Bartman should be a rich man right now!

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
One thing I dont condone are the self appointed morality police who go around telling people whether hostility is justified.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This could be the funniest thing ever that someone has written in response to an opinion I've given ... on a message board on which the purpose is to state opinions. I'll leave it to you to figure out why ...

Do I think it is reasonable to expect that someone would be angry if I did something stupid? Hmmm ... I suppose, if I agreed that what I did was stupid. But to the point of assault for touching a baseball?? Come on ... Now that to me is dumb and ignorant ... and, in fact, punishable. Not touching a baseball ... bah!

I'm happy to hear that you would not have approached him, but if you think that the beer throwing and physical threats were justified, then I emphatically disagree with your position.

That's it. Nothing personal. We just on opposite ends of the spectrum on this point ...

[samjjones]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

[samjjones]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

[samjjones]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
BaldEaglePride said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
One thing I dont condone are the self appointed morality police who go around telling people whether hostility is justified.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This could be the funniest thing ever that someone has written in response to an opinion I've given ... on a message board on which the purpose is to state opinions. I'll leave it to you to figure out why ...

Do I think it is reasonable to expect that someone would be angry if I did something stupid? Hmmm ... I suppose, if I agreed that what I did was stupid. But to the point of assault for touching a baseball?? Come on ... Now that to me is dumb and ignorant ... and, in fact, punishable. Not touching a baseball ... bah!

I'm happy to hear that you would not have approached him, but if you think that the beer throwing and physical threats were justified, then I emphatically disagree with your position.

That's it. Nothing personal. We just on opposite ends of the spectrum on this point ...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context. Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry? I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it. Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction. You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened. And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
BaldEaglePride said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
One thing I dont condone are the self appointed morality police who go around telling people whether hostility is justified.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This could be the funniest thing ever that someone has written in response to an opinion I've given ... on a message board on which the purpose is to state opinions. I'll leave it to you to figure out why ...

Do I think it is reasonable to expect that someone would be angry if I did something stupid? Hmmm ... I suppose, if I agreed that what I did was stupid. But to the point of assault for touching a baseball?? Come on ... Now that to me is dumb and ignorant ... and, in fact, punishable. Not touching a baseball ... bah!

I'm happy to hear that you would not have approached him, but if you think that the beer throwing and physical threats were justified, then I emphatically disagree with your position.

That's it. Nothing personal. We just on opposite ends of the spectrum on this point ...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context. Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry? I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it. Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction. You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened. And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
BaldEaglePride said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
One thing I dont condone are the self appointed morality police who go around telling people whether hostility is justified.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This could be the funniest thing ever that someone has written in response to an opinion I've given ... on a message board on which the purpose is to state opinions. I'll leave it to you to figure out why ...

Do I think it is reasonable to expect that someone would be angry if I did something stupid? Hmmm ... I suppose, if I agreed that what I did was stupid. But to the point of assault for touching a baseball?? Come on ... Now that to me is dumb and ignorant ... and, in fact, punishable. Not touching a baseball ... bah!

I'm happy to hear that you would not have approached him, but if you think that the beer throwing and physical threats were justified, then I emphatically disagree with your position.

That's it. Nothing personal. We just on opposite ends of the spectrum on this point ...

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context. Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry? I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it. Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction. You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened. And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
samjjones said:
Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No kidding...it did precede it however. The Cubs seemed a little rattled after the Bartman grab.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
samjjones said:
Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No kidding...it did precede it however. The Cubs seemed a little rattled after the Bartman grab.

[Lex]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
samjjones said:
Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No kidding...it did precede it however. The Cubs seemed a little rattled after the Bartman grab.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context.

I did not call you ignorant. I called people who think that assaulting the guy was an appropriate course of action "dumb and ignorant ... and punishable." I'm sorry you misinterpreted. I suppose I could've worded it better. But, this is the second time you've tried to insult me. Let's try and keep this civil.


Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry?

Nope. Not shocking that they would be angry. I understand angry. I was angry. I don't understand the need to assign blame. And, I also don't understand the need to throw things at him, or chase him down to harm him. If you want to blame Bartmann, or agree with anyone who does, then that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to disagree with that opinion.


I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it.

First, I don't "want" to think that you think it's okay to assault anyone. I got that impression from your post, and I've been trying to understand your point of view. Second, I agree that it is hard to tell people how to feel, but it's not that hard to tell people how to behave. Assault is against the law. People get arrested for that sort of thing. This isn't a rule I just made up out of the blue. It's been around for some time, now.


Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction.

I don't believe you need to come down on anyone at all. But those who threw things at him were wrong in doing so. It was an unfortunate incident.


You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened.

I don't want to regulate anybody. But people should abide by the law. I'm sure we can agree on that. And sure, if he didn't touch the ball, none of this would have happened ... to Steve Bartmann. But, that doesn't mean the Cubs would've won the game. No guarantee that Alou catches that ball, even if Bartmann doesn't knock it away.


And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

I sort of agree with this. I don't think everyone would've reached out for the ball. But, I can understand that there are those that would. It's a reactionary thing. Different people react differently under certain circumstances. I can't blame the Cubs' loss on Bartmann because he did something reactionary. They weren't losing at the time, and they still had game seven. I highly doubt Mr. Bartmann wanted to impact the game in such a negative fashion, and I'm quite certain he feels badly about it. But in the grand scheme of things, it is just a baseball game.

The Cubs have another shot at the World Series this year, and the next, and the next ... But, Mr. Bartmann only gets one chance to live his life, and he should be allowed to do so without repercussions for the outcome of game 6 of the NLCS in 2003. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context.

I did not call you ignorant. I called people who think that assaulting the guy was an appropriate course of action "dumb and ignorant ... and punishable." I'm sorry you misinterpreted. I suppose I could've worded it better. But, this is the second time you've tried to insult me. Let's try and keep this civil.


Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry?

Nope. Not shocking that they would be angry. I understand angry. I was angry. I don't understand the need to assign blame. And, I also don't understand the need to throw things at him, or chase him down to harm him. If you want to blame Bartmann, or agree with anyone who does, then that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to disagree with that opinion.


I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it.

First, I don't "want" to think that you think it's okay to assault anyone. I got that impression from your post, and I've been trying to understand your point of view. Second, I agree that it is hard to tell people how to feel, but it's not that hard to tell people how to behave. Assault is against the law. People get arrested for that sort of thing. This isn't a rule I just made up out of the blue. It's been around for some time, now.


Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction.

I don't believe you need to come down on anyone at all. But those who threw things at him were wrong in doing so. It was an unfortunate incident.


You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened.

I don't want to regulate anybody. But people should abide by the law. I'm sure we can agree on that. And sure, if he didn't touch the ball, none of this would have happened ... to Steve Bartmann. But, that doesn't mean the Cubs would've won the game. No guarantee that Alou catches that ball, even if Bartmann doesn't knock it away.


And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

I sort of agree with this. I don't think everyone would've reached out for the ball. But, I can understand that there are those that would. It's a reactionary thing. Different people react differently under certain circumstances. I can't blame the Cubs' loss on Bartmann because he did something reactionary. They weren't losing at the time, and they still had game seven. I highly doubt Mr. Bartmann wanted to impact the game in such a negative fashion, and I'm quite certain he feels badly about it. But in the grand scheme of things, it is just a baseball game.

The Cubs have another shot at the World Series this year, and the next, and the next ... But, Mr. Bartmann only gets one chance to live his life, and he should be allowed to do so without repercussions for the outcome of game 6 of the NLCS in 2003. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[BaldEaglePride]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

What is ignorant is your willingness to disaggregate it from its context.

I did not call you ignorant. I called people who think that assaulting the guy was an appropriate course of action "dumb and ignorant ... and punishable." I'm sorry you misinterpreted. I suppose I could've worded it better. But, this is the second time you've tried to insult me. Let's try and keep this civil.


Sure he touched a ball but look at the circumstances. Is it so shocking that people would be angry?

Nope. Not shocking that they would be angry. I understand angry. I was angry. I don't understand the need to assign blame. And, I also don't understand the need to throw things at him, or chase him down to harm him. If you want to blame Bartmann, or agree with anyone who does, then that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to disagree with that opinion.


I think you are getting confused about my point of view. You seem to want to think I think its ok to assault people (i dont), however, in unusual circumstances such as these its hard to tell everyone how they should feel and behave in response to it.

First, I don't "want" to think that you think it's okay to assault anyone. I got that impression from your post, and I've been trying to understand your point of view. Second, I agree that it is hard to tell people how to feel, but it's not that hard to tell people how to behave. Assault is against the law. People get arrested for that sort of thing. This isn't a rule I just made up out of the blue. It's been around for some time, now.


Lets see you have multitudes of people who are behving stupidly because of something one person did. You can either try to come down on the masses or you can come down on the person who caused the reaction.

I don't believe you need to come down on anyone at all. But those who threw things at him were wrong in doing so. It was an unfortunate incident.


You seem to want to regulate the masses which to me is like holding a tiger by the tail. It makes more sense to me to look at the cause, ie what Bartmand did. Had he not imprudently touched the ball then none of this would have happened.

I don't want to regulate anybody. But people should abide by the law. I'm sure we can agree on that. And sure, if he didn't touch the ball, none of this would have happened ... to Steve Bartmann. But, that doesn't mean the Cubs would've won the game. No guarantee that Alou catches that ball, even if Bartmann doesn't knock it away.


And I dont by the "anyone would have touched the ball" excuse because I think the more natural thing to do is avoid the ball unless you 1) have a mit or 2) are able to grab on the rebound.

I sort of agree with this. I don't think everyone would've reached out for the ball. But, I can understand that there are those that would. It's a reactionary thing. Different people react differently under certain circumstances. I can't blame the Cubs' loss on Bartmann because he did something reactionary. They weren't losing at the time, and they still had game seven. I highly doubt Mr. Bartmann wanted to impact the game in such a negative fashion, and I'm quite certain he feels badly about it. But in the grand scheme of things, it is just a baseball game.

The Cubs have another shot at the World Series this year, and the next, and the next ... But, Mr. Bartmann only gets one chance to live his life, and he should be allowed to do so without repercussions for the outcome of game 6 of the NLCS in 2003. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[NYJets]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Lex said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
samjjones said:
Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No kidding...it did precede it however. The Cubs seemed a little rattled after the Bartman grab.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, a team that gets rattled by a fan touching a ball that he had every right to touch doesn't deserve to be in the World Series anyway.

[NYJets]

Re: Bartman should be a rich man right now!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Lex said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
samjjones said:
Bartman didn't boot the double play grounder. Alex Gonzalez did.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No kidding...it did precede it however. The Cubs seemed a little rattled after the Bartman grab.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, a team that gets rattled by a fan touching a ball that he had every right to touch doesn't deserve to be in the World Series anyway.