I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[rhettyeakley]

Interesting thread, it is likely Joe after all but I retain the right to change my opinion if more evidence is found.

That being said, what people like Brett and Sportscardtheory (I have no idea who that is) have to understand is that while this one ended up being likely correct (I'm still not 100% convinced) for every one that is correctly id'ed there are 20-30 that are totally bogus. You guys were convinced that it was Joe prior to any of the evidence Greg put forth (which is the ONLY thing in my mind that leads me to believe it might me him) so your bias was obvious from the start. Prior to the newspaper photo evrything that had been put forth as "evidence" was essentially opinion based on a blurry image that had just as good of a chance as being Terry Turner or Joe Birmingham (as opposed to Jackson).

When one is truly impartial they have to be convinced by the evidence, not the other way around--this is why Mark is so valuable to this board and the hobby. I think he is right on in his stance, he never once said "that ISN'T Joe Jackson" he was simply stating that he didn't feel comfortable saying it "was 100% Joe Jackson" because there is that small chance that it isn't (which still exists). Photo ID is an absolute...it's either him or it's not, if you say it's "likely" him then that just isn't enough for some people (got it!).

The fact that both of you have been so beligerent about the whole thing really leaves a sour taste in the mouth (at least to me). We got it 350 posts ago that you were convinced it was him (even before the newspaper photo Greg found was found) but to ridicule or be "arrogant" about this kind of stuff is petty and childish. I have been doubted by many in the past about things in this hobby that turned out to be right, but a mature person doesn't feel the need to do the whole "I told you so" thing!

The way Mark approaches photo id is the "standard of care" (to use a medical term). Jumping to conclusions about an id from a photo is done all the time and 99% are wrong. Take your praise as having possibly added a card to the JoeJax master checklist like an adult, no need for anymore jabs, shots or holocaust references (see Godwin's Law).

-Rhett

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Interesting thread, it is likely Joe after all but I retain the right to change my opinion if more evidence is found.

That being said, what people like Brett and Sportscardtheory (I have no idea who that is) have to understand is that while this one ended up being likely correct (I'm still not 100% convinced) for every one that is correctly id'ed there are 20-30 that are totally bogus. You guys were convinced that it was Joe prior to any of the evidence Greg put forth (which is the ONLY thing in my mind that leads me to believe it might me him) so your bias was obvious from the start. Prior to the newspaper photo evrything that had been put forth as "evidence" was essentially opinion based on a blurry image that had just as good of a chance as being Terry Turner or Joe Birmingham (as opposed to Jackson).

When one is truly impartial they have to be convinced by the evidence, not the other way around--this is why Mark is so valuable to this board and the hobby. I think he is right on in his stance, he never once said "that ISN'T Joe Jackson" he was simply stating that he didn't feel comfortable saying it "was 100% Joe Jackson" because there is that small chance that it isn't (which still exists). Photo ID is an absolute...it's either him or it's not, if you say it's "likely" him then that just isn't enough for some people (got it!).

The fact that both of you have been so beligerent about the whole thing really leaves a sour taste in the mouth (at least to me). We got it 350 posts ago that you were convinced it was him (even before the newspaper photo Greg found was found) but to ridicule or be "arrogant" about this kind of stuff is petty and childish. I have been doubted by many in the past about things in this hobby that turned out to be right, but a mature person doesn't feel the need to do the whole "I told you so" thing!

The way Mark approaches photo id is the "standard of care" (to use a medical term). Jumping to conclusions about an id from a photo is done all the time and 99% are wrong. Take your praise as having possibly added a card to the JoeJax master checklist like an adult, no need for anymore jabs, shots or holocaust references (see Godwin's Law).

-Rhett

Why are you calling me belligerent when I haven't been? And why are you saying I had my mind made up from the beginning when I didn't?

[Anthony S.]

Well put, Rhett.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Rhett takes over the lead for best post of the thread.

[Robextend]

Great post Rhett.

[sportscardtheory]

Yeah, great job making stuff up, Rhett. POST OF THE YEAR!!! I'm surprised he could still type on his computer while riding his high-horse.

[rhettyeakley]

"That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they...

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to...

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the...

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive."



All statements by you in this thread and essentially a case-study in belligerency (is that a word?)

[martyogelvie]

Good Stuff RHETT!

note to self;

never pizz off Rhett.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

"That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they...

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to...

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the...

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive."



All statements by you in this thread and essentially a case-study in belligerency (is that a word?)

It's very easy to quote me without using context. You didn't even complete my sentences in a pathetic attempt to make them seem worse than they are. POST OF THE YEAR! lol How is the air up there???

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

"That anyone can still say there is doubt is astonishing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with law. Majority rules in these situations.

I'm sorry that you can't understand it, it's about burden of proof. Everyone has done an exceptional job proving that it is Jackson, while some people are wasting everyone's time saying that they...

The thing I don't like about this, is that "Mark" isn't saying anything at all. He's saying he doesn't know, which is the same thing as saying nothing. The only evidence he can possibly use to...

That's a cop-out. It HAS to be someone, and if you say it's not Joe Jackson, then who is it? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE.

Nope. It's your lack of comprehension that sucks. I was only asking who you think the player is, and apparently you don't have an answer. Many have shown that it certainly could be him, (and the...

Why are you so angry? lol Light some candles...take a bubble bath...listen to whale songs.

Him carrying-on about UFOs and chiding everyone simply because they are curious is SOOO substantive."



All statements by you in this thread and essentially a case-study in belligerency (is that a word?)

I completely stand behind every single one of these. They weren't belligerent and most were in response to posters who WERE being belligerent. Nice try, though.