And it looks like entire coast of Florida sandy is going to edge out Sahara desert sandy in the how sandy is tec's vagina debate.

I'd like to express my disappointment in the performance of hurricane sandy.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 1:07:00 PM (view original):
You can't talk about reinstating Pete Rose without the HOF angle. You were free to stay in your own thread, dipshit

Wow.  You also suck at apologies.

What should I apologize for?

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?

I would agree that if Rose is reinstated, Jackson should be too.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 1:25:00 PM (view original):
What should I apologize for?

For ruining threads.  See mfahie's post from 3/18/2015 7:32 PM.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/19/2015 1:26:00 PM (view original):

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?

I would agree that if Rose is reinstated, Jackson should be too.

I'd have no problem with reinstating Jackson.  There is credible doubt as to whether he actually participated in the conspiracy to throw the Series.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/19/2015 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 1:25:00 PM (view original):
What should I apologize for?

For ruining threads.  See mfahie's post from 3/18/2015 7:32 PM.

Look, dumbass. You started a thread about Pete Rose. I brought up a relevant HOF question. You told me you didn't want to get into it and to start my own thread.

So I did.

And then you ******* followed me into my thread and started talking ****.

So I'm not apologizing for anything (other than banging your mom, and really, I'm the one that deserves an apology there). Go back to your own boring thread and talk about Pere Rose being reinstated without mentioning the HOF issue. I'm sure it will be fun.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/19/2015 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 1:25:00 PM (view original):
What should I apologize for?

For ruining threads.  See mfahie's post from 3/18/2015 7:32 PM.

Look, dumbass. You started a thread about Pete Rose. I brought up a relevant HOF question. You told me you didn't want to get into it and to start my own thread.

So I did.

And then you ******* followed me into my thread and started talking ****.

So I'm not apologizing for anything (other than banging your mom, and really, I'm the one that deserves an apology there). Go back to your own boring thread and talk about Pere Rose being reinstated without mentioning the HOF issue. I'm sure it will be fun.

Dumbass.  You tried to turn a Pete Rose thread into a discussion about Bonds, Clemens and the HOF.

And you're a really sick and twisted **** if you've been banging my mom, seeing that she's been dead for 22 years.

How else would I be your daddy?

And dropping the HOF discussion in your thread was fine, I didn't care if you wanted to keep it out of the thread. I had no problem moving on,

Still don't know why you followed me here to talk about it, though.

I was making a post that was relevant to the stated topic of the thread.

How was a discussion about Bonds, Clemens and the HOF relevant to a thread about Pete Rose applying for reinstatement to MLB?

Pete Rose's reinstatement is, in my opinion, primarily driven by a desire to be put in the Hall of Fame. I know you don't think Bonds/Clemens should be in the HOF. I was assuming that, since you started a thread about his reinstatement, that you think Rose should be in the HOF. I was interested in how you reconciled the Rose-Yes/Bonds-No opinion.

You clearly didn't want to talk about it, which makes it weird that you came in here to talk about it.

And why are we still talking about this, tec? You said, "don't talk about the HOF in my Rose thread, go make your own thread." So I did. And you are still acting like I ****** your mom in that thread and you'll never let it go.