The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 15:19 In rec.sport.baseball John Poutre <mehatespam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message >> 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. Perhaps you can't, probably because you lack the imagination and conceptual apparatus required to do so. We posit an argument and your response is to call us names. cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 15:23 In rec.sport.baseball John Poutre <mehatespam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote in message >> But there is nothing wrong with betting on yourself to win. > You are too stupid to know how this can be bad. Anything and everything can be "bad." The question is not whether it can be bad, but whether it was bad. If you have any information that Rose compromised his team's goals in any way in the name of personal greed, then by all means bring it forward. All the boxscores and newspaper reports of all the games are out there. Let us see if you can make a legitimate contribution to the argument. cordially, as always, rm
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 19:07 In article <qQWbi.124606$NO1.26996(a)fe05.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > So if Pete had not agreed to be declared permanently ineligible in > > ccordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible > > List, then he would have banned instead of agreeing to be > > permanently ineligible. Ooooooh Kay. > > No. There would have been a formal investigation if Rose hadn't > have walked away. Rose may or may not have been exonerated. But > we'll never know because Rose didn't care. He walked away. First off, he didn't walk away. He signed an agreement to be banned permanently. Besides, we certainly know what would have happened if the truth had come out. We know for a fact what the truth is rather than simply evaluating the evidence ourselves. It would have been proven that he gambled on baseball and on his own team, and he would have been banned permanantly. Which is what has happened anyway. So who can complain? Justice has been served. The truth has been upheld. But I guess a group of folks like y'all with your morality could have always hoped to supress the truth and somehow weasel out from under it. Who cares what he did if he could get off, right? Pete and O.J.
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 19:09 In article <cCWbi.124320$NO1.97180(a)fe05.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > 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. Well, in MLB there is certainly at leat one unhoped for result. It gets you declared permanently ineligible.
From: Steve Cutchen on 13 Jun 2007 19:12
In article <ENWbi.124605$NO1.80799(a)fe05.news.easynews.com>, <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > And he won 2 WS with the Reds. That > is 3 more than Ty Cobb ever won. I thought he just played first... I mean, I know you think of yourself as many people. But Pete was always just one player. |