Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

something we can learn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AznInvasion
    replied
    Doesn't anyone know that any discussions about Bonds in a way promotes Bonds. Even if you bad mouth Bonds, your mind is still on Bonds and that's what he wants. Best thing to do is to ignore him. The topic is so drawn out that I begin to not care whether he did or not use steroids. He is really an attention-hogging rat. (i.e. Bonds on Bonds TV show)

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    because to me, this:

    Person A: Bonds cheated and shouldnt be in the HoF
    Person B: Most people in the HoF cheated
    Person A: I dont care if they cheated, he took steroids those are worse
    Person B: Cheating is cheating


    does not come close to "nailing it".
    to me, the argument is not that "cheating is cheating".
    or that "steroids are worse than fill-in-the-blank".
    or that some members of the hof used illegal drugs.

    for me, the conversation oughtta at least include *what is known* instead of *what is supposed*.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    sweet lou, appearances being what they are, there could indeed be a lesson to be learned... by both writer and reader. so, thanx.

    i must offer, though, that one person's *cryptic* is another's *subtle*.

    maybe i oughtta write with my hammer + chisel from time to time...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sweet Lou
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black
    And as for my incomplete sentence...try not to be so cryptic; we don't reside in your mind.
    so why, instead of asking, did you assume to know?
    Well, I must say, i was a bit taken aback that you resorted to "grammar lessons"...it didn't seem like the kind of thing you'd usually do. But, that really is what it appeared to be, so I think it's fair that readers would assume to know.
    That being said, I now understand what you were saying, and my respect (for what it's worth) for you is restored!
    But, hey, try not to be so cryptic, eh?

    Originally posted by Astro
    Ok this is pointless... its the same argument over and over between different topics

    Person A: Bonds cheated and shouldnt be in the HoF
    Person B: Most people in the HoF cheated
    Person A: I dont care if they cheated, he took steroids those are worse
    Person B: Cheating is cheating

    Over and over and over...
    I think this nails it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astro
    replied
    Ok this is pointless... its the same argument over and over between different topics

    Person A: Bonds cheated and shouldnt be in the HoF
    Person B: Most people in the HoF cheated
    Person A: I dont care if they cheated, he took steroids those are worse
    Person B: Cheating is cheating

    Over and over and over...

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    runningshoes53: To be totally honest, I had no idea McGuire was using steroids when chasing Maris and if I had known that I would have been just as outraged as I am now.

    your honesty is apprciated, man. at least you are open to the idea that the mainstream is not always aware...

    McGuire, or anyone else who used, does not belong in the HOF.

    of who has done what, in what quantities, and for how long.

    I don't equate steroids with amphetamines so the "everyone else was cheating" argument doesn't wash with me.

    ok. good to see that you have taken a stand. but:
    1. what, then, to the notion that the players who took amphetamines when steroids were not widespreadly available were taking the most potent substance available to them?
    is it not reasonable to think that if available, other, stronger substances (steroids) were available then they would have been taken by the players who at the time were using the strongest stuff that they could find?

    2. does it matter to you at all who was taking the amphetamines in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s?

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    Elvis9045: I think your main beef is that lots of guys cheated so why is everyone hating on Bonds - it's unfair, right?

    actually, no. that's not it at all.

    your bonds/statue of liberty scenario falls flat because you happen to include one small but very critical assumption: that aaron played clean throughout his entire career.

    unless... you believe that even if aaron did use, bonds' use is somehow worse.
    that would be your prerogative, tough.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    runningshoes53: I guess I just have a deep respect for what Aaron went through to break Ruth's record.
    what aaron went through is a painful thing still.
    but aaron aurpassing 714 is only part of the story.


    And as for my incomplete sentence...try not to be so cryptic; we don't reside in your mind.
    so why, instead of asking, did you assume to know?

    And I ask only one thing of you: Please don't ask me to complete your thoughts with my sentences.
    i have not ever and not ever will.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Big C
    replied
    Elvis, I loved that analogy. That was a superb way of describing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by Elvis9045
    Yes, exactly. But...what have you done with Flanders?
    At least I got the interpretation of your post correct.

    Lost a bet with Zito75 in the Bitter Rivals thread, here under CE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elvis
    replied
    Originally posted by Mattingly
    I think that what Elvis is trying to say is that because Bonds is about to do is take (or "steal") the big prize, that being Hank's #755. When he likened this to the torch on the Statue of Liberty, that was also the "big prize", as opposed to what he'd related to as "lesser" cheaters, of the Gaylord Perry variety.

    Elvis, is that correct?
    Yes, exactly. But...what have you done with Flanders?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elvis
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Then how is Bonds's steroid use different than any other player's steroid use? Why does Bonds get so much more heat than anyone else who used?
    I thought I just explained that. For the same reason that Mark David Chapman got "more heat" for killing John Lennon than Joe Blow did for killing Jane Doe in a lover's quarrel.
    Last edited by Elvis; 04-07-2006, 10:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • runningshoes
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Why does Bonds get so much more heat than anyone else who used?
    To be totally honest, I had no idea McGuire was using steroids when chasing Maris and if I had known that I would have been just as outraged as I am now.

    McGuire, or anyone else who used, does not belong in the HOF.

    And for the record: I don't equate steroids with amphetamines so the "everyone else was cheating" argument doesn't wash with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Then how is Bonds's steroid use different than any other player's steroid use? Why does Bonds get so much more heat than anyone else who used?
    I think that what Elvis is trying to say is that because Bonds is about to do is take (or "steal") the big prize, that being Hank's #755. When he likened this to the torch on the Statue of Liberty, that was also the "big prize", as opposed to what he'd related to as "lesser" cheaters, of the Gaylord Perry variety.

    Elvis, is that correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by Elvis9045
    I think your main beef is that lots of guys cheated so why is everyone hating on Bonds - it's unfair, right?

    But to use a completely hypothetical analogy:

    Suppose someone stole the torch off the Statue of Liberty. People steal all sorts of things all the time. Some would say, "stealing is stealing, there's no difference". But when the thing you steal is cherished or admired by millions of people, it's only natural that people are going to hate you more than if you stole something smaller or less significant to a lot of people. So you can argue that you shouldn't hate someone more for stealing the Statue of Liberty's torch over someone stealing $10 from their mother's wallet because they're both the same wrong, but you'd lose the argument.

    Bonds is about to steal the most cherished record in the book. It may not be more wrong than anything Gaylord Perry did - they're both cheaters, but it's just the difference between someone stealing the statue's torch, and someone stealing a candy bar from the corner gas station. Both equally wrong, but there's really no comparison. Like the difference between someone killing their neighbor and someone assasinating a head of state...same crime, right? Maybe it's unfair, but that's the way it is.
    Then how is Bonds's steroid use different than any other player's steroid use? Why does Bonds get so much more heat than anyone else who used?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X