Hall of Fame changes criteria (again)

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

In no way have any of my responses indicated a diverting accountability away from the owners. You keep responding as if that's the case. But it's blatantly false. In fact, my responses have always indicated that I believe the character clause is stupid and I would vote all the players in whose numbers were good enough to get in, steroids, character, or otherwise. I have no idea where you get it in your head that I believed the opposite.

As I speak a little Stifle, allow me to interject. He's not talking about steroids, he's talking about collusion. Stifle brought you in to the discussion simply because you, being a lawyer, would know about Interstate Commerce and why the Owners were not put in jail for their collusion. Nothing to do with your beliefs or the PED era.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

As I speak a little Stifle, allow me to interject. He's not talking about steroids, he's talking about collusion. Stifle brought you in to the discussion simply because you, being a lawyer, would know about Interstate Commerce and why the Owners were not put in jail for their collusion. Nothing to do with your beliefs or the PED era.

I understand he's talking about collusion. The problem is that he specifically claims I asserted players should be held to a different standard than owners. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I never even mentioned owners in any point I made in this thread. I was specifically talking with Rats about players.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I understand he's talking about collusion. The problem is that he specifically claims I asserted players should be held to a different standard than owners. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I never even mentioned owners in any point I made in this thread. I was specifically talking with Rats about players.

Correct, you never mentioned owners in this thread as having their character / integrity to the game be critiqued as HOF worthy, but went off on the players. Some members believe that the stance I’m taking is about the players, nope. It’s not about the heroes or anybody but equal accountability that some members refrain from acknowledging.

I could go back and show in length detail how often I have demanded equality in allowing equal forgiveness because the owners and executives have been allowed in. I’m sure I could see where the stance or lack of was communicated n those threads.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Correct, you never mentioned owners in this thread as having their character / integrity to the game be critiqued as HOF worthy, but went off on the players. Some members believe that the stance I’m taking is about the players, nope. It’s not about the heroes or anybody but equal accountability that some members refrain from acknowledging.



I could go back and show in length detail how often I have demanded equality in allowing equal forgiveness because the owners and executives have been allowed in. I’m sure I could see where the stance or lack of was communicated n those threads.

What are you even talking about? It's like you don't even care who or what you are arguing. You just want to rant about a pet peeve. I have literally said nothing that contradicts your point, yet you still want to argue.

I'll say it slowly so you can comprehend. I. BELIEVE. OWNERS. AND. PLAYERS. SHOULD. BE. HELD. TO. THE. SAME. STANDARD.

There, was that slow enough for you?

Btw, at the risk of actually getting a glimpse into your deranged mind, what do you even mean that I "went off on the players?" I'm interested to know what you actually think my position is. Because I know your understanding is rarely what is actually said.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

What are you even talking about? It's like you don't even care who or what you are arguing. You just want to rant about a pet peeve. I have literally said nothing that contradicts your point, yet you still want to argue.

I'll say it slowly so you can comprehend. I. BELIEVE. OWNERS. AND. PLAYERS. SHOULD. BE. HELD. TO. THE. SAME. STANDARD.

There, was that slow enough for you?

Btw, at the risk of actually getting a glimpse into your deranged mind, what do you even mean that I "went off on the players?" I'm interested to know what you actually think my position is. Because I know your understanding is rarely what is actually said.

My mind is at ease but I question yours. Unlike Buck Weaver who was banned for his silence of knowing what was taking place, Bart Giamatti was silent in his role but still held Pete Rose accountable when Bart himself should have faced the fire of going to at least Civil Court and testifying what he knew.

I know that I have ranted on the owners & executives in other threads. Some members remain silent and it’s taken for granted on how they wish to dismiss the owners and execs. In all the years that I have been ranting on the inequality of integrity and character to the game that I have witnessed a negative response to the elite on your behalf.

Here is what I’m getting to if you can comprehend logic. If Weaver was banned for being silent of the integrity of the game being tarnished. Shouldn’t Giamatti’s ruling be overturned since he himself was acting in the same fashion as Buck Weaver and then was able to rule on Pete Rose as a commissioner. I know this is a toughie for you to take in but please attempt to do your best at understanding my stance. Bart shouldn’t have had a ruling until he was cleared of his involvement / knowledge of the Collusion Scandal.

You may believe that there isn’t a elite group that is able to slither underneath the same accountabilities as others but I know there is.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

My mind is at ease but I question yours. Unlike Buck Weaver who was banned for his silence of knowing what was taking place, Bart Giamatti was silent in his role but still held Pete Rose accountable when Bart himself should have faced the fire of going to at least Civil Court and testifying what he knew.

I know that I have ranted on the owners & executives in other threads. Some members remain silent and it’s taken for granted on how they wish to dismiss the owners and execs. In all the years that I have been ranting on the inequality of integrity and character to the game that I have witnessed a negative response to the elite on your behalf.

Here is what I’m getting to if you can comprehend logic. If Weaver was banned for being silent of the integrity of the game being tarnished. Shouldn’t Giamatti’s ruling be overturned since he himself was acting in the same fashion as Buck Weaver and then was able to rule on Pete Rose as a commissioner. I know this is a toughie for you to take in but please attempt to do your best at understanding my stance. Bart shouldn’t have had a ruling until he was cleared of his involvement / knowledge of the Collusion Scandal.

You may believe that there isn’t a elite group that is able to slither underneath the same accountabilities as others but I know there is.

Ok, you clearly can't read. Nothing in this post is remotely on point to anything I've said. I literally agree with you that the owners aren't held to the same standards as players. Yet you still rant. You are truly a moron.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ok, you clearly can't read. Nothing in this post is remotely on point to anything I've said. I literally agree with you that the owners aren't held to the same standards as players. Yet you still rant. You are truly a moron.

OL, put the pin back in the grenade or you might frag yourself. Ease up there cannibal Joe. I don’t want to be responsible for you having a stroke or heart attach. I figured you wouldn’t touch that question and go to berating, that’s ok. I do give you props for not going AWOL with the time before. It’s good to know you at least take a stance for something instead of sitting on the fence. Work on long breaths and take care.