|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who pays for your education? | |||
| Parents |
   
|
117 | 33.52% |
| Other relatives |
  
|
10 | 2.87% |
| Student loans |
  
|
52 | 14.90% |
| Financial aid |
  
|
69 | 19.77% |
| You |
  
|
87 | 24.93% |
| other |
  
|
14 | 4.01% |
| Voters: 349. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#541
11-19-2007, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
"The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..." Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence gets thrown out of courts all the time for reasons unrelated to it being true or not. Not saying everything you read on the interwebs is true either. Just that a trial does not always include all the evidence. 
|
|
#542
11-19-2007, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And yet, if he is convicted, you and others will certainly hold that up as the centerpiece in your reasoning. Must be nice to have it both ways. Conviction = Guilty Acquittal = Still Guilty [/ QUOTE ]wow i take this to mean if bonds is convicted, redbean will not give excuses that the trial was unfair, or that the jury was biased, or that the defense was feeble, or that media blah blah blah, but will accept the fact that bonds did steroids and will recant all his earlier statements? [/ QUOTE ] Honestly? I'd say yes [/ QUOTE ] Agree, but it works both ways. If he is not convicted it still does not mean he did not use steroids.
|
|
#543
11-19-2007, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it such a big deal that Bonds used steroids and not a big deal that tons of others did? Why does everyone make a big deal out of this leaked testimony that doesn't even show valid evidence of Bonds using steroids, while the Grimsley report names Clemens, Pettite, Tejada, etc. and nobody cares? Why can Palmeiro scream he never used steroids under oath, test positive for steroids, and nobody care? Why can Merriman test positive for steroids and nobody care -even elected him to the pro bowl! If you really think this is about how bad steroids is and how lying is bad you are completely ignorant/dreaming/etc. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Because Bonds is arguably the GOAT, the holder of the most hallowed record in sports, and is generally considered a prick? That make sense? The public could give two [censored] about steroids being bad or dangerous or whatever. It is about "protecting" the national pastime. Fair or not, that is why he is the poster child for the era.
|
|
#544
11-19-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/ [/ QUOTE ] Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?
|
|
#545
11-19-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..." Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence gets thrown out of courts all the time for reasons unrelated to it being true or not. Not saying everything you read on the interwebs is true either. Just that a trial does not always include all the evidence. [/ QUOTE ] True. Which does nothing to change the conclusion, that courtroom>>>court of public opinion when it comes to discerning truth. Especially when one side is under gag order.
|
|
#546
11-19-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/ [/ QUOTE ] Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on? [/ QUOTE ] I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty.
|
|
#547
11-19-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And yet, if he is convicted, you and others will certainly hold that up as the centerpiece in your reasoning. Must be nice to have it both ways. Conviction = Guilty Acquittal = Still Guilty [/ QUOTE ]wow i take this to mean if bonds is convicted, redbean will not give excuses that the trial was unfair, or that the jury was biased, or that the defense was feeble, or that media blah blah blah, but will accept the fact that bonds did steroids and will recant all his earlier statements? [/ QUOTE ] Honestly? I'd say yes [/ QUOTE ] Agree, but it works both ways. If he is not convicted it still does not mean he did not use steroids. [/ QUOTE ] Of course not. We've been over this. NOTHING could ever possibly mean he didnt do steroids. It is impossible to prove that. An acquittal, the summary firing of everyone involved from the DoJ side, admissions it was all a witch hunt, Jesus coming down to testify on Bonds behalf, none of that would mean he didnt take steroids. Remember when we had a big discussion about weighted probabilities? Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?
|
|
#548
11-19-2007, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what? [/ QUOTE ] Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all. I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order?
|
|
#549
11-19-2007, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what? [/ QUOTE ] Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all. I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order? [/ QUOTE ] I was under the impression that Bonds was not allowed to talk about anything discussed at the grand jury proceedings since they were sealed.
|
|
#550
11-19-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/ [/ QUOTE ] Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on? [/ QUOTE ] I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously? The "clear." Like, you can take it and your test comes up clear. Would you not want to make sure it was working?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
