I understand that you were appealing to authority. If that's incorrect, tell me what the point was.

You ******** have completely ruined this forum, which I used to find an enjoyable place to chat about baseball. Seriously. Why do you get off I this endless back and forth. It's so pointless. **** off already.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/18/2015 7:09:00 PM (view original):
That is incorrect.

The point was to ascertain your opinion of how you assess your knowledge of baseball and your ability to judge players compared to the knowledge and ability of a group of other people.  In this case, the BBWAA.

There was nothing there that is me "appealing to authority".  The fact that you are insisting that there is shows that you are desperately reaching to try make a point that simply isn't there.

I call bullshit.

It was clearly an appeal to authority.

Posted by mfahie on 3/18/2015 7:32:00 PM (view original):
You ******** have completely ruined this forum, which I used to find an enjoyable place to chat about baseball. Seriously. Why do you get off I this endless back and forth. It's so pointless. **** off already.

Feel free to not participate in this thread. Your Mets thread seems very popular.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mfahie on 3/18/2015 7:32:00 PM (view original):
You ******** have completely ruined this forum, which I used to find an enjoyable place to chat about baseball. Seriously. Why do you get off I this endless back and forth. It's so pointless. **** off already.

Feel free to not participate in this thread. Your Mets thread seems very popular.

I get what he's saying. He sees a popular thread on a topic he thinks he'll be interested in, and it's largely people throwing their own **** at each other, trying to one-up each other on an internet message board. It's disappointing. 

I get that. But really, remove the **** throwing and it's pretty quiet around here.

Depends what we're talking about. A conversation can be had about Pete Rose and whether he should be in the hall, if he's more worthy than roid users. But when threads stumble into "NO THATS NOT WHAT I SAID ER DERRRR" it gets ******. And I'm guilty of it too.

A conversation can be had about Pete Rose and whether he should be in the Hall, but I don't see why anybody would think the answer is yes.  If Shoeless Joe Jackson is still ineligible for just knowing about game throwing and not reporting it, while not-so-quietly hitting better in the WS than he did in the regular season and OPSing 92 points better than any regular for Cincinnatti, then why should Rose be reinstated?

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/19/2015 12:39:00 PM (view original):
A conversation can be had about Pete Rose and whether he should be in the Hall, but I don't see why anybody would think the answer is yes.  If Shoeless Joe Jackson is still ineligible for just knowing about game throwing and not reporting it, while not-so-quietly hitting better in the WS than he did in the regular season and OPSing 92 points better than any regular for Cincinnatti, then why should Rose be reinstated?

He shouldn't be reinstated.

Gambling is a legitimate threat to the life of a sports league. Which is ironic considering the fact that gambling is so vital to the popularity of sports.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/19/2015 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Depends what we're talking about. A conversation can be had about Pete Rose and whether he should be in the hall, if he's more worthy than roid users. But when threads stumble into "NO THATS NOT WHAT I SAID ER DERRRR" it gets ******. And I'm guilty of it too.

In the thread I started about Pete Rose and reinstatement, BL immediately tried to turn it into a HOF conversation that included Clemens and Bonds.

And in this thread, BL also immediately included a poll intended to insult me.

The common element of where both threads jumped the rails: bad_luck.

You can't talk about reinstating Pete Rose without the HOF angle. You were free to stay in your own thread, dipshit