Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

Balticfox · #1 05-14-2025, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12. Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

G1911 · #2 05-14-2025, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I�m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don�t merit.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-14-2025, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children* is treading a very fine line, I’m happy to tread that line. Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent. And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims. Laissez faire, bro!! I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac -- if Rose preferred 12 and 13 year old girls, he had a right to self-fulfillment.

Mark17 · #4 05-14-2025, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent. And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims. Laissez faire, bro!! I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac -- if Rose preferred 12 and 13 year old girls, he had a right to self-fulfillment.

Several of the Black Sox, notably Cicotte, admitted to throwing games in the 1919 World Series, and went into great detail about how it was done. However, they were obviously lying when they confessed, because a court of law found them Not Guilty.

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

SyrNy1960 · #5 05-14-2025, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

What! Are you being serious? Or did this go over my head?

Mark17 · #6 05-14-2025, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

What! Are you being serious? Or did this go over my head?

I was providing the Baltic Fox take.

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

SyrNy1960 · #7 05-14-2025, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

I was providing the Baltic Fox take.

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

Yes, insane! Thanks!

Balticfox · #8 05-15-2025, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

I was providing the Baltic Fox take.

No you weren't. I said a man is innocent until convicted. I said nothing about anyone found guilty. It's a logical error to leap from my statement to the assumption that any and all those convicted are actually guilty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

And it always frosts me when some guy is released from prison because DNA evidence proves he was actually innocent. Forget that DNA "proof!" If the original trial resulted in a Guilty verdict then he's guilty, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

Yes, those words of yours do indeed sound ridiculous.

Mark17 · #9 05-15-2025, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No you weren't. I said a man is innocent until convicted. I said nothing about anyone found guilty. It's a logical error to leap from my statement to the assumption that any and all those convicted are actually guilty.

Yes, those words of yours do indeed sound ridiculous.

Cicotte was found not guilty of throwing games. Are you saying he was, in fact, not guilty of doing so? Because he said he was guilty, and described in detail how he did it, right from his very first pitch.

Balticfox · #10 05-16-2025, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Cicotte was found not guilty of throwing games. Are you saying he was, in fact, not guilty of doing so? Because he said he was guilty, and described in detail how he did it, right from his very first pitch.

Don't know and don't much care. The only thing I'll repeat is that a man is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

What then about Cicotte being banned from the game? Well MLB is a private entity and can make its own rules. MLB can ban anyone for any reason and didn't owe Cicotte anything. If Cicotte didn't like the treatment he got from MLB, he could play elsewhere or start his own league for that matter. I actually wish he had. Competition is a good thing.

What I hate though is hypocrisy. It's been touched upon in two places in this thread. With respect to Pete Rose being banned from MLB for gambling, I actually support it. He knew the rule and he broke it. What riles me now though is that MLB has cozied up to gambling and gamblers because it's found a way to turn gambling into a cash cow. Well that's gross hypocrisy in my book.

Secondly, I understand that the Baseball Hall of Fame has always claimed to be independent of MLB. Well constantly acting as MLB's toady while making this claim constitutes hypocrisy. Given that Pete Rose is justifiably famous for both his exploits on the field and for having been banned from MLB, he should therefore be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. But since he needs to be voted in by others, they're entitled to ignore my advice. And I'm entitled to sneer and refer to the Hall of Fame with Johnny Rotten's chosen expression.

Balticfox · #11 05-15-2025, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Come now Greg, he was never convicted of same, ergo he is innocent.

Yes, that tautology is indeed the cornerstone of our legal system. It's also a key bulwark in any free society against malicious prosecution by the State. But this you already know (I hope).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And besides, they all consented, as doubtless did Epstein's mislabeled victims.

Epstein was convicted. Rose? No. That's a very real difference. Or are you now willing to pronounce a man guilty on the basis of innuendo alone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would take it one step further than our resident egomaniac....

Even a quick look at your interactions and exchanges with other members of this board reveals that you've held that title since 2009.

Balticfox · #12 05-15-2025, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

If my stance against, let me check my notes here, *grown men violating children*....

You might also check the facts while you're at it. That's your phrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent. The accusations against Rose go as low as 12.

Mere accusations do not imply guilt. Much more is required. Until then a person is innocent. In other words, cut the crap. To say that Pete Rose was guilty of having sex with children is just plain wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Astonishing this need be said and people want to debate it. Well maybe not astonishing, but disgusting none the less.

You're right. I am indeed astonished that there are people who cavalierly disregard the presumption of innocence which acts to protect us all from politically motivated prosecution by the State.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Disgusting was a polite understatement you probably don’t merit.

My take too on those who equate allegations with guilt.

But you seem to be all hot and bothered by my arm's length "Dunno, don't care, he's innocent until proven guilty and it's all beside the point anyway when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame" attitude when it comes to Pete Rose and these allegations. Why? Curious indeed if I do say so myself.

G1911 · #13 05-15-2025, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

You might also check the facts while you're at it.

Mere accusations do not imply guilt. Much more is required. Until then a person is innocent. In other words, cut the crap. To say that Pete Rose was guilty of having sex with children is just plain wrong.

You're right. I am indeed astonished that there are people who cavalierly disregard the presumption of innocence which acts to protect us all from politically motivated prosecution by the State.

My take too on those who equate allegations with guilt.

But you seem to be all hot and bothered by my arm's length "Dunno, don't care, he's innocent until proven guilty and it's all beside the point anyway when it comes to the Baseball Hall of Fame" attitude when it comes to Pete Rose and these allegations. Why? Curious indeed if I do say so myself.

This legal crap is 100% irrelevant and a distraction - your written stance was not that Rose was not convicted or not guilty and thus it should be dismissed, your written stance was that grown men raping children is okay as a general principle of your political views as long as the child somehow "consents".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.

We've had death wishes and/or threats and pedo crap posted this week already now, what's next to be endorsed? I know this stuff isn't as bad as something horrific like criticizing an auction house, but you'd think there'd be some moral line people could have the common sense to believe in and abide by. Can't wait to see the next hot take of depravity, it's only Wednesday.

Balticfox · #14 05-15-2025, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

This legal crap is 100% irrelevant and a distraction - your written stance was not that Rose was not convicted or not guilty and thus it should be dismissed, your written stance was that grown men raping children is okay as a general principle of your political views as long as the child somehow "consents".

Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child. And yes, I am willing to accept the local jurisdiction's definition of age of consent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

We've had death wishes and/or threats and pedo crap posted this week already now....

And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

...but you'd think there'd be some moral line people could have the common sense to believe in and abide by.

Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Can't wait to see the next hot take of depravity, it's only Wednesday.

Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.

G1911 · #15 05-15-2025, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Claptrap! I said nothing about "child". That was you and some others. But that right there is the crux of the issue since you're wrong to say that Pete Rose raped anybody let alone a child.

And worst of all we've had your virtue signaling which you can shove where the sun doesn't shine.

Be nice too if you occasionally showed some of that common sense of which you speak.

Actually it's Thursday. But since I'm guessing you're not going away, we'll get more "hot takes" from you for at least the rest of the week.

Not even man enough to own it now?

Original post on it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bk400

I dunno, man. Maybe I'm a prude and a cultural philistine, but when you're a married 34 year old with kids and are accused of statutory rape -- and your best defense is (i) that the sex only started when the girl was 16 and (ii) the sex only occurred in a state where the age of consent happens to be 16 -- you're basically a douchebag. If they elect guys like this -- who were also banned for betting on baseball and convicted of tax evasion -- in the Hall of Fame, then they should also elect guys like Dale Murphy into the Hall.

To which you replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes you are. Me I have no problem with other peoples' sexual mores so long as the consent element is present. As a Libertarian I'm a laissez-faire individual and not just on economic matters.

So what sexual mores involving Rose do you have "no problem with" as a part of your political outlook? The only one being discussed, which you leaped to defend, was Rose's history with 12-16 year old girls. You know damn well that was what was being discussed lol. At least have a better cover story when you finally realize the pedo shit is a bad look.

It's Wednesday here. There is a thing called timezones.

Balticfox · #16 05-15-2025, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Not even man enough to own it now?

You bet! No where in that post did I mention "child". I said people, and children aren't defined as "people" in every way - one of those being the age of consent. I explicitly said "consent" and you admitted that minors can't give consent:

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can�t give meaningful consent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

So what sexual mores involving Rose do you have "no problem with" as a part of your political outlook? The only one being discussed, which you leaped to defend, was Rose's history with 12-16 year old girls.

No. You're assuming I believe he's guilty of something or other with an underage girl. My only opinion ever in legal matters is that a person is innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You know damn well that was what was being discussed lol.

I do indeed. But you're the one who's willing to make the assumptions regarding Rose's doings and guilt. I'm not in this or any case willing to accept unproven allegations as proof of guilt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

At least have a better cover story when you finally realize the pedo shit is a bad look.

Like I say, I'm too tough-minded to give a damn about "looks". Screw that. The logical principle is my sole concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

It's Wednesday here. There is a thing called timezones.

That too is strictly jurisdictional so I'll use my own.

Snowman · #17 05-15-2025, 01:38 AM

Jesus Christ. What a disaster of a thread. You guys are hopeless.

Kutcher55 · #18 05-15-2025, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowman

jesus christ. What a disaster of a thread. You guys are hopeless.

+1000000

BioCRN · #19 05-15-2025, 07:01 AM

I've seen a lot of things go south in Pete Rose argument threads, but never someone who wants to debate whether a 30-something year old man should be able to have sex with a 14-16 year old because they said "yes."

The fact someone wants to debate this in a Pete Rose discussion and doesn't realize it doesn't need debating because it's creepy and disgusting is just as f'n weird.

theshowandme · #20 05-15-2025, 07:42 AM

burn it all down

Balticfox · #21 05-15-2025, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioCRN

I've seen a lot of things go south in Pete Rose argument threads, but never someone who wants to debate whether a 30-something year old man should be able to have sex with a 14-16 year old because they said "yes."

Nice try asshole, but first of all I said nothing about "should". I don't advise others on how to live their lives. I'm actually too selfishly living my own to bother.

Secondly lumping 14-16 year olds together is fundamentally dishonest since I see that the age of consent in 34 American states is sixteen. So there's a very big legal difference between a fourteen year old and a sixteen year old. And that is an all-important difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioCRN

The fact someone wants to debate this in a Pete Rose discussion....

"Wants"? Check the thread. I wasn't the one who introduced the topic. But willing to debate I always am even if jerks like you want to bring it down to an exchange of slurs. I won't be cowed from a rational assessment of this or any other subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioCRN

...and doesn't realize it doesn't need debating because it's creepy and disgusting is just as f'n weird.

Excuse me? Someone was arguing that Pete Rose shouldn't be in the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his relationship with a teenage girl. That statement demanded a response on several levels, e.g. the lack of proof that said girl was underage according to State law plus the fact that it's the Baseball Hall of Fame and not some Pantheon of Saints to which we're discussing admission.

And I really don't give a damn of how politically incorrect or offensive to some my responding happens to be. Screw that. Like I say, I'm tough minded enough to put up with the blowback from the small minded and name calling from the likes of you. I'll just say that I wish you only the worst.

Brent G. · #22 05-14-2025, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

See above.

And let me remind you of the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. So your insinuations are (at best) out of order.

Moreover you're treading a very fine line using the word "disgusting" in reference to any post of mine. I'll very happily dissect your every statement and toss every word back into your face. (It's what I do and I do it very well indeed.)

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

Balticfox · #23 05-15-2025, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are.

Tough minded enough not to shrink from a "sensitive" topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

I'd guess you mask your insecurities....

Uggghhh. Take your psycho babble elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

...behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary....

"Bloviation"? And you accuse me of overcomplicated vocabulary. I'll just say that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard.

Hey, I post a lot of pictures of cards too! You might try it sometime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

"You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

It's getting late. Mind if I continue tomorrow? I promise to use shorter words you might understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

Well since I advocated no such thing, I'll put you down as an asshole but I'll reserve the right to give you an occasional reminder. Deal?

babraham · #24 05-16-2025, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent G.

Good lord, get over yourself. Those who have to refer to themselves as "too tough minded" rarely are. I'd guess you mask your insecurities behind endless bloviation -- on display here daily -- and overcomplicated vocabulary that's the visual version of nails on a chalkboard. "You'll lose any debate" -- what pathetic posturing.

We'll just put you down in the Pedophile Rights Advocate column and move on.

+1

Belfast1933 · #25 05-16-2025, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babraham

+1

+1000

Leon, clean-up on aisle 2 needed.

GrayGhost · #26 05-16-2025, 05:50 AM

I feel Rose was egregious in his behavior by betting while he was managing.

Joe played hard and really wasn't, apparently, totally aware of what he was doing.

Id put Joe in, and Pete no. But, again, its all about perception. if its only based on field performance, of course Pete is a lock

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: 2008 Joe Jackson Pete Rose Donruss Dual Relic	ThomasL	1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T	4	11-05-2025 08:17 AM
Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...	riggs336	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	179	07-08-2021 01:52 PM
Wtb 1971 reggie Jackson, Nolan Ryan, Pete rose	deepstep19	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	0	03-21-2018 11:59 AM
Pete Rose & Reggie Jackson Emblem Patches. !!!!! Ends 12-13	Leerob538	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	12-13-2015 06:41 AM
Rose requests to be reinstated	EvilKing00	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	82	03-19-2015 11:01 AM