JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Well I guess we found the poster child for failed parents and ethics training. Have a nice day. This thread serves as an example of someone who routinely engages in libel. In contrast when I was unable to find the quote on line I admitted that basis of my characterization of Maggs was no longer valid. That's called a "retraction". Thus I have demonstrated honesty in my endeavor to prove the basis point conclusively & when unable to do so I retracted the statement. Perhaps the whole "admitting one's mistake" was not a part of your education. I guess expertise in libel was more important Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Perhaps the whole "admitting one's mistake" was not a part of your education. I guess expertise in libel was more important Talk about the kettle calling the wedding dress black... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Talk about the kettle calling the wedding dress black... Are you stupid? Did I not say that I could not prove conclusively that Maggs said "no" or "never" in response to the question "Would you sign with the SOX as a free agent?". Look through the thread. The answer is yes. I'm well aware that if you can't prove it conclusively in this kangaroo court then it's the same as saying it never happened. While I think it's short-sighted & ignorant of other data available it is simple & well you know what they say about simpletons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 This thread serves as an example of someone who routinely engages in libel. In contrast when I was unable to find the quote on line I admitted that basis of my characterization of Maggs was no longer valid. That's called a "retraction". Thus I have demonstrated honesty in my endeavor to prove the basis point conclusively & when unable to do so I retracted the statement. Perhaps the whole "admitting one's mistake" was not a part of your education. I guess expertise in libel was more important I offered to you a one post summary of everything you said and asked you to tell me which statement was a lie. You talk about my libelous paraphrasing of you, yet you do not point to any of my posts. You doctor up a quote in one of your posts, and claim it was mine. That's ok, that's an example of honesty, that's not libel? You claimed that a confidentiality ageement would prevent a company from offering a letter of recomendation. Finally an agreement that you believe is binding. Juggs, You're argument against Maggs has caused you to exagerate at best and lie at worse. You are trying to inflate your business experience to the point of being ridiculous. No one is believing you. As far as my experience in contracts. My work involves setting up international purchasing agreements. I have companies that are sourcing sub assembly components with suppliers. These contracts routingly require further sub contracting. So yes, I am familar to situation where sub contractors are in default and what happens to the prime contractor. Any supplier that does not live up to their agreements, shuts down a production line, demands price increases not outlined in the agreements, doesn't meet quality standards is not invited to participate in future projects. Production is too important to risk not getting product because someone feels they do not have to honor their word. You are right, they are rarely sued, they also are not given additional business. Contingencies are built in for currency echanges, shipping restrictions, air cargo charges if a supplier is in default, etc. A carefully negotiated contract that is negotiated in good faith is fair for everyone. Juggs, you lost this one and it's only getting worse. Quit now while you have some credibility left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 You claimed that a confidentiality ageement would prevent a company from offering a letter of recomendation. I missed this previously... And I find it interesting that all of our reps have both confidentiality and non-compete agreements and we give recomendation letters all the time... Just don't breat the rules of the agreement and we wont have to sue their asses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 I missed this previously... And I find it interesting that all of our reps have both confidentiality and non-compete agreements and we give recomendation letters all the time... Just don't breat the rules of the agreement and we wont have to sue their asses The confidentiality he would need for his partners to agree to is that he uses leverage to get out of contracts when he no longer thinks they are fair. I'd want that held in confidence also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Anyone else hear that Maggs won't resign with the White Sox if he becomes a Free Agent?? I got the link right here, you have to scroll down a bit to find the exact quote: Maggs won't resign with the Sox!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Anyone else hear that Maggs won't resign with the White Sox if he becomes a Free Agent?? I got the link right here, you have to scroll down a bit to find the exact quote: Maggs won't resign with the Sox!! Maggs who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 KW is now facing as he comes to grips with the fact that the Cell is a hitters park. That means you need greater talent & skill level in your pitchers then in your hitters. Thank you Ribbie, in all the commotion I missed this. Juggs, explain something. I will agree with you that the Cell is a hitters ball park. I assume that means the ballpark favors hitters. So a team with superior hitting would be at an advantage. Why would you give up that advantage by getting rid of hitting for pitching? I thought if you have a hitters ballpark you would want great hitting? Maybe because we have great hitting we need a pitcher's ballpark? Any baseball fans want to clue me in on why if you have a hitter's ballpark, you'd trade hitting for pitching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Juggs, you lost this one and it's only getting worse. Quit now while you have some credibility left. repeat loop .. libel .. bad assumptions .. mischaracterizations. Don't you get tired of yourself? If you want me to respect what you have to say then try using the quote button without modifying the quote instead of resorting to libelous paraphrasing. As for Maggs I listed my 8 points EXCLUDING the statement I CAN NOT prove. I standby the 8 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 repeat loop .. libel .. bad assumptions .. mischaracterizations. Don't you get tired of yourself? If you want me to respect what you have to say then try using the quote button without modifying the quote instead of resorting to libelous paraphrasing. As for Maggs I listed my 8 points EXCLUDING the statement I CAN NOT prove. I standby the 8 points. Juggs many people here pointed to your lies. I ask you again, please point mine out. You've accused me time and again. You have even making up quotes and attributing them to me. That's fact and I pointed it out to you. Yet you still have not retracted it. I will be happy to retract any statement I've made you can show me is false. Spend a few minutes, review the posts and show me one time I libeled you. One time a blatently lied on one of your quotes. Hell, your exact quotes are my best stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Juggs, explain something. I will agree with you that the Cell is a hitters ball park. I assume that means the ballpark favors hitters. So a team with superior hitting would be at an advantage. Why would you give up that advantage by getting rid of hitting for pitching? I thought if you have a hitters ballpark you would want great hitting? Maybe because we have great hitting we need a pitcher's ballpark? Any baseball fans want to clue me in on why if you have a hitter's ballpark, you'd trade hitting for pitching? That is so obvious. If you play in a hitter's park then the level of skill & talent needed for a hitter to succeed in that park is less than say an average or pitcher's park. Since the skill & talent level needed is less that means there is a greater pool of talent that can succeed in that park. There is statistical evidence to support that. Likewise, the skill & talent level needed for a pitcher to succeed in a hitter's park is much greater than say an average or pitcher's park. Since the skill & talent level needed is more than means there is a smaller pool of talent that can succeed in that park. There is statistical evidence to support this as well. Obviously the smaller the pool of talent you can choose from the higher the price you will pay for that talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Juggs, have you found any of my libelous statements yet? How about a retraction on the quote you attributed to me that was a blatent lie? Honesty is such a simple word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Juggs many people here pointed to your lies. I ask you again, please point mine out. You've accused me time and again. You have even making up quotes and attributing them to me. That's fact and I pointed it out to you. Yet you still have not retracted it. I will be happy to retract any statement I've made you can show me is false. A lie is when a person states something as a fact. I never did that. I stated it as heresay. I then tried to prove it as a fact. I couldn't. So it remains heresay. Now if people want to call that a lie that's their opinion. We all don't have the same level of intelligence or education so I don't expect us all to share the same opinion. Other than making generalizations in direct referenece to your libel of something I said I never misquoted you. Now again if you consider that action a lie read above. If you honestly want to retract your libel statements then YOU should simply go back through the thread & look at every post were YOU dishonestly wrote something in reference to what I said RATHER than simply quote what I said. What you have done repeatedly is worse than what reporters do when they massage quotes to fit the theme of the article they want to write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 That is so obvious. If you play in a hitter's park then the level of skill & talent needed for a hitter to succeed in that park is less than say an average or pitcher's park. Since the skill & talent level needed is less that means there is a greater pool of talent that can succeed in that park. There is statistical evidence to support that. Likewise, the skill & talent level needed for a pitcher to succeed in a hitter's park is much greater than say an average or pitcher's park. Since the skill & talent level needed is more than means there is a smaller pool of talent that can succeed in that park. There is statistical evidence to support this as well. Obviously the smaller the pool of talent you can choose from the higher the price you will pay for that talent. Once again the Sox are stupid and built a team for the wrong stadium. I guess Kenny needs some help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Once again the Sox are stupid and built a team for the wrong stadium. I guess Kenny needs some help. Kenny inherited the problem. Over the last 3 yrs Cameron has a 1427 OPS at the Cell. In 2000 with SEA he had a 5.82 RPG. Koney had a 6.30. In 2001 with SEA he had a 5.91 RPG, Koney had a 6.14. In 2002 with SEA he had a 5.23 RPG, Koney had a 6.31. In 2003 with SEA he had a 5.17 RPG, Koney had a 4.22. Why does this matter? Because Cameron is considered one of the best center fielders in the game today as far as defense is concerned. At the top of the trade he was a solid hitter. Throughout his career with the SOX he has proven time & again he can hit at the Cell. Now what's the value of a CF who has proven himself in your ball park with his bat & can win you many more ball games with his glove? In a pitcher's park you have to consider the value of a player to save runs for a pitcher as well. Hunter & Cameron are probably the best in the game in doing that. Likewise with Cameron soldified in that spot the last 5 yrs there is the dominoe effect on the team in terms of the trades Kenny's made. Koney's a solid hitter, but over the last 4 yrs we would have been far better off with Cameron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Is this an example of what you mean by misquoting? This is directly from you, word for word. Please care to explain how this isn't libel and deceitful? Beginning Quote from Jugghead on page 35 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 17 2004, 12:52 PM) blah blah blah ... more stupid dumb arse questions that have already been addressed in the thread. My reading skills suck that's why I keep asking the same dumb questions over & over. blah blah blah ... I'm so stupid I need to string together irrelevancies & relationships that have no relation whatsoever. blah blah blah ... since I can't read .. just tell me where to put my X on the contract It's pretty pointless for me to respond. Because any one with a brain reading this thread can see the obvious pattern & with that pattern it will never end: Tex makes dumb-arse assumptions (annual contracts) & dishonestly paraphrases what Juggs writes. Juggs then has to point out the stupidity in Tex's assumptions. Repeat loop .. over and over again. I'm not here to educate Tex. I didn't sign up for that job. Bf, I'll debate the last Maggs contract extension in the other thread. End of Quote :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Is this an example of what you mean by misquoting? This is directly from you, word for word. Please care to explain how this isn't libel and deceitful? Beginning Quote from Jugghead on page 35 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 17 2004, 12:52 PM) It's pretty pointless for me to respond. Because any one with a brain reading this thread can see the obvious pattern & with that pattern it will never end: Tex makes dumb-arse assumptions (annual contracts) & dishonestly paraphrases what Juggs writes. Juggs then has to point out the stupidity in Tex's assumptions. Repeat loop .. over and over again. I'm not here to educate Tex. I didn't sign up for that job. Bf, I'll debate the last Maggs contract extension in the other thread. End of Quote :headshake Are you really that stupid to where you can't recognize a sarcastic & parodic characterization vs a quote? It's one thing to make reference to what someone said in a paraphrase by referring to their identidy & quite another to make an obvious sarcastic reference to what they said. The only reason why the quote function was used is to save me time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 When I was wrong I appologized to quickman both publically and privately. As soon as you show me any time I libeled you, I would do the same. Don't worry about the public apology. We're cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 When I was wrong I appologized to quickman both publically and privately. As soon as you show me any time I libeled you, I would do the same. Don't worry about the public apology. We're cool. Tex, look this is a sport message board. If we were in SL&P if never would have gotten out of hand. But we're not we are in PHT. Smack & all the other BS is par for the course. I don't take it personally & you shouldn't either. I don't even think you're a bad person. You're a SOX fan. That's one thing we have in common. Early on when you erroneously paraphrasing my comments I pointed in out in my reply. It's pretty obvious & you can just look over the thread to see for yourself. When you repeatedly continue to do it I lost some respect for you so I said why bother? It's not necc to do so. I don't believe I will ever do business with you & I doubt you will ever do business with me. My line of work puts people out of jobs. SS knows this from yrs past. I've yet to have a contract to where the net effect has been anything other than the company cutting workers as a result of IT work I did for them. I ask God's forgiveness for that consequence all the time but in reality I don't have any control over it. When I worked for Fortune 100 companies several years ago the work I did led to 1000's of job losses. The worst part about my sector of work is the better you get it the quicker you can figure out how many jobs will be replaced. Now even my sector is getting out-sourced so who knows what the future holds. I have never failed to complete a project or fullfill the terms of a contract. Maybe now you have a better understanding that in my sector the end client is the most important client & the middle-men are of no more value to you than you are to them. In the cases where a contract was ended with a middle-man it was always on good terms with a letter of recommendation. They understood the situation & realized I was not at fault. In my sector they don't expect you to give up a high paying contract out of loyalty. Especially when they are hard pressed at the time to find a new one. They don't expect you to wait on a fence for them so that you can remain doing business with them. Now if you're serious about being honest then when you make any reference to what I've just said you will leave the quote intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Looks like Smilie Moonface will be back in about 10 days. In time for Cubs series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Looks like Smilie Moonface will be back in about 10 days. In time for Cubs series? Haha, lol, Smilie Moonface. I'm not exactly sure if you're describing Maggs or what but I'm laughing at it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Can we flatline this thread? "Time of death..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Can we flatline this thread? "Time of death..." Yes, awesome 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.