Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

This is a matter that shouldn't have to be explained to a grown, mature adult.

I take it your "grown, mature" is the same as "supercilious, starchy". Me I take pride in being the proverbial prudent man.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

The players that didnt hit the 10 year mark I would assume are not eligible...sorry Buck Weaver fans, if his career continued it is very likely he would be a HOFer and the same could be argued for Lefty Williams and Hap Felsch and Lee Magee maybe.

Really to me there are only players on this list that are worthy of ballot placement and personally I think 2 are solid candidates and 1 is borderline

Good Chace
1. Rose
2. Jackson

Borderline
3. Cicotte

9 year players that should be considered if allowed but are Hall of Very Good Players
4. Buck Weaver - could argue Weaver is a borderline player
5. Chic Gandil - but he retired after 1919 so guess he wouldnt get any special consideration for a shortened career
6. Lee Magee

I personally would argue Cicotte is a HOFer as be basically invented the knuckleball and had solid peak years with a borderline win total and solid ERA...BUT he was a primary 1919 WS fixer that is not up for debate like Jackson's role is

What makes you say Weaver could be considered a borderline Hall of Fame player? Nothing about his stats scream Hall of Fame to me. If he hadn't been part of the Black Sox scandal and wrongly banned in the eyes of many, I'm not sure if anyone would even know who he was today (even if you gave him 5 or 6 more years as a player). He would likely just be another unknown player from 100 years ago.

[JamesGallo]

Horrible move but a weak commissioner. Rose should never be in and Jackson should have been in ages ago. The fact is that the still need to be voted in, which might not happen especially with Rose.

Also if they do get in it certainly would be a hypocritical move if the steroids guys dont get in. So to me it becomes all or nothing and recent years the steroids guys have been kept out. We will see if this changes.

I think all the other Black Sox values are certainly greatly increased by the scandal, will this ruling really matter, I don't think so. People didn't buy their cards because they were banned from baseball, they bought them because they were part of the scandal, which will not change.

I do think Jackson's values are inflated, however who knows what he stats would have been when the ball went live. Maybe he would have been Ruthian....

James G

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

What makes you say Weaver could be considered a borderline Hall of Fame player? Nothing about his stats scream Hall of Fame to me. If he hadn't been part of the Black Sox scandal and wrongly banned in the eyes of many, I'm not sure if anyone would even know who he was today (even if you gave him 5 or 6 more years as a player). He would likely just be another unknown player from 100 years ago.

Fair Point, but he was regarded as the best defensive 3B of his era which only produced one HOF 3B (Baker)who was known for his batting, Weaver was regarded as one of the best at his position during his playing days and was getting a peak when he was banned. Unfortunately bc of the ban Weaver didnt get the 1920s live ball boost others would get...same for Jackson and Felsch.


to your last point...Frank Baker is largely an unknown from 100+ years ago as are all but probably 1-5 HOFers from that era

[G1911]

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.

[AMPduppp]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Just curious what about Roberto Alomar who is in HOF and who is also on Baseballs Ineligible List???


In 2021, Alomar was banned from baseball by MLB following an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back to 2014.[6][7] In April 2021, the Blue Jays also announced that Alomar would be removed from the Level of Excellence and his retired number banner would be taken down at Rogers Centre.[8] The Blue Jays have subsequently reactivated the uniform number 12, and it has been used by Jordan Hicks in 2023. He remains the only player in history to be a member of both the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB's permanently-ineligible list simultaneously.

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue if the Hall decided to rescind his nomination. If the Hall's standards say a player's election is based on their character and integrity, then I'm fine with them removing players when new information comes out that would no longer fit that criteria. Plus it wouldn't be the first time someone was removed from a Big 4 Hall- the Hockey Hall of Fame removed Alan Eagleson after he was convicted of embezzling player pension funds.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by AMPduppp

Personally, I wouldn't have an issue if the Hall decided to rescind his nomination. If the Hall's standards say a player's election is based on their character and integrity, then I'm fine with them removing players when new information comes out that would no longer fit that criteria. Plus it wouldn't be the first time someone was removed from a Big 4 Hall- the Hockey Hall of Fame removed Alan Eagleson after he was convicted of embezzling player pension funds.

I did not know that Roberto Alomar was on the baseball ineligible list since 2021. Apparently I missed that story. However, I'm not surprised that he hasn't been removed from the Hall of Fame. If O.J. wasn't removed from Canton, it seems like that's not something that will happen often. Apparently stealing money from your fellow players is enough for hockey.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Just curious what about Roberto Alomar who is in HOF and who is also on Baseballs Ineligible List???


In 2021, Alomar was banned from baseball by MLB following an independent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back to 2014.[6][7] In April 2021, the Blue Jays also announced that Alomar would be removed from the Level of Excellence and his retired number banner would be taken down at Rogers Centre.[8] The Blue Jays have subsequently reactivated the uniform number 12, and it has been used by Jordan Hicks in 2023. He remains the only player in history to be a member of both the Baseball Hall of Fame and MLB's permanently-ineligible list simultaneously.

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

[Brent G.]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I was providing the Baltic Fox take.

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

Yes, insane! Thanks!

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Horrible move but a weak commissioner. Rose should never be in and Jackson should have been in ages ago.

I'm not sure how you reconcile this position. Both guys were alleged to have been involved in gambling activities that were clearly against the rules of the game at the time. In Rose's case, he bet *on* his team to win games in the regular season; while Jackson took money in a scheme designed to bet *against* his team and throw a world series.

If you're standing on personal principle alone, I'm not sure how you vote for Jackson, but not Rose. The allegation against Jackson is way more egregious.

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Also if they do get in it certainly would be a hypocritical move if the steroids guys dont get in.

Seems like apples and oranges to me. The steroid guys aren't technically even banned, the voters have simply decided not to vote for them for personal, cultural reasons. It's a completely different situation.

The only real hypocrisy was the league and sports writers turning a blind eye to the obvious steroid issue -- allowing Bonds, McGwire and Sosa to save their sinking league -- and then suddenly throwing them under the bus when they were done using them.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Ima Pseudonym

The only real hypocrisy was the league and sports writers turning a blind eye to the obvious steroid issue -- allowing Bonds, McGwire and Sosa to save their sinking league -- and then suddenly throwing them under the bus when they were done using them.

Well said! And they made a lot of money in doing so!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

You did not include Speaker. His 162 game average WAR was 7.8, higher than Jackson. No doubt at all Jackson was a very great player. But my question is whether, that said, his card values are based solely on his player value.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

The problem with comparing Jackson's 162 game averages with those of Lajoie and Collins is that Jackson was banned from the majors before he really started declining. Lajoie was a regular until he was 41 and Collins until he was 39; Jackson was 32 in 1920.

WAR/162 games thru age 32:
Jackson 7.6
Collins 8.0
Lajoie 8.3
Speaker 8.4

And both Collins and Lajoie aged unusually well. It's possible Jackson would have aged as well as them but by no means certain.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

Even with the livelier ball, his 162 game averages would probably have come down some if he played into his late 30s or early 40s.

[theshowandme]

First 13 seasons for each




You can use this query to look at the head to head in more detail

https://stathead.com/tiny/YXK9L

[wagnerj03]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

I think all the other Black Sox values are certainly greatly increased by the scandal, will this ruling really matter, I don't think so. People didn't buy their cards because they were banned from baseball, they bought them because they were part of the scandal, which will not change.

James G

I agree that values will likely stay the same. I collect the Black Sox because I like collecting history and the scandal is such a big part of baseball history. Happy to pay a little premium for a piece of history. That won't change with any of this.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That he was married and had kids is largely immaterial.

Yes, you are correct in this regard. My bad.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that there are members here who seem to be fine with adults having sex with children, but I kind of am.

[Knightlax5]

For Rose I think there is a middle ground. Would I want to leave kids with him when he was living? No not at all. He was found innocent, but the charges are not a good look.

Would I want him on my baseball team and was he one of the greatest hitter ever? Yes absolutely! I don't think we should act like all of the guys in the Hall are example human beings. If we applied the character clause at the Hall's inception like we did today, guys like Cap Anson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis would not be in! I would vote for Rose in and disclose the bad things about him on his plaque and let everyone form their own opinion.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

For Rose I think there is a middle ground. Would I want to leave kids with him when he was living? No not at all. He was found innocent, but the charges are not a good look.

Would I want him on my baseball team and was he one of the greatest hitter ever? Yes absolutely! I don't think we should act like all of the guys in the Hall are example human beings. If we applied the character clause at the Hall's inception like we did today, guys like Cap Anson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis would not be in! I would vote for Rose in and disclose the bad things about him on his plaque and let everyone form their own opinion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if it's the accusation of statutory rape, he was never actually tried for it because the allegations came out well after the statute of limitations had ended.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

For Rose I think there is a middle ground. Would I want to leave kids with him when he was living? No not at all. He was found innocent, but the charges are not a good look.

Would I want him on my baseball team and was he one of the greatest hitter ever? Yes absolutely! I don't think we should act like all of the guys in the Hall are example human beings. If we applied the character clause at the Hall's inception like we did today, guys like Cap Anson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis would not be in! I would vote for Rose in and disclose the bad things about him on his plaque and let everyone form their own opinion.

The plaques hanging in the Hall celebrate the players. There is no way in hell anyone is going to put on Rose's plaque, "Serious allegations were made that he had sex with underage girls." Nor should they. Come on. Either let him in or keep him out.

[ThomasL]

[QUOTE=Ima Pseudonym;2515809]I'm not sure how you reconcile this position. Both guys were alleged to have been involved in gambling activities that were clearly against the rules of the game at the time. In Rose's case, he bet *on* his team to win games in the regular season; while Jackson took money in a scheme designed to bet *against* his team and throw a world series.

If you're standing on personal principle alone, I'm not sure how you vote for Jackson, but not Rose. The allegation against Jackson is way more egregious.





I will play this game for the fun of it:
As most people familiar with Joe Jackson know there is tremendous gray areas and doubt to his culpability in the 1919 WS scandal
1. Jackson's 1919 WS stats were great
2. Admitted he played to win
3. Was given the money by a friend teammate and he didnt want to take it but did anyway
4. Later felt bad about it and tried to inform team management at some point after the fact

Against this is the fact Jackson did have guilty knowledge and did receive money, but Charles Comiskey and likely the whole team had guilty knowledge of the fix at some point during the series and Comiskey did not report it to League officials and even signed the accused players (save for Gandil) to new contracts in 1920...he is in the Hall of Fame.

Unlike other Black Sox Jackson was not accused of throwing games in 1920 season

Jackson and Weaver are the outliers of the 8 men out but Weaver is not in the convo bc he didnt play the min 10 years.

Also worth pointing out...it was not against the rules in 1919 to fix games. You might think this is a dumb point to make but several players had thrown games prior to this with little to no punishment, case in point Eddie Cicotte testified that he got the idea bc some of the Cubs threw the 1918 World Series. Had there been a set in stone punishment many of the 8 would not have even talked about it let alone done it. They were not banned until 1921 by a commissioner who was not even in authority when the 1919 WS was played.

Now contrast that to Pete Rose...who knew full well that any type of betting would result in a life time ban and he did it anyway...

Given this context yes one could very easily justify voting for Joe Jackson and not Pete Rose

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Even with the livelier ball, his 162 game averages would probably have come down some if he played into his late 30s or early 40s.

Jackson probably would have played until 1928-1930 much like Tris Speaker who I have always felt was a good comp for Jackson...

There is a book where the author tries to determine what the 8 men out would have done had they played full careers "It Ain't So" by Michael Lynch Jr. He goes into great detail. He has Jackson's career ending after the 1929 season with career 3457 hits, .351 ave, 1564 RBI and used Speaker as a predictor for Jackson

It is a fun book to read and a lot of work went into it...yes it is all conjecture but still fun to read...he has Lefty Williams winning 300+ games and Felsch being a HOFer...he has Weaver on the HOF bubble with his 2,900+ hits and .290 career ave. that ended in 1928.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Jackson probably would have played until 1928-1930 much like Tris Speaker who I have always felt was a good comp for Jackson...

There is a book where the author tries to determine what the 8 men out would have done had they played full careers "It Ain't So" by Michael Lynn Jr. He goes into great detail. He has Jackson's career ending after the 1929 season with career 3457 hits, .351 ave, 1564 RBI and used Speaker as a predictor for Jackson

I is a fun book to read and a lot of work went into it...yes it is all conjecture but still fun to read...he has Lefty Williams winning 300+ games and Felsch being a HOFer...he has Weaver on the HOF bubble with his 2,900+ hits and .290 career ave. that ended in 1928.

Sounds like an interesting book but I did a search on Amazon and couldn't find it. Any idea when it was written or where it might be available?

[Knightlax5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The plaques hanging in the Hall celebrate the players. There is no way in hell anyone is going to put on Rose's plaque, "Serious allegations were made that he had sex with underage girls." Nor should they. Come on. Either let him in or keep him out.

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Sounds like an interesting book but I did a search on Amazon and couldn't find it. Any idea when it was written or where it might be available?

Michael LYNCH Jr...sorry I got his name wrong there. Amazon link...kind of pricey...published in 2008...very well done

https://www.amazon.com/Aint-So-Might.../dp/0786441895

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

You still said he was found innocent. What are you talking about regarding that? As far as I know, the only charge he was ever tried on was tax evasion, and he was guilty and served time for that.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Michael LYNCH Jr...sorry I got his name wrong there. Amazon link...kind of pricey...published in 2008...very well done

https://www.amazon.com/Aint-So-Might.../dp/0786441895

Thanks. Not sure it's worth the price unfortunately.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Didn’t throw WS, check his stats for the series.

First four losses, he hit 4 for 16, with 3 of those hits in 1 game. It's easily arguable that his effort fluctuated with whether Chicago was trying to win or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Knightlax5

I'm not talking about the sex stuff, I'm talking about gambling. Any mention of him in the hall of fame has to include gambling, more people know him for gambling than the hits record

There have been Rose items on display for years. Should they have mentioned gambling? If he gets in his plaque is not going to mention gambling.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Maybe I'm tripping up on semantics here, but weren't both Mickey and Willie (as mentioned by another poster) also banned from baseball while members of the Hall. AFAIK, their standing in the Hall did not change with Kuhn's ruling.

You are 100% correct.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Tabe

First four losses, he hit 4 for 16, with 3 of those hits in 1 game. It's easily arguable that his effort fluctuated with whether Chicago was trying to win or not.

One could argue this yes...0-4 in game 1 looks bad...however...

...there is a strong argument to be made that Games 1 and 2 were thrown and the fix was called off after that with possibly Williams himself throwing game 8 by himself...Jackson was 3-4 in game 2, a fixed game, and 2-5 with 3 RBI & a HR in game 8. Fixer Billy Maharg stated games 1,2, & 8 were fixed.

This is a good example to why you cant judge anything about fixed games...it is possible Jackson was not trying in game 1...it is also possible he had a bad day...Eddie Collins was 1-4 in game 1 and 0-3 in game 2...3-19 in the 5 loses with 3 hits coming in game 8 after the game and series was decided...a performance worse than Jackson's...so was he throwing games?

We can cherry pick the stats of the series many different ways.

I believe Jackson testimony where he said he knew about the fix, turned the offer down, played to win and was given money by his friend Lefty Williams unprompted. He never was in a meeting with players and gamblers unlike Buck Weaver. His total series stats are solid and to suggest he was so good he could get hits at will is kind of crazy to me. I believe Maharg when he said games 1,2 and 8 were fixed...why would he lie about that...

After game 2 Kid Gleason held a team meeting and read them the riot act as they all knew it was being fixed at that point and I think the players straightened up and tried to win from then on...except Williams in game 8...but even then you could argue the pressure got to Williams and he laid an egg in game 8...you can not tell what is real with fixed games. Jackson's name has never came up in regards o fixing games in 1920 either unlike Weaver and other Black Sox. It also goes a long way with me that many of the Clean Sox later in life always said they didnt think Jackson fixed games...or stated some kind of sympathy for the man for his punishment.

And even if I am completely wrong there is enough doubt to warrant reconsideration of Jackson's role...unlike Rose who again knew exactly what he was doing and the punishment

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There have been Rose items on display for years. Should they have mentioned gambling? If he gets in his plaque is not going to mention gambling.

Actually, I would be surprised if his plaque didn't mention gambling just like I would be surprised if any of the players that failed PED tests didn't have it mentioned on their plaques if any ever get in.

[Balticfox]

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).

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?

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]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mark17

It does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?

Yes, those words of yours do indeed sound ridiculous.

[Balticfox]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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".

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Brent G.

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

Uggghhh. Take your psycho babble elsewhere.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Snowman]

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

[Balticfox]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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:

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:

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]

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:

Originally Posted by G1911

14 year old children can’t give meaningful consent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by snowman

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

+1000000

[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."

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]

burn it all down