[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, do YOU think semantics means?

I think it means focusing on meanings, forms, or interpretations of words instead of the argument itself.

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds used steroids. Redbean asks "how do you define a steroid? What kind of steroid? When was this alleged use? Etc."

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds "juiced." Redbean's answer is that Bonds hasn't violated the MLB policy, etc.

Now that is the pluperfect definition of semantical argumentation right there. Everything is about definitions, meanings and interpretations for Redbean. He answers the question he wants to answer, not the question asked, using definitions, meanings, and interpretations.

Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

So before you accuse me of not knowing what semantics are, perhaps you should look it up.

Edit: Prediction: now kyleb will start arguing the merits of the above examples, and not whether or not they were semantical arguments, and someone else will think I've been PWNED again. (sighh...)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be accurate, he didn't claim it was a myth that the memo talked about steroids. You claimed that the memo unilaterally banned steroids. It absolutely did not. It might be a small point, but perhaps he is worried about...oh I don't know, you intentionally misrepresenting him by saying he said it was a myth that the memo banned steroids. It banned some steroids, in some instances. It did not "ban steroids." You might not think this is an important point, but since you don't have access to any of Bonds' medical records or anything like that, it very well could be.

That whole sidetrack about the memo ALSO illustrated the fact that you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not. So you go from his admission to taking the clear, add in the fact that "steroids were banned in the 1991 memo" and somehow you conclude that he admitted taking illegal steroids in violation of MLB policy.

And when RedBean disputes this and calls it a myth, you call it semantics.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that he took any illegal steroids, evidence that you claimed to have earlier. Bear in mind, nothing about the "cream" or "clear" is in any way relevant, since, if we've been paying attention, we know full well that that was not banned until recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded parts are false, and you're not "still waiting" for evidence, you're ignoring it. There is a lot of evidence in the Game of Shadows book. Whether it is credible is obviously up for debate, but there is a lot of evidence in that book.

God I hate myself for posting in this thread.