Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 I don't know your background but I will say this they are worth no more than the paper they are written on. Well Juggs that is all I need to know about your character. For you, it probably only is a piece of paper and your signature on the document doesn't mean s***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hey juggs, do you at least cross your fingers behind your back when you sign the contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nice try but once again it's completely illogical. What I have done is that in the absence of being able to find any reference to the 58/4 offer which I have stated is when Maggs made the quote I have provided considerable evidence suggesting that it is MORE PROBABLE that he made the quote than he didn't. On the defense side of the equation you have neither provided any evidence that he did not make the quote NOR have you provided any evidence that would suggest it is MORE PROBABLE that he didn't make it. So the judge would likely rule in my favor. Further more I have provided evidence that Maggs tune has changed as a result of 3 primary factors: His being on the DL, the 140/8 rumors, & Pujols signing a 100/7. Tex, I have signed many contracts in my past & I have even used leverage against certain parties to break contracts. I am well-versed & experienced in contracts & contract laws. I don't know your background but I will say this they are worth no more than the paper they are written on. Behind every contract is a spirit of good-faith on two parties to agree on something in a fair manner. When the contract no longer appears fair either party has the right to use any leverage they can to get out of it. If there is no spirit of good-faith between the two parties to begin then there is little reason for them to enter a contract. moreCowbell, do you really believe you can use the defendant's testimony to support your case given that I am not allowed to cross-examine him? Well you can't. His testimony, sworn statements, or anything else he has to say is not admisable unless he subjects himself to cross-examination. Since he is pleading the 5th on the basis of a confidentiality agreement between him & the SOX what he says now after the fact is nothing more than heresay. So far I win & you lose but I do applaud your efforts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 See Juggs is so confused he just quoted himself And why even comment on sworn testimony, if yur signature on a contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on why should anyone beieve your words or your posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 moreCowbell, do you really believe you can use the defendant's testimony to support your case given that I am not allowed to cross-examine him? Well you can't. His testimony, sworn statements, or anything else he has to say is not admisable unless he subjects himself to cross-examination. Since he is pleading the 5th on the basis of a confidentiality agreement between him & the SOX what he says now after the fact is nothing more than heresay. So far I win & you lose but I do applaud your efforts Brandofan, it is true I was a very pro-market (economic conservative) in the past. I am not any more. I am now leaning more & more to using every means necc to bring about greater distribution of wealth. The gap is simply too great & the global economy threatens to destroy America's values & principles with respect economics. Collective bargaining was given birth here. Tex, I consider a contract for what it is: the terms by which two parties agree to conduct business at that time. I'm anal when it comes to contracts. I never sign it the first time. I always make revisions so that the party is signing my version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 moreCowbell, do you really believe you can use the defendant's testimony to support your case given that I am not allowed to cross-examine him? Well you can't. His testimony, sworn statements, or anything else he has to say is not admisable unless he subjects himself to cross-examination. Since he is pleading the 5th on the basis of a confidentiality agreement between him & the SOX what he says now after the fact is nothing more than heresay. So far I win & you lose but I do applaud your efforts The only judge ruling in your favor is Judge Ito [Polly Shore Voice] Say hello to Judge Ito! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Brandofan, it is true I was a very pro-market (economic conservative) in the past. I am not any more. I am now leaning more & more to using every means necc to bring about greater distribution of wealth. The gap is simply too great & the global economy threatens to destroy America's values & principles with respect economics. Collective bargaining was given birth here. Tex, I consider a contract for what it is: the terms by which two parties agree to conduct business at that time. I'm anal when it comes to contracts. I never sign it the first time. I always make revisions so that the party is signing my version. Do you need help with the 'QUOTE' function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 :headshake Mods telling people what they say is bulls***? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Brandofan, it is true I was a very pro-market (economic conservative) in the past. I am not any more. I am now leaning more & more to using every means necc to bring about greater distribution of wealth. The gap is simply too great & the global economy threatens to destroy America's values & principles with respect economics. Collective bargaining was given birth here. Tex, I consider a contract for what it is: the terms by which two parties agree to conduct business at that time. I'm anal when it comes to contracts. I never sign it the first time. I always make revisions so that the party is signing my version. Hmm so now Juggernaut is a lying scam artist, communist. This gets more interesting the more responses we get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Do you need help with the 'QUOTE' function? Leave off everything after "help" and I am in total and complete agreement with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 The only judge ruling in your favor is Judge Ito [Polly Shore Voice] Say hello to Judge Ito! Tex, I'm interested to know your background because you seem to view a contract in a medieval sense. It's nothing more than the guidelines for parties to do business together. You are bound to a contract by law. Nothing more. If the party seeks to pursue legal means to force you to honor the contract than they have that right. In most cases when the terms of a contract spoil the good-faith spirit of the contract the two parties cease doing business together. It is only when there are large sums of money involved such as royalties & profit-sharing that they go to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Juggs, hang it up. Until you produce that quote, your arguement is coming across as irrelevent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Juggs, hang it up. Until you produce that quote, your arguement is coming across as irrelevent. Actually I kind of like where this has turned. It's gone from a debate on whether Maggs really wants to be with the SOX (assuming that's what the title is getting) to a debate on who is greedier? Frank or Maggs. Which is why I elected back into it. And for those who question my use of the quote function, when it's a gang vs 1 you use it to spread as many bullets around as possible. That might be a difficult one for you to figure out so give it some thought I do have to applaud the mods here at SOXTALK. These kind of threads are not allowed to carry on for long at other sites. I don't need to mention them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Stef, I'll say this one more time. His quote in reference as to whether the SOX could sign him as a free agent came on the heels of the 58/4 offer. Now I do not have the resources to find any references to the 58/4 offer. If this were a court of law you would be expected to share your evidence with me. You may not have the evidence either as you only have the Cubune to go consider for the offer & the quote. I've search ESPN & there is no mention of the 58/4. Once again.. why are you talking to me about an offer made..? Why don't you show me where Maggs said he would not come back to the Sox of he tested the FA market..? Go on.. I know.. you can't. Cause he never said that. It's ok. Just admit you made it up and let it go. We all make mistakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 This bears repeating again because if Stef is acting as the defense for Maggs then she needs to respond intelligently to the facts presented. I realize that might be difficult for her to do, but then I didn't hire her for Maggs defense. Hopefully useless nonsensical wise cracks are not the crux of her defense. Actually I'm just calling you out on lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Actually I kind of like where this has turned. It's gone from a debate on whether Maggs really wants to be with the SOX (assuming that's what the title is getting) to a debate on who is greedier? Frank or Maggs. That's because you couldn't prove the first thing, so you tangeted over to something else. It is the classic way to argue on the internet, if you can't win, change the subject. If changing the subject doesn't work, resort to character assasination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 What I have done is that in the absence of being able to find any reference to the 58/4 offer which I have stated is when Maggs made the quote I have provided considerable evidence suggesting that it is MORE PROBABLE that he made the quote than he didn't. On the defense side of the equation you have neither provided any evidence that he did not make the quote NOR have you provided any evidence that would suggest it is MORE PROBABLE that he didn't make it. Can I say that Maggs once said the Holocaust never happened? If you can't find evidence that he NEVER said that, you must agree that Mags could have said that. That's your logic...can we all use it? I declare a mistrial! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Once again.. why are you talking to me about an offer made..? Why don't you show me where Maggs said he would not come back to the Sox of he tested the FA market..? Go on.. I know.. you can't. Cause he never said that. It's ok. Just admit you made it up and let it go. We all make mistakes. Some people simply don't read all the words What part of "his quote appeared in the same article that discussed the 58/4 offer" did you not understand? If you find a reference to the 58/4 article & his being asked the question you will find the quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Without the QUOTE Your agrument doesn't FLOAT Give it up Juggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 SS called me a communist because I advocate stronger laws for greater collective bargaining power? Is it wrong for the American people to have a right to use their power as consumers & citizens to influence the economics of the country? Is it wrong for American citizens to vote on such issues? Is that your definition of communism? Advocating use of a collective power in economics to bring about greater distribution of wealth is not communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Which is why he's an arse-hole for saying that once he goes to FA he will never be back with the SOX. :fyou Maggs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Advocating use of a collective power in economics to bring about greater distribution of wealth is not communism. distribution of wealth such as paying baseball players 10 million dollars a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 He said it! It was probably a quote in the Cubune. I'm looking for a link reference now. Find it yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Some people simply don't read all the words What part of "his quote appeared in the same article that discussed the 58/4 offer" did you not understand? If you find a reference to the 58/4 article & his being asked the question you will find the quote. Well.. since you appear to be the only person on this planet that has seen this article.. even though you say it was on ESPN, but now it's mysteriously vanished into thin air.... I suppose I could let it slide.. Naaa.. You lied. You told a lie. You are a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 SS called me a communist because I advocate stronger laws for greater collective bargaining power? Is it wrong for the American people to have a right to use their power as consumers & citizens to influence the economics of the country? Is it wrong for American citizens to vote on such issues? Is that your definition of communism? Advocating use of a collective power in economics to bring about greater distribution of wealth is not communism. I guess you missed the joke in that. Hmm what other government form talks about redistributing wealth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.