vance_the_cubs_fan

If you need a reason to hate him, that's about as good a reason as any. I need none.

Yes

Of course those are two completely different things. One is getting pumped and the other ridiculous showboating. If Pujols had pumped his fast after that homerun, I wouldn't have even thought twice about it. How is it different? Zambrano's instincts tell him to pump his fists (because he doesn't have bat to throw on the mound, maybe?). Pujols' instincts tell him to throw his bat in the air after that really good feeling of knowing that you just connected. Ahahahahahaha. You are the biggest homer ever. I'M a homer? Be real........ Like you haven't seen players from EVERY team get excited (and react) about a good thing, even when they're behind in a game? I think you're reaching a little bit. Everyone so far has agreed with me. Aramis does this from time to time and it's stupid. You see, I can say it. It's not that hard. Honestly, I would prefer that he (Pujols) react more like Rolen, but suggesting that someone throw a ball at his head is a little extreme. Maybe not his head, but surely he should get one aimed for the posterior.

Furthermore, it's one thing to show emotion or flip a bat on a homer that makes a difference. When you're team is down 8-2, you really should act like you've been there.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless. I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence. Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true. True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct. Maybe he's credible. I don't know. It's not really for me to decide. You obviously choose to believe him. The reporter obviously believes him. That's fine. I know that there were SEVERAL inconsistencies documented from his book. On a witness stand (which this isn't), that would probably be reason for a jury to question what he says. Like I said, believe what you want to. I'm glad I have your permission to believe what Iwant. Thanks.

Can we keep those and then take out the trash.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless. I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence. Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true. True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless. I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

Well, you do follow a team that has Dusty Baker on it. So I guess you'd be better at outing pricks than I would. Godd thought, troll.

When have I been part of an online chat? Last I checked, I have little celebrity or noteriety. It's a case of showing professionalism. Edmonds could have and should have ignored the questions. He chose to be a prick instead. I have the same choice every day in my classroom. I can be a prick to some of these little pricks or I can handle myself in a more professional dmeanor. Most days I choose the later, but I have my moments.

Didn't Canseco offer first hand testimony in his book that he witnessed McGwire using steroids? Now, one can question the reliability of that testimony, but there is an "eye-witness" who claims to have seen mcGwire juicing.

If the suggestion is that Edmonds isn't the only prick, I could agree with that. In fact, I'm sure we have a few floating around here.

You are speaking on that of which you don't know. Edmonds jabs back and forth with the hosts of that show, who also run the forum. That's the way the show works...that's the way the forum works. That is the style. Everyone knows you dislike Edmonds and anything STL. It doesn't matter what he does...you'll say he is a prick. Actually there are a few things about STL I like. My in-laws live there...well, um...maybe you're right.

In a forum like that, the non-prick ignores the questions like that. The prick answers them with prick-ish answers. Wnna guess which one Edmonds did?

Looking at the last three years, Guillen posted 295/349/515 line while Jones 268/322/443. I think that is quite a bit better. Furthermore, I don't think Guillen ever threw a chair at a fan. If you have a link, please provide, but you are confusing him with Cordero of the Rangers. Guillen has had some behavior issues, especially with the Angels. But please don't exaggerate or lie about him just to make a stronger point. To set things straight, it wasn't Francisco Cordero either. It was Frank Francisco. Also of the Rangers. ah yes it was. I always get those guys confused. Thanks for setting me straight.

Site crashed.

Gullen is a free agent at the end of the year on a team that isn't going to contend. He'll be a trade target at the deadline...maybe sooner if Bowden is canned. Are they talking to him about a new contract? Not that I'm aware of. Bowden's days with the club are over. His DUI has sealed his fate. I really doubt new ownership will retain him with that on his record. There will be wholesale changes once MLB finally sells the team.

Gullen is a free agent at the end of the year on a team that isn't going to contend. He'll be a trade target at the deadline...maybe sooner if Bowden is canned.

He's definitely a prick.

Losing sucks. Let's not do it again.

Looking at the last three years, Guillen posted 295/349/515 line while Jones 268/322/443. I think that is quite a bit better. Furthermore, I don't think Guillen ever threw a chair at a fan. If you have a link, please provide, but you are confusing him with Cordero of the Rangers. Guillen has had some behavior issues, especially with the Angels. But please don't exaggerate or lie about him just to make a stronger point.

I was very dissapointed in last night's showing. Hopefully today will bring better results.

Excellent stuff! This should be on the front page.

Lee extends my streak to six. I feel dirty, but I'm picking Pujols today to get a hit off of Santos.

Tie game! :cheers: