What's gone right since Bartman?

[Sosa21MVP]

If AGonz wouldn't have been there to hit some clutch dingers earlier in the year, we may not have even made the playoffs.

 

That is fine and nice but his forte was supposedly defense and he picked the exact wrong time to boot the ball. AGonz had more control over Game 6 than Bartman but people still want to blame the goofball in headpones for that disaster. Even at that, my brother had a co-worker who sat 2-3 rows behind Bartman and swears Bartman wasn't the first guy to touch the ball. Not that it matters since the starting shortstop choked under pressure.

[jjgman21]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

get off your damn high horse. when is the last time anyone stopped to consider that they may not be right all the damn time. did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

alot of people have been coming at me with this hypocritical nonsense lately. where's your most recent mia culpa?

[jjgman21]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

Thanks for the defense Pedro.

 

sure seemed more like an attack of me than a defense of you.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

get off your damn high horse. when is the last time anyone stopped to consider that they may not be right all the damn time. did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

alot of people have been coming at me with this hypocritical nonsense lately. where's your most recent mia culpa?

 

Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that one of the two people has a character flaw.

[jjgman21]

CFP during the '03 offseason had a great breakdown of it. It was fan interference, it should've been called such.

 

thanks for the defense TT.

[jjgman21]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

get off your damn high horse. when is the last time anyone stopped to consider that they may not be right all the damn time. did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

alot of people have been coming at me with this hypocritical nonsense lately. where's your most recent mia culpa?

 

Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that one of the two people has a character flaw.

 

not sure if this is directed at me or Pedro.

 

maybe I wasn't quick enough with my thank you.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

get off your damn high horse. when is the last time anyone stopped to consider that they may not be right all the damn time. did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

alot of people have been coming at me with this hypocritical nonsense lately. where's your most recent mia culpa?

 

Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that one of the two people has a character flaw.

 

not sure if this is directed at me or Pedro.

 

maybe I wasn't quick enough with my thank you.

 

In this case, you. I'm simply saying that reasonable people are allowed to disagree in some cases. Not everything has to become me v. you, and the animosity that comes with it(as for a mea culpa, I probably do the same thing at times with certain topics). Take it FWIW, and I agree with you in this particular case.

[Laura]

Let's play nicely, everyone, please.

 

CFP during the '03 offseason had a great breakdown of it. It was fan interference, it should've been called such.

 

What's CFP?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

CubFanPhilly

[soccer10k]

 

Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true.

 

Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view.

 

now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it.

 

I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible.

 

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match?

 

get off your damn high horse. when is the last time anyone stopped to consider that they may not be right all the damn time. did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

alot of people have been coming at me with this hypocritical nonsense lately. where's your most recent mia culpa?

 

Maybe you need to heed your own advice. Did you ever stop and consider that you may be wrong on this?

 

Also, I don't know what a "mia culpa" is. I know what a mea culpa is though.