Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.

You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.

You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.

This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.

I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.

And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.

And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.

What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.

As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.

Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!

Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.

And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.

And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.

What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.

As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.

Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!

Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.

That is some awesome deflection. When you don't know the facts, either make them up or insult the other person. You've done both, not masterfully, but at least you tried.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me when to respond or not respond.

Your question of "what would you do" is still irrelevant. If I say I would do exactly what Jackson did, would that make him any less guilty? Of course it wouldn't. If you feel he's innocent, why do you need to make excuses for him?

Why do you keep bringing up Jackson' not guilty verdict? The others were also found not guilty too and with some of the other 7 players, there is no doubt of their guilt. Juries get verdicts wrong. Period.

[SyrNy1960]

https://us.yahoo.com/news/end-line-b...140102319.html

[ClementeFanOh]

Tony- thanks for the article link, it was interesting. The writer touched on a
point I brought up earlier as well. Regarding the PED suspects, at no time
have I suggested they are bound for Purgatory because of their use. I
haven't suggested they "give back" their salaries as some form of
atonement. I know they have lived wonderful lifestyles most of us will never
experience, fame and fortune. I'd be willing to bet a few are attempting to
redeem their past transgressions, and that some would be entertaining to
have a drink with- and I'm sure a decent number don't give a rip...

But they question here is, do they deserve MLBs highest permanent honor?
To be included with the absolute best of the best? Should they get that
benefit as well? Someone out there in net54 land will correct me I'm sure,
but isn't the Hall made up of less than 1 percent of all MLB players? I have
heard some fans cite a preference for a "small" Hall, others for a "big" Hall.
How about making it a "deserving" Hall? Some years the group is
impressive, some it's sparse. Regardless, it's hard to imagine a time when
players whose baseball playing acumen is so tainted, somehow
worm their way into that top 1%. Shouldn't the whirlwind of controversy
itself, going strong for a decade across the MLB spectrum, be enough of an
indicator that "these are not the droids (we) seek"? (Couldn't help the
Star Wars reference). How about this for a reward instead- they take their
tens of millions and hero worship/fame, and call it a day? Isn't that enough
for this group, so voters and fans can turn their attention to other
candidates? Trent King

[SyrNy1960]

As humans, as shown in many posts on NET54, we all have our own individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs. And although I may not agree with others, I respect their individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs. There have been some really great points made by others in this thread, which made me think differently a bit, so thank you all for that.

There have been many forms of what I consider cheating in Major League Baseball; one is:

* Catchers moving their glove after the catch is technically cheating. Where the ball lands, is the pitch location, and it should be called as such. THAT’S REALITY. But it’s been considered “FRAMING,” which we’re supposed to recognize it as a skill. Really? A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike; call it where it lands.

* Pitchers using foreign substances or anything else to alter the ball; getting an edge on the batters. Is that fair? Isn’t that cheating? Of course it is. That’s why it is now illegal.

Those acts do change (pad) a pitchers numbers. Do we now go back to the pitchers in the Hall of Fame and re-adjust their numbers? What was called a strike - was actually a ball? Do their numbers actually reflect their own individual ability, without any help from any foreign substance or anything else to alter the ball?

Well, some may think that’s a reach, and won’t agree with that, but that is my opinion.

I don’t think there is one resolve, because as you can see by the writers, voters, and all of us, we are all over the place in how we see it. Again, individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs.

There are players already in the Hall of Fame who used PEDs. As I stated early, put an asterisk next to their name and call it a day. In the end, everyone knows what they did.

If Arod is left out because of testing positive and being suspended, and Bonds gets in because he didn’t do the same, that’s bull crap. Bonds use of PEDs got him the All-Time Home Run Record. Don’t need a positive test or a suspension to prove to me he used PEDs.

Thanks, Tony

[ClementeFanOh]

Tony- again, an interesting post. You are right in that people's opinions vary,
no doubt about that. When it comes to something I enjoy, I do my best to
form those opinions with as much fact/thoughtful discourse as I possibly
can. For what this is worth, I'll add my 2 cents:

1) I don't think Bonds OR Aroid should ever see the Hall. Rodriguez' entire
career is called into question due to proven abuse. Bonds' most famous
accomplishment is as well. Their "Fame" is supposed to be the direct
result of their baseball acumen, and that acumen is dirty- period.

2) Not a big fan of retroactively going back to analyze members who are
already HOF. My point in this exercise is to do it right with the
candidates we see now- ones "we" (fans, voters, writers) can actually do
something about. If people complain that the Hall contains players who
"shouldn't be in", then how can any reasonable response be an open
door policy where obvious and prolonged misbehavior continues to be
downplayed?

Trent King

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Tony- again, an interesting post. You are right in that people's opinions vary,
no doubt about that. When it comes to something I enjoy, I do my best to
form those opinions with as much fact/thoughtful discourse as I possibly
can. For what this is worth, I'll add my 2 cents:

1) I don't think Bonds OR Aroid should ever see the Hall. Rodriguez' entire
career is called into question due to proven abuse. Bonds' most famous
accomplishment is as well. Their "Fame" is supposed to be the direct
result of their baseball acumen, and that acumen is dirty- period.

2) Not a big fan of retroactively going back to analyze members who are
already HOF. My point in this exercise is to do it right with the
candidates we see now- ones "we" (fans, voters, writers) can actually do
something about. If people complain that the Hall contains players who
"shouldn't be in", then how can any reasonable response be an open
door policy where obvious and prolonged misbehavior continues to be
downplayed?

Trent King

1) Completely agree with you 100%, and no other players during this period should get in either. Unfortunately, one (actually more than one) did; hence, put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day. Can't let one in and not the others. It's unfortunate, but the door has been opened and you can't shut the door now.

2) "My point in this exercise is to do it right with the candidates we see now- ones "we" (fans, voters, writers) can actually do something about." I can't do that, because they already let one in. Take him (them) out, and I'm with you 100%.

We will never truly know how many players used; how much they used; and how long they used. Truly sad for such an era with great baseball players.

It's been enjoyable and I appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. For me, there's not much more that I can add.

Much appreciation for everyone's opinions and comments! The love and passion for baseball that you all have is awesome!

Thanks, Tony