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

[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.