacqua Velva!, Tommy Chong Surgery, and One Hour Ruhle.

Somebody that was posting "I love rutabega" is a site admin?

IIRC, that class of stuff (including Piazza and Bearded Wizard), Yun, and RossCWXYZ were the stated bases to going to registration.

Well, EnglishLanguage FJ says RossCWXYZ was a lovable parody and people agree with him. Rutabega gets you keys, but farting gets you defrocked. There has got to be some explanation that I'm not seeing.

That's easy to explain. There was someone who posted all that "I love rutabaga" stuff as Gary, and their's Gary Santerre who now goes by "the Original Gary". Somehow, he got credit for all those rutabaga posts. He's Furtado's cousin or something, so I doubt that he was doing that to the site. He also had a cool pic where he wore a flannel shirt, back in the day where the original author's had pics.

To do otherwise IS intellectually dishonest and shows exactly what I'm talking about behavior-wise in arguments (using the shotgun approach I outlined in post #814). Otherwise, why the F*** would you bring it up?

Because it was true. But let me guess, "I don't recall those threads." Is that right English.

Maybe your right, I...Am...A....Troll was a good approximation of his posting style. What's your dictionary saying now.

Of course, I can't dance. John Lithgow Szymborsky will deliever a sermon how dancing is a sin and I can't date Lori Singer, and Rev. The Jim will give me a parable about vigilantism. I'm just suppose to let you get up, so you can do this same assinine attack on me again and again and again. I'd rather you just knew better next time.

This seems to be this years version of last years Minnyball thread. Because I like to read old threads, I'm submitting 3 featuring RossCW without comment:

1 2 3

Wow. I'm just getting through that one. Here is the parody that I want admit to being wrong about:

Research? Much too lazy. Ignorance is more my speed.

and another

Of course, I proffer no evidence to support this. But then again, that's sort of my schtick.

That is taking his style and going beyond it?

Funny how you ignore some of the other comments he made:

RossCW, that's not so. I was growing up in a lower-middle-income white household in the 50s. We got a TV set in 1953. IIRC, by 1960 TV sets were about as common as indoor plumbing.

No, you are wrong. I invented a time machine that teleported me back to 1950 and a television, without a doubt, was an expensive luxury back then.

Don't dare argue with me, old man!

and

Yes, but what was Gardenhire's batting average? That will tell me the percentage of his at bats that resulted in a base hit.

Admittedly, it wasn't GOOD parody. But it was a parody nonetheless.

The above shows what I'm talking about. Your examples do not and sometimes I think when RossCWXYZ couldn't think of a bad parody to make up, he'd resort to that.

Ok, I'll put it this way, sometimes RossCWXYZ was a parody and sometimes he was insulting. But just saying that RossCWXYZ was an insult is wrong. Just like saying that RossCWXYZ was ONLY a parody is wrong.

F

He's Furtado's cousin or something

You were right, it was very easy to explain.

Ok, I'll put it this way, sometimes RossCWXYZ was a parody and sometimes he was insulting. But just saying that RossCWXYZ was an insult is wrong. Just like saying that RossCWXYZ was ONLY a parody is wrong.

ROFLMAO.

"Dimino can editorialize threads claiming an advocacy piece is the most objective take ever."

There you go again, distorting things. LOL. I called the article an 'objective take' IIRC. I never called it the most objective take ever. You have a strong tendency to put words in people's mouths to enhance your arguments.

I stand by the fact that it was an 'objective' take. Objective from dictionary.com = undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.

Doesn't mean it was correct, but it was objective.

Rutabaga explanation

Hey English, you've come along ways to end with

" Ok, I'll put it this way, sometimes RossCWXYZ was a parody and sometimes he was insulting. But just saying that RossCWXYZ was an insult is wrong. Just like saying that RossCWXYZ was ONLY a parody is wrong. "

You want to go back and read the posts. Check page 7. Still want to claim I didn't respond to others.

This is worse than that cat thing.

Was constip8ted a parody of emancip8d?

Yes.

why is it that you like BL, while you don't like RossCW, when their argumentation styles have become VERY similar?

I reject the premise. I have had a number of very thoughtful discussions with BL on a variety of topics. Civil give and take on the subject. A recognition on both sides of instances where the facts were not sufficient to take us to where we want to go.

RossCW would NEVER acknowledge any error. You could demonstrate a premise was wrong, and he would come back to it, regardless.

BL has supported his arguments with cogent facts, and made reasonable assertions. If he attacks, it is because he has been attacked. Sometimes people go after him, because of past associations, without considering the content of the post.

But, and he may deny this, he likes to poke a stick in the hornet's nest to get a response. As an example he will throw a snide remark about Billy Beane into the mix, when he was really not the topic, just to be snarky about it. He knows, and will admit, that given the resources he has to work with, Beane has done a pretty good job. But he seems so obsessed with sticking it to the "Billy Beane is a genius" crowd, that he cannot pass it up. At that point, people go after him, and the thread, which was not really about Beane or Moneyball to begin with, becomes a thread about him.

I can remember fights between my Mother and Father, where my Mother would bring up something that happened 10, 20 years ago. It would drive my Father up the wall. BL has something of the same syndrome. Hence the constant references to the SAT score thing. Was it REALLY relevant to what was going on this thread? Tangentially, maybe. But not necessary. But he will dredge it up, each and every time the thread goes meta.

Sort of like every time Giambi's name comes up, kevin absolutely cannot keep himself from posting that the only reason he is doing well is that he is juicing again. It is past being a talking point, and has become a compulsion.

Sort of like every time kevin's name comes up, I can't keep myself from twitting him about his posts that St. Louis could not afford to sign David Eckstein as their short stop if they wanted to make the playoffs, becuase he was such a lousy fielder and a lousy hitter that he was barely replacement level if that. FYI- D.E. was 5th in the NL among SSs in VORP last year. We all have our little quirks.

Bottom line: BL can be a quite civil debater and he stays on point, so long as you are not going meta on him. But provoke him over nonsense at your own risk: He has sharp elbows.

Interesting. I have seen some of what you are talking about, as I've acknowledged before. So, it's the fact that BL is much less wrong than RossCW and that he'll admit (though, rather rarely) that he's wrong.

Maybe I've become extremely biased because of his defense and love affair of RossCW and my own run-ins with him along with my obtuseness.

Actually, I see that they are dissimilar. BL is more much invective and will tend to take to insults while RossCW rarely degenerated into that. However, BL tends to be more cogent and will admit to mistakes (though again that part's pretty rare).

I guess there's just something in the way he post that gets my dander up and something about my posts which gets his dander up.... No doubt, he'd probably say it's my absense of intelligence or my obtuseness.

F

In Soviet Russia, the parody is you!

"Dayn Perry wrote this article a little over a year ago. I think it’s the most well-reasoned, objective look at the subject that I’ve seen anywhere; and it seems like an appropriate time bring a voice of reason to the debate.

There was a prior Clutch Hit for this, but it didn’t generate much discussion, hopefully it will this time. " - Joe Dimino entry to Dayn Perry link in reason

You have a strong tendency to put words in people's mouths to enhance your arguments.

Sure about that Domino.

I never called it the most objective take ever

This out to make English happy. You were right Domino and I was wrong. You never called it "the most objective take ever", you called it "the most well-reasoned, objective look at the subject that I’ve seen anywhere"

You got me. You did it. You can put away the dictionary. Oh the shame.

Hey English, you've come along ways to end with

" Ok, I'll put it this way, sometimes RossCWXYZ was a parody and sometimes he was insulting. But just saying that RossCWXYZ was an insult is wrong. Just like saying that RossCWXYZ was ONLY a parody is wrong. "

You want to go back and read the posts. Check page 7. Still want to claim I didn't respond to others.

This is worse than that cat thing.

Ok, I did miss post 682. My apologies. You did address the parody issue. Though, I still preceive you as overstating your case that the RossCWXYZ name was used to mostly insult.

I still think that you tend to ignore points you can't refute, but I may have to re-think that based on what Srul has shown me about my biases.

Also, just curious, if I'm not worth the time, then, why do you respond to me?

F

"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"

*****************

How is that any different than:

(1) Here's an article with an objective take

And then you will have backlasher say things like:

(1) "Dimino can editorialize threads claiming an advocacy piece is the most objective take ever."

Don't throw stones if you live in glass houses man.

Also, just curious, if I'm not worth the time, then, why do you respond to me?

Because you wouldn't shut up. You kept pounding a point over and over and over again through three pages, and each time trying to show that it was evidence of dishonesty.

There were far better things to do during the day, including wasting time responding to good posts. I had a little more time in the night to put slap that #### out of here.

But since your still around, did you like it that Domino got a gotcha.

Or let me guess, you don't believe that Domino actually said that. You think I'm making it up.

Don't throw stones if you live in glass houses man.

My house is brick Homes. You still want to allege that you just said it was "objective" and that's all.

I never called it the most objective take ever

This out to make English happy. You were right Domino and I was wrong. You never called it "the most objective take ever", you called it "the most well-reasoned, objective look at the subject that I’ve seen anywhere"

You got me. You did it. You can put away the dictionary. Oh the shame.

You know that doesn't. You did it to mock. You didn't do it to show acceptance that you're wrong because you "showed" you were right.

I guess I'm English now.... Interesting way of mocking me. Does it signify that my grasp of the English language isn't good? Or maybe that I like to go to the dictionary to try to make sure of what other people are really saying with their words?

I'm curious, how does this mock me?

F

I've received a lot of complaints about the tone of this thread. Although I don't have time to read the whole thing right now, from what I've read, I agree there is far too much bile in this thread to suspect a worthwhile *discussion* will crop up.

I'm closing the thread.