Oh, Fahrfegneugen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by uruguru
#1 I specifically address why that's a bad argument in the next paragraph. The "larger point", as you call it.
|
No, you don't address it. You just argue the converse and hypothesize that others would be hypocrites if that were the case. Pure straw-man. Rumpelstiltskin would be proud.
Quote:
|
#2 There is literally no evidence that this was the intent. Zero. This is all speculation made for the purpose to exaggerate the case against Rose.
|
"Intent" is irrelevant.
The issue is the danger that this behavior creates.
Which is why it's against the rules.
Which Rose knew.
And yet, Rose deliberately broke the rules
Hence the ban.
Quote:
|
And yes, no one is arguing that it wasn't against the rules.
|
So what are you on about, then? Pete knew the rules, Pete broke the rules, Pete was banned, Pete's dead. What's the point?
Quote:
|
The real "larger point" is that all of the innuendo in the world cannot make your point. It's been almost 40 years. Every game that Rose bet or didn't bet on has been examined in detail by people who desperately want to prove he fixed games. Guess what? They never found any evidence of that. If they had, you would be copy-pasting it here verbatim.
|
I don't even see anybody arguing about whether or not he fixed games. He wasn't banned for fixing, he was banned for violating the rules about betting on games.
Whether or not he was a fixer is as irrelevant to the argument as to whether his bowl cut made him look stupid, whether the polyester uniforms made him look fat or whether his cheap shots on Ray Fosse and Bud Harrelson made him a dirty player.
None of that has the slightest relevance to why Rose was banned, whether the ban should have been listed or whether he should be in the Hall. Like, seriously.
Quote:
|
But you can't, so all you can do is toss out innuendo and hope that sounds convincing.
|
And all you seem to be doing is fulminating about irrelevancies and trying to smear others. Go find another windmill to tilt at, please.