|
|
#32
11-03-2007, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What percentage chance do you assign to a random player from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using a PED? What percentage chance do you assign Barry Bonds from the years 1996 to 2003 of ever using a PED? [/ QUOTE ] 0% chance of cheating for both groups between 1996-2002, as their wasn't a policy. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't ask you for a percentage of cheating. Please answer the question. 
|
|
#33
11-03-2007, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread. [/ QUOTE ] Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread...... [/ QUOTE ] Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I brought it up once to question your thought process. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion.
|
|
#34
11-03-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Again: Do YOU think Barry Bonds took steroids at any time for any reason? Not your facts, what is YOUR opinion? Yes or no? [/ QUOTE ] I think Barry Bonds played by the rules of the game. Whether or not *he* conformed to *your* personal rules doesn't matter to *me*.
|
|
#35
11-03-2007, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again: Do YOU think Barry Bonds took steroids at any time for any reason? Not your facts, what is YOUR opinion? Yes or no? [/ QUOTE ] I think Barry Bonds played by the rules of the game. Whether or not *he* conformed to *your* personal rules doesn't matter to *me*. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but I think many people who read this thread want to know. Do YOU think that Barry Bonds used steroids, for any reason?
|
|
#36
11-03-2007, 05:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It only matters to those who wish to impose their own definition of the cheating, disregarding completely the rules that govern the sport. [/ QUOTE ] hahaha [/ QUOTE ] That wasn't my quote. I accidentally left that in while quoting RedBean.
|
|
#37
11-03-2007, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread. [/ QUOTE ] Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread...... [/ QUOTE ] Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion. [/ QUOTE ] Of course you don't agree, because you yourself didn't use consistent reasoning concerning the two situations. In Bonds case, you said that despite the facts, and in the presence of only questionable evidence, you assign a 80% likelihood that he cheated in the other thread. In the case of RP, in another thread, you said that despite him admitting responsibility, and you'd assign a 1% chance. One guy admits responsibility, facts support it, you assign a 1% probability. Other guy denies allegations, facts support it, you assign a 80% probability. The real difference of course, being that you worship at the altar of one, and you prejudge the other. Funny how it works, huh?
|
|
#38
11-03-2007, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
RB,
While I do not dispute that all of the facts you have are correct, I also do not think that known facts tell the whole story all the time. I think you would agree with this. So no, I don't feel any need to have a conversation around the facts. The facts are not going to change on some internet message board. The argument should center around the unknown, the possibilities, our own opinions. I think the fact that you have to constantly fall back on what is "known" is pretty damning in its own right. The fact that you shy away from drawing your own opinions from all the conjecture, all the rumors, is damning. This world is one of incomplete information. You take what you know and make up your mind based on that. Waiting for all the details to come to light is an impossible task. We will never know all the minutia surrounding Barry Bonds and his life. Nor would I want to. So what most of us have done is take that incomplete information, add it all together, and come to our own conclusion.
|
|
#39
11-03-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My argument about Bonds has nothing to do with the RP thread. [/ QUOTE ] Yet you continue to bring it up in every unrelated Bonds thread...... [/ QUOTE ] Meh. I am gonna drop this one. I completely understand all your points, I just don't agree that you used the same reasoning to reach those points. But again, just my opinion. [/ QUOTE ] Of course you don't agree, because you yourself didn't use consistent reasoning concerning the two situations. In Bonds case, you said that despite the facts, and in the presence of only questionable evidence, you assign a 80% likelihood that he cheated in the other thread. In the case of RP, in another thread, you said that despite him admitting responsibility, and you'd assign a 1% chance. One guy admits responsibility, facts support it, you assign a 1% probability. Other guy denies allegations, facts support it, you assign a 80% probability. The real difference of course, being that you worship at the altar of one, and you prejudge the other. Funny how it works, huh? [/ 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. So while yes, Ron Paul admitted to writing the paper, he also said he admitted that fact under pressure from his staffers and that he in fact did not write the paper. You can believe that or not, completely a personal decision. So can you call him a liar? Sure thing. Would not bother me one bit. He messed up. He did lie. But to label him a racist, in the face of 30 years of evidence contrary to that, is disingenuous. We have other speeches, papers, and voting records to use to evaluate our opinion of RP. With Bonds, we are working with a whole lot less real evidence. We don't have a record of steroid tests, or things he has said speaking out against steroid use. We have to use incomplete information to make our choice.
|
|
#40
11-03-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
