statjeff pretty much explains it best here. you guys have your opinions, i have mine. i really have nothing else to say.
come on you cant be serious. i have to listen to guys like davecrazy and joejet who are only here to talk shit about the yankees. or look at avatars like the one FITM has. i have no problem with the mets, but a lot of the fans on this board are assholes. yes that is a blanket statement. deal with it.
I'm not davecrazy. I'm not JoeJet. Stop putting me in the same category with them. If you want to play that way, I can group you with jkgrandchamp, rogerblaze, DROB28CMART, 51pa, and all the other asshole Yankees fans that have posted here.
he and I are on the same page there. i am no way arguing that clemens is not guilty, just that you cant be sure that he is guilty or be able to convict him.
you said "most Mets fans here are bitter." I say you're wrong. Your response points to JoeJet and davecrazy? C'mon now.
You can be convinced of something and still vote not to convict based on the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. I wouldn't vote to convict him either. But I'm convinced he did them.
ok well i misunderstood you because i thought from a previous comment you made that you would convict him. i guess i also misunderstood your use of "convince", i figured you meant that you were 100% sure, beyond a reasonable doubt convinced.
I think Roger dug himself deeper. Is all this really worth it when he possibly gets a Perjury charge and still misses the HOF? He could of easily admitted, then ride off in the sunset like McGwire. But this has Pete Rose written all over it. I think Mr. "McNamay" is also a bullshitter, but I believe him more than I do Clemens.
Well, I'm glad we all can get along, but to be honest I thought I was disagreeing with you. I would guess that most people who chose "I'm convinced" meant it the way I did - they've been persuaded by all of the evidence that Clemens did it, not they believe it beyond a reasonable doubt (the word convinced means the former, not the latter). In any event, clarity is always good. On the other hand, as a Met fan I certainly don't appreciate the ridiculous and insulting generalizations that you keep making. I must say, this seems to be becoming a favorite tactic of some Yankee fans on the board - insult Met fans, and then say that it's just a proactive result to be ahead of "all the Met fans who troll the Yankee threads". I've never posted in a Yankee game thread ever, and have rarely posted in anything Yankee related (the Clemens situation is obviously far beyond just a Yankee thing). There are about 3 Met fans on this board whose behavior is to me unreasonable, and there are easily that many Yankee fans who are the same. I think the civility of the Baseball Forum would improve tremendously if people stopped calling people trolls for daring to root for a different team, and stopped criticizing all of those fans for the behavior of just a few. It easily cuts both ways.
I think you guys are arguing over semantics. There are different levels of conviction regarding a belief that Clemens did steroids. I voted that I "think" he does it, because I have not seen concrete proof that he has, and so my belief that he has done steroids is still conjecture. It might be a fairly confident conjecture on my part, but it's conjecture nonetheless. So without actually knowing the truth, how convinced am I? Am I convinced enough that I would make a friendly, non-substantial monetary wager with someone who thinks he didn't do steroids? Sure. Am I convinced enough that I would hesitate to vote him into the Hall of Fame (assuming that one believes steroid users should be prevented from getting in)? Probably. Am I convinced enough to make a large monetary wager? No. Am I convinced enough to sacrifice something important to me if I'm wrong? No. Am I convinced enough that I'd be willing to convict him of perjury? No. If you want this conversation to be meaningful, it should be a sliding scale of just how convinced you are, with one being that you wouldn't even make a friendly wager on it, and ten being that you would slaughter your firstborn child and then chop off the fingers on your dominant hand if you were wrong.
:lol: I'm at the same level of conviction as Cappy. With most people that's the same thing anyway. I also wouldn't. And by the way, great post by statjeff. Right on the money.
Very true, but I guess I was thinking of items you might own that aren't necessarily valued monetarily. Sentimental or non-replaceable items. I have a 1976 Alvarez Yairi guitar that I bought for $550 at a flea market, but is worth a lot more than that. Or my father's old Gibson acoustic. It's a little beat up, but it's the guitar I learned on, and is so frikkin' playable. I wouldn't sell either of them for $20,000. And I mean that. I also have a collection of ticket stubs from the 100+ shows I saw in college. Nothing special about them, but I'd rather lose $1000 in a bet than lose that collection. That's the kind of stuff I was talking about.
statjeff, im sorry if i offended you with the mets fans comments, i was just expressing frustration...i will admit it. although there are people on this board that are trolls there are obviously others whose opinions i respect. i wasnt trying to group you or yisman into that category. you both have my apologies. my argument was not about if clemens was guilty but wether roger clemens would get caught or convicted. the mets fans comments were out of place.
Am I convinced? Absolutely..... call me a bitter Met fan but you don't throw a 98 MPH fastball at somebody's head because they hit a HR off you. You throw at his back or ass but his head!!! He then follows that up by throwing a bat at that guy. You don't even need McNamee's statement. The fact that Pettite and people are forgetting that Knobluach also gave similar statement's that Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. What is this some conspiracy against Roger by his friends? He possibly tampered with a witness in this nanny that he after 7 years of not speaking to her he calls her out of the blue in which he claims he did them a favor. Wrong a favor is giving them her number not having her come to Houston to meet with you knowing that they wanted to speak with her. How about the fact that Clemens admitted he knew what McNamee was doing yet when asked why he kept him employeed Roger had no answer? The injury to his butt that did come from an injection His wife admitted to using HGH The lie he got caught in about Mitchell not attempting to contact him which when called on it did a better spin job than Bill O Riley on defending Repulican policies His poor old Roger act about "not being able to restore his legacy" Sorry innocent people don't resort to this Hollywood tactic. Don't get me wrong because clearly the credibilty of these Reps should be called into question after Roger was up on Capital Hill taking pictures and signing autographs for these guys. That is a conflict of intrest if you ask me. People can call it biased and maybe it is but when I look at what I consider to be facts Clemens clearly was using something to enhance his career and his legacy.
