papsrus

OK. All due respect, I think you might be riding a fine line there. It will be interesting to see how much benefit of the doubt Clemens gets compared to Bonds. I for one find his stunned denials a little hard to take. The thing about these top-level athletes is, they've been told how good they are since they were 10. Everyone around them and everything they've done through their entire lives is designed to build them up and make them the "best." When they are suddenly confronted with their own failings (we all have 'em) they don't know how to deal with it. They're just not equipped. They fall back onto people who will prop them up. So the weaker ones lie rather than deal with the truth. Even Pettitte's "confession" was slimy, IMO. "... If I did something wrong ...." Ah, yeah, you did something wrong. Just freakin' come clean.

That kinda surprises me, since it's not just a popularity contest. If it was only fan voting that determined the Pro Bowl rosters, I could see that happening. But since players & coaches also have an equal say, you'd think there would be more respect given to Jacksonville, for instance. They could do some damage in the playoffs, assuming they get in. But they are pretty workmanlike in the way they go about it. Not too much highlight reel stuff. But that defense has to have somebody. Same with the Bucs. I believe Tampa has the No. 3 ranked defense in the league and No. 2 passing defense. ... Then again, they do play in the NFC South. But come to think of it, the AFC East ain't exactly tough either.

Not a single player from the NFC South (probably deservedly so, but there isn't one somewhere!?) and only one player from the three Florida squads ... 1-13 Miami's Jason Taylor.

That was awesome! ... The walkoff was odd though. What's the story there?

Fair enough. But it won't find you those "overpriced" growth stocks, which can, and often do, outperform both the broad market and a given basket of value stocks. In any case, it all comes down to finding the proper mix to feel comfortable with. A few growth stocks mixed in with broad market index funds, etc., can work well. I just wouldn't follow old Cramer's guidance on any of it.

I don't own Google, or know enough about it to say one way or the other, but it was clearly an undervalued stock at $200, $300, $400 .... I guess the point is, there are "value" plays and "growth" plays. A value assessment won't yield you any growth stocks, and vice-versa. Just have to find the right mix and comfort level so that you're not stressing when your Google tumbles $40 in a day (only to rise $60 the following week). Course, if the economy goes in the tank ...

Nonsense. A person does not have to spend 52 hours a year (or more) for each stock owned to "beat the market," that's just silly. Cramer is an ass, but at least now what he's preaching makes more sense, especially compared to his previous churn churn churn ways. I agree that people experienced in following the market don't need to spend an hour per week per stock to beat the market. However, someone inexperienced could easily spend more time and still underperform the market. I maintain that it is relatively simple to identify an undervalued security*. It is far more difficult to predict exactly when it will stop being undervalued, and that is the skill that really leads one to making money. *It is at least as easy to identify an overvalued security, but generally more expensive and time consuming to profit in that situation. ... and then there are those stocks that are "perceived" to be wildly overvalued, but nonetheless outperform the market. ... Google pops to mind.

I caught his act a few times back when he first came on. Anyone who would buy anything based on his 20-second snippets is nuts. I agree with the broad index approach, augmented by a couple of more focused funds (international, small cap) and a select few growth stocks. Then sit back and dollar cost average.

Ah, but "slander" is a legal term, and has to be proven in a court of law, yes? And so if anyone in this report believes he has been slandered, I would think they'd be running to the courthouse to clear their good name (as opposed to offering semi-apologies/excuses ... cough, Pettitte, cough). I'm not sure -- beyond the Bonds thing -- why you feel so strongly that this whole steroid/HGH mess is a bunch of lies, or some huge conspiracy. At a certain point, the body of evidence has to persuade you that something is going on, no? You're entitled to your opinion, but ... Palmiero, McGwire, Sosa. Those three were pretty much exposed during the hearings a couple of years ago. Any doubts about them? Palmiero was flat out nailed. McGwire looked like a lying fool. And Sosa forgot how to speak English and left the country for a year. And Canseco, of course, admitted to using. Bonds is up on federal charges. If he's convicted, will that convince you that there's something amiss here? Or will that just reinforce the notion that it's all a witch hunt with no evidence at all?

I think it's actually titled "Your Catcher is High" ....

This is actually how my Rays play the game. ......

Not exactly. The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander. People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive. Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis. There is a difference in severity between tabloid trash and the accusations that are being directed towards the ballplayers. If I were Clemens and I were innocent and I would be livid right now. He obviously has the resources to go after Mitchell et al (as do others) and with MLB agreeing to indemnify Mitchell, there are plenty of deep pockets. Even if you don't have the cash, there are plenty of attorneys who would take this on. If you were clean, why wouldn't you go after these guys? I agree with this. There is a world of difference between tabloids and a considered investigative report. And so, if these fine athletes have been wrongly accused, let them file suit to restore their good names. ... We may be waiting awhile. And btw, put yourself in the shoes of a "clean" athlete. How do you think he/she feels about cheaters gaining an advantage, both on the field and in contract negotiations? Having said that, an interesting letter to the ed in today's NYTimes points out that there are legitimate uses for both steroids and HGH. Prescribed under the supervision of a doctor, they can aid healing, etc. ... Maybe baseball and other pro sports shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water here and consider whether "regulating" the use of these substances is the more reasonable approach. ... Don't know, just something to consider.

Not exactly. The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander. People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive. Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis. With all due respect, are you saying that there isn't enough evidence yet to lead you to at least strongly suspect there is steroid and HGH use in baseball?

I don't think there can be any question that many professional athletes took steroids (before they were expressly banned) and continue to take HGH (for which there is no reliable test.) This stuff has been going on since at least the '72 Olympics, for crying out loud. This is a shock to anyone? This list is in all likelihood the tip of the iceberg. The question is, does anyone care, and what are they going to do about it?

Still in the 80s here in Fla. I have the damn air conditioner on tonight. Sunny, shorts and T-shirt during the days. It was mild last winter, but I've been here since the mid-80s and I can't recall anything like this. It's hot!! And a tropical storm in the Gulf? .... Yeesh.

From the writer's description, this doesn't sound like the hippest of crowds ... (write your name on your cup???? ... are you kidding me?)

Don't mean to contribute to financial chaos, but I say keep the contributions coming. It's time for a Christmas bonus. I for one (a small voice in the crowd) would be thrilled if Jim could use some of the extra money to ease the financial burden of raising a young family. Nothing wrong with paying yourself a little bit, too, for all the work you put into it. In fact, in my eyes, it's only right.

Yeah ... I was quite honestly a little confused about the situation here when it first broke, and I know there are some members who frequented both boards. I was hoping to get a little further insight. I have to say I enjoy both sites. I know many of you have a long history here, and that's part of what makes it what it is. But AAJ serves as a good resource as well, IMO. It's obviously a little more free-wheeling over here, to say the least. But that's part of the appeal. Both sites serve a good purpose, I think.

Yes, I suppose you're both right. This forum rule seems to give sufficient leeway for managing things: I'm sure if moderators are assigned they can work it all out in that context.

In order for moderators not to fall into the trap of arbitrary rulings, the board members will almost certainly need a set of rules, or guidelines, even if they're general guidelines. Example: * No direct personal attacks This might be one. I'm not saying it should be, but just as an example. Instead of replying to someone you disagree with by saying, "You're an idiot," you simply say, "That is an idiotic statement," or something like that. This would give moderators sufficient grounds to ask the author to revise their comments or, failing that, remove the comment. Without the rule, however strictly it's enforced, there's little reason for anyone to comply with general appeals to tone it down, or whatever. And in the end they'll feel as though they've been treated unfairly. So ... with moderators come rules. Seems like that's what you'll have to agree on.

Don't know if it will make a difference in the long term. There are issues other than money. But I just kicked in $20. I would be perfectly happy to chip in an amount like that regularly to help out, if things do continue. But I don't want the contribution to add any pressure to Jim to where he feels obliged to keep the board going, great as that would be. Whatever way it falls, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

Well, I'm relatively new here, and even for the short time I've been dropping in, I've enjoyed the discussions. The elbows come up every now and then, but ... I guess I'd have a different perspective if I was running the board. Anyways, for what it's worth, I'd be happy to kick in a subscription fee or donation or whatever, if money is the issue. I get the feeling that money isn't the main obstacle, though. Recruiting moderators might also help things. I'd hate to see this lively place go down.

It does seem as though his explanation is sincere, and he resolved the transaction in your favor. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and re-evaluate how satisfied you were with the whole transaction. In terms of customer satisfaction, seems like it might deserve more than two stars. So you could upgrade the stars and change "dishonest" to "inaccurate," or something along those lines.

This was the topic of some discussion at work yesterday. I guess it helps that the governor is from St. Pete. Although I think Jeb claimed the Miami area as his home and that didn't seem to help them. They Rays did have better attendance for the year than the Marlins, just barely. The park would help the downtown waterfront, so I'm sure the business community is on board. We'll see what happens.