DogFish, you're not going to find many here that will bash Joe Capozzi and the PB Post. And hardly for their criticisms of the Marlins. The paper's beat writer handles the Marlins with kid gloves. Jack especially.

Do you know it was Joe C? No one is bashing either the Post or Joe...just discussing facts vs what was written. And it wouldn't be a big deal because they have been relatively "fair" in their journalism of the Marlins.

It's your word vs. his word. Joe Capozzi has been in the clubhouse every game of the season, talking to various members of the team. By your own admission you have limited contact with one or a few members of the clubhouse. Not to say that doesn't mean Joe wouldn't have a greater reason to massage the truth / create out of thin air for the aforementioned reasons. But...why would Joe and the Post make up the story?. Was it an attempt to spur interest in their paper? The coverage has not changed from prior that report.

Just as a matter of fact, McKeon did not call Perisho Mike. It was an overzealous sportswriter for the Post who wrote this and later apologized to McKeon and the organization.

 

Dont always believe what is writter in the paper. They have to sell papers and tend to misquote often. There is a reason that ballplayers in general do not like to talk to the media.

817497[/snapback]

my bad Doggie... Ill take your word for it over the paper's anyday :thumbup

Joe Capozzi was the writer of the original article in question and the writer you called out earlier in this thread.

Not my word big guy.

FYI: Joe has not been in the clubhouse everyday.

FYI: Never said I had contacts anywhere within the clubhouse.

 

maybe to get a "headline" story during the time of trouble for the Marlins

817497[/snapback]

817615[/snapback]

 

 

So you did not call out Joe in those posts? You did not call him a liar who later had to apologize and suggest that he was still attacking Jack?

 

 

(Click the orange button to see the posts in question)

Never mentioned any names, now did I but if you did the research? Not sure where the word liar was used. Are you a reporter or just another

 

Answer the questions since you have all the answers.

Do you know if Joe has not been in the clubhouse everyday like you reported?

Where have I ever said I had contacts anywhere within the clubhouse like you reported?

Now that made as much sense as your initial arguement about CSM.

 

What proof do we need not to live in caves.

Maybe ether did make the universe resulting in the Big Bang theory.

 

Science is about proving theories. Journalism is...well I dont want to hurt your feelings.

817876[/snapback]

Just so you sound less ignorant, I'll explain to you about 'ether'. In medieval civilizations, they believed that it filled the space in between every physical object. It could never "make the universe", as you put it. Later, in the 19th century I think, 'ether' was the word ascribed to what was thought to be the medium on which electro-magnetic waves traveled (you know, those magic thingies that makes the radio-machine and television-box work). This theory was later disPROVED by Einstein. And how did he do that? By PROVIDING INFORMATION TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT.

so are you saying that ether could not have resulted in the Big Bang. As a scientist (Pchem), I think I know about ether.

DogFish, I understand what you're trying to do here and I appreciate it. It's a hard spot to be in. Jack's always going to be blamed for something whether it's his fault or not. But if you're levelling the charges you are, you need a more secure spot to stand on. Your supposed insider knowledge only clears fault of one man and is often at odds with the reported facts and what has been said straight from Jack's former player's mouths. I mean seriously you told us recently that Jack couldn't use Jim Mecir and Todd Jones on consecutive nights when not only have they, they been successful. Some of us are starting believe your inside knowledge are simply made up excuses. Who knows? Maybe they're both.

Ether wasn't a creative force, it was never thought to be, but if you want to redefine the word as "a scientist" go ahead.

Rferry,

I will ask the following again:Do you know if Joe has not been in the clubhouse everyday like you reported?

Where have I ever said I had contacts anywhere within the clubhouse like you reported?

 

Your last comment is not worth debating. I don't need excuses, nor is this my life.

Rferry,

I will ask the following again:Do you know if Joe has not been in the clubhouse everyday like you reported?

Where have I ever said I had contacts anywhere within the clubhouse like you reported?

 

Your last comment is not worth debating.? I don't need excuses, nor is this my life.

817932[/snapback]

 

So now RFerry has to corroberate the reporter's statements, but you don't have to do so for your own?

DogFish, you have claimed both publically and privately that you are something of a friend or associate of Jack's. You have often presented 'facts' under the pretense they are of someone with the club. As you may notice, most of us here often speak in the abstract. Not you. I speak in a manner that suggests you know someone. Who knows if you actually do, how often you speak to them, if what you say or what they say to you is reflective of the truth or what.

 

"I sat on the bench the entire weekend series." source when claiming why two eyewitness reports of Mota taking a pregame a bullpen session were false.

 

Not to mention our private correspondences in which you clearly stated your superior knowledge of all things Jack and Marlins related.

 

Why do you play this game? Your daughter pulls the same c**p at the Myspace Marlins communities. Ask Juanky (that's Juanky) he's dealt with it before.

I'm through discussing this with you. You don't want to have your statements subject to scrutiny. You want to say whatever you please and have it be unequivocally accepted. You disregard another's argument because it comes from someone younger than you, showing that your self-ascribed status as an "older person" is all you need to support your statements. Or you vaguely characterize yourself as a "scientist", therefore providing unsubstantiated expertise that saves you from having to back up your statements. You don't care to discuss anything, you just want to be right, and you do this by claiming certain rights to infallibility -- ie "being older = being better" and "i'm a scientist, trust me". You're incredibly frustrating to talk to, and frankly you're not worth my time.

rferry

daughter? Nope

Abstract. so that makes me speak concrete?

 

cartoon

Im fine with that. MYOB

okay guys, this may not help at all considering its not talking about ether or anything but

 

my buddy mike was a batboy from 2002-2003 and i just asked him out of curiosity...

 

Shermanator (1:54:12 AM): couple hundred

Shermanator (1:54:13 AM): y

MJN318 (1:54:16 AM): like how often

Shermanator(1:54:24 AM): everyday at least 2

Shermanator(1:54:35 AM): bot including mine

Shermanator(1:54:42 AM): not*

Shermanator(1:54:47 AM): adn the other batboys

Shermanator(1:54:54 AM): but yeah like 1-3 a day

This is easily the most surreal thread ever.

I don't understand how DogFish was so confident that the writer reported something wrong....

I don't understand how DogFish was so confident that the writer reported something wrong....

818142[/snapback]

I understand

Matteao620, i'm not getting what the question was that you asked...

Me neither, but I'll go out on a limb and say he asked his batboy friend how many times Jack forgot names.

Can some Mod please put this thread out of its misery and lock it?

 

Sheesh. :thumbdown

Where am I? Danger Mouse? Ether? What?