Running 2017 MLB postseason thread

One, please read my edited post. Two, please stop ducking the issue. You accused me of something that isn't true. Of course, you seem to like accusations that are not supported by evidence.

You claimed that I believed he was innocent. Find the post with me claiming that Braun was innocent, admit you can't back up your claim or just keep on being dishonest. There are no other options.

The point above is that Kapler made the exact point I was making, but in a different way. But you would rather wallow in ignorance and attack me from that position than learn something that might challenge your opinion.

 

How many Jewish managers have there been before Kapler?

 

Where did I single you out on this thread?

Are you saying you didn't leave open the possibility that Braun was framed? Again, only an idiot or someone from Wisconsin could believe that.

 

Ausmus

 

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the accuser. I kept asking questions and poking at assumptions to make a point that sailed over your head, as it sailed over many heads. You seem embarrassed by that. I'm sorry you can't get past your embarrassment long enough to see the truth.

Are you really going to claim that wasn't a dig at me? Seriously? Based upon the history of that discussion and your history of attacking me, I find that highly unlikely, but if you say so. Only you truly know if you are lying about this one.

 

A regular PI you are. Again, only an idiot held out the possibility he could have been framed. he deserved to get off because of the procedural error but he still tested positive. There was absolutely nothing to ask questions about unless you believe he could have been framed and the sample was tainted.

 

According to this article, only other ones were Ausmus, Norm Sherry, Jeff Newman (interim) and Bob Melvin. Never knew Melvin was a member of the tribe

Baseball's Got a New Jewish Manager

 

I explained this to you in exacting detail, yet you refuse knowledge like a stubborn child covering his mouth to avoid eating his vegetables.

It was part of a larger point, one that you don't like so you turn it into an attack on me. Now really, are you actually claiming that this wasn't dragged up as a shot at me? Or are you going to keep running from that question? I'm giving you an opportunity to tell the truth here, JC, but I am holding the door open for the very unlikely possibility that you already did so.

 

Here is the post I'm talking about, and it was in response to a teasing post by me. Of course, I never claimed anybody was clean, though JC and others thought otherwise. I've said all along we don't know for sure that anybody is clean. It is the sloppy, lazy, unsupported accusations that bother me.

JC, you want to claim that wasn't a dig at me? Okay. I question your honesty, but I can't prove you are lying.

 

Ryan Braun now linked to Miami PED clinic

Start half way down the page where OOP claims MLB didn't have enough "real" evidence against Braun. You know, other than a positive test.

 

An odd bit of trivia about this World Series that I'm not sure has been mentioned -- it's only the eighth World Series to ever match up two 100-win teams, and the first since Reds-Orioles in 1970.
The others were 1910, 1912, 1931, 1941, 1942 and 1969.

 

Is there a post in there where I claim that Braun was innocent? Or was I claiming that MLB was using evidence that had been mishandled, evidence which an arbitrator said could not be used to suspend him? I know I never claimed he was innocent, but honestly, the rest of the details of that debate are becoming fuzzy. It is you and a few others who obsess about it constantly. Y'all ware so busy attacking me, you missed that MLB failed to protect information that it had agreed to keep private. You ignored that MLB had done that before, too. You missed the fact that both Braun and MLB could be wrong in how they handled things.

Now, please, be honest. Did you accuse me of believing these guys were all clean? It sure looks like you did that today on this thread, but you can't back it up that claim. Then again, I can't conclusively prove that you meant the post, which was a response to one of my statements, was a direct shot at me.

It's funny. In this case, I would be the accuser and based on the available information, it is incredibly unlikely that you are telling the truth when you claim your post wasn't directed at me. Yet here I am allowing for the slim possibility that you are telling the truth, despite all odds, even though I don't really believe it.

It's almost as if I could stand by the importance of being able to prove things while still knowing that the person is likely guilty! What a concept!