Beware of karma

[Draft Dodger]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/18/MNGN78R6V01.DTL

article is about the guy who got Bond's 700 HR ball (after a scuffle where, allegedly, an 11-year old kid had the ball taken from him).

Asked what he planned to do with the ball, he replied, "Are you kidding? I'm going to sell it. It's the only reason I came to the game." at least he's honest, but beware of that karma payback - it's a bitch

[SackAttack]

Winning bid: two bits.

[mckerney]

I was hoping whoever caught it would give it to Bonds. :(

[Anthony]

i think i'd have given it to Bonds. only because the last people to have one of his HR balls wound up having to split the proceeds with other people who had some silly claim to it. i think i'd quickly work out a deal where Bonds got the ball and i got a ton of autographed memorabilia which combined would bring me just as much money once sold. i wouldn't give it to him out of respect, just having autographed stuff is easier to move and sell than magic #700, which would have to be sold through an auction house.

[Blackadar]

I hope on #715, there's something on the ticket stub that says the ball is the property of MLB and must be returned.

[Fritz]

The Law of Karma
In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)
Therefore, the law of Karma teaches that responsibility for unskillful actions is born by the person who commits them.

Let's take an example of a sequence of events. An unpleasant sensation occurs. A thought arises that the source of the unpleasantness was a person. (This thought is a delusion; any decisions based upon it will therefore be unskillful.) A thought arises that some past sensations of unpleasantness issued from this same person. (This thought is a further delusion.) This is followed by a willful decision to speak words that will produce an unpleasant sensation in that which is perceived as a person. (This decision is an act of hostility. Of all the events described so far, only this is called a karma.) Words are carefully chosen in the hopes that when heard they will cause pain. The words are pronounced aloud. (This is the execution of the decision to be hostile. It may also be classed as a kind of karma, although technically it is an after-karma.) There is a visual sensation of a furrowed brow and downturned mouth. The thought arises that the other person's face is frowning. The thought arises that the other person's feelings were hurt. There is a fleeting joyful feeling of success in knowing that one has scored a damaging verbal blow. Eventually (perhaps much later) there is an unpleasant sensation of regret, perhaps taking the form of a sensation of fear that the perceived enemy may retaliate, or perhaps taking the form of remorse on having acted impetuously, like an immature child, and hping that no one will remember this childish action. (This regret or fear is the unpleasant ripening of the karma, the unskillful decision to inflict pain through words.)

If there are no persons at all, then there is no self and no other. There is no distinction between pain of which there is direct sensual awareness (which is conventionally called one's own pain) and pain that is known through inference (conventionally called another person's pain). Whether pain is known directly or indirectly, there is either an urge to quell it or an urge to cultivate it. Whether joy is known directly or indirectly, there is either an urge to nourish it or to quell it. In the conventional language of speaking of events personally, the urge to quell all pain and to nourish all joy is known as being ethical or skillful or (if you like) good. The urge to nourish pain and quell joy is known as being unskillful, unethical or bad.

Being fully ethical is said to be impossible for those who make a distinction between self and other and show preference for the perceived self over the perceived other, for such perceptions inhibit being fully responsive. Being fully ethical is possible only for those who realize that all persons are empty, that is, devoid of personhood


karma

[The_herd]

Bonds would probably just turn around and sell it on his website.

[sterlingice]

article is about the guy who got Bond's 700 HR ball (after a scuffle where, allegedly, an 11-year old kid had the ball taken from him).
Let's be fair, every three or four fans at an MLB game is going to be a little kid. I doubt he threw a kid down to get to it or we'd hear all about it like the Rangers game, but there was probably a kid in the area so the article writer had some extra crap to write about.

SI

[sterlingice]

That said, this guy is an asshat if the only reason he came was to catch the home run ball. Hell, I'd try to strike some deal to get some minor memorabilia out of the deal in a "trade" with the HoF.

SI

[SackAttack]

Let's be fair, every three or four fans at an MLB game is going to be a little kid. I doubt he threw a kid down to get to it or we'd hear all about it like the Rangers game, but there was probably a kid in the area so the article writer had some extra crap to write about.

SI

From the sound of the article I read, the kid had the ball, got dogpiled, and the ball got ripped from his hands. Dunno if this guy did the ripping, but the kid claims to have had it and then had it forcibly taken from him.

[MrBug708]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/18/MNGN78R6V01.DTL

article is about the guy who got Bond's 700 HR ball (after a scuffle where, allegedly, an 11-year old kid had the ball taken from him).

Asked what he planned to do with the ball, he replied, "Are you kidding? I'm going to sell it. It's the only reason I came to the game." at least he's honest, but beware of that karma payback - it's a bitch

Giants fans for ya :D

[Tom E]

I'd give him he ball and I'm not a millionare. 700 homers is mind boggling, he deserves the ball--if he wants it. Money is gret, but at the end of the day theirs a lot more to life.

[tucker342]

I think I would also give Bonds the ball. I mean you would get more than enough autographed stuff to make up for it.

[bbor]

I'd give Bonds the ball too....if he agreed to give me number 756 :)

[Suicane75]

If I were Bonds I would offer the guy $2 Million for the ball and then sign it and give it to the kid. Then everybody would love me, and i could go take some more steroids. :D

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think I would also give Bonds the ball. I mean you would get more than enough autographed stuff to make up for it.
Whoa, remember that this is Barry Bonds we're talking about here. If you gave him the ball, he'd probably take it without giving you shit, because he thinks he deserves it.

[jeff061]

He'd give you a punch to the throat for stealing his ball.

[Brillig]

Whoa, remember that this is Barry Bonds we're talking about here. If you gave him the ball, he'd probably take it without giving you shit, because he thinks he deserves it.
I know everyone loves to hate Bonds, but that's completely unsupported by the facts, doof.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/13/MNG8A64AAL1.DTL


And then, of course, it turned out to be an absolutely lovely first day at home, filled with throwback beauty. Even the man who grabbed the home-run ball, with the decidedly modern name of Larry Ellison (no connection), had a decidedly old-fashioned take on the event. Instead of waiting to see what an auction house could do with the ball, he handed it over to the Giants for the relatively modest price of a few bats, balls and T-shirts signed by Mays and Bonds, plus an invitation to Friday's ceremony commemorating the home run.

[GrantDawg]

I'd keep it and make every dime I could off it. I wouldn't rip it from a 11 year-olds hand, though, so I'd never have the option.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I know everyone loves to hate Bonds, but that's completely unsupported by the facts, doof.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/13/MNG8A64AAL1.DTL
I was joking. Please iron your panties now.