Don't be a brownoser-The Bluenoser Interview

[Gil Thorp]

Well, you are the one that asked the question.

[Bluenoser]

It's all good - another exciting day on the OOTP Forums

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by rpriske

And with that, Wolf goes back on my ignore list. I had him off for a while, but he is such an ignorant blowhard that he really makes this board awful.

The ignorant blowhard is you. Your lies (prescriptions? lol) and your defense of criminal drug abuse was not only ignorant but disgusting. Goodbye, blowhard.

[hfield007]

Bonds could've retired in 1999 and made the HoF. And continuing the off topic nonsense, I see the merit of those players' induction despite years of condemning that possibility.

More on topic, I am fairly surprised at the age of our most known members. I figured to see a few 20-somethings.

[The Wolf]

"Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mentioned steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids." - Richard Justice, Houston Chronicle

Yes, 1991.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

your defense of criminal drug abuse was not only ignorant but disgusting.

I still don't understand what criminality has to do with this discussion. It seems hypocritical to me for a country to call itself 'the land of the free' on the one hand, and then to criminalize activities (using steroids, smoking pot) that do no harm to anyone besides the people engaging in them on the other. On the subject of criminality, I didn't find anything "disgusting" about rpriske's position.

If instead we're talking about the rules of baseball, or cheating in sport, that's a completely different discussion. I already pointed out on the previous page that steroids were expressly banned in baseball in 1991; rpriske was wrong about that point. And while he's correct that very many players used steroids primarily for injury and fatigue recovery, that does not mean players had prescriptions to use them, as the Mitchell report makes clear.

[D-BacksJosh]

I don't care how many people are doing it, there were plenty of legit baseball players during that time that had the character to not use steroids even under all the 'peer pressure'. Using steroids for performance enhancement is cheating, plain and simple. Cheaters don't get respect, and shouldn't.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by hfield007

More on topic, I am fairly surprised at the age of our most known members. I figured to see a few 20-somethings.

Damian is younger then that, havent seen him in awhile.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by injury log

I still don't understand what criminality has to do with this discussion. It seems hypocritical to me for a country to call itself 'the land of the free' on the one hand, and then to criminalize activities (using steroids, smoking pot) that do no harm to anyone besides the people engaging in them on the other. On the subject of criminality, I didn't find anything "disgusting" about rpriske's position.

If instead we're talking about the rules of baseball, or cheating in sport, that's a completely different discussion. I already pointed out on the previous page that steroids were expressly banned in baseball in 1991; rpriske was wrong about that point. And while he's correct that very many players used steroids primarily for injury and fatigue recovery, that does not mean players had prescriptions to use them, as the Mitchell report makes clear.

Yes, rpriske was wrong. Whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law. Whether you think illegal drug abuse hurts others as well or not, it's still a criminal act. The Mitchell Report did make it clear that the players were acquiring the drugs illegally. You may not find support/endorsement for criminal drug use disgusting, but I do. Other people do as well.

If you think living in America entitles you to use all manner of drugs, take it up with your state legislature and with Congress. In the meantime, steroids remain illegal.

[David Watts]

Gee, why am I not surprised that an interesting discussion had to get ugly. Then again, is anyone really surprised? Seems only one person on this forum gets an opinion. The rest of us should leave if we don't agree.

[silvam14]

You want to talk about a hall of fame selection that needs an overhaul? How about right on these here OOTP boards? Where anyone with a set number of posts gets to be a hall of famer? What's up with that?

Now pass me that joint

[silvam14]

I guess Manny Ramirez has a lot worse to worry about than steroids if he is going to the hall of fame:

http://mobile.boston.com/sports/base...anny_questione

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I guess Manny Ramirez has a lot worse to worry about than steroids if he is going to the hall of fame:

Boston.com

Jaywalking is a felony in Cincinnati.

[Painmantle]

Every time I see a thread explode like this, I am so glad that I'm at the point of my life where I'd rather be happy than right.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Painmantle

Every time I see a thread explode like this, I am so glad that I'm at the point of my life where I'd rather be happy than right.

Too bad this is the internet. We all owe you a beer for that one. Thanks.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Gee, why am I not surprised that an interesting discussion had to get ugly. Then again, is anyone really surprised? Seems only one person on this forum gets an opinion. The rest of us should leave if we don't agree.

Nice falsehood there yourself. The problem wasn't just rpriske's OPINION - his endorsement and defense of criminal behavior - it was that he was consistently posting BS as facts. That's where the problem was - his posting about steroids being legal when they weren't, about players having prescriptions for them, about players using them to recover from injuries. These aren't matters of opinion, but matters of fact, and he was posting not his own opinion but own facts, something that you have railed against yourself in the past.

Plus there were five of us on the other side. You missed that, deliberately or not.

I make no apologies for finding criminal drug abuse and those who suppoert it disgusting. If you want to argue that OPINION, feel free. Just don't bring fake "facts" to the discussion like rpriske did.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by the wolf

nice falsehood there yourself. The problem wasn't just rpriske's opinion - his endorsement and defense of criminal behavior - it was that he was consistently posting bs as facts. That's where the problem was - his posting about steroids being legal when they weren't, about players having prescriptions for them, about players using them to recover from injuries. These aren't matters of opinion, but matters of fact, and he was posting not his own opinion but own facts, something that you have railed against yourself in the past.

Plus there were five of us on the other side. You missed that, deliberately or not.

I make no apologies for finding criminal drug abuse and those who suppoert it disgusting. If you want to argue that opinion, feel free. Just don't bring fake "facts" to the discussion like rpriske did.

lol.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by David Watts

lol.

Laugh all you want, because you're also laughing at yourself.

[rpriske]

Even when I block someone I still see his garbage when other people quote him.


You just don't see it, do you Wolf?


This is how it goes with other posters:

Me: (explain my reasoning)

Others: (explain why they disagree)

Me: (further explanation if required)

etc....

This is how it goes when you are involved:

Me: (explain my reasoning)

You: YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD AND A WASTE OF A HUMAN BEING AND HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST MY NARROW VIEW OF RIGHT AND WRONG AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO REPRODUCE!!!

Me: (reacts angrily for some reason...)

Learn to act like a civilized person or keep your bile to yourself.


To anyone else who disagrees with me, it's all good!


(Oh, to address the specific apparent discrepency, much like how certain local by-laws work, if you announce something is not allowed, but include no monitoring or potential punishment, then it is not, in any practical way, disallowed. Really it is nothing more than a request.

This is not just my view, it is actually the view of some pretty major legal thinkers. I studied it when I took law classes - about such lofty topics as leash laws or no trespassing signs. If a law is compeltely unenforced, and you later try to enforce it without any further notification, the courts will generally throw it out because the accused had no reason to believe it was ACTUALLY and PRACTICALLY agaisnt the 'law'. The 1991 memo would certainly fall under that category. It was meaningless, other than as a warning that real rules were coming. Eventually they did arrive, and as I have said multiple times, I have no problem with punishing players who have broken the rules since then. I just have a problem with players being encouraged to act in a certain way - as they certainly were - and then punishing them for it.)

[The Wolf]

Wow, someone who took law classes supporting criminals. What a shock.