The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: Bill Kawalec on 13 Jun 2007 04:38 <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message news:7xLbi.210831$3h2.137759(a)fe08.news.easynews.com... > 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. G O T O H E L L >
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 07:42 In article <jmLbi.210702$3h2.156021(a)fe08.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > You are accusing him of doing this a couple of hundred times, right? Nope. Not even once. Us simply answered all of y'alls question. > > In article <m4Fbi.83424$d22.60329(a)fe03.news.easynews.com>, > > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > > > >> Again, whose interests are conflicted when you bet on yourself to > >> win? But whether or not Pete managed in conflict has no bearing on the fact of his violation, the despicable dishonor of it, nor the consequences. You need to read more than one or two paragraphs... Rule 21(d) provides: Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. Where in the rule do you find that it is acceptable to bet even on your own team to win? Any player, even Pete Rose,who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which he has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. By definition and without qualification. Maybe you don't like the rule. Maybe your personal ethics are, uh, less rigorous. But Pete gets to be judged by this rule. There is no gray area here. There is no wordsmithing or mealy-mouthing over things like whether "great" means "more." It is absolutely black and white. Pete is permanently ineligible. And as such has no place in Baseball's most hallowed hall. The Hall of Fame is baseball's highest honor. Pete Rose is ineligible to put on a uniform for any reason. He was banned from playing, or managing, or coaching, or broadcasting, or sitting in the press box or stepping on the field, or being a batboy, or washing uniforms. How could anyone even argue that he be eligible for baseball's highest honor? Now, Pete's records and performance should be recorded, displayed and celebrated. The Hall itself acknowleges this: "We are the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is important to make the distinction between the two. The "Hall of Fame" refers to the one-room gallery housing the 206 bronze plaques of those players, pioneers, executives, managers and umpires who have been elected to the Hall of Fame. The rest of the complex -two buildings and three floors - contain the Museum, showcasing the history of Baseball. Over 6,000 artifacts and photographs are on display here, most of which are not Hall of Famer related. Here are represented hundreds and hundreds of non-Hall of Famers, who for a career, a season, a game, or even a sole at-bat, have made a significant contribution to Baseball history. Bobby Thomson, Don Larsen, Johnny Vander Meer, Roger Maris, Joe Jackson and Bill Mazeroski, to mention only a few, may not be elected Hall of Famers at this time; but who can deny their niche in our game's history? For Pete Rose not to be represented in the Museum would be an aberration. He, as much or more than anyone, deserves to be recognized for his outstanding accomplishments on the playing field." But Pete should never be admitted to the Hall of Fame.
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 07:50 In article <6uLbi.210797$3h2.191941(a)fe08.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > 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. You can agree to sign an agreement, which, by definition and without qualification, constitutes agreement. > And what difference does it make that Rose signed it? Well, you've got me there. Pete's signature does not count for much. > Furthermore, there is nothing in the > "agreement" concerning the HoF, which is an entity independent from > MLB. See, this is where your inattention is causing you to look silly. You need to try to comprehend entire posts, even if they seem long to you. In article <120620072304574911%maxfaq(a)earthlink.net>, Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Any player, even Pete Rose,who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any > baseball game in connection with which he has a duty to perform, shall > be declared permanently ineligible. > > By definition and without qualification. > > Maybe you don't like the rule. > > Maybe your personal ethics are, uh, less rigorous. > > But Pete gets to be judged by this rule. > > There is no gray area here. > > There is no wordsmithing or mealy-mouthing over things like whether > "great" means "more." > > It is absolutely black and white. > > Pete is permanently ineligible. > > And as such has no place in Baseball's most hallowed hall. > > The Hall of Fame is baseball's highest honor. > > Pete Rose is ineligible to put on a uniform for any reason. He was > banned from playing, or managing, or coaching, or broadcasting, or > sitting in the press box or stepping on the field, or being a batboy, > or washing uniforms. > > How could anyone even argue that he be eligible for baseball's highest > honor? > > Now, Pete's records and performance should be recorded, displayed and > celebrated. The Hall itself acknowleges this: > > "We are the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. It is important > to make the distinction between the two. The "Hall of Fame" refers to > the one-room gallery housing the 206 bronze plaques of those players, > pioneers, executives, managers and umpires who have been elected to the > Hall of Fame. > > The rest of the complex -two buildings and three floors - contain the > Museum, showcasing the history of Baseball. Over 6,000 artifacts and > photographs are on display here, most of which are not Hall of Famer > related. > > Here are represented hundreds and hundreds of non-Hall of Famers, who > for a career, a season, a game, or even a sole at-bat, have made a > significant contribution to Baseball history. Bobby Thomson, Don > Larsen, Johnny Vander Meer, Roger Maris, Joe Jackson and Bill > Mazeroski, to mention only a few, may not be elected Hall of Famers at > this time; but who can deny their niche in our game's history? > > For Pete Rose not to be represented in the Museum would be an > aberration. He, as much or more than anyone, deserves to be recognized > for his outstanding accomplishments on the playing field." > > But Pete should never be admitted to the Hall of Fame.
From: sfb on 13 Jun 2007 08:06 Pete Rose did agree to be banned when he pleaded the court of law equivalent of "no contest" which means accepting the penalties without an actual admission of guilt. <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message news:6uLbi.210797$3h2.191941(a)fe08.news.easynews.com... > 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: slidge on 13 Jun 2007 08:36
> Hardly. The greatest hitter is the one with the greatest number of > hits. The player with the greatest number of total bases is the > greatest slugger. Wrong! Thanks for trying, please play again. Or rather, don't. |