Canseco's next target: A-Rod

Beef, all Jose the bullshitter said was in his next book he has "stuff about A-Rod." He never said what that stuff was.
A-Rod apparently was asked if he heard what Canseco said and his reply was "No and I have no comment."
What else is there to ask? Canseco never said steroids, he said "stuff about A-Rod and the Yankees"

 

I understand that completely, that Canseco never said he took steroids, just that he was in his newest book.

What got me going was goalmouth saying that asking A-Rod if he took steroids was akin to asking a public figure if he's stopped bating his wife yet.
Personally, and this is a bit off the original topic, I feel the steroids question is a fair question to ask the A-Rod under the circumstances, and that just asking the guy the question does not point a finger of guilt. That's all I was getting at, the train was already off the tracks when I chimed in.

 

You don't ask a pro athlete if he is taking steroids without a good reason or an agenda.

 

With all that said, who out there is going to buy this book?

I borrowed his first one and read it. That's probably the same way I'll go with the second, should it ever see the shelves.

 

I'm not sure he has a publisher for this piece of shit yet. I thought I read he's trying to get a new book published

 

I wonder if he'll throw in 25 more pictures of himself, too? I know that was incredibly important to proving his case in the last book.

 

That was to show how much steroids improved his life

 

Here are the (at minimum) 3 violations of SJ's rules contained within PhilaYank's "post:" (for full SJ rules, click on the tab at the top left of the page)


Personal Attacks

We encourage a healthy exchange of opinions. If you disagree with another member, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person. Personal attacks, insults and "flaming" will not be tolerated and will be removed, and the violator will be subject to disciplinary action. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

Do not retaliate or respond to a personal attack. Too often, when an initial attack is made, others join the fray and, instead of becoming part of the solution, become part of the problem. Do not accuse others of being trolls. Should there be members whose posts you don't care to read, you can put them on your ignore list. It's really that easy.

If you feel that you are being attacked or harassed, contact a moderator. The moderators shall have sole discretion in determining what constitutes a personal attack and what actions are necessary.



Deliberately Misquoting Other Posters

You may use the quote feature to respond to specific posts from other members. However, changing the meaning or words of a quote while still attributing it to the other member is a violation of SportsJournalists.com's rules. Anyone doing so will be subject to the disciplinary process. (The use of ellipses to show a quote was abbreviated is allowed, so long as the original meaning is not lost.)



Posting messages and creating threads

Please take the time to put some thought and substance into your posts/replies. SportsJournalists.com is a place for professionals and wants to maintain a favorable reputation in the industry. Take some pride in what you're writing and you'll help to solidify that reputation.

“Lazy” posts will not be tolerated and may results in warnings/suspensions. Examples of these posts include, but are not limited to: Starting a thread where the body is just a link (offer your opinion, some substance, etc., not just a link); Copying and pasting stories without some form of analysis or comment (make sure you have something to offer if you are going to start a thread).

If one liners, habitual antagonism toward others, stream of thought garbage, unsupportable conjecture, etc. are your bread and butter -- this is not the site for you.

--------------------------------------

I understand how it might seem fairly intimidating to try to take on some of my arguments, and that this type of "post" by PhilaYank can appear to be an easy 'escape hatch' for many when they either don't feel they have the intellectual/factual firepower to engage me and my opinions in a meaningful debate or else when they have lost a previous debate and are looking to compensate for the rhetorical rebuking of their ideas with the kind of tripe PhilaYank has offered up here.

Yes, I understand it. And I have pretty much tolerated it, allowing such flagrant violations of SportsJournalists.com's rules to go unresponded to, and unreported by, me. As I've said before, I really don't care. My self-esteem is beyond the reach of a 'sticks-and-stones' attack(s).

However, allowing this type of practice is neither good for Sportsjournalists.com nor is it good for the writer of the attack. No one comes to SJ to read the type of thing that PhilaYank wrote. Actually, let me rephrase that: Very few come to SJ to read the type of thing PhilaYank wrote. A near-unanimous majority of those who come to SJ do not - it's a time-waste and could be found on any number of other message boards where people are insulting each other without any real exchange of ideas. Stated another way, if SJ were full of PhilaYank's 'posts' in the manner which I quoted above, people would cease coming to SJ and it could be viewed as something of a joke or a 'time out' spot for juvenile-imitating scribes and media. Certainly, it would not be viewed as being professional, a label which it has earned.

Also, permitting someone to post as PhilaYank has done in my quoting isn't particularly helpful to the poster, either. It reminds me of a time in a graduate seminar when I referred to scholar Dinesh D'Souza as an 'idiot.' Without actually saying it, my professor basically told me "Sorry, kid, that's not good enough. You actually have to take on his arguments." You might garner a few high-fives from the Groundlings for such a tactic, but no reader, writer, editor, thinker, scholar, etc. will take you seriously. That's what my professor was trying to tell me then, and that's my advice to you, PhilaYank. If you don't have anything to say, say nothing and let those who do be unfettered by your utterances.

Many on this site seek to affix various labels on me and others whom they disagree with. The labels d'jour for me are presently "Unibomber" or some other variation implying mental/emotional imbalance, and PhilaYank's latest, "Rocky." There are two things I know of that I share with the Unibomber -- we're both highly intelligent and we both know someone who spent time as either student or faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.

For any young journalists or writers, here's a tip -- When you get an email/phone call/comment from a reader which is similar in content to what PhilaYank wrote to me, you'll know you've done something right. You have 'struck a chord' with the reader, to the point that he/she has felt the need to respond to you. Whatever you did to elicit that response, repeat and continue it -- the worst thing a writer can be is irrelevant and/or ignored.

So while I find myself disappointed with PhilaYank's missive, I am neither surprised nor completely dissatisfied: my thoughts and writings make an impact. When and if any of you encounter your own 'haters,' I stress to you to take a step back and consider the option that you are being 'hated on' because of the "hater's" own insecurities and feelings of inadequacy. I.e., don't always take it personally. We all have had the beautiful but unconfident female friend who is constantly dismissed as a 'bimbo' no matter how capable she might be. But instead of realistically evaluating the situation, she continues to blame herself for others' jealousy. Don't be that girl.

Unfortunately for PhilaYank and others of his ilk, my effect on them seems to rattle them to the point whereby they respond with the literary equivalent of a burp, forsaking any cooth or dignity. That's their right. It is not, however, their right to do so on SportsJournalists.com while concomitantly violating numerous SportsJournalists.com rules.

 

Rok, why don't you take those things to a mod instead of doing it in public/grandstanding? It's not your job to police these boards. We have mods. Let them do their jobs. Then again, maybe it is because doing their jobs ended up being a problem for you at least once that we know of (thanks to your bro).

Your post isn't just calling out a SportsJournalists.com member, it is calling out the moderators of this board. You have a problem with the board? Have some respect and handle it in a PM to the moderators. You don't like how the moderators operate? GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

And if you really think a snarky response to one of your posts is an accomplishment, you have no clue how this board operates. Many posters here enjoy poking holes in the statements of people they think are full of shit. It's not a sign of respect, no matter what you may try to tell yourself.

However, I do agree with you on one thing. The "fun with quote function" thing is old and needs to go away.

 

Jesus! Some people need to grow the F up.

 

Rok, just to let you know that I'm not making any personal attacks on your character. I don't like your opinion, and I expressed that. Take a joke, will ya?

I can also say with full confidence that I do not habitually go after attacking posters on this site. If I did, knowing how I am at some times, I would have been given the boot a long time ago. And I don't know why you take such offense at me calling you "Rocky?" What if I called you The Rok or Ski-Mask?