Trevor Bauer

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Hey, there are games tonight that will impact us!!!!!!!!!!! 
 

Well, we'll have something to talk about tomorrow at least.

[SilentJames]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

It's a conversation that is inappropriate for this board, unfortunately.

I concede your perspective, though I think it's wrong.

I think if Bauer was guilty of what he was accused of everyone should be repulsed by it.

I too think everyone should be offended by the satanic celebration of sex criminals and the mocking of an entire religion and its associated symbols, at least in such a public forum as a baseball game.  Regardless of what cute name you want to dress it up under.

When's that game get here again?  LOL.  This is going to be a long week on this board.

Wait - are they sex criminals because they are drag queens? 

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, SilentJames said:

I will give Ray Lewis some credit in that he was a fairly model citizen after that incident. And he did some real good things for Baltimore kids long after he retired Vision for Baltimore is one of those perfect simple things that has done SO MUCH GOOD for school kids in the City (https://health.baltimorecity.gov/visionforbaltimore)

Still though, dude, he knows what happened. Like that statue is a bit much. 

This is true, he did a lot of good.  But we agree that he knows more than he was willing to share, hence his legal issue.

I really don't mind the statue...that's what happens these days, great players get statues.  

[NashLumber]

33 minutes ago, Pickles said:

 

The Dodgers also had a night this year at the ballpark celebrating a drag queen troupe, that is rife with convicted sex criminals, and has a long history of blasphemous and sacrilegious "performances."

Makes perfect sense.

This is not about "offending" anyone, or "protecting their brand."  

 

It makes me wonder if Aubrey Huff's little show, ie. his golden thong was part of his Orioles daily routine. As for as offending anyone, I can honestly say my eyes would have suffered irreparable harm. 

But with all of this Bauer bad boy talk, I wonder how Hyde would have handled this Baur tantrum on the field?
 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by NashLumber
link

[MurphDogg]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

We already know they at least "got out over their skis" and frankly, that's the most charitable way it can be put.

As I have said repeatedly, we don't know that. You think you know that.

I will wait to hear from the Athletic and/or Molly Knight and see how the process plays out before making a determination.

Perhaps Bauer will quietly drop his suit and maintain his claim of victory and vindication, but that would still not give enough information to make an informed decision of whether they got out over their skis.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

As I have said repeatedly, we don't know that. You think you know that.

I will wait to hear from the Athletic and/or Molly Knight and see how the process plays out before making a determination.

Perhaps Bauer will quietly drop his suit and maintain his claim of victory and vindication, but that would still not give enough information to make an informed decision of whether they got out over their skis.

We do know that.  They've admitted as much.

Only you are pretending there's some magical medical documentation to show the women had a fractured skull.

They reported she had a fractured skull.  She didn't have a fractured skull.

Now you can pretend there is so phantastic medical report out there somewhere, but there isn't.

[SilentJames]

2 minutes ago, NashLumber said:

It makes me wonder if Aubrey Huff's little show, ie. his golden thong was part of his Orioles daily routine. As for as offending anyone, I can honestly say my eyes would have suffered irreparable harm. 

But with all of this Baur bad boy talk, I wonder how Hyde would have handled this Baur tantrum on the field?
 

 

Oooo man boy did Huff turn out to be a Schilling-level piece of crap

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, SilentJames said:

Wait - are they sex criminals because they are drag queens? 

Several members of that group had criminal records for sex crimes.

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Not to get political  but I'm about to get political.  LOL.

The Dodgers are so averse to offending their fans that they immediately had to drop Bauer, despite him not being convicted of anything, so as to avoid major backlash from their fans.

The Dodgers also had a night this year at the ballpark celebrating a drag queen troupe, that is rife with convicted sex criminals, and has a long history of blasphemous and sacrilegious "performances."

Makes perfect sense.

This is not about "offending" anyone, or "protecting their brand."  

This is about specific agendas being astroturfed on the general public and the media being the driving force.

Now you are getting political.  I’ll only say this: obviously teams do care about whether a player will offend its fans.  They’re in the business of attracting fans, not repelling them.  In that sense, it doesn’t matter if the fans are justified in feeling the way they do.  If they feel a certain way, the team will take note.  

[SilentJames]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Several members of that group had criminal records for sex crimes.

its funny because a brief search turned up the usual bevy of sites repeating the same story about one member who was not a full-member of the group that was arrested and his arrest was immediately condemned by the group - so they like weren't protecting him at all? Unlike say, the organization they are satirizing, that - you know - goes out of their way to protect those people with long criminal sexual histories? 

But go off I suppose. 

[Hank Scorpio]

10 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Several members of that group had criminal records for sex crimes.

He's a pederast. 

With a record!!!

[Pickles]

5 minutes ago, SilentJames said:

its funny because a brief search turned up the usual bevy of sites repeating the same story about one member who was not a full-member of the group that was arrested and his arrest was immediately condemned by the group - so they like weren't protecting him at all? Unlike say, the organization they are satirizing, that - you know - goes out of their way to protect those people with long criminal sexual histories? 

But go off I suppose. 

Oh not a "full member."  That makes it cool then.  

[SilentJames]

I guess what we are missing here is that Bauer's predilection, his peccadillo, for "rough sex" tends to leave the other person involved with serious injuries (serious enough to warrant a trip to the hospital and get an x-ray of their skull to ensure there ISN'T a fracture) while he - doesn't seem to have any real marks on him? 

Like, I don't know man, that sounds like he gets off on beating women up to me. His entire defamation argument isnt that he beat her - its that he didnt in fact fracture her skull. 

Like, that is not the flex you think it is. 

[SilentJames]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

Oh not a "full member."  That makes it cool then.  

Didnt say that made it cool - saying that he wasnt going to be on the field that night, and the organization immediately condemned and disavowed him? 

Meanwhile the Baltimore archdiocese is filing for bankruptcy because their chickens are coming home to roost. Maybe if they had done wheat the drag queens did they wouldnt be in that situation? 

 

Just a thought. 

[MurphDogg]

20 minutes ago, Pickles said:

We do know that.  They've admitted as much.

Only you are pretending there's some magical medical documentation to show the women had a fractured skull.

They reported she had a fractured skull.  She didn't have a fractured skull.

Now you can pretend there is so phantastic medical report out there somewhere, but there isn't.

Got it, I stand correct. Her medical report listed signs of a skull fracture, based on her symptoms. The CT Scan showed no skull fracture, the reporter accurately described the medical report that listed signs of a skull fracture but didn't mention the image and Bauer feels that they should have. 

I would then need proof that they (a) had the image, and (b) knew that the image didn't show a skull fracture.

If they got the medical report and there was a document in the medical report that described the CT scan as not showing a skull fracture, then I would agree with you, that they got out over their skis. Do you have evidence of that?

If they merely got the medical report that listed signs of a skull fracture and images that showed no skull fracture, but with no documentation saying that the images showed no skull fracture, I think it is unfortunate but certainly not defamatory. If the medical report said something to the effect of "based on the imagery, there is no skull fracture despite the signs", and the reporting failed to note that, it would be defamatory. Without words to that effect, a reporter failing to diagnose the absence of a skull fracture, on her own based on the image is perhaps too much to expect of a reporter, but I understand why Bauer is frustrated.

Edited October 3, 2023 by MurphDogg