It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Baseball: Bonds and Steriods

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:55 PM
What is everybody's take on the new allegiations towards barry bonds and his reactions to to them, in his recent interview with ESPN?

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:33 PM
I don't really blame him for the way he was answering the questions from ESPN. I think anyone being bombarded with the press like he has kinda has the right to be that way. Personally, I love baseball, and whether or not he used steroids or not, I'll still see him the same then as I do now.

I unfortunately missed the Bonds on Bonds show

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:08 PM
What good can possibly come from this investigation? First of all, this is a book, and already there are allegations that the information in this book is false and that the book is full of lies. Remember that this book was written from a certain perspective. Did any of you see the Michael Jackson interview a few years ago with Martin Bashir? It turned out Bashir had the material edited to convey the perspective he had of Jackson. When Jackson himself showed the unedited interviews, it showed a different angle. Second, baseball has only had a substance abuse policy banning steroids for less than five years. Back in the early 1990's when the NFL was looking into steroids, baseball turned a blind eye. Third, Bonds has never admitted to knowingly taking steroids, nor has he ever tested positive (unlike Palmeiro). You can't suspend an innocent man. Fourth, what can the investigation possibly turn up? They have no power of subpoena to make anyone talk. Fifth, how far back are they going to go? We know from Lyle Alzado that steroids were being used in the NFL back in the 1970's. Canseco said he started using back in the 1980's. We hear so often that the era is tainted; what era? Since 1998? Finally, what punishment could possibly be meted out. Suppose Bonds did steroids back in 1998. That was not illegal back then; it was NOT cheating. And remember that while steroids give you strength, they do not provide hand-eye coordination, which makes you a great hitter (and Bonds always has been a great hitter).

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:03 AM
Dear Birds and All,

My views have already been aired thoroughly on this site. I disagree with almost everything BirdstheBest has said, and would discount or disregard all records set with the assistance of steroids or HGH. It is one thing to take stimulants to keep you awake or give you more energy. It is another thing to make yourself look like a small mountain or a large bridge. If that is not cheating, it is hard to imagine what is, and I frankly don't care what MLB's rules said.

NOBODY who transmogrified himself from a 170-pound speed player with some power into a behemoth with a massive head could think it was legitimate. Every baseball fan whom I personally know, as well as the vast majority of people I've seen voice opinions at this site, agree.

With that said, I would take a different approach to Bonds than I would to all of the other cheats. The other cheats, or at least the ones who come to mind, would not have their "Hall of Fame" stats without their cheating. To look at Sammy Sosa's or Jeff Kent's stats for their first eight years is to appreciate what kinds of players they were naturally. Then suddenly POOF, Sosa was a 60-HR-per-year guy, and Kent was the best offensive second baseman since Rogers Hornsby. And POOF, Brady Anderson from out of nowhere up and hit 50 HR's in one year, and McGwire's career rose like a phoenix and he hit baseballs like Tiger Woods hits golf balls, and Ken Caminiti had a literally incredible year, and Gary Sheffield just murdered the ball. And on and on and on. Second basemen and shortstops commonly hit opposite field HR's, and nobody gave it a second thought.

The whole thing stunk, and those of us who had followed baseball for decades knew it at the time. Guys like Griffey and Frank Thomas, whose stats sank as others' skyrocketed, have to look pretty good right about now, I think.

But Bonds? I've written at length about the from-out-of-nowhere 493-foot home run he hit off of Seth Etherton on June 7, 2000. He was nearly 36 and had never hit a HR over 450 feet, except for three where he received great help from wind. On this day, there was no meaningful wind... and athletes just DON'T suddenly get that much bigger and stronger and better at that age. And he's hit THIRTY more of such length since then.

No rational person could believe he did this naturally. So obviously he joined the crowd, and the common theory--which I buy--is that he was galled by seeing the vastly inferior McGwire and Sosa get all the glory (and money) in 1998 and thereafter.

But I think the bottom-lines on Bonds are two things:

(1) Prior to 2000, he had already had a phenomenal career which, even if he'd retired at the end of 1999, made him one of the 20 greatest MLB players ever and a first-round Hall of Fame inductee for sure; and

(2) What he's done since mid-2000 is phonier than a three-dollar bill, the kind of stuff for people who believe in the Tooth Fairy.

A great many people who despise Bonds (which I do) would say, even if they agree with me about the extent of his legitimate greatness, that he has forfeited his right to the Hall of Fame. I just do not believe that. He has never thrown games. He has never placed his credibility subject to vulnerability by racking up gambling debts with bookies. His only fault is that he is a world-class $#*@, and the Hall of Fame is FULL of them, so there's no reason he can't take his place beside them.

I have read THREE books on the major historical controversy over whether Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker--whom I and just about everyone else who does such things rate as 2 of the 10 greatest MLB players ever--conspired to throw "meaningless" late season games in 1919, so they could get second-place and third-place money, respectively. Cobb's biographer, an historian by profession, concluded they were innocent. The other two authors concluded otherwise, as apparently did baseball, since they were both 86'ed for life from managing after the story broke in 1926. And Speaker had been a GREAT player-manager, keeping a very mediocre 1926 Indians team right at the heels of the great Yankees to the very end.

Now, if they did what was alleged, even in meaningless games, wasn't it more serious than what Bonds and the others have done? Isn't throwing games--even meaningless ones--much worse than cheating to win games? Should these two guys, whom I consider the greatest players prior to Babe Ruth (most experts would pick Wagner over Speaker), be expelled from the Hall of Fame? Can you imagine the shockwaves that would cause?

I think they should not be expelled, because the games were meaningless and because throwing games was SO common in those days. But if we are not to banish Cobb and Speaker for THAT, then surely we cannot banish an otherwise Hall-of-Fame-worthy Bonds (through 1999) for his sins from 2000 on.

So, as much as that Etherton HR and all that has followed stink to the high heavens, it's my opinion the rest of Bonds' stats should stand and that he, unlike the other obvious frauds, should get his ticket to Cooperstown punched as soon as he is eligible.

For those of you who have read my views a zillion times, I apologize for adding nothing except the Cobb-Speaker twist. Ben and BirdstheBest, you now have my thoughts.

Baseball History Nut

P.S. Oh, b.t.w., I'm a criminal lawyer, and the innocent-until-proven-guilty presumption does not apply outside of criminal courts, nor does the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact Bonds hasn't admitted to the utterly obvious makes it no less obvious.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:57 PM
BaseballHistoryNut, I certainly hope you never used an argument like that in the courtroom. That was downright laughable. First of all, just because someone appears to be guilty does not mean you can condemn them--in or out of a courtroom. Suspicions do not compose conclusive evidence. What are you basing your conclusions on? Bonds's body got bigger in a relatively short time and then he started hitting the ball longer. Hmm, so because of that we are going to say any records he sets are invalid? I know several people who work in the training and physical fitness field and have discussed this issue with them. While it is probable that Bonds took steroids, steroids were not necessary for his body change. An extremely regimented diet and workout routine with some supplements would also accomplish the goal, just not as quickly. Look at his stats. There is no discernable point ot a major increase in production outside of his 2001 season--and that was before the substance abuse policy went into effect! Since then he has hit 46, 45, and 45 home runs (last year he was injured). He had already hit 40+ home runs in 1993, 1996, 1997, and 2000. The dramatic increase that occurred in his OBP and his SLG is due more to the number of walks he has received rather than increased power or hitting ability (take a look at his total bases over his career).

Second, even if Bonds did take streroids (for which there is no conclusive evidence), he still did not cheat if his actions were not against regulations. If that were the case, then we must strike the stats of every spitballer since that is illegal now in baseball. Just because a person's actions give him an advantage over other players, those actions cannot be called "cheating" if there is no rule outlawing them! If we use that rationale, then what is next? Do we strike the NFL interception records of Paul Krause and Emlen Tunnell because they used tactics of what is now illegal contact with receivers. Of course not--that would be asinine.

Each new era sees changes in policy. We as sports fans must simply adjust our point of view. Here is an example. If one were to consider NFL quarterbacks, would Johnny Unitas or Brett Favre be considered better? While that is a good discussion, I think most experts would pick Unitas. But if you look at the statistics, Favre is immensely superior in almost every category--esecially in passer rating. However, Unitas and Favre played in different eras. In Unitas's time, the head slap was still legal, offensive linemen were not allowed to extend their arms in pass protection, and defensive players could hit receivers anywhere on the field as long as the ball was not in the air. Passing efficiently has become easier with the changed rules. When comparing Unitas and Favre, we must take that into account.

The same applies to baseball. Back in Babe Ruth's time, there was no recreational steroid use. In Bonds's time there was. The reality is that many have used them, although we do not have a comprehensive list. They were NOT breaking any regulation by doing so (prior to the current policy going into effect). While this steroid use may have given some players an advantage, we can't disregard their records for doing something within regulations. What we can do is view the records in a different light.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:16 PM
Dear BirdstheBest,

First of all, the acrimonious tone of your post is ill-suited to a newcomer at this site, but I'm all for free speech, so have at it.

Second of all, you, like Bonds' other strenuous defender at this site, have no conception of circumstantial evidence... which, contrary to what you hear on television, is just as valid in court as eyewitness testimony, and which in Bonds' case overwhelmingly establishes his guilt.

Third, don't invoke Perry's name to try and discredit me. I've said about five times here, and about five hundred times in real life, that the Hall's darkest day was when they put that glibly self-admitted cheat in the Hall. If ever there were one person who should be expelled, he's it.

Fourth, Bonds' BODY didn't just get bigger. So did his HEAD. What'd it do? Lift lots of weights? Take nutritional supplements for the cranium? And what about those games he missed due to heart fibrillations? Since when does a supremely conditioned athlete in his late 30's get THOSE?

Fifth, I've TOLD you what I'm basing my evidence on, and you apparently (and disingenuously) don't want to address it. ZERO natural HR's over 450 feet before age 35. THIRTY-ONE of them after age 35?!! Find me ANY parallel for that in baseball history! Only very good knuckleballers get exponentially better after age 35; almost everyone else is retired or precipitously in decline, and the few who are not, are in a holding pattern for a few more years. They are not suddenly going from a superior version of BOBBY Bonds to the second coming of Babe Ruth. Now, THAT is laughable, as is your credence about the whole thing!

And as for your remark "there is no discernable [sic, preferred and proper word is "discernible"] point ot [sic] a major increase in production outside of his 2001 season...???" How much do YOU know about baseball? Look at his massive increase in HR/AB, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, runs created per innings played. Those are only the most important stats a player has. And his increased astronomically in mid-2000, with his on-base percentage BETTER in 2002, 2003 and 2004 than it was in 2001, and his runs created BETTER in 2002 and 2004 than in 2001. Also, Bonds' slugging percentage in the years 2000 through 2004 was a minimum of 70 points better, every year, than it was in 1999.

Hell, you even go so far as to say, "The dramatic increase that occurred in his OBP and his SLG is due more to the number of walks he has received[,] rather than increased power or hitting ability." Would you please explain to me, while I roll on the floor in paroxysms of laughter, how someone's increased number of walks can increase his SLUGGING percentage? Take all day if you like.

In other words, you've just outed yourself as someone who knows little or nothing about real baseball stats--or, perhaps, as someone who will dishonestly try and twist them and discuss them selectively, to fit his argument. And you want to attack my position as "laughable?"

And those magical stats, where baseball's greatest power/speed player of all-time turned into Godzilla from ages 35 through 40, ARE conclusive evidence, as far as I'm concerned. But if that's not enough, we've got the evidence of his long-distance HR's--zero without wind before 2000, shortly before his 36th birthday; tons since then. And he's not supposed to know that is illegitimate? He's supposed to think it's ok to turn himself into the Bay Bridge?

You totally ignore all of this, including the long-distance HR's which I discussed at length, and I think that is at best disingenuous argument. In my mind, it discredits everything you say.

Game, set and match.

I've watched almost every one of the guy's games since he's been with the Giants, because I've been a Giants fan since I was 5 and they came to the West Coast. And even HE isn't enough to drive me away (nor was Kent). But just because they're my team, I'm not going to be willfully blind. Neither should you.


[Edited on 4/6/06 by BaseballHistoryNut]

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:53 PM
I'll say one thing for you, you like to debate, which I prefer. Unfortunately, the structure of that debate is not logical. Fortunately, my expertise is in mathematics, meaning my expertise in logic outstrips yours--meaning I can help you there. Also, I am a grammar fanatic--meaning I can help you in your word usage (e.g., acrimonious and disingenously, both of which you misused in your post).

But enough on that. You still never made your point as to why the records shouls be deleted or footnoted. Whether Bonds took steroids or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he took steroids AFTER the use of steroids became illegal. As a lawyer, this should make sense to you. You can't prosecute someone for something he did ten years ago when there was no law against it at that time. Like it or not, if all of Bonds's steroid use was before steroids were officially banned, then what he did was legitimate. The same goes for McGwire and Sosa. There is nothing baseball can do to put an asterisk on any of these records. Where is the line drawn? Are we saying post-1998? Only 1998-2002? What about before 1998? Steroid use was already rampant by the time McGwire and Sosa hit 60+ apiece. Are we to categorize all records set in the "steroid era" as tainted? What about those who did not take steroids (or at least those we don't suspect)? Can we possibly know what records stand and what records are eliminated? There is no way to salvage this mess; the window of opportunity to correct the problem has long passed.

You do have a good point, though, about Bonds's production after the age of 35. I am surprised that he has hit so many homers (and long homers at that) since he turned 35. That may be a sign of steroids. But there are other players who have been impressive after the age of 35. Babe Ruth himself had more than 40 homers in a couple seasons after he turned 35. Roger Clemens had the best single-season ERA of his career last year at the age of 42 and had a 20 win season at the age of 38. Nolan Ryan had over 300 strikeouts at the age of 42 and had two no-hitters after he turned 40. How did Ryan and Clemens do it? How did two fireballers pitch at a superior level after the age of 40? My point is that steroids are not a necessity to perform well after the age of 35.

Now, about slugging percentage. What I meant is that by taking walks where he could be swinging, a player is decreasing the number of at bats going into the slugging formula. If the player swings at those pitches he had been taking (balls, since they were resulting in walks), he will in all probablility produce outs at a higher percentage than he had been previously. The batting average will go down, thus lowering the slugging percentage. This is not a rule, just a supposition.

You are obviously someone who in interested in baseball history. How do you suggest we compare stats from different eras? How do we compare Roger Clemens with Cy Young? Or Ty Cobb with Rickey Henderson? There are unique characteristics of every era in baseball. Steroid use just happens to be a part of our current era.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:40 PM
We can get into that some other time, if and when you show yourself to be duly rehabilitated. I won't be holding my breath.

I didn't misuse either of those words, and your bald assertion is exactly that and nothing more. By the way, when you are referring to words ("acrimonious" and "disingenously"), you are supposed to put them in quotation marks. I wouldn't mention that, but since you're the one purporting to have the knowledge to hand out lectures, I cannot resist.

Do you know what sophomania is? Every pedagogical remark you have dished out today has been laced with ignorance. From your bald assertions, circular "reasoning" and ad hominem arguments, I'm wondering what kind of self-deluder you are and what kind of frustrated, unrecognized uber-genius you see yourself as.

I know this for sure: You won't be qualified to talk to me like that on the best day of your life, and you've just shown up here and declared a very personal war on me. I don't like it.

Now, to repeat what I've already said, and add a few things:

STEROIDS ARE ILLEGAL. Remember Lefty Driesell? He thought coc aine was a performance-enhancing drug, and so do a number of my friends who, unlike me, went for coke big in the early 80's, when it was actually more popular than pot (a scary stat, for those who know something about the pernicious long-term effects of coke).

Let's suppose heroin or coke IS a performance-enhancing drug. Does that mean it's ok for players to use it to make themselves vastly greater? Of course not, and I could care less whether the gutless clowns in charge of MLB have a policy against using heroin or coc aine. My guess is that steroids are actually MORE harmful for someone than heroin, but whether that's true or not, steroids are obviously the ultimate performance enhancer for someone who already has an abundance of talent, which Bonds obviously did.

And I repeat AGAIN (no, that's not redundant; I'm repeating this again), NO player seriously could believe it's ok to use something which turns him into the kind of behemoth McGwire and Bonds turned into. I could care less what scrofulous old Bud and his equally scrofulous cronies did or didn't do until Congress forced them to act. The steroids, HGH and whatever other junk those guys used destroyed the game's integrity and artificially created stats which no fan I personally know will ever recognize.

I thought I made it clear that I realize there are many, many players on steroids and/or HGH and/or god knows what. I've previously mentioned the possibility, on another thread, that Roger Clemens might well be on HGH or something--a possibility which just kills me, because, pending the end of Pedro's career, Clemens is my pick for the greatest right-hander of all time. But if he's a cheat, he's a cheat. In his case, however, I don't know. I've sure wondered, though, and the guy who's made me wonder is exactly the one you named: Nolan Ryan.

Your comments about slugging percentage--and I'm sorry to repeat this, but they're just SO hilarious--are the ramblings of a sophomaniac in overdrive. In no way, shape or form can Bonds' on-base percentage affect his slugging percentage, except that perhaps all those walks, and the concomitant reduced number of pitches to swing at in real games, might HURT his batting eye.

I already make a sharp distinction between Dead Ball Era stats and Live Ball Era stats, and almost throw out pitchers' stats in the Dead Ball Era, for reasons Bill James discussed at length in one of his books. I've talked about it elsewhere here, and specifically pointed out how Walter Johnson's stats fell off the table in the year 1920, when he was only 32 but the ball suddenly got live.

Baseball will probably have to treat 1990-? in the same light, with ? meaning that until they find a way to test for HGH, the game still stinks. I don't give them credit for having cleaned up one iota. I've played poker with a guy on the Internet who pitches in Japan and once briefly pitched, with no success, in MLB. He says the prevalence of steroids and HGH is unbelievable, and has been for a very long time. He says you wouldn't believe how many people now use HGH, including him, and that those who don't are facing a real uphill battle.

NOW, as for the personal, vituperative, condescending, nasty, arrogant tones of your diatribe:

(1) I'll outdo you on logic any day of the week, even if I haven't slept in 24 hours. I do logic for a living, and in my narrow field of the law, am very well-known in California. So back off on the superciliousness and the laughable assertion that because your "expertise is in [M]athematics" (roflol), your "expertise in logic outstrips" mine. In your dreams, son.

(2) Your "math" background is hard to reconcile with your singularly illogical noise about slugging percentage and walks. Now, I'll admit it was a very long time ago, but I scored 800 on my Math SAT and very, very nearly that on my English SAT. (I realize someone can be whoever he/she wants on the Internet, and can b.s. up a storm if he/she likes, but I'll never know anyone here firsthand, except maybe Toejam and one other guy who's not coming here right now, so I have no reason to lie about this.) I cannot imagine, with your circular reasoning and cliched expressions of thought and ad hominem methods of "argument," that you were within 300 points of me. And as for the Wechsler, we won't even go there....

In any event, all you've shown me is that you're a nasty, self-aggrandizing, mean-spirited person looking for fights, being intellectually disingenuous in arguments and kidding yourself, while spouting a lot of rodomontade about your verbal and mathematical prowess--and all the while, showing a lot of circuitous reasoning and dubious-to-downright-BAD command of the English language.

Until you mature a bit, I'm not inclined to communicate with you further. And I certainly don't feel impressed by, much less threatened by, your gratuitously nasty arguments.

Let me guess your age: 23? I was a hotshot, troublemaker at that age, too, but not to this extent. And I had an excuse. I was actively alcoholic.

Now, may I make a suggestion? I believe everyone at this site will tell you that you've started a war of words which you cannot hope to win. You also won't win on the stats.

Instead of coming into this site as a brash youngster looking to pick fights with a "fastest gun in the West" attitude, wouldn't you prefer to be liked, as everyone else here ascribes to? I've had some hot exchanges with the other Bonds lover at this site, but he's never, ever been as hostile and off-the-wall arrogant as you, with all your self-professed but invisible expertises. (That's how I can spot your age range, b.t.w.)


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:09 AM
I must admit that I do like you attempted use of lofty language. Let me remind you that this is email communication, not a dissertation. Let me remind you, though, that the saying is "coudn't care less", and that words (even proper nouns) are not made plural by adding apostrophes. Oh, and "mathematics" is not capitalized unless it is a school subject. But I'm sure you already knew that, since you did so well on your SAT. (Of course, any truly educated man would know of the flaws of basing intellect on SAT scores.) I don't have any delusions of superior intelligence; in fact, I am well aware of my range. I definitely do not know as much about baseball as you do, and I don't pretend to. Baseball is not my favorite sport, so I don't follow it as closely.

As I expected, you were the one making ad hominem arguments. But again, your logic failed you. No, I am not 23 years old. You are over a decade off. Most of all, I am not your son (thank goodness for that). Make sure you never call me that again. You attempted to criticize me by using big words. Unfortunately, the majority of them were misused and out of context (e.g., "pedagogical"--I was never trying to teach you anything).

You speak of sophomania and acrimonious tones. Let's see, what did you write?
"Do you know what sophomania is? Every pedagogical remark you have dished out today has been laced with ignorance. From your bald assertions, circular "reasoning" and ad hominem arguments, I'm wondering what kind of self-deluder you are and what kind of frustrated, unrecognized uber-genius you see yourself as. I know this for sure: You won't be qualified to talk to me like that on the best day of your life, and you've just shown up here and declared a very personal war on me. I don't like it." Actually, I have not declared any war on you, but apparently you want one. All I did is expose the flaws in you illogical argument; clearly, that irks you. And, of course, your perception again failed you: I am not "frustrated", nor am I "unrecognized".

As for the claim of "circular reasoning", you obviously don't have a grasp of what that means. Let me explain. Evolutionists use circular reasoning when determining the date of fossils. They say a fossil is a certain age because the rock stratum it is found in is a that age. But when asked how they know the stratum is that old, they reply that because a certain fossil is found in it, it must be that old. That's circular reasoning--not something I have employed.

Here is a lesson on logic (now I am resorting to pedagogy). For every true "If A, then B" statement, the contrapositive ("If not B, then not A") is also true. Consider this:

If an act is considered cheating, then it must against regulations.

Is this statement true? According to the definition of "cheating", it is. All right, then let's look at the contrapositive:

If an act is not against regulations, then it is not considered cheating.

That is Logic 101, there. That means that if steroid use was not against regulations, then it is not considered cheating.

You seem to have a bad streak of cowardice within you: "Until you mature a bit, I'm not inclined to communicate with you further. And I certainly don't feel impressed by, much less threatened by, your gratuitously nasty arguments." Those arguments only seem "nasty" because they dismantle yours. I understand why you don't want to debate with me: you can't take it when you are wrong.

I'm right. You're wrong. I suggest it's something you get used to. Don't worry, I'll make a good lawyer out of you yet.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:11 AM
Dear "Birds,"

I couldn't stop laughing after I saw "you" where "your" was supposed to be on the first line. Well, I tried to stop laughing, but then I saw your comment about "basing intellect," and it was a lost cause.

If I thought you bright enough to be capable of such irony, son, I would offer to shake your hand for that clever little twist. But since you have addressed about 2% of the substance of what I've said (again), and have instead resorted to another torrent of poorly written, poorly reasoned, ugly, ad hominem invective, I'll not give you such credit.

I didn't use ANY word out of context, nor can I find any place where I pluralized a word with an 's. I have reread the last post 3 times now, and do not see it. If I did it, perhaps it was an empathic (the preferred form of the word, b.t.w., not "empathetic") misspelling for your sake.

"Could care less" has been an accepted expression in street usage for, oh, three decades or so, for those of us who venture into the real world every now and then. Meanwhile, there's your "basing intellect?" What the hell does that mean? How does one "base" one's own intellect, or, for that matter, someone else's? Do you mean basing one's perception of one's intellect, or basing one's perception of another's intellect? If so, actually, I think that not only SAT scores, but also I.Q. scores are largely invalid because of built-in cultural biases. And trust me, I'm someone who's supposed to believe that S.A.T. scores and I.Q. scores are sacrosanct. But, in marked contrast to yourself, I try to be honest with myself.

As for "pedagogical," the tone of everything you write is pedagogical; you just don't know it. And a good part of it is laced with the supreme irony of being ignorant--see, e.g., the spelling errors I have pointed out previously, or, much better, the novel expression "basing intellect" quoted above. You just don't realize how pedagogical you sound.

I'm not going to point out the number of word errors in your most recent post, because I charitably will assume most of them (other than "basing intellect") are typographical errors. But you AGAIN have not responded to anything I've said--such as my comments about steroids' being illegal (the possessive form is correct there, b.t.w.), my coc aine/Lefty Driesell analogy, etc. And you are clearly someone who has decided it is his mission to bait me and make me P.O.'ed.

Well, congratulations. You've done it. I'm p.o.'ed. So screw you. I am not going to go any further with this. I am done communicating with you, not just on this thread, but once and for all.

I promise any further post which says "BirdsTheBest" at the upper left-hand corner will go unread by me. So have a blast. Or pick a fight with Gibbs and find out what real trouble is. I'm done with your ignorance and arrogance, Son.


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:37 AM

Just don't let the acrimony(1) carry over to Larry Bird.

(1) I think that's the right word.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:43 PM
I don't think I've ever said an acrimonious word about Larry Bird, and I've never had the opportunity to say ANY word to him. (Actually, the only context in which I've ever used "acrimony" or "acrimonious" is a direct exchange between two people, but I'll go along with using it here, too.

Y.R., I think you know me pretty well by now. I'm at a point in life where I know better than to feel angry all the time--hence my statement about no more communications with this individual. It's not healthy for me. But I've got all kinds of respect for you. In addition to being a legitimately intelligent guy who thinks out his opinions individually before he speaks, you make thought provoking remarks instead of coming right out swinging with an immediate, childish attempt to provoke and antagonize. (Compare, e.g., the opening line, "I hope you never use that kind of argument in the courtroom, because it was downright laughable.")

How do you suppose you would have reacted to that kind of opening line? Being more of a pragmatist than I am, I suppose you would have blown it and the cretin who rendered it off, and paid the whole thing no attention. A major personal weakness of mine is that when someone WANTS to really get under my skin (please pardon the split infinitive), I'm willing to let them. I wish it weren't so, but it's been so for over half a century, so....


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:30 PM
I can definitely see that BaseballHistoryNut is too old to fully grasp the art of email communication. Yes, I make some mistakes when typing my responses, but I am not trying to submit a paper for grading. He pointed out some errors I made, to be sure, but he has made just as many. The past tense of "stink" is "stank". Oh, and I found that apostrophe error on another post: " I know a few goofballs who disagree with me about that, but no mature person of ANY political stripe or ANY reasonable I.Q. could deny that two country's whose sworn goal was world military conquest HAD TO BE STOPPED."

Believe me, I understand that such errors are made sometimes. I can accept the fact that I will make some errors if he can accept the fact that he will make some as well.

If I am his son, though, then he must be my mother, because obviously he (or should I say "she"?) can't argue like a man. As R. Lee Erney said, "Sound off like you got a pair!" She has turned her back on debate with me, and why? The answer is clear. She cannnot refute the purity of my logic, for one thing. But most of all, though, she has been exposed as one-dimensional. I will concede that she has a vast quantity of baseball knowledge stored up. However, her education in other sports areas is clearly lacking, or else she would have answered my question about why the NFL has displaced MLB as the national pastime.

I do have a confession. In all reality, I was just trying to get him riled up. The truth is, I test those who obviously know a lot about sports by criticizing them. BaseballHistoryNut failed that test, because now I have the upper hand. Who's your daddy now?

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:16 PM
I should've let it lay (lie? whatever).

BtB, dude, you need to relax. It's about an enjoyable exchange regarding a topic (sports) interesting to us all. You're coming across very much like the boor in a bar everyone wants to avoid. I think you've crossed way over the line in your commentary re BHN, who in my experience is an interesting, knowledgeable, nice, and eloquent guy. Disagreement is understandable. Being disagreeable is not.

My guess is Lee Ermey wouldn't see your on-line provocation as testicular evidence. More like a spoiled kid. I'll also guess that if you were face-to-face with BHN spouting off like that, he'd squeeze you down into a little hairball and hang you from his rear view mirror just for chuckles.

But there's always somebody who wants to poop in the punch bowl.
Too bad.

BHN, you're right. I would [and do] ignore it. I really don't give a flying flip what someone says about my cyber identity. Nobody here knows me anyway. Which is why I like the anonymity. I can't take things personally from someone who doesn't know me personally. I'm fine 'til I'm touched. Then it gets bloody.

It really is too bad. We can always use another person to chime in with opinions and other points of view. It's not only fun, we can learn something. But I'm afraid this new guy has already spent his capital.

Peace out.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:53 PM
You have a good point. This is an exhange of opinions. But I don't need to relax, because I am firmly in control. I am in no way upset or angry. I appreciate a good debate, even if it does involve some harsh criticism. Actually, I'm thankful that Nut made his criticisms of my writing because it motivated me to improve. Looking back, I could say that he provoked me, but I reacted in an improper manner.

I think I was irritated by his statements about being a lawyer. That seemed like bluster to me. Being a lawyer does not make one intelligent, eloquent, or even knowledgeable about sports. As the great Vincent Bugliosi said in his book "Outrage", there is incompetence everywhere. Many lawyers are incompetent, just as there are incompetent doctors. I think it was Jerry Seinfeld who said that not all doctors can be "the best"; someone has to be the worst.

One final note. Unless Nut is the size of my pastor (6'4", 350 lb), it is highly unlikely that he would hang me from his rear view mirror. I'm 6'1", 235, and much younger than he is.

Thanks, though, for bringing my comments to light. I appreciate it.

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by yeahright
I should've let it lay (lie? whatever).

BtB, dude, you need to relax. It's about an enjoyable exchange regarding a topic (sports) interesting to us all. You're coming across very much like the boor in a bar everyone wants to avoid. I think you've crossed way over the line in your commentary re BHN, who in my experience is an interesting, knowledgeable, nice, and eloquent guy. Disagreement is understandable. Being disagreeable is not.

My guess is Lee Ermey wouldn't see your on-line provocation as testicular evidence. More like a spoiled kid. I'll also guess that if you were face-to-face with BHN spouting off like that, he'd squeeze you down into a little hairball and hang you from his rear view mirror just for chuckles.

But there's always somebody who wants to poop in the punch bowl.
Too bad.

BHN, you're right. I would [and do] ignore it. I really don't give a flying flip what someone says about my cyber identity. Nobody here knows me anyway. Which is why I like the anonymity. I can't take things personally from someone who doesn't know me personally. I'm fine 'til I'm touched. Then it gets bloody.

It really is too bad. We can always use another person to chime in with opinions and other points of view. It's not only fun, we can learn something. But I'm afraid this new guy has already spent his capital.

Peace out.

Dear YeahRight,

As usual, your words are wise ones. At my age and size, I can ill afford to let myself get so worked up over nothing, or my modest blood pressure dosage will have to be tripled. And I really did let nothing get me worked up, not getting to sleep--I shouldn't dish out the satisfaction that will come with this admission--until 4 a.m. last night.

Thank you for the words of support. More important, thank you for the words of advice about not taking things personally from someone who doesn't know me at all. There are a few people here whom I feel like I've gotten to know to SOME degree--obviously, none well. But to let a total newcomer deliberately get that far under my skin was really weak on my part. As I said, it's a lifelong shortcoming, dealt with during the first 29 years of my life in the manner suggested in your post. I'm still more than capable, but the price tag attached to my overhand right cross is more than I care to pay....

Anyway, the problem is solved. My vow not to read any further posts was a sincere one, so it's over. Y'all (plural, as in everyone) can deal with his need to be controversial, belligerent, arrogant and "provocative." The two posts of his which follow my last one are unread by me and they will remain that way, as will any others bearing his name.

Thanks again.


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:01 PM
MLb is full of hypocrisy. They try to single out Bonds, yet bow down to known cheaters Ruth, Mays, Aaron to name a few. Any HOF writer that refuses to vote Bonds in the HOF is a hypocrite, and a badly informed writer.

Bonds broke no MLB rules, if in fact if he is guilty. He did nothing no worse then Ruth or Aaron. Btw, Ruth broke federal law (Prohibition), and Aaron too (amphetamine use) narcotics.

Bunch of crying over spilled milk.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:51 PM
Anyone who would compare Ruth's breaking of the 18th Amendment--i.e., "Prohibition"--with federal laws banning the possession and use of steroids, and the ubiquitous violations of those laws in baseball over the past 15 years, is living in denial.

NO law in American history, including the laws against marijuana, have been as overwhelmingly violated as Prohibition was. More alcohol was consumed per capita during Prohibition than at any other point in American history. The law was an ongoing joke, and anyone who would compare that to Barry Bonds' and Mark McGwire's and scores and scores of other players' willful violations of federal laws against the use of steroids, must be asphyxiating on his own denial.

Both of my parents lived through Prohibition, and though neither of them drank because their alcoholic fathers made them find alcohol repulsive, they assured me a zillion times that Prohibition was a nationwide joke, treated as such by politicians, cops and everyone else.

There is nothing funny about laws prohibiting the substance which has, oh, what?, quadrupled Bonds' head size and given him heart palpitations!! And remember, I'm a reformed drunk, so you don't need to tell me, 26 years after my last drink, about alcohol's pernicious effects. But don't seriously claim it's on a par with steroids!

You and I have battled over this until I am sick of it. You have said about a hundred times--apparently not facetiously--that there is no evidence Bonds used any substances to artificially alter his strength and help him hit HR's. When the HR-distance evidence made a mockery of that claim, it then became a laughable assertion that Babe Ruth's one-time use of a trick bat was comparable to Bonds' non-stop cheating from at least the Seth Etherton HR in mid-2000 to the present.

Of all the hardcore baseball fans I personally know, I have the most favorable view of Bonds, in that I consider him among the Top 20 players of all time on his legitimate merits through 1999, and in that I consider him a legit first-year Hall of Famer. But to compare guys in the 1950's and 1960's who took amphetamine pills, to these modern guys who made themselves into small mountain ranges and doubled their head sizes--and especially Bonds, who suddenly got three times as good and 20 times as strong at age 36--is just silly.

You're entitled to your point of view, and as famous patriots said, I will defend to my death your right to express it, but surely you realize almost nobody agrees with you. As my mom liked to say, that rarely means everyone else is wrong. It's nice to get a "Fool on the Hill" complex, but that's not what's happening here.


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:37 PM
I'm far from being alone on my views. This is the only site that is 99% hate Bonds.

Remember these threads when Bonds gets inducted into the HOF.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:40 PM
THIS is the only site that 99% hates Bonds? HaHaHaHaHaHa.

I'm the only person I know in real life who would put him in the Hall of Fame. And as you might suppose, I talk baseball with a lot of people. That jack@ss, naturally, comes up in a lot of those conversations. I don't know anyone who has a good word to say about the guy, and I live in Northern California.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in