OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Why would I want to lower myself to a suggestion like that?

Being able to rethink one's notions of common sense and responsibility is an important skill. I am not asking you to change your opinions; I just want you to comprehend where I'm coming from. Sitting down and taking the time to understand people might give you some more empathy. That way, you would be less apt to call people names.

Do you want me be accepting of gay marriage, even though I think they deserve the same rights as married couples?

Of course. Equal rights without acceptance of the people that you are giving the rights to is simply not fair.

Do you want me to engage in conversations with convicted murderers via US mail?

Come on, do you seriously think that all I do is engage in conversations with convicted murderers? I have communicated with plenty of prisoners; a majority are not murderers. Not everybody who goes to prison has killed somebody. Even among those convicted of capital murder, there is a huge variation between those that kill in a fit of passion and those who are sociopaths who commit premeditated murder. There is simply no comparison.

Do you want me to accept YOUR notion of reality as MY reality??? Um, NO THANKS. You continue to do as you see fit, and I'll continue to do as I do. We can still co-exist.

I never asked you to accept my viewpoint on anything. All I wanted you to do is think twice before you use words like "common sense" and "responsibility". A lot of things that look to be common sense are really historically contingent or socially constructed. Things aren't as given as they may appear on the surface.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Just block him, you'll feel much better. I already do...

Golly gee, lucky me. Another hack I've offended somewhere along the line.

Here ya go, cigarman......this one's for you, pal!

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Once again, the cogency of your posts is predicated upon perceiving the world as you do. Using such loaded terms like "reality" and "common sense", you assume that your worldview embodies what is objectively real and apparent to all.

Frik, "reality" is nothing close to a loaded term. It means one thing, and one thing only: It refers to what is REAL. Tangible. Something you can place your hand or eyes on.

"Common sense" refers to having the ability to see, to reason, to the level of what an average person should display when faced with a similar task. It is not up to me OR you to determine what level of common sense we possess. It is determined by lifes little lessons. I'll leave the rest for you to discover.

If we can even assume that your opinions embody "common sense", I would argue that such explanations are not a given. Every time I have brought the matter up, you ignore me. This leads me to wonder - can you form a convincing argument, or do you have any desire to do as such?

And I would argue that you, just making an argument that you question that I have common sense in my opinions, is a waste of time. Based on some of your previous posts, and conclusions you have shared with the forum, I feel confident enough to just leave it at that. You can have your opinions and disagree with me as much as you want.

Or are you so convinced of the truth of your opinions that you don't feel the need to defend them? Last night, I asked you to convince me of your supposedly "common sense" notion of "responsibility". You never put forward an honest effort; instead you call me stupid.

Yes, I am so convinced that my opinions are common sense based to the point I don't need to defend them. And based on YOUR perception of responsibilty in particular to the Louisville Slugger verdict spoken of here, I don't really desire to try to convince you of anything. It appears to me your perception of the reality of the world we live in is just too different.

I am left to wonder: if not to convince others, why do you post? Even after I have challenged your notions of "responsibility" and "common sense", you still spew similar rhetoric, as if I never said anything. This is not talk radio; it's civil conversation.

I am wondering the same thing. You can challenge whatever notions you want. But the bottom line is, frik, if you "don't get it", the you just DON'T GET IT. I am NOT going to argue a point that is OBVIOUS in general common sense on ANYONE'S level except maybe yours. I have found out that posting opinions or info here is pretty much a waste of time in general. I guess I keep coming back because there are some very good people here, and I am deeply rooted in the Game Used memorabilia collecting hobby. But I have to say, this has turned out to be closer to talk-show radio than it is to "civil conversation". I mean, I might as well be talking to one of those trailer-trash guests on the Jerry Springer show with the kind of "civil conversation" I get out of some here.

It's one thing to have strong opinions. I do myself, on certain topics. However, when I am asked to provide reasons for my beliefs, I can and do explain why I think the way I do. I have asked you numerous times to rethink your ideas of what "common sense" and "responsibility" are.

Why would I want to lower myself to a suggestion like that? Do you want me be accepting of gay marriage, even though I think they deserve the same rights as married couples? Do you want me to engage in conversations with convicted murderers via US mail? Do you want me to accept YOUR notion of reality as MY reality??? Um, NO THANKS. You continue to do as you see fit, and I'll continue to do as I do. We can still co-exist.

You don't have to agree with me. But in the interest of having a fair discussion about such topics, you need to at least consider what I have to say. So far - all you have done is repeat yourself, while attacking others. That's no way to convince anybody.

I just had a fair discussion, on your behalf and request. I didn't "attack".....I "commented". You don't need to be so harsh in your descriptions of YOUR perceptions. If calling Joel an asshole was an attack in your eyes, then so be it. In mine, I was accurate. He probably would even agree because he knew exactly what he was doing the whole time. He chose to be that way.

My last comment is simple: I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. People will draw their own conclusions on what is presented to them. I guess that's how we all determine what level of "common sense" an individual has, and by their ability is to absorb true REALITY when it presents itself. Based on their conclusions, everyone can make up their own mind who has common sense, and who doesn't. I, quite frankly, don't care enough to argue this point any longer.

[cigarman44]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Once again, the cogency of your posts is predicated upon perceiving the world as you do. Using such loaded terms like "reality" and "common sense", you assume that your worldview embodies what is objectively real and apparent to all.

If we can even assume that your opinions embody "common sense", I would argue that such explanations are not a given. Every time I have brought the matter up, you ignore me. This leads me to wonder - can you form a convincing argument, or do you have any desire to do as such?

Or are you so convinced of the truth of your opinions that you don't feel the need to defend them? Last night, I asked you to convince me of your supposedly "common sense" notion of "responsibility". You never put forward an honest effort; instead you call me stupid.

I am left to wonder: if not to convince others, why do you post? Even after I have challenged your notions of "responsibility" and "common sense", you still spew similar rhetoric, as if I never said anything. This is not talk radio; it's civil conversation.

It's one thing to have strong opinions. I do myself, on certain topics. However, when I am asked to provide reasons for my beliefs, I can and do explain why I think the way I do. I have asked you numerous times to rethink your ideas of what "common sense" and "responsibility" are.

You don't have to agree with me. But in the interest of having a fair discussion about such topics, you need to at least consider what I have to say. So far - all you have done is repeat yourself, while attacking others. That's no way to convince anybody.

Just block him, you'll feel much better. I already do...

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

[Joel] would always try to find an argument even when he was obviously just taking the wrong side of reality to argue. He was a pain in the ass, rediculously presenting an argument for the "violator", if you will.

I try to instill common sense in people, especially when it relates to game used memorabilia.

Once again, the cogency of your posts is predicated upon perceiving the world as you do. Using such loaded terms like "reality" and "common sense", you assume that your worldview embodies what is objectively real and apparent to all.

If we can even assume that your opinions embody "common sense", I would argue that such explanations are not a given. Every time I have brought the matter up, you ignore me. This leads me to wonder - can you form a convincing argument, or do you have any desire to do as such?

Or are you so convinced of the truth of your opinions that you don't feel the need to defend them? Last night, I asked you to convince me of your supposedly "common sense" notion of "responsibility". You never put forward an honest effort; instead you call me stupid.

I am left to wonder: if not to convince others, why do you post? Even after I have challenged your notions of "responsibility" and "common sense", you still spew similar rhetoric, as if I never said anything. This is not talk radio; it's civil conversation.

It's one thing to have strong opinions. I do myself, on certain topics. However, when I am asked to provide reasons for my beliefs, I can and do explain why I think the way I do. I have asked you numerous times to rethink your ideas of what "common sense" and "responsibility" are.

You don't have to agree with me. But in the interest of having a fair discussion about such topics, you need to at least consider what I have to say. So far - all you have done is repeat yourself, while attacking others. That's no way to convince anybody.

[both-teams-played-hard]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

In this program, there is a great shot of Bias and his teammates wearing the same style warm-up that I have. If anyone has the capabilities, I would appreciate a screen-shot (it appears close to the beginning of the show). You will make a new friend!

It also appears this team photo is from an early 80s Maryland media guide or basketball yearbook. Does anyone have a collection of media guides from this era? Again, sincere thanks for any efforts.

b-t-p-h@earthlink.net

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

HEY MODS!! Why was my post removed, when ones like this remain?? I have been a long-time member of this forum, outlasting everybody who was here when I first came on, so I think I deserve an explanation: In what way does this post support the purpose of the forum? Why is Squeeze any different from Joel Alpert? Oh, wait, you guys wouldn't do anything to him when he repeatedly broke rules, either.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Because, Ken, mine are nothing more than attempts to make light of the rediculous posts that occur here in certain instances.

Yours, like a few others here, are mean-spirited and attacking....just like Joel's were but in a differnt vein. He would always try to find an argument even when he was obviously just taking the wrong side of reality to argue. He was a pain in the ass, rediculously presenting an argument for the "violator", if you will.

I try to instill common sense in people, especially when it relates to game used memorabilia. From the start of my days on the forum, I have found myself taking on the deceiving misrepresenting word-mincing borderline-criminal less-than-professional-and-friendly auction houses, and then had to endure the second wave from my fan club here.

So get a tissue and wipe away your tears, Ken. It's time to grow up a bit and understand that we all have a right to air out our opinions. But the message from the top is clear; If you want to cause problems, you will be squashed.

[jdr3]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

I heard that as soon as the news that Bias was dead was announced the equiment manager took all his stuff and locked it away. I saw Adrieane Branch in a local food store about 5 years ago. I went running up to him and offered him $200 for one of his gold Maryland gamers. He took my number and was very friendly, but I never heard from him. The Bias warm up that is in Huggins and Scott is from his senior season, and from the photos on the web site looks real.

[earlywynnfan]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Thanks for a sensible and well expressed post. And you hit the nail on the head.....it was a painful "life lesson".

But how many "life Lessons" do we all need to be exposed to OVER and OVER and OVER again before the words get through?

Here ya go, people.....coming from the evil bad heartless duschebag drama queen (what have I forgotten.........) forum member....

IF you WANT TO DO DRUGS........it will ALL END BADLY. You will join the ranks of somewhere along the line, and lose everything, maybe even your LIFE.






Now, Nate......where's the bong party tonight? I'll bring the lighter.....

HEY MODS!! Why was my post removed, when ones like this remain?? I have been a long-time member of this forum, outlasting everybody who was here when I first came on, so I think I deserve an explanation: In what way does this post support the purpose of the forum? Why is Squeeze any different from Joel Alpert? Oh, wait, you guys wouldn't do anything to him when he repeatedly broke rules, either.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

How can I present an "argument" when I have no idea what the hell you are talking about? What "agency" is it you keep referring to? I mean, please, let's just forget the whole thing.

Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_agency

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

You're ignoring my points and assuming that concepts like responsibility are a given. They are not. For the amount of Frik-bashing you do, I would think that you would have composed an intelligent response to my question.

Your modus operandi is to call me stupid, say I am impervious to ratiocination, etc. Yet you have shown little capacity to respond seriously to a thing I am saying. Instead of just spewing about how the world is going to hell, present a cogent argument. It's not too much to ask.

The Louisville Slugger jury verdict rendering, the shootings which are becoming a daily occurance, the political environment, the wars, and your reasoning ability have all proved my point. What left is there to argue?

How can I present an "argument" when I have no idea what the hell you are talking about? What "agency" is it you keep referring to? I mean, please, let's just forget the whole thing.

Tim Lincecum is a great guy, OK? Enjoy the squirrel.

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

I need a drink.

No.......several

You're ignoring my points and assuming that concepts like responsibility are a given. They are not. For the amount of Frik-bashing you do, I would think that you would have composed an intelligent response to my question.

Your modus operandi is to call me stupid, say I am impervious to ratiocination, etc. Yet you have shown little capacity to respond seriously to a thing I am saying. Instead of just spewing about how the world is going to hell, present a cogent argument. It's not too much to ask.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

Why does everything need to be about a nebulous notion of responsibility? For me, rather than judging people, it makes more sense to ask why this is happening, and realize that complex factors lead to drug use and abuse. As you may or may not realize, addiction has a biological basis.

That's not to say that there aren't other factors involved. Societal attitudes toward drugs play a part in this, as do people's past history of addiction and mental illness. You keep clinging to concepts like "responsibility", yet you have not explained why we have the kind of agency that your notion of responsibility is predicated upon.



I don't see any evidence that society is going to hell. Things are just fine in America.

I need a drink.

No.......several

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

It's old news. Figure it OUT already. Drugs kill users, not "genetics". Len Bias' heart didn't stop because of "genetics".

Just like accidents kill. Not lack of "warning labels". Somewhere in time we lost our strength as a society to accept the pitfalls in life, and we started turning our sorrows to expensive attorneys who have f'ed up our entire existences. We have sacrificed "responsibility" with "judgements". Great. Nice.

Why does everything need to be about a nebulous notion of responsibility? For me, rather than judging people, it makes more sense to ask why this is happening, and realize that complex factors lead to drug use and abuse. As you may or may not realize, addiction has a biological basis.

That's not to say that there aren't other factors involved. Societal attitudes toward drugs play a part in this, as do people's past history of addiction and mental illness. You keep clinging to concepts like "responsibility", yet you have not explained why we have the kind of agency that your notion of responsibility is predicated upon.

And you all wonder why paying for insurance has become burdensome?

Figure it out, society, before it's too late. It's old already.

I don't see any evidence that society is going to hell. Things are just fine in America.

[frikativ54]

Re: OT: 30 for 30 on ESPN: "Without Bias"

It's old news. Figure it OUT already. Drugs kill users, not "genetics". Len Bias' heart didn't stop because of "genetics".

Just like accidents kill. Not lack of "warning labels". Somewhere in time we lost our strength as a society to accept the pitfalls in life, and we started turning our sorrows to expensive attorneys who have f'ed up our entire existences. We have sacrificed "responsibility" with "judgements". Great. Nice.[/quote]

Why does everything need to be about a nebulous notion of responsibility? For me, rather than judging people, it makes more sense to ask why this is happening, and realize that complex factors lead to drug use and abuse. As you may or may not realize, addiction has a biological basis.

That's not to say that there aren't other factors involved. Societal attitudes toward drugs play a part in this, as do people's past history of addiction and mental illness. You keep clinging to concepts like "responsibility", yet you have not explained why we have the kind of agency that your notion of responsibility is predicated upon.

And you all wonder why paying for insurance has become burdensome?

Figure it out, society, before it's too late. It's old already.

I don't see any evidence that society is going to hell. Things are just fine in America.