Adam LaRoche and his son

Hopefully, Kenny Williams can get the bat head out in front of a 97-mph cutter at his fists.

 

So, you made it up based on your opinion of him. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

This from the guy who trolls the board with his "I'm not voting, so I'm unbiased" garbage pretty much every day. Sounds like your head could use a few more collisions with solid objects.

For one thing, YF is making up details to support his argument. He is writing fiction while complaining about others failing to support what they are writing. If you don't see the problem there, you are beyond all hope.

 

I'm not sure about the guess you started with, but the rest of your post? You clearly haven't been paying attention.

 

Then if that's a problem with his argument and it should be noted. But "bias" isn't part of it. It might be what leads someone to "make[] up details," but the response argument is that his argument is based upon a false premise. Why is irrelevant. It's an ad hominem attack.

 

So it is a problem with his argument, but it isn't part of it? You're funny.

 

It's not a problem with his argument. It, potentially, explains the genesis of the problem with his argument. But his supposed "bias" is completely immaterial to the response.

Let me give you an analogy: I'm a litigator. The majority of that job entails exchanging arguments. Both sides are paid advocates. The height of bias.

Not once have I argued that someone is wrong because he or she is biased. And not once has someone argued the same against me. It's simply not a valid response to an argument.

 

"Bob" has made a charge that LaRoche's teammates can't disprove, since it's based on anonymous, second hand reports.

"Bob" could clear up any questions I have about his "reporting" by being open about his reporting process.

It's something reporters should do more of anyway, but it's absolutely necessary when "Bob" presents a one sided story, based solely on anonymous sources, who are all similarly described, who all happen to be peddling Kenny William's (unspoken) narrative.

 

"Bob's" column doesn't mention his talking with a single White Sox player.

What are the odds he did speak to a member of the team, but left that out of the story?

Can you responsibly report on this story without speaking to any players on the team?

Is it irresponsible to make the claim "Bob" made without at least attempting to speak to members of the team?

 

I understand the impulse here to give a respected baseball scribe the "benefit of the doubt."

But I'm not sure what he's being given the benefit of the doubt about. I guess we should trust that Nightengale is able to determine whether his sources are telling the truth or not? I don't trust police to do that. Why should I trust a baseball writer?

The bottom line is that I don't care if you're Edwin R. Murrow, you need someone other than management to tell you that the players agree with management. And for God's sake, you at least have to try.

 

As a side note, when did Gannett lift its anonymous sources policy? Because it was in place largely to prevent things like that Nightengale column.

 

I guess you don't know "Bob" as well as Alma does.

You're clearly not enough of an insider to question someone as esteemed as he.