The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 00:19 > On Jun 12, 9:56?pm, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: > > You have to remember, Rose walked away from baseball before he could > > be banned. He never "agreed" to be banned from anything, much less > > the HoF. The exact wording of the pertinent clause in the agreement he signed on August 23, 1990 is: "Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List." "Banned" is synonymous with "permanently ineligible", by definition and without qualification. To apply such partisan and blatent revisionist history to a subject that is so well documented is pretty stupid.
From: Phil on 13 Jun 2007 00:21 On 2007-06-12 21:56:44 -0400, rm(a)biteme.org said: > In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Would you be willing to acknowledge that Pete Rose has an illness? >> When one is addicted their sense of reason goes out the window. > > How do you know he is "addicted?" Who knows if there really is such > a thing as an addiction to gambling? The US Department of Health and Human Services includes compulsive gambling as a subset of their definition of obsessive-compulsive disorders. Some medical treatments (including trials of opiate derivatives) have shown success in treating it. > Do you go through this yourself? > > We are probably addicted to usenet, but that's about it. Is that an > illness? That would depend on whether your addiction to UseNet has proven detrimental to the family whose basement you live in. You might also look into your addiction to referring to yourself, alone in the basement (or the garage attic, as the case may be), as "we". >> The fact that you take the time to defend this character....from >> both his being the greatest hitter to justifying his gambling is >> mystifying. > > All we are saying is that Rose should be recognized for what he did > for the game. You are obviously too young to remember him playing > but he was always one of our favourites because of his obvious love > for the game. He was almost universally regarded as a hotdog, hurt players on the field in otherwise meaningless games, and also had perhaps the stupidest haircut in the history of MLB. > As for the gambling? That's his business, not ours. And unless MLB > can show that his gambling hurt their game, and they have yet to > show this, then it is not right that he be kept out of the HoF. So his gambling is none of our business, in our capacity as fans, but his inclusion (or not) in the HoF is? I don't recall "The Rose Committee" as being mentioned among the voting body. Obviously you're not using your vast influence to its best effect. You probably need to get out of the basement more. > You have to remember, Rose walked away from baseball before he could > be banned. He never "agreed" to be banned from anything, much less > the HoF. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/p_rosea.shtml
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 01:35 In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > The game situation I related was not unusual nor specific to the > Yankees. That's true enough. Most times Rivera doesn't come in until the NYY have the lead. They didn't have the lead in your imaginary tale. > There are decisions made all the time where the manager has > to weigh the possible benefits of a decision in the current game to the > benefits long term over many games. So you'll have no problem giving us an example involving the Reds. Get back to us, when you have one. Or two. Or a couple of hundred. You are accusing him of doing this a couple of hundred times, right? cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 01:43 In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> On Jun 12, 9:56?pm, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: >> > You have to remember, Rose walked away from baseball before he >> > could be banned. He never "agreed" to be banned from anything, >> > much less the HoF. > The exact wording of the pertinent clause in the agreement he > signed on August 23, 1990 is: > "Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in > accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible > List." You cannot agree to be banned. And what difference does it make that Rose signed it? Furthermore, there is nothing in the "agreement" concerning the HoF, which is an entity independent from MLB. > "Banned" is synonymous with "permanently ineligible", by definition > and without qualification. You can't agree to be banned. When one is banned, one has no role in the decision. That's the whole point of the ban. The fact that this "disqualification" or "ban" as you put it, was not done over Rose's objection, should give you a clue. Rose simply walked away from baseball without a fight. You can look it up. cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 01:46
In rec.sport.baseball Phil <phil(a)nomail.com> wrote: > On 2007-06-12 21:56:44 -0400, rm(a)biteme.org said: > >> In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Would you be willing to acknowledge that Pete Rose has an illness? >>> When one is addicted their sense of reason goes out the window. >> >> How do you know he is "addicted?" Who knows if there really is such >> a thing as an addiction to gambling? > > The US Department of Health and Human Services includes compulsive > gambling as a subset of their definition of obsessive-compulsive > disorders. Some medical treatments (including trials of opiate > derivatives) have shown success in treating it. Oh, well. That settles everything. A bunch of shrinks, and amateur shrinks, who aren't good enough to engage in private practice, get together and make decrees. >> Do you go through this yourself? >> We are probably addicted to usenet, but that's about it. Is that >> an illness? > That would depend on whether your addiction to UseNet has proven > detrimental to the family whose basement you live in. You might also Don't you really think that the basement cliche is a bit hackneyed by now? When you use this cliche do you feel clever? Why would you feel clever saying something that has been said thousands of times over the years? > look into your addiction to referring to yourself, alone in the > basement (or the garage attic, as the case may be), as "we". We're going to plonk you, for 28 days, for lack of imagination. See ya. |