Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
You can change tone, but drastically changing the *way* that you communicate is very difficult. And one thing I got a lot of experience with managing BTF day-to-day was ferreting out sockpuppets.
And one thing I got a lot of experience with managing BTF day-to-day was ferreting out sockpuppets.
Publius is not nearly as belligerently offensive as Kevin was, perhaps he's gotten older and mellower, perhaps he's making a conscious effort to not get banned, perhaps he's staying on his meds :-). Publius' beliefs regarding various topics appear to match Kevin's, but Publius is more, ahem, tactful, in how he presents them
dlf (or anybody else): Is the arbitrator constrained to make a ruling between what the two parties are asking for (i.e., between 0 and 211 games in this case)? If MLB were to make the argument, "A-Rod used in 2009: violation 1; A-Rod used in 2010: violation 2; A-Rod used in 2011: violation 3. Under the terms of MLB drug policy, 3 violations can be punished by a lifetime ban. We only did 211 games as a courtesy to A-Rod." Could the arbitrator (theoretically - setting aside the likelihood of this actually happening) say, "I agree with MLB: this is 3 separate violations. I'm going to ban A-Rod for life."?
Then how come you never found out any of mine?
(Confession: I'm RDP as well as Esoteric. All those knock-down dragouts we've had over steroids are really just me arguing Sybil-like with myself.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.2969 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed