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
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.)