1813 replies to this topic

[CantonJester]

I mean, what's the point here? You're trying to argue with a Yankee fan who would not be surprised if Judge himself was using steroids? 

 

Are you that bored? The Orioles just won 83 games and present a positive future for the first time in 25 years. And all of a sudden it's "nudge the Yankee fan for reasonz?!"

 

ETA: this a horrible Thursday night game, and it is an off day before the postseason. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

How much should I Zelle you for rent for that space I’m occupying in your head?

[CantonJester]

How much should I Zelle you for rent for that space I’m occupying in your head?

 

Son, you can't afford it. But if you want to send whatever you feel comfortable to Catholic Charities, be my guest. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

I mean, what's the point here? You're trying to argue with a Yankee fan who would not be surprised if Judge himself was using steroids?

Are you that bored? The Orioles just won 83 games and present a positive future for the first time in 25 years. And all of a sudden it's "nudge the Yankee fan for reasons!"??

Check out the URL broski. This isn’t a Yankees board. Don’t want to be challenged? I’m sure there are thousands of front running degenerates from all over the country over on WeDontPutNamesOnJerseysAndLife.edu or something, that’s probably where you can have the discussion you want about this.

[CantonJester]

Check out the URL broski. This isn’t a Yankees board. Don’t want to be challenged? I’m sure there are thousands of front running degenerates from all over the country over on WeDontPutNamesOnJerseysAndLife.edu or something, that’s probably where you can have the discussion you want about this.

 

Broski? And challenged about what? I was answering questions and engaging conversation truthfully. And what does the URL have to do with anything? I've spent almost half of my life in Baltimore. While we're at it: "front-running degenerates?" 

 

Drink a tall glass of water and pop an Advil before you go to sleep. 

[mweb08]

First off, you were complaining about how Ricker was talking to you. So I'll ask you to consider how you've been addressing me and to ask yourself if that's been deserved. If you think yes, then explain. If no, then apologize.

Anyway, since you keep going back to older posts, I'll do the same. If these guys are fraudulent, then so are those that took whatever edge they could get beforehand. That's being fraudulent on the field in your view. That's being fraudulent in relation to the stats or records in your view. What someone that we already know took advantage of that edge says in an interview by a reporter or a congressman does not change the legitimacy of the stats on the field. They change our view of their character. Big distinction. I feel like it's a fair distinction to call out one's character because they lied under oath. I don't think it's fair to further call out the legitimacy of one's stats because they lied about taking that edge while respecting someone else's stats who also took an edge but didn't have to testify about it under oath.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Broski? And challenged about what? I was answering questions and engaging conversation truthfully. And what does the URL have to do with anything? I've spent almost half of my life in Baltimore. While we're at it: "front-running degenerates?"

Drink a tall glass of water and pop an Advil before you go to sleep.

It might take you a few months, but you’ll catch up eventually. I get it, Mack’s done it to me a few times, it isn’t fun getting lapped. Nice of you to let me in rent free though in the meantime. BTW, this all could’ve been avoided if you didn’t just assume I was trying to get a reaction out of you (lol) and not being a total ass because you didn’t like my syntax.

[CantonJester]

First off, you were complaining about how Ricker was talking to you. So I'll ask you to consider how you've been addressing me and to ask yourself if that's been deserved. If you think yes, then explain. If no, then apologize.

Anyway, since you keep going back to older posts, I'll do the same. If these guys are fraudulent, then so are those that took whatever edge they could get beforehand. That's being fraudulent on the field in your view. That's being fraudulent in relation to the stats or records in your view. What someone that we already know took advantage of that edge says in an interview by a reporter or a congressman does not change the legitimacy of the stats on the field. They change our view of their character. Big distinction. I feel like it's a fair distinction to call out one's character because they lied under oath. I don't think it's fair to further call out the legitimacy of one's stats because they lied about taking that edge while respecting someone else's stats who also took an edge but didn't have to testify about it under oath.

 

 

Ricker's been a disrespectful piece of crap towards me for several days now. He can either own it or stuff it. You were never intended to be in the crossfire. 

 

As for the rest of your reply: you're missing the point. Those guys in the late 90s made me face the fraud, so yeah, I will hold them to that...and I will view anything else I see in the sport with suspicion. You can clamor about greenies and this and that and Marilyn Monroe for all I care. It was before my time. 

[CantonJester]

It might take you a few months, but you’ll catch up eventually. I get it, Mack’s done it to me a few times, it isn’t fun getting lapped. Nice of you to let me in rent free though in the meantime. BTW, this all could’ve been avoided if you didn’t just assume I was trying to get a reaction out of you (lol) and not being a total ass because you didn’t like my syntax.

 

So you were a total ass. Cool bro. Thanks. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

So you were a total ass. Cool bro. Thanks.

Seriously? You’re out of your damn mind, go back and re-read. I literally asked if you thought with 100% certainty if Judge was clean - you responded with some BS criticism of my syntax, then a smart ass “let me help you out” nonsense. You couldn’t be further off base here. You come at me being a smart ass, what did you think would happen next? Seriously man, you’re delusional in this case. You started this BS.

[mweb08]

Ricker's been a disrespectful piece of crap towards me for several days now. He can either own it or stuff it. You were never intended to be in the crossfire.

As for the rest of your reply: you're missing the point. Those guys in the late 90s made me face the fraud, so yeah, I will hold them to that...and I will view anything else I see in the sport with suspicion. You can clamor about greenies and this and that and Marilyn Monroe for all I care. It was before my time.

Ok, so you won't own it yourself.

No, I got your point and I see why that would bother you. I think it's an odd logical conclusion to ignore that their so called on field fraudulence was not really a deviation from the history of fraudulence in the game. I also think it's interesting to essentially blame people for ruining the illusion because they got caught. Simply having players get caught should make one face the fraud if that's something that they'd be upset by, the Congressional hearings shouldn't be the impetus for that, rather they would just serve as something to further shake one's head at.

[CantonJester]

Ok, so you won't own it yourself.

No, I got your point and I see why that would bother you. I think it's an odd logical conclusion to ignore that their so called on field fraudulence was not really a deviation from the history of fraudulence in the game. I also think it's interesting to essentially blame people for ruining the illusion because they got caught. Simply having players get caught should make one face the fraud if that's something that they'd be upset by, the Congressional hearings shouldn't be the impetus for that, rather they would just serve as something to further shake one's head at.

 

You’re applying a revisionist history. Were you always equally jaundiced in your view of player accolades, or did you just not give a hoot either way? And might I ask your age, because it’s clearly relative to the matter. I’m not saying I don’t view all eras differently, but at least I’m honest enough to admit to how I viewed them back in ‘the day.’ 

 

Also, I don’t blame them for being caught. I blamed them for lying their faces off. They didn’t own it. Go back and read what I wrote. 

[CantonJester]

Seriously? You’re out of your damn mind, go back and re-read. I literally asked if you thought with 100% certainty if Judge was clean - you responded with some BS criticism of my syntax, then a smart ass “let me help you out” nonsense. You couldn’t be further off base here. You come at me being a smart ass, what did you think would happen next? Seriously man, you’re delusional in this case. You started this BS.
 

 

You’ve been coming at me for bear for a while now.

 

DROP IT.

 

I’ll quote you from a message you posted 7 years ago in the Ignore Feature thread under the Instructions/Rules forum:

 

It's a message board. While in the past I've not practiced what I've preach here, I've learned it's just not that serious. Being offended is a choice you can control. Others being offensive is something you can't control. The thing that baffles me is that this is a fairly intimate community which means we all know each other's tendencies and idiosyncrasies fairly well... when certain behavior is predictable, it's not nearly as bothersome. Just chill and engage more with those you see more eye to eye with.

[You Play to Win the Game]

You’ve been coming at me for bear for a while now.

DROP IT.

I’ll quote you from a message you posted 7 years ago in the Ignore Feature thread under the Instructions/Rules forum:

Yeah, and what you aren’t getting is that my biggest idiosyncrasy/character flaw/trauma side effect, whatever you want to call it, is that if you come at me in a personal and disrespectful manner like you did in your initial reply here, I’m going to get after it. So don’t. You don’t like it? Don’t engage with me, or better yet, don’t be an ahole. I’m better at it than you are. I’m willing to move on if you are, you can even have the last word since that seems important to you.

[mweb08]

You’re applying a revisionist history. Were you always equally jaundiced in your view of player accolades, or did you just not give a hoot either way? And might I ask your age, because it’s clearly relative to the matter. I’m not saying I don’t view all eras differently, but at least I’m honest enough to admit to how I viewed them back in ‘the day.’

Also, I don’t blame them for being caught. I blamed them for lying their faces off. They didn’t own it. Go back and read what I wrote.

I'm not applying revisionist history. Cheating or getting an extra edge was already relatively well documented in baseball's history for anyone that wanted to learn.

It was also pretty clear what was going on in the homerun chase of '98. Many chose to be willfully ignorant though, at least until Bonds leveled up.

I'm 42 btw.

And yes, I read your point. I also got your point. I just don't think that's a logical conclusion as stated. Them lying shouldn't have any correlation to you becoming aware of the on field fraudulence or having to face it as you said. If anything, that should have helped you continue to believe in the illusion. It actually sounds like you should be upset at the whistle blowers and investigators more than the players. If they didn't investigate and point out the fraud, you could have remained blissfully unaware. So that's what changed; that's what made you face the fraud. The players had just been consistent within the sport's history, take whatever edge you can find and don't talk about it/deny it.

[Pedro Cerrano]

A/s/l!!!

40/m/Maryland

[weird-O]

Despite the personal bickering, this is still a good conversation. Since I'm late to the party, I'll toss out some of my opinions.

 

1) In the 90's I was pretty sure guys were juicing. Their bodies were changing too rapidly and abnormally, and at what are typically the declining years of a players career, they were out producing their prime years. The only people who didn't know it was happening, were those who didn't want to know. One thing that floored me, was when we found out just how many guys were using. That was a surprise.

 

2) I'm not very suspicious of Judge using any additives or preservatives. He's a big guy, in the prime of his career, who has always mashed. And although it's an imperfect science, his body is relatively the same as he looked in his rookie year. And while there will probably always be a lingering degree of suspicion in me, there's not enough for me to question whether he's clean or not.   

[CantonJester]

Yeah, and what you aren’t getting is that my biggest idiosyncrasy/character flaw/trauma side effect, whatever you want to call it, is that if you come at me in a personal and disrespectful manner like you did in your initial reply here, I’m going to get after it. So don’t. You don’t like it? Don’t engage with me, or better yet, don’t be an ahole. I’m better at it than you are. I’m willing to move on if you are, you can even have the last word since that seems important to you.

 

Dude. You're an @ss. (that's my last word to you, sunshine.)

[BSLChrisStoner]

CBS Sports: The Yankees are once again being exposed by the Astros; here's how organizational failures led them here

https://www.cbssport...-led-them-here/

[You Play to Win the Game]

The Yankees lose, the Yankees lose, theeeeeeeeee Yankeeeeeeees lose!