46DidIt

Clevinger put up 3.2 WAR in 28 starts for the Sox, just for the record. Last I checked, that’s pretty good

A diet coke

The offseason after the Tigers lost 119 games, they acquired Ivan Rodriguez, Rondell White and Carlos Guillen. The next offseason Magglio and a bunch of quality relievers, and then Polanco early in season. Next off season, Kenny Rogers. The following season, they made it to the world series only three years after 119 losses. That kind of runs counter to argument that adding quality major leaguers to a 119+ loss team is a bad idea, imo

Perez, B. Wilson, Martin, Cannon, Thorpe Karinchak, Anderson, Booser, Berroa, Varland, Shuster, Ellard, Burke I think Wilson was promised a starting role until he’s traded, based off nothing other than I think he could have signed somewhere better for as much or more had he accepted a bullpen role. Only makes sense for Perez or him to sign with Sox if they believe they are in line for starts imo. Burke in swing role depending on Thorpe’s availability.

Lee Thais Vaughn Sosa Meidroth Baldwin Vargas Rojas Benintendi Taylor Tauchaman Slater Fletcher Is my prediction on the batter side

Quintana was one of my favorite Sox of all time. I’d hate to watch him suffer through a season with this team

So if I produced a photo showing an unknown mark on an unknown person’s skin I should be fine then

The fact you bring up unreported crime further shows the irrationality of your opinion. This case WAS reported to police and investigated by police Yet somehow you think it was a valid counterargument to say I don’t acknowledge unreported crime. That literally makes no sense. How can you not see that.

Also, 46 did it. And by it, I mean IT.

And let’s face it. We all know if I wanted to scour the history of Soxtalk, that I would find plenty of evidence that those taking this position of guilt no matter what had an extremely strong bias against Clevinger’s “type” before any accusations were ever leveled against him. Don’t even try to deny it because I don’t want to waste any more of my time with your horseshit position when we all know it is true

That’s my point. One can not to be acquitted, ie exonerated, in a case which never went to trial in first place. Therefore it is irrational to conclude he should be considered guilty due to lack of exoneration.

I’ll acknowledge that many crimes are unreported. Now what? My point is, that to claim some one may be presumed guilty, as your side of argument is doing, until they have been exonerated when that person hasn’t gone to trial and therefore can never be exonerated, is an irrational argument that can never be defeated on its own merit because it is a fallacy. Point of my claim that you beat your wife and cannot prove otherwise since we can presume that according to your own argument she may too intimidated to come forward is that you can not disprove my claim. you witnessed nothing so not sure why you even brought that up. Those photos showing a couple light marks on some unknown person’s skin means absolutely nothing. You can’t even reasonably demonstrate the origin or actual nature of those photos. It is possible he did in fact commit the abuse, and youre free to believe what you wish. But to act as if your conclusion is based on sound premises that should be accepted on the face of it is entirely absurd. Given that both police and mlb investigation found lacking evidence, to conclude that he is not necessarily guilty is actually the reasonable position. yet here you are arguing people should be banned for stating a reasonable position, which just further illustrates the irrationality of your position.

So there is no way for him to be exonerated, if true. Like I said an impossible standard that your side of argument demands in order to maintain position that he is guilty

Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise.

Exoneration is an impossible standard for him to reach when prosecutors didn’t find ample evidence to even put him on trial. So by your logic any person accused can be presumed guilty. How do we know you haven’t beaten your wife and she is simply too dominated by you and the patriarchy to make an accusation? I’d have to assume that is the case since you can’t prove otherwise.

I’m just going to assume every one here has beaten their wife since none of you have proven otherwise

How many brains do you have?

I love semantic quibbles they are so valuable. Thanks for the response

s%*# wrong thread

IMO the first 90 feet are the most important by far, so if that .437 OBP translates at all to major league level I could give two shits about seven homeruns

People forget the white flag trade wasn’t the only element of the white flag. They also traded Harold for a bag of balls

No

If I open up a s%*# sandwich cafe in Chicago, does that mean I’m a big market restauranteur

Is this a trick question?