The Rose Award For 4-9-2008.

In rec.sport.baseball brianj <firstpres DeleteThis @turtlecreek.net> says:
>On Apr 15, 7:01 am, Realto Margarino <r... DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote:
>> In rec.sport.baseball brianj <firstp... DeleteThis @turtlecreek.net> says:

>> >He is not excluded from the HOF because he has a weakness for
>> >gambling.  He is excluded because he is under a lifetime banishment
>> >from baseball.

>> Wrong.  He is not in the HoF simply because the HoF Board of
>> Directors refuse to put him on their ballot.  He did not break any
>> HoF eligibility rules.

>HOF eligibility requires that the player not be on the "banned for
>life" list. He's on it. You are wrong.

And that rider was added _after_ Pete Rose was excluded. Pete Rose
did not break any HoF eligibility requirements.

Your ignorance of the facts is breathtakingly boring...

>> >And his banishment came about because he bet on baseball, which
>> >is altogether different from having a weakness for gambling.

>> Actually, Pete Rose was not "banished" from baseball.  Pete Rose
>> walked away.

>He lives every day under banishment from baseball.

Pete Rose lives every day with the fact that he walked away from
baseball. MLB lives every day with the fact that they did not
pursue their investigation and they never even produced enough
tested evidence to warrant a ban.

We would walk away from the game if we were treated as shabbily as
Rose was.

>The fact that he
>agreed to it means nothing except that he got caught and had no excuse
>for his rule-breaking conduct or his lying.

You can't agree to a "ban", newb. A ban, by its very definition, is
made in spite of your wishes. The only evidence that MLB has to
support their "ban" is the fact that Rose turned his back on the
game and "agreed" to be banned.

Har. Where on earth did they find you?

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

In rec.sport.baseball brianj <firstpres.DeleteThis@turtlecreek.net> says:

>> That's just Neiporentian

>I am pretty sure that's not a word.

Our bad. The word is "Nieporentian." "i" before "e" and all that
stuff.

Bugger off, little one.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/Rose-Pete-Awards-Accomplishments.html
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

In rec.sport.baseball Hosmerica <BigOneComing.RemoveThis@ivegotgas.com> says:

>When all else fails....start insulting the poster you're replying to.

We don't insult anyone.

>You've thrown up two weak, non-quality arguments already and the only thing
>you have left in the tank is that he's the greatest hitter? PFFTTT!!

Not sure that we've tried to "throw" up any arugments. But we do
know that Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
definition and without qualification.

That's not an argument. That's simply a fact. You might want to
use it to make an argument. ie., since Pete Rose is the game's
greatest hitter, he should be in the HoF. There, that's an argument
for you.

Your argument was that Rose shouldn't be allowed in the HoF because
he was banned from baseball. But Rose wasn't banned. It was never
proven that he bet on baseball and he wasn't banned. He simply
walked away. What's more, there was no place in the rules of the
HoF that stated that a player banned from baseball should also be
banned from the HoF.

So your argument is patently false on two grounds. And we don't
offer argument, we simply counter with fact. And the one fact that
cannot be disputed by anyone is that Pete Rose remains the game's
greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.

Now gurgle on, little baby, with all of your crying about Pete Rose.
But he remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
qualification.

IOW, bugger off.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

"Realto Margarino" <rm.RemoveThis@justlinux.ca> wrote in message
news:d4083$48050216$cf704b8d$28192@PRIMUS.CA...
> In rec.sport.baseball Hosmerica <BigOneComing.RemoveThis@ivegotgas.com> says:
>
>>When all else fails....start insulting the poster you're replying to.
>
> We don't insult anyone.


We? WTF!! You got a mouse in your pocket? Oh wait a minute...you're the
same guy that also poses as Ronald Mathews, Ronald McDonald, Rasmussen
Milos, Rosie Matsushita and Roger Mayard. I get it now.


>
>>You've thrown up two weak, non-quality arguments already and the only
>>thing
>>you have left in the tank is that he's the greatest hitter? PFFTTT!!
>
> Not sure that we've tried to "throw" up any arugments. But we do
> know that Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by
> definition and without qualification.


Weak argument #1:
"Perhaps someone has pointed out to you that he has more atbats than
anyone else because he was the game's greatest hitter."[sic]

HINT #1: Being *the games greatest hitter* and having the most hits in
baseball can be mutually exclusive.
HINT #2: Even if he was *the games greatest hitter*, that does not
automatically mean he had the most AB's simply because he was *the games
greatest hitter*.

Weak argument #2:
"And ihaving the most outs is a direct consequence of having the most
atbats, which is itself a direct consequence of being the game's
greatest hitter."[sic]

HINT #1: Even if he was *the games greatest hitter*, that does not
automatically mean he had the most AB's simply because he was *the games
greatest hitter*.

>
> That's not an argument. That's simply a fact.


Ok...not an argument...well, it's not a fact so it must be bullshit.


>You might want to
> use it to make an argument. ie., since Pete Rose is the game's
> greatest hitter, he should be in the HoF.


Maybe if the HoF had a cheaters wing that was 120 degrees and a down a mile
long hallway with no lights...sure go ahead and put Pete Rose down there.


>There, that's an argument
> for you.


Not a quality one. *Yawn*


>
> Your argument was that Rose shouldn't be allowed in the HoF because
> he was banned from baseball. But Rose wasn't banned. It was never
> proven that he bet on baseball and he wasn't banned. He simply
> walked away. What's more, there was no place in the rules of the
> HoF that stated that a player banned from baseball should also be
> banned from the HoF.


It wasn't my argument to begin with. I don't really care about him anymore
anyways...it was years ago. DUDE...GET OVER IT!!


>
> So your argument is patently false on two grounds. And we don't
> offer argument, we simply counter with fact.


"It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."


>And the one fact that
> cannot be disputed by anyone is that Pete Rose remains the game's
> greatest hitter, by definition and without qualification.


By who's definition? Yours? or Yours? or Yours? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


>
> Now gurgle on, little baby, with all of your crying about Pete Rose.


Like I said...I don't lose sleep over it.


> But he remains the game's greatest hitter, by definition and without
> qualification.


Unproven.


>
> IOW, bugger off.


Bugger off?



BWAHAHAHAHAAH!!!
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

In rec.sport.baseball brianj <firstpres.RemoveThis@turtlecreek.net> says:
>On Apr 15, 11:26 am, Realto Margarino <r....RemoveThis@justlinux.ca> wrote:
>> In rec.sport.baseball brianj <firstp....RemoveThis@turtlecreek.net> says:
>>
>> >> That's just Neiporentian
>> >I am pretty sure that's not a word.
>>
>> Our bad.  The word is "Nieporentian."  "i" before "e" and all that
>> stuff.
>>
>>
>I am still stumped. Neither Webster nor I know of this word. Care to
>enlighten?

You post to an internet baseball group and you don't know what a
Nieporent is?

Shame shame. Google google.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

In rec.sport.baseball Hosmerica <BigOneComing DeleteThis @ivegotgas.com> says:

>Weak argument #1:
>"Perhaps someone has pointed out to you that he has more atbats than
>anyone else because he was the game's greatest hitter."[sic]

Actually, "game's" is correct and "games" is incorrect.

>HINT #1: Being *the games greatest hitter* and having the most hits in
>baseball can be mutually exclusive.

Having the greatest number of hits means that one is the greatest
hitter. By definition and without qualification.

Unless you want to start changing the meaning of the words.

>HINT #2: Even if he was *the games greatest hitter*, that does not
>automatically mean he had the most AB's simply because he was *the games
>greatest hitter*.

If you aren't going to give the game's greatest hitter, by
definition and without qualification, the most atbats, to whom are you
going to give those at bats?

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008. 

"Realto Margarino" <rm DeleteThis @justlinux.ca> wrote in message
news:b671f$480529ec$cf704b8d$26601@PRIMUS.CA...
> In rec.sport.baseball Hosmerica <BigOneComing DeleteThis @ivegotgas.com> says:
>
>>Weak argument #1:
>>"Perhaps someone has pointed out to you that he has more atbats than
>>anyone else because he was the game's greatest hitter."[sic]
>
> Actually, "game's" is correct and "games" is incorrect.


Great. You recognized your error...the next step is not repeating it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic


>
>>HINT #1: Being *the games greatest hitter* and having the most hits in
>>baseball can be mutually exclusive.
>
> Having the greatest number of hits means that one is the greatest
> hitter. By definition and without qualification.
>
> Unless you want to start changing the meaning of the words.



http://espn.go.com/classic/obit/williams_ted_kurkjian.html



>
>>HINT #2: Even if he was *the games greatest hitter*, that does not
>>automatically mean he had the most AB's simply because he was *the games
>>greatest hitter*.
>
> If you aren't going to give the game's greatest hitter, by
> definition and without qualification, the most atbats, to whom are you
> going to give those at bats?


Someone that doesn't bet on baseball.
 >> Stay informed about: The Rose Award For 4-9-2008.