I think it is highly hypocritical for baseball fans to preach about the sacristy of the history of the game and protecting the records from cheaters. The history of the game is to cheat whenever you can.  For the players of old who popped "greenies" like one a day vitamins, to sit and criticize the steroid era is a load of crap.  If their moral compass was so high why did they let what happend, happen?  They are and were just seeking attention and the fans of baseball have been mosty chicken shit to call them on it.

alz wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

You must really think I'm stupid, because I'd have to be a moron to buy that explanation, if that's what that drivel is supposed to be. Forgive me for assuming a sentence with my name in it was a reference to a discussion in which I chose not to be involved. I guess I really am the dim bulb here, and I ought not to hang with someone of your intellectual might. If anyone needs me, I'll be over in the corner, trying to figure out how to eat with a fork without stabbing myself in the forehead.

I'm going to give you a chance to retract this. Otherwise we can really have ourselves a nice little fight. I'll let you choose.

I'm too old and too tired to play any fifth grade "Take It Back or I'll Get You at Recess" crap, Alz. My friends who have my email or a Facebook connection can drop me a line from time to time they're inclined. Fors, I'll be especially interested in reading about Bobby's exploits on the football field this fall and beyond. Otherwise, enjoy the message board.

Of course we "can" AP, but that would require Gordo to do the following.
1) Occassionally allow an opinion he doesn't agree with go unmolested as simply a difference of opinion.
2) Take the goddamned olive branch when it was offered in the previous post.

I'm not making him quit the message board, I just have the audacity of having an opinion. Instead of just letting someone have a thought, he has to cut it, badger it, misinterpret it twice, and then gets his ass in a ruckus because I finally told him to give it a rest?

Gordo, nobody is making you leave, but if you think I'm going to "smooch your hiney" just so you won't leave us here on this board.... I'm afraid you're lining yourself up for a dissappointment. This is surely not the most popular reply, I'll warrant, but I gave you two very nice "let's drop it" posts. Instead, you'd rather pop off some more, and then run.

Last edited by alz (8/21/2011 1:06 pm)

AP, no I don't necessarily believe Pujols is going to have post 30 career years either, and certainly was not annoyed by that... I got irritated at being redundantly asked to prove hypotheticals, instead of Fors just answering clear "what if".

On the tail end of this, Arite takes my view on cheaters, and tells me that there's no way to implement "my view" so it's a bullshit view. Problem is, he's wrong about what my view is... I correct it, and he inserts a global humanity clause that the hall of fame voters appear to be taking, and writes it as if I authored it. So I correct him again, and he writes a snotty little post about my condescending tone.

If he's so brilliant, I wouldn't expect to have to correct his postings. Instead of going to war with some newspaper retiree who's getting a breakfast special at Denny's, I gave him some polite opportunity to be a bigger man, and let it go. He didn't. Fuck him.

alz wrote:

If he's so brilliant, I wouldn't expect to have to correct his postings. Instead of going to war with some newspaper retiree who's getting a breakfast special at Denny's, I gave him some polite opportunity to be a bigger man, and let it go. He didn't. Fuck him.

Is this another one of your olive branches?

alz wrote:

On the tail end of this, Arite takes my view on cheaters, and tells me that there's no way to implement "my view" so it's a bullshit view. Problem is, he's wrong about what my view is... I correct it, and he inserts a global humanity clause that the hall of fame voters appear to be taking, and writes it as if I authored it. So I correct him again, and he writes a snotty little post about my condescending tone.

For a guy who has issues with someone elses comprehension you really lack it on this topic or again we could just be reading different threads.  IDK how you can become annoyed when someone inserts the names of past players in the subject of steroids and records.  You have blinders on, just like the national media.  There are two sides to the story.  One says it is only about the steroid era and the other says you have to include the faults of past players and condem them if you are going to condem todays players for similar actions.  Instead of acknowledging that line of thinking you decided to start throwing insults around.

Artie, you're apparently the most brilliant fucking illiterate in America. My bitching at you had nothing to do with Pujols, and everything to do with how you decided to rewrite my views on cheaters in the hall and recordbooks. My bitching at fors had to do with "Why think it's likely pujols could do something he's never done, when I just assumed the cardinals could do something they never did (win 4 of 8 world series titles).....

I don't think you're stupid because I disagree with you. I think you're a fucking moron because you can't post a reply about a post without completely reading the post wrong.

I have no interest in a fistacuffs with a geriatric asshole like you. You don't need to feel threatened on that level, although if that's your wish, we can meet up. If you think you're going to verbally rape posts and reword them to suit you without me spanking your little internet ass for being a dumbshit, you're mistaken.

Alz, I'm going to assume you're off your meds these days because no one, I mean NO ONE, can be that stupid. Let's revisit:

"But when discussing hypotheticals, the probability of the hypothetical occurring plays a significant factor in the discussion.  This whole string started when you posed the question, "how would Cardinal fans feel if Pujols hits his 800th HR in another uniform?"  I could just as easily flip that around and say "how will Cardinal fans feel about Dewitt and Mozeliak if they let Pujols walk in the off-season, but wisely spend the money that was otherwise targeted for Pujols and win 4 of the next 8 World Series?"  In answering the question, you are naturally going to take into consideration the perceived likelihood of those events happening."

If you aren't smart enough to read that series of sentences and understand that I was saying that it was UN-likely that the Cardinals would win 4 World Series in the next 8 years, then there isn't any point in continuing this conversation other than to congratulate you on overcoming you mental shortcomings long enough to allow you to walk and breath at the same time.

Good job big guy, now remember, left foot forward, inhale, right foot forward, exhale, repeat.

forsberg_us wrote:

BTW- sorry for using such a big word. Unlikely means not expected to happen.

Hope that helps

"Unlikely" and "expected" have the same number of letters in them.

Your attempts at internet bullying are pathetic as hell, Billy. But you're entertaining.
Since we're using real names and getting personal, let's discuss the St. Louis trip. OK, Billy? (I don't think I've ever heard of anyone over the age of six who lets himself be called "Billy," but that's probably on the account of your first grade mentality.)
Should I tell the rest of the board how you flipped me a $50 for you and your buddy for two $110 tickets, but then you had no problem hanging out at bars before and after the game?  Since you've become such a success in your career, you can pay me what you owe me when you show up to kick my geriatic ass, Billy.
If I have or anyone else has a problem comprehending your posts, it because the only point you're able to articulate clearly is you have an enormous man-crush on Albert Pujols, and you take great offense when anyone else distracts you while you're on your virtual knees.
I'm leaving now, Billy. There's an early bird special at Denny's and I need to get there before you show up and ask me to pay for your meal.

I'm going to go through this one more time. I believe there are mistakes on both sides being made.

For no reason other than years of enjoyable dialogue, I'm going to attempt to put this out there peacefully.

My first contested post by Artie.
"I'm not a fan of any Juice era offenders holding career marks. I don't necessarily think you have to go back and erase every at bat, that would be a nightmare. I do however think that any proven guilt on PED's should negate your eligibility from the Hall of Fame, as well as MLB Record books."

Artie replied with
We're selectively picking off records, are we?
OK, let's get rid of Maris' record because he was playing in an expansion year, and he was a left-handed hitter who took half his hacks at a fence that was less than 300 feet from home plate.
Let's get rid of Aaron's numbers because players were taking amphetamines like Chiclets.
Let's get rid of Cy Young's 511 wins because he was throwing a beanbag.
Let's get rid of all of Ruth's numbers because he didn't have to play at night.
In fact, let's get rid of everything before 1947 because there were no black players.
Once you start conditioning records that have been accumulated over a 130-year span, you're treading onto dangerous ground.

The only line in that entire post that actually had anything to do with my opinion was Aaron, and that's only with proof, which I know of none. The entire post came off as a misdirection. I didn't say anything about a schedule expansion, racial segregation, equipment differences, etc. I was simply saying we shouldn't reward cheaters. I'd just come off a nice round through with Fors on having to prove hypotheticals when the words ASSUME are capitalized, I was not in a good mood, which is not Artie's fault.

I then wrote this...

"Course, my opinion also mandates that a "Proof of innocence" clause needs to be introduced for cases like OJ and Casey Anthony, instead of an acquittal. My opinion clearly counts for very little outside my own mind."

This was misunderstood badly. Mostly due to the inclusion of OJ, who happened to play sports. In those two legal cases, the evidence was such that while a murder could not be proven, some shit clearly went down, and at that point it should be on the defendant to prove they didn't do what it looks like. I was simply making the statement that my opinion of excluding cheaters was just my opinion, and I have some pretty bizarre opinions, like making defendants have to prove innocence when the cases can prove something shady occurred. Having re-read this, it's not explained well at all. It also leads to Artie's followup, which has me bouncing off the goddamned walls in frustration (mostly from the fors conversation).

Artie misread this, replied with this:
"Alz, I don't know how you can on one hand ask for proof that a guy from the '70s didn't use amphetamines and then on the hand assume everyone who played in the '90s is guilty until proven otherwise."

Artie then begins railing on the standards that the hall of fame voters are using to determine eligibility. Throwing a gambling reference, generic drug reference. None of this has anything to do with anything I've said apparently, he's just .... I don't know, posting to say something. I took it as part of the conversation about me, read it as yet another wierd deflection that had nothing to do with the opinion I presented, was exhausted with the rounds with forsberg and said I get agitated when I have to repeat myself.

That was the entirety of my being RUDE to artie.....
His reply?

"I'm hot, tired and pissed because I spent the day at a crowded amusement park, but shitcan your condescending tone, Alz. If your morality scale is on a curve, that's fine. But don't try to insult me by implying that my refusal to accept your sliding scale of standards is because I lack intelligence. I have the faculties to understand your point of view. You're not the first one to proffer it. I think it's bullshit. Is that concise enough?"

I had no condescending tone, I had an exhausted tone, and this reply is completely unnecessary at this point. It angered me nearly beyond repair. Everything after that was really just "internet bullying" I suppose, but I honestly felt I didn't deserve that shitty response after a tireless effort to explain myself so you two word-hawks didn't tear me to pieces....

Fors I did miss the way you presented the 4 of 8, my apologies for that.

Adding to this, I'm on an E-Cigarette, and highly jumpy. I will do my best to curb this, but I do believe we should keep a certain level of respect if possible. We will disagree, as evident by Colby Rasmus (whether you think he was worth his weight in gold, or if you think he's just another bad defensive player who hits .240 with little power).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is as nice as I can word this. I have no interest in continuing this fight with any of you. If you want to let this go, then let's drop it. If you don't, then I guess it will continue, but that's really not my wish.

Why wouldn't that matter AP, it matters a ton, and makes me feel worse about this. I didn't notice the nested quotes apparently either. Had my post quoted, I didn't notice Max's one liner on the outside.

Gordo, I have been a turd, for many reasons and few of them valid. None of them worth where this entire thing went. I apologize for not being a bigger man than I showed earlier.