The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[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.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, take out "unilaterally" then. It doesn't make any difference.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bolded parts are false, and you're not "still waiting" for evidence, you're ignoring it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But in this post, in your reply to me specifically about the "cream" and "clear" not being banned until 2003, you responded about illegal steroids being "banned from baseball in 1991."

So now your saying that you weren't replying in regards to the "cream" or "clear"?

Care to assert which substance then, if not the 'cream' or 'clear'? Or are you just sticking with the vague "illegal steroid"?

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only one group has been known to meticulously research the sources of the book, with the assistance of the author's, and having access to their notes, etc.......the Pulitzer panel that was researching it as a result of nomination for a potential Pulitzer award.

What did the esteemed Pulitzer committe researchers say after digging deep into the credibility of the book's sources?

As reported by Buster Olney of ESPN:

"...the book never made it beyond the initial jury stage to the Pulitzer committee. Their work was deemed by the jury too based upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence and was therefore not able to be viewed as factual."

Oops!....

Pulitzer, the folks known for giving awards for excellence in journalism, and the standard for which journalistic peers measure themselves......Pulitzer found the book to be <u>NOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED AS FACTUAL!!!</u>

Yahtzee!

See the difference between "wild assertions by hack sports media" and "credible investigative journalism"?

Pulitzer sees it. And it's a big difference!

By no coincidence, the majority of "sources" in the book haven't testified in court, and those who have are reported to have told different versions than what they claimed in the book.

Double-Oops!...