Archived comment by ParU:
Well penguinchick - just keep looking...

Archived comment by JAMES:
HI JUST HI

Archived comment by penguinchick:
Woohoo!! Now I just need to find a guy and convince him to propose to me in Fenway...shouldn't be tough if I manage to snag one of the Sox. Teehee.

Archived comment by tim:
That's a deal...and I'll throw in a bag of fresh roasted peanuts too.

Archived comment by penguinchick:
Thanks Tim :) So you gonna buy one of those subs for me and my Red Sox hubby too? *grin*

Archived comment by tim:
penguinchick..A noble ambition indeed.
Let me know if and when the proposal takes place...I'd go to that game and toast the newly engaged with a sausage, pepper, and onion sub and a 7 dollar beer.
As for marrying someone on the team...I wouldn't hound you for tickets...much.....honest.
: D

Archived comment by hypoxic:
I get to sit in a luxary box! Woohoo. I've never done that before either.

Archived comment by ParU:
hypo - minor league baseball is GREAT. I've seen the Durham Bulls a few times - great game and you get to sit up close.

Archived comment by Inuki:
Among my friends, there's a handful of hardcore baseball fans, a few people who don't mind it, and then a fairly large "rest of us" who really aren't that fond of it. In a chat, I once asked the hardcore fans several times to please not discuss baseball, and one of them replied "but we're not talking about baseball.. We're talking about, uh, wooketry. Yeah. Wooketry." Everyone laughed.

...I think wooketry should be a sport where you hit the etry and run around the wooks, but that's me.

Archived comment by marinerd:
I love minor league baseball--I should go see the Aqua Sox, but I don't relish that drive.

Archived comment by hypoxic:
hey I get to go to a Toledo Mudhen game on Friday! I'm pretty excited as this will be my first minor league game.

The only drawback is that I have to go to Toledo :(

Archived comment by Apple:
Another baseball nut here!

For his birthday (on Friday), I'm taking Mr Man to the Cardinal/Cubs game. Well, actually, we'll be going on Thursday, when they're in St. Louis, but still it's a fine gift idea! Right behind first base! Watch for us on TV!

Hee!

I prefer the White Sox. (Yes, even though they stink on ice!) My dad and I used to have father/daughter day at Comiskey. It's a tradition thing.

I have no idea why I married a Cubs fan. *grin*

Archived comment by marinerd:
Too bad Nomar is already spoken for, eh?

Archived comment by penguinchick:
Actually, you three arent alone. I, too, am a baseball nut. According to my brother, I've gone to the extreme, because not only am I a huge Red Sox fan, I've decided that my goal is to marry someone on the team (or at least be proposed to in Fenway Park, whenever that time may come.) Obsessed? Me?

Archived comment by marinerd:
I watched the Diamondbacks game on ESPN last night (just to watch a couple of teams that are struggling as bad as mine), and have to say that Mark Grace is the funniest baseball guy out there. He's like a modern-day Bob Uecker. It made me happy to be a fan. I hope he goes into announcing when he's through playing.

Archived comment by yoda:
i'll jump on the baysball bandwagon. go a's and giants!

Archived comment by hypoxic:
ehh oh well the pads haven't even been competitive this year so I can't say much. Oh well there's always next year.

Archived comment by ParU:
Nah ChristyMC - I just can't spell.

marinerd and tim - do you think it's interesting that the three baseball nuts on IP (thee and me) are all rooting for teams that are competing against each other? (A's and Sox for Wild Card - A's and Mariners for Division).

Plus the Giants are in 1st Place!

Archived comment by ChristyMC:
Dave, I do believe ParU's choice of loyality rather than loyalty to make his point lent a rather presidential flavor to his comments. We all must remember that we are in a time of intense innovation in American English. So far our inventiveness has extended to creating the words strategery, misunderestimate, orientated and edimification. With the same spirit that spawned Manifest Destiny, I say we go forward and embrace, yea embrace, LOYALITY!

Archived comment by tim:
Funny...we just had a great 4 game winning streak.
; )

Archived comment by marinerd:
Well, ParU, since you're fishing, I'll bite. You must know I don't lack respect for you (or I don't "disrespect you", for the younger viewers), I just respectfully disagree wtih you.

I don't wanna talk about baseball anymore. We're going through a hideous time of trouble up here (i.e., our team sucks) right now. Of course I will never desert them, but it's quite the rough patch. Fandom ain't for sissies.

Archived comment by dave:
Do you mean loyalty ParU?

Archived comment by ParU:
I didn't say it wasn't dishonorable just that it wasn't illegal. And loyality up is only worth it when there's loyality down and trust me, there's darn little loyality down, especially these days.

Archived comment by hypoxic:
"I guess I just have more empathy for those players of yesteryear who were so exploited by the greedy capitalistic owners. And I tend to agree with you that today's players aren't overpaid, cause if the players weren't paid that much then the owners would keep that money."
-ParU

Whoa! Is this the ParU that we all know and love railing against capitalism? Never thought I'd see the day.

Don't really know what I can say about this besides I don't agree with it and I doubt ParU will ever change his opinion. So why bother. That or ParU entrenched himself so far in that he can't climb back out ;)

And isn't capitalism what got us where we are today? and no ones forcing you to watch baseball before in the past or today. So if you really feel bad for the players don't watch them and they'll still play for the love of the game and the owners will soon be broke paying them their exorbident salaries. This way everybody wins. Supply will again equal demand. Ah yes capital!

Archived comment by tim:
I didn't say dishonest was the same as greedy.
I was addressing your point of players playing for " the love of the game".
And ,as I said, there are players who do that and do community service and stay in the area..etc etc etc.
But I don't think it's the NORM
I think it's a rarity.

As for serving a role in todays society...
it's a game and if they chose to play it then the weekends and injuries are part of the deal.
If they are to be compensated for all their " sacrifices" I think the money would be better spent on police and fireman, or the military if we are to reward those who sacrifice weekends and being away from home.
Face it...to make 3 million dollars for working 6 months out of the year playing a " game" is a great deal.
Why they demand more is beyond me.

And as for loyalty,, sure, if they don't live up to their "salary" they can be traded in a heartbeat.
But that's the same as the CEO who poisons my water.
If he doesn't make a buck ( read...put fans in the seats) he loses his job.
I'm talking about the guys who, if they don't get what they think they are worth, will follow the money.
Mercenaries.
It's not against the law
it's not even wrong
But if you want to speak of loyalty and love of the game and being an outlet for fans and kids..
it's hardly honorable.

Archived comment by ParU:
Sorry marinerd, that I've diminished what little respect you had for me.

I guess I just have more empathy for those players of yesteryear who were so exploited by the greedy capitalistic owners. And I tend to agree with you that today's players aren't overpaid, cause if the players weren't paid that much then the owners would keep that money.

Archived comment by Kris the Girl:
and all I can hear is "blah blah blah, baseball."
I'm impressed by how empassioned you all can be on such a tedious academic argument. I only ever get this excited about stuff like which way the TP goes on the roll, or who is going to be the next Dumbledore. Yes, I know who it is, but back when it was a popular debate? hoo. That was some stuff, right there.

OK ok, I'll leave you to the debate and stop entertaining myself.

Archived comment by marinerd:
And of course, "greedy" is not the same as "dishonest", at least I don't think so.

I was reading an article about how the new big stadiums have really accelerated the big salaries of baseball players. However, most players aren't getting multi-million dollar contracts we read about. They're well paid, but not A-Rod well paid.

And I for one don't think they're particularly over paid in our society. They (and all athletes) serve an important role in modern life, providing a needed outlet for tens of millions of people every day. A movie star can work for a couple of months and get $20 million. A baseball player works 6-7 months a year (no weekends off), half of it away from home, often playing with injuries, and gets (unless you're at A-Rod level) $3 million or so. I think that's average, and many get under a million. The CEO of a company that poisons your water gets way more than that.

I also think most of them love the game, but aren't stupid enough to turn down a raise. And when you talk about loyalty, these players know that the people who control their contracts (the owners) have absolutely no loyalty to them and will drop them in a heartbeat. Many major league players who have played for the Mariners, for example, still live here in the off-season and work in the community. I believe it's the same in other places.

/end rant

Archived comment by Saint:
I guess maybe the question is, was the cheating really "okay" (nothing wrong with it) or was it simply "understandable" (wrong, but not a huge unforgivable deal)?

If Felix pounds on my door one more time, I might kill him--and while I think that would be understandable, it probably wouldn't be okay.

Archived comment by tim:
I think there are some players today who play for the " love of the game".
We have one or two in Boston.
But I don't think it's a prevailing attitude.
Otherwise you'd see them stay with one team, where they've built a fan base, rather than follow the dollars around the league or try and re-negotiate their contracts every 3 or 4 years.
Who can't live on 3 or 4 million dollars a year?
Who needs 20 or 30 million?
It seems to me if it were a simple " love of the game" they'd learn to do it for a decent and reasonable price and not pass the cost on to the fans just so they are getting what the other guys are getting.

Greed is a part of it and always has been.

Archived comment by marinerd:
Well, ParU, I think you're the one who is incorrect, when you say that the ethics in baseball are different now. I happen to know a bit about baseball history, and the players then knew right from wrong just as well as they do now. Cheating might have been more common in the game then, but it was far from universal, most players being honest men, and happy to play for the love of the game, just like now.

I still can't get over my surprise at your attitude about how cheating was okay, despite your "reasons"! Really, it puts you in a whole new light.

Archived comment by ParU:
I guess I was just saying that the 'ethics' in sports (and sports as a big business) has changed significantly in the last 100 years. And hypo if you wouldn't cheat to feed your children then... I don't know, just I know that I'd do anything for my children (including wash Eve's car - she just got back last night - yeah that was an out of left field comment).

marinerd I think you're incorrect. True the rules are pretty much the same but the ethos is different about sports. And it does tie in to the Olympics as I pointed out with the 'elitist' bit about 'amateur athletes' vs. 'professional athletes' (amateur was considered significantly better, though basically it's because they were rich enough (or had a patron) to afford to train). So Prof. athletes (including baseball players) were looked down upon by 'society' (the rich ones, not the poor ones who idolized some of them) and scorned. So some of those athletes, upon who's sweat millions of dollars were made, got a little back. I don't think it was as big a deal as history has made it.

And all parents let their kids win sometimes. Regularly humiliating them is not good. Plus, of course, they grow up and humiliate you soon enough anyway.

Archived comment by marinerd:
One more point you may have overlooked. Every baseball player up until a few decades ago had regular jobs in the off-season. When the baseball season ended, they all went to work. So I think the idea that they had nothing else to turn to is not true. And also, it's not like they were working for free. They did get paid, even if it wasn't as much as they could have gotten with another team. There were no starving children involved.

Archived comment by hypoxic:
nope what I was saying that it isn't acceptable. And if you do it then the punishment is fitting and right. I'm not trying to remove free will and choice here. What I'm saying is that there is a clear moral choice what you do with that choice is your own decision. I can stand up here and pontificate that I would never cheat to feed my children, and I know that there are people out there that would do this, but I've never been forced into a situation like that.

However if you do cheat and are caught I do think that the full weight of the law or rules should be definitely brought against you.

Lets not forget that drug dealers, and here I mean most the guys on the street corner, decide to sell drugs because its a fast and effective way to feed their kids. Is it illegal? yes. does it hurt anyone? no, no one is forced to do this. But is it moral? no. But then again is it moral to sell tobacco or alcohol? with what we know about those substances, no. But my point is that people are left to make decisions on what is right and wrong and if they decide to do something that is right in their eyes but wrong in societies then they are going to have to pay the price. Like the Black Sox.

Archived comment by marinerd:
I see we're flying off in all directions here, like we tend to do. That's cool, but I was trying to stay specifically on the one instance of the Black Sox Scandal, and whether or not the players who cheated deserved the punishment they received. I thought it was a no-brainer that they did, and was shocked to find ParU disagreed.

Getting into hard choices, such as X or Y, is tangential to my point. I agree that in such a situation conscience and flexibility are very important. But it doesn't change my mind about the original argument.

Archived comment by Jon:
Yes, but there was the implication that no cheating in baseball would ever be acceptable, ever. Not even if the alternative was your family going hungry. If it's OK to make a distinction between bad or worse choices in the circumstances you cited, why is it different for the other circumstances?
Is it possible that the magnitude of the situation has a bearing on whether you can make that choice?

Archived comment by hypoxic:
that's obvious you choose the less morally repugnant choice and you deal with the consequences with a clear conscience.

It's like the Unabombers family. Do you turn in your brother? yes even though you are betraying family. Because even though it is not a great choice its better then allowing him to hurt people.

or do you kill an old person or a baby? Neither deserves to die but you got to pick one. Which one do you choose? I go with the kill the old one since the young one still has more life to live. but you're not going to be happy either way and you'll have to deal with it.

Archived comment by Kris the Girl:
Flip a coin.

Archived comment by Jon:
I'm still having trouble understanding the 'absolute morality' perspective. Once you declare all X is bad, always, the one time someone has to make a choice between bad choice X and worse choice Y, they're screwed. Right? They're bad either way, so they should do... what?

Archived comment by hypoxic:
ahh throwing the game...

Why throw it to your kids? If they beat you and find out that you threw it then the game becomes moot. If they beat you legitimately then the victory is just that much sweeter. Also you can help them learn from their mistakes when they lose. Losing to a boss is just silly. Why? So I can be a better suck-up? I've never been a good suck-up so I guess no I won't throw the game.

And kim can do whatever he wants. You don't know that he missed his pitch. So who knows. But if he did it on purpose then shame on him. And if he had bets on it then throw him out of the game.

Archived comment by marinerd:
Oh, and I forgot to mention, these guys weren't the first to suffer that punishment for throwing a baseball game. It's been the punishment in professional baseball since the beginning.

Also, I think ethically there's a big difference between playing sports professionally, and playing them with your children or your boss.

/end rant

Archived comment by marinerd:
Saint, I would say play it by ear, and be pro-active in helping your friend find his own place (not to mention self-esteem).

ParU, I'm curious about your talking about early twentieth century sports as if there were some kind of primitive, proto-humans playing an unfamiliar game. Baseball is still basically the same game now as it was then (most changes are minor and don't affect this argument anyway), and those players were people just like players are now, and should have known right from wrong.

Breaking the hearts of millions of people may not be illegal, but it's still wrong and they knew it was wrong and there's NO EXCUSE for it.

I'm the last person in the world to claim to be morally inflexible, but that's one thing I'm sure of. Just because it's a game, it was still important to a majority of Americans at that time. Banning those players was the right thing to do. Confusing the issue with references to "authority" and "feeding your children" is specious.

The original premise of this argument was whether those eight men received just punishment, and for their acts, they did.

Archived comment by Saint:
Yeah...like I'm ever going to need to know the history of Latin America. If I did need to know, I'm already screwed, cause I couldn't remember it anyway--hence the damn B- that killed my scholarship. Oh, well.

Hey, here's a quick ethical/moral dilemma--if you sort of break up somebody's relationship, and thereby put a friend out-doors, how long are you obligated to let him stay with you? (Our friend Joey was hanging with us last night, and his boyfriend Felix came over and started yelling at him to get in the car, that he didn't have any business out that late or even out of the house at all. Joey didn't want to go with him when he was mad, because he didn't want to get beaten. So I finally got Felix to leave via the combined threat of calling the cops and splitting his skull with an axe-handle. Joey is not exactly sad about leaving the guy who hits him with belts, rocks, and the occasional lamp, but now he has no place to stay. I don't really want a house-guest, but I feel responsible.)

Archived comment by Kris the Girl:
Cheaters only cheat themselves.
*grin*

Archived comment by Saint:
So...would it have been okay for me to cheat in History of Latin America? I've just gotta know.

Archived comment by ParU:
Paul - it kinda comes down to a difference in philosophy and law. Bill C. lied under oath (committed perjury) which is illegal for you and me and shoulda been for him too. But it wasn't illegal to 'throw a game' (it still isn't). It might have been against the 'rules' but it wasn't illegal. Big distinction (at least to me). Hypo's example about specifying an inadequate tensile strength is more of a professional ethics one with important concepts for safety, so perhaps not the best analogy.

I wasn't saying that today baseball players should throw games (though who knows about boxers), but that it's a mistake to apply late 20th Century sports principles to early 20th Century sports.

And I agree about your 'slippery slope' argument. It's the same 'zero tolerance' BS that gets 1st graders suspended from school cause their Mom's left paring knives in their lunches (and they turn them into their teachers who then HAVE to suspend them).

The world ain't black and white and removing people's judgements is a stupid policy.

Archived comment by Paul:
*laugh* Great, now we get into ethics.

ParU, the problem here is one of definition. Where do you draw a line? No one got killed over a baseball game being thrown. No one got killed over Clinton lying about Monica playing skin flute either. Yet people took that pretty seriously.

What we have here is what the ethicists call a "slippery slope". When do you say that's too much to tolerate? If you make an exception for one case, why do you not excuse all the others?

Personally, I think the "slippery slope" thing is total bullshit. That concept alone has wrought more damage to our country than anything else- it's enabled us to go from suing someone for knowingly making an unsafe product to suing someone because we got hurt using a hair dryer in the shower or standing on a stepladder on a moving pickup truck. But where do you draw the line?...

Archived comment by ParU:
Oh no you don't hypo - we ain't gonna discuss football yet...

Your statement I don't think that it is ok to throw a game no matter what. begs for a rebuttal (and you know I'm gonna do it). Let's start with the premise that it's a game. Meaning not life or death. So was it OK for Byung Kim (think that's his name) to throw a straight down the pike fastball to Cal Ripken (who then hit a home run) in Ripken's final All-Star game? Or is it a mistake (to use my example) to let your kids beat you at a game? What are the circumstances that'd cause you to bend your unbendable 'morality'? How about letting your boss beat you at golf?

I think I need pyro Joe our sophist in on this one.

Archived comment by hypoxic:
no I agree with her! We need to kill this woman right now! I mean its only a redskin fan. Not a raider fan.

Archived comment by Apple:
Sarcasm is just lost on some people.

*grin*