Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I think many people who read this thread want to know.


[/ QUOTE ]

It may matter to those who disregard the rules of the sport as written and choose instead to impose their own made-up based on their own preferences.

But, I'm not one of those people, so I can't help you.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The argument should center around what we don't know, and our own subjective opinions?

Sweet...

And here I am trying to use things like facts and details instead of speculation and conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty damning that I use facts to justify my position, as opposed to wild ass speculation.

Silly me.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't shied away from drawing my own opinion, it's just that I've based it upon indisputable fact.

That you find it damning that I prefer to avoid rumor and conjecture is....well, I just don't know what to say.

I mean, seriously.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask you for a percentage of cheating. Please answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see....in previous threads, you asserted that PED use was synonymous with cheating.....and now you're saying that isn't the case.

Make up your mind already....sheesh.


From the other thread:
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Posted by manbearpig</font>
So if you admit that their is a possibility that Bonds used PED's then you are admitting their is a chance that Bonds cheated, which seems to go against your previous comments.

Because: possible PED use= possible cheating


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, you say you aren't asking about cheating....but then when someone assigns a percentage of PED use, you will say "HA! THEN HE WAS CHEATING! BECAUSE PED USE = CHEATING! HA HA!"

C'mon man, seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Just answer it. Obviously you think PED use in 1998 was not cheating, I think it was kinda cheating in a spirit of the rules way but not in a punishable way, and some people think that it should result in beheading. That is irrelevant. The cheating part is a judgment call. Even if we knew someone was 100% using we could still argue over whether that is cheating or not.

I just want your OPINION on the percentages.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]


The real difference of course, being that you worship at the altar of one, and you prejudge the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

And also, LOL.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions.


[/ QUOTE ]

The argument should center around what we don't know, and our own subjective opinions?

Sweet...

And here I am trying to use things like facts and details instead of speculation and conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty damning that I use facts to justify my position, as opposed to wild ass speculation.

Silly me.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't shied away from drawing my own opinion, it's just that I've based it upon indisputable fact.

That you find it damning that I prefer to avoid rumor and conjecture is....well, I just don't know what to say.

I mean, seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK you cant really argue about facts. They are indisputable.

So yes, the argument should center around what we kinda sorta might maybe know.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a complicated question. How likely is it that you think Bonds used PEDs or steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think one detail you are missing is that the RP case is a subjective opinion of an intangible quality. The BB case is a yes/no proposition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, *you* are the one that brought up the RP situation as being similar....I'm the one who has been saying they are different.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

You fell right into that one....

[ QUOTE ]

&lt;snip Ron Paul diatribe&gt;


[/ QUOTE ]

Take it to politics, hoss. We can discuss your Grand Wizard there.

Re: Bonds Responds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that he used steroids in violation of the rules of baseball, given that no credible evidence exists to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truly amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know....silly me using those facts and details again instead of engaging in your speculation and conjecture.