I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[brett]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Two things are abundantly clear here:

It's Jackson (GREAT detective work).

The original poster is far from gracious.

Greg

Thanks Greg, but what should I be gracious about? I brought something huge to this board and instead of appreciation I got a bunch of pseudo-experts on high-horses doubting me and just trying to be contrarians. You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by brett

I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right.

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

That's fine. At this point all I want is for people to realize that we just discovered a new Joe Jackson card together. I've been pretty sure about it for a while and I recently decided to share it with everybody here. If I were doing it for selfish reasons I would have scooped up the 3 that I saw on ebay first.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

You may well be right about the card.

You are 100% dead wrong about your attitude.

Besides, anybody who has a picture of Lajoie (my all-time favorite player) on their avatar is a friend of mine.

[thekingofclout]

Hey Brett. That has been a very long 15 minutes, but I think your time is about up.

Certainly enjoyed it though.

Jimmy

[brett]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Hey Brett. That has been a very long 15 minutes, but I think your time is about up.

Certainly enjoyed it though.

Jimmy

Now that's not very nice. I think a simple "thank you" would be more in order. In fact, I think you should be encouraging me to stick around here longer... you might learn something else interesting from me.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by brett

Thanks Greg, but what should I be gracious about? I brought something huge to this board and instead of appreciation I got a bunch of pseudo-experts on high-horses doubting me and just trying to be contrarians. You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

Marshall Barkman the Fourth??

[carrigansghost]

Call the teacher over, the kids are fighting at recess again. This is one of the best posts of the, as yet, short year.

Rawn

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by brett

You admitted that you agree with me and you're smarter for it. I'm the type of person who will quickly apologize or admit whenever I'm wrong, but I usually won't take such a strong and arrogant stance unless I KNOW I'm right. This is one of those instances. Thanks for at least being one of the people on this board who have logic and common sense.

So everyone that agrees with you is smarter then they were a couple days ago? Also why does being right = having to be arrogant about it?

You contributed to the board with a great thread; some people think you are 100% right, others think you are strongly on to something. Why can't you leave it at that? Each post you have recently made has been more absurd then the last.

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Rob. I was insulted by the Holocaust analogy too. Not appropriate.

No prob. I don't understand why that would have to be brought up in a vintage card forum to prove a point.

[brett]

Originally Posted by Robextend

So everyone that agrees with you is smarter then they were a couple days ago? Also why does being right = having to be arrogant about it?

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings and don't respect the work of SEVERAL others on this board who busted their asses to uncover the truth then they're the arrogant ones and I'll show them no respect in return.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by brett

Correct. Anybody who accepts the fact that it's Joe Jackson is smarter than someone who doesn't because it's now known to be true. In regards to the arrogance, I already tried to do it the other way and it didn't work. If people don't respect my findings .

Your findings? - you found nothing. Greg found the newspaper photo that provides the only real evidence.

As to your contribution, it pales in comparison to the identifications made in the past by many of the posters who have not agreed with your approach and the certitude of your unsupported initial conclusion.

You see, what you have done here does not take any particular skill or insight. A blurry image that resembles a particular player to almost everyone is probably that player - we all know that. But that won't be and shouldn't be accepted as fact without further evidence, which you did not nor did you know how to provide.

[judsonhamlin]

I think Joe was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in '63.

[tbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by brett
I think you'll see a kinder, gentler, more playful version of me. It's just that I'm very passionate ....

This sounds like it belongs in Playboy's Playmate Data Sheet.

Jeff- My smile of the week.

[brett]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Your findings? - you found nothing. Greg found the newspaper photo that provides the only real evidence.

As to your contribution, it pales in comparison to the identifications made in the past by many of the posters who have not agreed with your approach and the certitude of your unsupported initial conclusion.

You see, what you have done here does not take any particular skill or insight. A blurry image that resembles a particular player to almost everyone is probably that player - we all know that. But that won't be and shouldn't be accepted as fact without further evidence, which you did not nor did you know how to provide.

My god you're such an authority I'd give anything to have your approval. You've been exposed on this board as nothing but a fraud and now you're attacking the messanger. The only thing that's blurry is obviously your vision. Just admit that you and a few of your buddies here have been proven wrong by a first-time poster and let it go.