Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Canseco


godtomsatan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually I've read everything that you have written, it just doesn't appear that you have any point that you can back up with one bit of evidence.  I'll argue the side with "little tangible evidence" over the side with absolutely no evidence whatsoever everytime.

 

Are you claiming that you did not explicitly say that in your opinion Giambi's tumor had nothing at all to do with steroids?  Is there not circumstantial evidence (hence the need to utilize inference) that points to the exact opposite being true?

Is that not your quote?  But I forgot, according to you...

 

You're probably right...you are 100% correct and it's the rest of the country that is ignorant.  :doah:

By the way, I'm still waiting for the Jets to franchise LaMont Jordan.  :D

 

701039[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm saying that it's stupid to come to conclusions based on little tangible evidence that Giambi's tumor was steroid-related. What are you basing this conclusion on? The fact that steroid use may be "linked" to pituitary tumors. If the fact that X may be "linked" to Y is enough evidence for you to conclude that X caused Y in this situation, I'm not sure what to tell you - you win. As far as evidence goes, it's pointless to try to prove a negative - it's much easier to poke holes in a lame attempt to prove a positive.

 

Explicitly? Haha - read the quote again, dude - if you can't tell that I was being facetious (i.e. I was giving the logical "explanation" when I said that - read it again), I again don't know what to tell you. Then again, it's probably easier for you to just quote me out of context, as you tend to do. Awesome. Anyway - read a little farther and you'll see that I openly admitted that there's a chance that the roid use caused the tumor.

 

One more time - the fact that there's a "chance" or a "link" is by no means enough for any reasonable person to found a conclusion upon. Yes - the general populace is very unreasonable when it comes to steroids. They hear that someone who is/was on roids comes down with cancer/tumor/illness and it 100% has to be the steroids that caused it. Yes - that's ignorant. We know possibly 2% of the surrounding facts and we think we know what happened based on our extremely limited knowledge of the science and what the media tells us? Please.

 

If you had said "I think there's a chance that the tumor may have been caused by the roids" then we wouldn't be having this discussion, because that's a very reasonable thing to say. Acting as if it's a forgone conclusion - that's just not educated.

 

Another instance of your inability to comprehend what you read with the Jordan comment - well played again.

 

And *** you for making me waste more than 2 more minutes on this. I curse your name.

Edited by Balzac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that it's stupid to come to conclusions based on little tangible evidence that Giambi's tumor was steroid-related.  What are you basing this conclusion on?  The fact that steroid use may be "linked" to pituitary tumors.  If the fact that X may be "linked" to Y is enough evidence for you to conclude that X caused Y in this situation, I'm not sure what to tell you - you win.   As far as evidence goes, it's pointless to try to prove a negative - it's much easier to poke holes in a lame attempt to prove a positive.

701163[/snapback]

 

 

 

Do a little reading on how clomiphene works...it directly effects the pituitary and Giambi admitted to using it. But you're probably right again, that's probably just an unrelated coincidence.

 

Explicitly?  Haha - read the quote again, dude - if you can't tell that I was being facetious (i.e. I was giving the logical "explanation" when I said that - read it again), I again don't know what to tell you.  Then again, it's probably easier for you to just quote me out of context, as you tend to do.  Awesome.  Anyway - read a little farther and you'll see that I openly admitted that there's a chance that the roid use caused the tumor. 
Quoting you out of context? Don't try to weasel your way out of what you said...that's a simple and direct quote and there was was very little room to mistake its context.

 

One more time - the fact that there's a "chance" or a "link" is by no means enough for any reasonable person to found a conclusion upon.  Yes - the general populace is very unreasonable when it comes to steroids.  They hear that someone who is/was on roids comes down with cancer/tumor/illness and it 100% has to be the steroids that caused it.  Yes - that's ignorant.  We know possibly 2% of the surrounding facts and we think we know what happened based on our extremely limited knowledge of the science and what the media tells us?  Please. 
But yet it is somehow perfectly acceptable for you to proclaim steroids are beneficial and without any negative side effects ("when used correctly"), based upon that exact same evidence. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

 

Another instance of your inability to comprehend what you read with the Jordan comment - well played again. 
Hey, at least I'll admit it, that was rather a cheap shot on my part. In truth, I actually do realize that you were initially repeating something that you had read in the LaMont Jordan case. However, I was also trying to refresh your memory with yet another instance where you were rather misinformed, and then attempted to weasel your way out of the argument.

 

I believe in that example you tried to accuse me of "making up our own definition" for the word special - a word that you had explicitly used to describe LaMont Jordan. If my memory serves correctly, it seems that the others in that thread, not to mention the dictionary, disagreed with you on your definition, not me on mine. So who was making things up?

 

And *** you for making me waste more than 2 more minutes on this.  I curse your name.
That's right, when it becomes clear that you have no legitimate support for your argument, resort to curses and direct insults. I am certain I won't sleep tonight. :D Edited by Skrappy1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do a little reading on how clomiphene works...it directly effects the pituitary and Giambi admitted to using it.  But you're probably right again, that's probably just an unrelated coincidence.

 

701229[/snapback]

 

 

 

Better yet, I've saved you the time and effort...here is a snippet referring to clomiphene:

HOW IT WORKS

 

Menstruation and ovulation are very complex processes which are dependent on the action of hormones released from the ovaries, pituitary, and hypothalamus.  An imbalance in the levels of these hormones can disturb normal ovulation.  Your pituitary gland controls the functioning of the ovaries by producing a hormone called Follicle Stimulating Hormone or FSH.  The function of FSH is to initiate the growth of ovarian follicles, which contain eggs and produce estrogen. When clomiphene citrate is taken, it sends a false message to the brain implying that there is an estrogen deficiency in the bloodstream.  The pituitary then starts producing an increased amount of FSH in an effort to stimulate the ovaries back into working order.  As estrogen levels rise, the pituitary then rapidly releases LH or luteinizing hormone.  In response to these higher levels of FSH and LH, the ovaries are more likely to produce and release a mature egg.

http://www.clearplan.com/InformationonClomipheneCitrate.cfm

 

Part of this drug's intent is to effect the pituitary gland and trick it into over-producing a particular chemical. However, it is supposed to be used by women with fertility complications, and I'm not sure that Jason Giambi would fit that description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do a little reading on how clomiphene works...it directly effects the pituitary and Giambi admitted to using it.  But you're probably right again, that's probably just an unrelated coincidence.

 

Quoting you out of context?  Don't try to weasel your way out of what you said...that's a simple and direct quote and there was was very little room to mistake its context.

 

But yet it is somehow perfectly acceptable for you to proclaim steroids are beneficial and without any negative side effects ("when used correctly"), based upon that exact same evidence.  The word hypocrite comes to mind.

 

Hey, at least I'll admit it, that was rather a cheap shot on my part.  In truth, I actually do realize that you were initially repeating something that you had read in the LaMont Jordan case.  However, I was also trying to refresh your memory with yet another instance where you were rather misinformed, and then attempted to weasel your way out of the argument.

 

I believe in that example you tried to accuse me of "making up our own definition" for the word special - a word that you had explicitly used to describe LaMont Jordan.  If my memory serves correctly, it seems that the others in that thread, not to mention the dictionary, disagreed with you on your definition, not me on mine.  So who was making things up?

 

That's right, when it becomes clear that you have no legitimate support for your argument, resort to curses and direct insults.  I am certain I won't sleep tonight.  :D

 

701229[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You continue to amaze me.

 

It probably is just an unrelated coincidence - thanks for seeing that.

 

What am I weaseling out of? Please read the entire paragraph that you pulled that quote from. If you really need me to spell out what I was saying letter by letter, I'll be happy to do so. But give it another whack and see if you can figure it out for yourself.

 

I weaseled myself out of nothing w/r/t Lamont Jordan - I commented on what I heard, then said I thought the Jets considered Jordan special. I'll state it again - the word "special" can mean different things to different people. You thought it meant a top 5 RB in the NFL, I disagreed and thought it meant something less than that. I couldn't care less about whether others on the thread agreed with my definition.

 

I don't remember the dictionary definition that you used, but citing to dictionaries can be a bit of a fruitless exercise, as they all use different definitions. Here's one for "special" that I just pulled from dictionary.com "surpassing what is common or usual" - I could recite my entire argument all over again, but if you're going to sit there and argue that the Jets absolutely did/do not consider Lamont Jordan to be "surpassing what is common or usual" as far as NFL RBs go, then there's nothing more to say.

 

Not sure how I can be "misinformed" by simply stating what was being said in the local media. Please note I never said that I thought the Jets would actually slap the franchise on Lamont - I believe that I said it would stupid for them to do so, but I'll let you check on that for me.

 

Direct insults? I said d-a-m-n you - not my fault that huddle bleeps words that can be said on network tv. You need to relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to amaze me. 

 

701417[/snapback]

 

 

 

I assure you that isn't a difficult task.

 

If you really need me to spell out what I was saying letter by letter, I'll be happy to do so. 
Please do, I'd love to hear your excuse on this one.

 

I commented on what I heard, then said I thought the Jets considered Jordan special.  I'll state it again - the word "special" can mean different things to different people.  You thought it meant a top 5 RB in the NFL, I disagreed and thought it meant something less than that.  I couldn't care less about whether others on the thread agreed with my definition. 

You said that the Jets "were very aware that Jordan is a special back." Whether you admit it or not, that statement taken in the context that you said it would seem to imply that you shared that view. You later clarified (or amended) that to say no, only that you thought that the Jets believed that. Fine.

 

I also never said I thought that special meant "a top 5 back." I simply compared him to a couple of other RBs that some would consider special, and pointed out that his name did not yet belong among them...I think you agreed. To refresh you, special means exceptional...Jordan may end up being special, but he sure as heck hasn't shown that yet. You may not care what others think, but you should care what a dictionary says, I hear they're usually pretty accurate.

 

I don't remember the dictionary definition that you used, but citing to dictionaries can be a bit of a fruitless exercise, as they all use different definitions.  Here's one for "special" that I just pulled from dictionary.com "surpassing what is common or usual"

 

Explain how a RB who has rushed for less than 1300 yards total in 4 seasons has surpassed what is common or usual?

 

Please note I never said that I thought the Jets would actually slap the franchise on Lamont - I believe that I said it would stupid for them to do so, but I'll let you check on that for me.

 

I have already acknowledged that I realize you were just repeating something you had read.

 

Direct insults?  I said d-a-m-n you - not my fault that huddle bleeps words that can be said on network tv.

 

I believe that you also cursed my very name. :D

 

Look, I'm growing very tired of bickering with you. We've both done what we can to degrade and belittle each other. I'm sure that the longer we continue, the uglier it will continue to get. I don't even know you, thus I really don't have anything against you, so I'm going to go ahead and stop this nonsense now. I just want to ask you one simple question first...forget about all the insults and back and forth, can you honestly sit here and tell me that despite now knowing the particular drug and its effects that Giambi took, that you truly feel that it's inappropriate or illogical to conclude that it directly contributed to his pituitary tumor?

Edited by Skrappy1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do, I'd love to hear your excuse on this one.

You said that the Jets "were very aware that Jordan is a special back."  Whether you admit it or not, that statement taken in the context that you said it would seem to imply that you shared that view.  You later clarified (or amended) that to say no, only that you thought that the Jets believed that.  Fine.

 

I also never said I thought that special meant "a top 5 back."  I simply compared him to a couple of other RBs that some would consider special, and pointed out that his name did not yet belong among them...I think you agreed.  To refresh you, special means exceptional...Jordan may end up being special, but he sure as heck hasn't shown that yet.  You may not care what others think, but you should care what a dictionary says, I hear they're usually pretty accurate.

Explain how a RB who has rushed for less than 1300 yards total in 4 seasons has surpassed what is common or usual?

I have already acknowledged that I realize you were just repeating something you had read.

I believe that you also cursed my very name.  :D

 

Look, I'm growing very tired of bickering with you.  We've both done what we can to degrade and belittle each other.  I'm sure that the longer we continue, the uglier it will continue to get.  I don't even know you, thus I really don't have anything against you, so I'm going to go ahead and stop this nonsense now.  I just want to ask you one simple question first...forget about all the insults and back and forth, can you honestly sit here and tell me that despite now knowing the particular drug and its effects that Giambi took, that you truly feel that it's inappropriate or illogical to conclude that it directly contributed to his pituitary tumor?

 

701512[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Here's a quick explanation - the paragraph in question stated that, given the fact that an overwhelming % of players in MLB and NFL are roiding, how do you explain the fact that only 1 player has encountered a debilitating illness mid-career (and I stress mid-career b/c the public would know about if an athlete simply stopped playing)? If steroids cause these particular types of illnesses, what is your explanation of the fact that we've only seen this once? Here comes the statement . . . I'll tell you what my explanation would be [in light of these facts] - the roids didn't cause the tumor at all. Get it? I wasn't concluding anything - I was pointing out that, based on the aforementioned stats (which have to be exaggerated), not only would it be illogical to assume causation, but it may be more logical to assume no connection. If that wasn't clear from what I wrote, oh well. You can label this "weaseling out" or whatever you like - I said what I said and I stand by it - I'm not backing off of anything I said. The problem is that you have been taking quotes of mine and analyzing them in a vacuum - if you read the whole of my posts, you'll see that I'm not backing down from anything. Maybe that explanation wasn't so quick . . .

 

Special does not "mean" exceptional. To you, it might mean exceptional. To X Dictionary, it might mean exceptional. To me, it doesn't - if I meant exceptional, I would've said exceptional (and obviously anyone who thinks Lamont is an exceptional back is on crack). You keep saying that he hasn't shown anything yet - he hasn't shown much to you b/c he has been stuck behind Curtis Martin and hasn't gotten the touches. When people speak of Jordan being special, they are quite obviously speaking of his talent - not his accomplishments.

 

How has he surpassed what is common or usual? If you're speaking of accomplishments, he hasn't because he has had limited carries (though his ypc lately are pretty eye-popping). I think it's clear that he has more to offer than the "common or usual" RB in the NFL. Please keep in mind the fact that most NFL teams carry 3-4 tailbacks. The way I see it, if teams think he's got the goods to be a starting RB in the NFL and produce well for a few years, they think that he's "special." Maybe not under your definition, but certainly under mine. What % of NFL RBs start? What % produce for multiple years? What's the avg career of an NFL RB - 2 years? I'm not sure why you can't just accept the fact that there are varying definitions of what makes a player special. I respect your definition, I just don't agree that it's the only definition out there.

 

Dude - the d-a-m-n you and cursing your name was a joke. I was trying to inject a little levity into the situation and you apparently took it the wrong way. Who the hell says "I curse your name" and actually means it anyway?

 

I haven't done anything to degrade or belittle you - I'm just having an argument here. Trust me - I can be extremely offensive when I want to be - I haven't seen any reason to go there b/c we're just having a debate. Insult my momma, though, and it's on.

 

Illogical to conclude? Yes. We simply don't know enough of the surrounding facts to conclude anything. Maybe it's the fact that I practice law and have a background in statistics and probability, but I can't say it's reasonable to conclude anything when you only really know 2 salient facts (i.e. Giambi took the drug and Giambi developed a tumor). Is there a chance that it directly contributed? Certainly. Could it be up to a 50% chance? Maybe - but even a 50% chance isn't anything to base conclusions regarding causation on. I think the best that can be said is that "I think the roids may have had a direct contributory effect on the tumor." That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. When you kick it up a notch to "the roids pretty obviously caused the tumor," I think that's way too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information