From: rm on
In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> So if Pete had not agreed to be declared permanently ineligible in
> ccordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible
> List, then he would have banned instead of agreeing to be
> permanently ineligible. Ooooooh Kay.

No. There would have been a formal investigation if Rose hadn't
have walked away. Rose may or may not have been exonerated. But
we'll never know because Rose didn't care. He walked away.

> Look, I understand now where your morals, or lack thereof, comes
> from. With your lack ethics so declared, it seems pointless to
> continue to try to discuss Pete's ethics.

Your problem is that you have pre-judged Rose. Aside from what Rose
has admitted to, nothing has ever been proven against him in any
kind of fair and formal setting.

cordially, as always,

rm
From: John Poutre on
<rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message
news:qQWbi.124606$NO1.26996(a)fe05.news.easynews.com...
> In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> So if Pete had not agreed to be declared permanently ineligible in
>> ccordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible
>> List, then he would have banned instead of agreeing to be
>> permanently ineligible. Ooooooh Kay.
>
> No. There would have been a formal investigation if Rose hadn't
> have walked away. Rose may or may not have been exonerated. But
> we'll never know because Rose didn't care. He walked away.
>
>> Look, I understand now where your morals, or lack thereof, comes
>> from. With your lack ethics so declared, it seems pointless to
>> continue to try to discuss Pete's ethics.
>
> Your problem is that you have pre-judged Rose. Aside from what Rose
> has admitted to, nothing has ever been proven against him in any
> kind of fair and formal setting.
>

LOL, so you are saying that aside from Rose admitting his guilt, nothing has
been proven?

You can't make your stupidity up.


From: John Poutre on
<rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message
news:cCWbi.124320$NO1.97180(a)fe05.news.easynews.com...
> In rec.sport.baseball TenderRage <C.TenderRage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> gambling affects the "natural" order of the game.
>> money motivates one to do more than just win or to
>> (horrible concept) to deliberately lose.
>> gambling on sports isn't a good thing.
>> I don't mean bar bets and local stuff....
>> I mean the big time bets where teams and players
>> can be cajoled (sp) into doing the wrong thing for profit.
>
> But there is nothing wrong with betting on yourself to win.
>
>

You are too stupid to know how this can be bad.


From: John Poutre on
<rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message
news:ENWbi.124605$NO1.80799(a)fe05.news.easynews.com...
> In rec.sport.baseball SkippyPB <swiegand(a)nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't miss it all. Doesn't mean Ty wasn't a better hitter. Rose put
>> his pursuit of the record ahead of what his team (the Phillies at the
>> time I believe) needed by benching a better player and putting himself
>> in the game in order to get a meaningless or useless single. He may
>> have amassed more hits than Cobb but he was never a better hitter than
>> Cobb.
>
> He put himself in the game while he managed the Reds. But he did
> win the WS with the Phillies. And he won 2 WS with the Reds. That
> is 3 more than Ty Cobb ever won. What's more, Pete won the 1975 WS
> MVP. Cobb was terrible in the WS. He didn't lead his team to a
> win.
>
> Pete Rose remains the greatest hitter of all time, by definition and
> without qualification. Ty Cobb remains the greatest hitter who ever
> lived, who didn't face black pitching, and didn't win the WS.
>

HAHA. Thanks for the laugh.. Yeah, in a sport with 25 guys on a team,
yeah, it was all Rose. Too funny.


From: Phil on
On 2007-06-13 13:38:57 -0400, Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> said:

> In article <7bTbi.737663$9i2.665268(a)fe06.news.easynews.com>,
> <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote:
>
>> In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 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 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?
>>
>> We find the rule itself unacceptable. And unacceptable rules
>> should, and often are, ignored.
>
>
> If that is your ethics, well... that stands on it's own and
> characterizes your position pretty well.
>
> I guess from that point of view, I can understand why you feel as you
> do.
>
> I can certainly see how you would find Pete a hero with your morality
> basis.

It's true. Pete Rose was aware of the rules. He knew how much society
frowned upon really bad haircuts, but he chose to ignore that unjust
restriction and walk away from any decent barber in the dozens of
American cities he visited routinely. But let me make one thing clear:
he didn't _accept_ the restriction on bad haircuts. Instead, he simply
walked away, like a real man with a bad haircut. That's why he deserves
to be in the Bad Haircut Hall of Fame.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Next: Galarraga robbed! (Jesse)