'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Videos*

This is what I said, above. Couldn't care less how many threads you start. Start one on every board, on the hour. But posting identical material in multiple places (I believe you later deleted the posts from the thread on the Journ board) makes it hard to respond to all, in the midst of what had been an interesting discussion.

Most people here manage to post and respond and agree and disagree without 5000 word essays demanding respect and credibility. I have no idea why anyone would demand or expect respect and credibility on an anonymous message board.....it's almost a contradiction in terms.

Fenian is waiting for his answer, still, so I'll step out of the way now. Best of luck.

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Thanks!

Yes, your quoted material is, indeed, part of what you said, 21. And had you left it at that, you wouldn't have heard a word from me. Unfortunately - and to be frank, disappointingly - you also said this:

Which is what got you in my crosshairs. Had you merely said the first post, I never would have responded to you, but you just had to add that little "Sorry" in there, didn'tcha?

Please, if you do possess a 187 IQ, you are far too intelligent to play stupid. Spare me, and us. How many "Jedi Mind Tricks" and 'bait-and-switches' have to be publicly debunked on this board before people learn not to try this crap with me?

Wait, wait, wait. Let me refute the next line of 'counterargumentation,' before it can be spewed: I know, I know, 21, your "This is not new. Sorry." was earnest, and heartfelt. Sincere.

Just like 'Best of luck' about answering FB's query was. Real sincere.

You're not up against a rube, 21. You're not fooling anyone, and you sure as hell aren't fooling me. Please understand that, and don't make the same mistake next time. Save yourself the hassle, and me my time.

Fenian's answer will follow shortly.

I feel, deep in my bones, that with 21's 'professionally'-delivered wishing of luck, I can answer any question, anywhere! Yes! Including even Fenian's! I am The King of The World!

 

Fenian - just curious - do you still think that Mark Felt, Carl Berstein and Bob Woodward are heroes?

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

First of all, for all those who understand the context, does this "answer the question" sound a bit familiar to anything which recently happened to JDV? If you raise your hand in assent, you are not alone, as my hand is raised as well. I.e., YOU WILL ANSWER MY ATTEMPT AT A LOADED QUESTION, DAMNIT! And if you don't, then MY BIG, BAD EMISSARY 21 WILL PICK UP THE FIGHT FOR ME, as she has no fight left of her own to wage, at least with any credibility.

As long as we're all clear on that point, especially you, 21. You've wasted a lot of my time, and I'm not really happy about that. I've got a story to write and sell.

Ok, so on to Fenian's loaded question:

"Even if you look at the reporters in the worst possible light, they're guilty of bad judgment ...OK, REALLY bad judgment ... but nothing in here clears the athletes in question.
Again, what's going to "explode?"

Let's break this down into two parts, so it's easier to follow as I compose this 5000 word essay, ok?

1) The reporters, even in the worst possible light, are guilty of really
bad judgement (the implication being that this is the extent of
their 'guilt.' AND 1A) What's going to 'explode?'

2) Nothing in here clears the athletes in question.

Now, if there are any young and/or aspiring writers reading the board tonight, pay attention, please: Until FB asks "What's going to explode?", which is a legitimate question, the rest of the question is what is known as a 'red herring,' or if you prefer, a 'strawman' argument/line of questioning.

Why? What qualifies it as such?

A 'red herring' or 'strawman' argument is a diversionary argument, an argument designed to throw the respondent (in this case, as I am being asked a question) off of his guard. That is, it is designed to get the respondent to take up an argument on grounds more favorable to the interrogator.

Ok, so how does that apply here, Rok? What are you talking about (again)?

I have never attempted, in my presentation of my and JDV's independent research, to ameliorate the alleged usage of performance-enhancing substances by any of the alleged athletes. Fenian knows this, as does 21. Because they realize this, they are trying to take the focus off of the reporters and put it on to the athletes. This is a classic 'red herring' attempt, but since I'm feeling generous, I'll take on the loaded question anyway. But remember, our research was about the reporters and The Chron, not about the athletes. In FB's question, the athletes assume an equal role to the reporters and paper. That is not the focus of our research. Anyway:

[Section 2) ( The'red herring'): Nothing in here clears the athletes in question.]

We have a justice system. I have personal experience with that justice system. That is, I know more about legal issues than does the average sportsjournalist. JDV knows exponentially more than I do about the justice system, and infinitely more than does the average sportsjournalist. Part of that justice system involves what are known as 'Grand Juries.' It is illegal to leak Grand Jury testimony. Why is it illegal to leak Grand Jury testimony? Because often judges and juries rely on confidential testimony from Grand Juries to make rulings, rulings which can include life-and-death decisions, literally. Say a mob boss is up on trial for homicide. If the boss or one of his boys finds out that someone 'sang' to the jury, that person's life is in danger, before and after he testifies against the boss. Hence, the "Witness Protection Program"

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

So what, the public had a right to know Bonds cheated, right? I mean, as Lance Williams said in the E&P piece yesterday, it comes down to if you want the information or not, correct?

Incorrect, ethically, and I could care less what the FAIC says.

Hypothetical: Your friend tells you she's dating a new guy, but you can't tell anyone about it. You tell people anyway. Do you feel ethically good about yourself after you do this? Me, either.

Restated: The end doesn't always justify the means. Did Judith Miller have the right to withhold info given the circumstances? Nope. How about Watergate? Yep. How about MFW? Nope. But I realize we all have different moral barometers.

Hypothetical: Your mother is the person who is going to testify to the grand jury that she saw the mob boss order a hit from his car , and she witnessed the killing. The mob boss didn't see her at the time, but after the trial he learns that she was the key witness which has just got him life in prison. How did he learn? Because someone leaked the information, and someone received the leaked information. The recipient of the leak told the mob boss, and your mother has a contract on her head now. How you feeling about the recipient of the leaked information now? I mean, do you want the information or not? Right, Lance? Right, child of the mother with the hit on her head?

Ivory-tower theorizing is great, until you are affected in the real world by someone else's unethical decision. If sportsjournalists really want drugs out of sport, then what MFW+ did has set back that goal by at least a decade, IMO. Who wants to be the next Giambi, who by all accounts told the truth, just to have it come back and get you because a defense lawyer wanted to get a case dismissed. That's it, that's all it takes for the justice system to collapse, one bad apple to start the dominoes a-falling.

Many dislike Bonds. And Montgomery, Sheffield, Giambi and others. They still have a right to have their confidential testimony remain confidential. Again, this wasn't done altruistically. This was a lawyer's scheme and two writers' for-profit venture, as well as a newspaper which wanted to sell some copies. Don't forget that.

So, no, none of what JDV and I have researched and written does exonerate the athletes. Exactly the conclusion I never challenged when presenting the research my brother and I had done. So, this round to the 'strawman.' He wins an argument that was never begun. As usual.

Unless, of course, you don't think the end always justifies the means. Or if you're mother has a contract on her head because of what she told a Grand Jury that someone leaked and the recipient of the leak told the mob boss. Then, not so much for the 'strawman's victory.

Equal justice under the law. Equal protection for all. Without upholding this foundation, we have no justice system. All deserve equal protection, even aging sluggers we loathe.

More to come, as we get to the big issue, # 1) - 'What's going to explode?' (which also sheds much more light on what I have written here on section # 2) of FB's loaded question).

But for now, I'm out. I've been typing for about 5 hours straight, and I'm getting some fierce carpel tunnel.

Peace.

 

"You have a passion, Ray. Misdirected though it is, it is a passion."

 

Thanks Indiansnetwork.

I appreciate it and agree!

Keep rocking.

JDV

 

Rok --
I ask a legitimate question and I get a barrel of condescension from the Flex Brothers?
Please.
I wanted to know what, based on your intensive research, was going to "explode," which was my way of asking what you had that was new. Apparently, the answer is "Not much."

 

Fenian - I asked a question of you as well. Do you still think Mark Felt is a hero? What about Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein?

 

Re: 'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Vid

Incorrect, on both counts.

Your question was not legitimate, until you the end, as I stated. The part about athletes and reporters was exactly how I described it - fluff, red herring, BS.

"What is about to explode?" is very legitimate, and you will have your answer. I'm sorry I don't work on your timetable, Fenian. I'm still trying to get my hands around the scope of this one (our research), and that takes precedence over answering your question. If you go back and look at what I've already said, you should be able to find your answer, multiple times. I don't have time today to serve as a reading comprehension tutor.

This stuff is very detailed, but some (like cranberry) have made excellent 'summaries' of it. Please query them as necessary until I can properly encapsulate it for you in a 'tv dinner'-esque format.

Condescension, by the way, is a two-way street. And one not usually taken first by me.

I also have to say, I think many here are missing the conclusions of our research because of a desire to do so. That is, a kind of 'blind spot' seems to exist when it comes to MFW and LW. If that is what is holding anyone back from understanding the importance of what we've been trying to tell you here, that is something I can't assist you with.

Again, Ellerman's plea, in light of a review of ALL the relevant dates, makes things much worse for MFW at the very least, and also potentially much worse for LW and The Chron. You don't have to believe me, all you have to see is that MFW will not be quoted on this issue right now. Why? Because he's named, specifically, in the plea agreement as the recipient of the leaks. That is the point of departure for what we've been working on. Again, this isn't as difficult as it may seem to understand.

This just in: 2+2=4

: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck


Also: Deja vu, anyone?

"I ask a legitimate question"

FB - Thanks for looking at my MySpace. Yes, I could rightfully be
deemed a 'flex brother' from those shots.

 

The Villareal bro posts are reminding me of Lost. Lots of hype and fanfare, no payoff.

 

All available evidence suggests that this is a skill you lack.