Baseball: Bonds HR

I have to say that his latest argument is the most ridiculous one of all. Ruth--along with 95% of American adults in the 1920's--violated the Volstead Act by drinking alcohol, so Bonds' use of steroids in violation of federal law makes him no more culpable than Ruth.

Ya see, I have to conceive arguments all day long for a living, and I could no more have thought up that argument than I could sprout wings and fly.

BHN

Breaking federal law, is breaking federal law. So if enough people break it, it's all right? By most players accounts, at least 50% of players used roids at some point. Bonds wasn't using by himself. And he has passed the drug test from 03-05, the 3 years MLB has tested under the new steroid policy. Bonds played fairly under the MLB rules that were in effect prior to 03. Federal law can punish him if they have a case, but Selig has no case on him.

Your stuff on Bonds is just laughable. Always has been; still is. You are so deep in denial that I wonder if you will ever see how much you have embarrassed yourself with your inapt analogies and various other allergies to linear thought.

But boy, do you like to look for fights. You've been blissfully absent for some time now, so I see you went digging for a juicy thread you could pick a fight with... and immediately dug this one out of archives and launched into your all-time #1 case of non-linear "thinking."

I have sworn before that I will not get involved in these pointless, extremely irritating little p*ssing matches with you. This time I'm keeping my vow. Go ahead and say that Ty Cobb killed his father (which some historians believe), and that Ruth was a contemporary of Cobb's, so therefore nobody has any right to attack Bonds on any ground. Or whatever other totally non-linear, factually insupportable absurdity you want to spew out at these people.

Both the ones who like me and the ones who don't certainly can see how much I know about baseball history. And, since they're bright people and since a 3-year-old could see through most of your "reasoning" on this stuff, it won't take long for even the new ones to dismiss this inanity.

BHN

Originally posted by BaseballHistoryNut
Your stuff on Bonds is just laughable. Always has been; still is. You are so deep in denial that I wonder if you will ever see how much you have embarrassed yourself with your inapt analogies and various other allergies to linear thought.

But boy, do you like to look for fights. You've been blissfully absent for some time now, so I see you went digging for a juicy thread you could pick a fight with... and immediately dug this one out of archives and launched into your all-time #1 case of non-linear "thinking."
BHN

I'm well respected at various places, so what this site thinks doesn't bother me. I didn't look for any fights. I'm not the one who made threads called

Bonds and steroids
Bonds hr

I stated facts. You guys have a right to be hypocritical. I'm just not going to stand by, and see hypocrisy run wild. Not looking for any fights. I have as much right to post here as anyone.

This is so hilarious. I'm just now reading a bio of Lou Gehrig. The title is taken from his famous "goodbye" speech at Yankee Stadium: "Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrig." I'll try and get back here later today, after I sleep about 5 more hours, and list the zillion and one places--in N.Y.C. alone--which were openly advertised as places to get booze during "Prohibition."

And now we are supposed to say Babe Ruth is just as culpable for his incessant violations of The Volstead Act, which probably kept him from hitting 800 HR's--along with his 5+ Dead Ball Years, which kept him from 1,000--as Bonds is for violating federal laws re steroids (before he discovered HGH, a more sophisticated cheating)--to turn himself into a mountain range.

I better not think about it too much or I will laugh so hard I can never get back to sleep.]

We guys are not hypocritical. You are irrational, at best, and have made the most fall-down-and-die laughable arguments I've ever heard, in or out of court, to justify Bonds and his tainted stats.

Maybe I should never have been so honest about my feelings. Maybe I should have aligned myself with TOEJAM, who said that because there is no way to know for sure the precise point when Bonds started cheating, we should just throw out his entire career. Since Toejam had to be the most beloved figure I've met here, and probably in the history of this site (I can't imagine who'd be more so), I guess I should have just taken his opinion instead of honestly and FAIRLY giving you mine.

For you to portray yourself as the voice of reason, and the rest of us as the voice of hypocrisy, is just comical. I am so sorry my good friend IA Clonz is on a (hopefully) temporary leave. When he returns, I'll be sure to show him your Volstead Act/steroid laws rubbish.

Baseball History Nut

BHN