MLB's power to eject Schott
David Joseph Grabiner
There has been some recent discussion on the ability of MLB to
discipline Schott. The following quotes provided by AP clarify the
relevant rules:
The NL constitution gives [league president] Coleman "power to suspend
for a definite period and to impose a fine upon any manager, player,
umpire or club officer or employee guilty, in public, of gross
misbehavior, including intoxication, fighting, quarreling, indecency or
other scandalous conduct, whether on or off the playing field, when such
conduct is, in the president's opinion, calculated to bring disrepute
upon the league or the game of professional baseball."
Baseball's ruling executive council - eight owners and the league presidents -
has the power to take action against conduct deemed "not to be in the best
interests of baseball." The penalty may include "suspension or removal of any
officer or employee of a major league or a major league club."
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner
I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it.
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Jon Avins
grab...@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (David Joseph Grabiner) wrote:
>There has been some recent discussion on the ability of MLB to
>discipline Schott. The following quotes provided by AP clarify the
>relevant rules:
I believe this stuff shows that Marge is exempt.
>The NL constitution gives [league president] Coleman "power to suspend
>for a definite period and to impose a fine upon any manager, player,
>umpire or club officer or employee guilty, in public, of gross
>misbehavior, including intoxication, fighting, quarreling, indecency or
>other scandalous conduct, whether on or off the playing field, when such
>conduct is, in the president's opinion, calculated to bring disrepute
>upon the league or the game of professional baseball."
First, the definition of "officer" is crucial. I would argue that an
owner is not an officer. Is this how they got George? If Marge has named
herself CEO she should resign that post pronto and would therefore I
belive be immune from this rule. She is certainly not an employee.
Second, much as she's an utter embarssment to the human race, any lawyer
would have an easy time arguing that her statements do not constitute
"scandalous conduct...calculated tp bring disrepute upon the league or
the game...."
>Baseball's ruling executive council - eight owners and the league presidents -
>has the power to take action against conduct deemed "not to be in the best
>interests of baseball." The penalty may include "suspension or removal of any
>officer or employee of a major league or a major league club."
Again, is she an officer? Is this how they got George?
And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
a very interesting test case.
Jon Avins
GO METS!!!!
CanyonFish
In article <4ni4ba$b...@ka.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org>
writes:
>
>First, the definition of "officer" is crucial. I would argue that an
>owner is not an officer. Is this how they got George? If Marge has named
>herself CEO she should resign that post pronto and would therefore I
>belive be immune from this rule. She is certainly not an employee.
>
>
She is an employee of the corporation. No?
Joseph Tyson (canyo...@aol.com)
Bellport, Long Island, NY
Member: Society for American Baseball Research, NYS Outdoor Writers Assn
Oakdale Sportsmans Club, Peconic Cigar Smoker's Society
Life is a sh*t sandwich and every day you take another bite - Joe Schmidt
**************************************************************************
*****************
DougP001
>First, the definition of "officer" is crucial. I would argue that an
>owner is not an officer. Is this how they got George? If Marge has named
>herself CEO she should resign that post pronto and would therefore I
>belive be immune from this rule.
The Reds are a partnership in which Marge Schott is the only general
partner. She can't avoid "officer" status without relinquishing control
of the team.
>Second, much as she's an utter embarssment to the human race, any lawyer
>would have an easy time arguing that her statements do not constitute
>"scandalous conduct...calculated tp bring disrepute upon the league or
>the game...."
But that's not the issue. The written standard asks whether "such conduct
is, IN THE PRESIDENT'S OPINION, calculated <etc.>." Marge could win only
by showing that no reasonable league president could possibly believe that
her conduct brought disrepute -- an argument she'd never win, given the
vast quantities of "Marge is an embarrassment to the game" literature
published over the past two months.
>And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
>a very interesting test case.
It's been tested numerous times. Charlie Finley tried to argue that the
"best interests" clause didn't empower Bowie Kuhn unilaterally to void
his sales of star players to the Yankees and Red Sox. The court said,
basically, "You accepted this language when you bought the team, and now
you're stuck with it." Schott hasn't a prayer in Hell -- a place she'd
probably find quite congenial.
Sultane
Yea - thats the kind of country I want to live in. Where you can lose your
job for having unpopular and unfavorable opinions - lets fire all people
with poor opinions. Better yet, lets send an AMerican Opinion letter to
all the citizens and say " YOu must believe as we do and think what we
think and you must believe as we do and you must not offend anyone else "
then we can all pretend we are not human living amongst humans and we can
live in the realm of non reality.
Until she breaches her contract and the contract is in line of the
Constitution ( which is the law of the land) I say the bitch stays.
Steve
Wenthold Paul G.
In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960518...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>Yea - thats the kind of country I want to live in. Where you can lose your
>job for having unpopular and unfavorable opinions - lets fire all people
>with poor opinions.
Hey, if your behavior based on your "opinion" hurts your
business, then damn straight you can lose your job.
Better yet, lets send an AMerican Opinion letter to
>all the citizens and say " YOu must believe as we do and think what we
>think and you must believe as we do and you must not offend anyone else "
>then we can all pretend we are not human living amongst humans and we can
>live in the realm of non reality.
How about if you went around telling newspaper people that your
company is poorly run and puts out poor quality merchandise.
Don't you think the company would look unfavorably on that?
Do they have the right to fire you? You're costing them
money, of course they will can you. Even if it is "just your
opinion".
The question is do the owners have the power to protect the
interests of MLB. I figure they suspended Steinbrenner from
his team, I suspect they could do something about Schott.
paul
--
!! Joe: "He will come back to you. Don't worry." !!
!! Meg: "But how do you know he'll come back?" !!
!! Sister: "BECAUSE HE'S A BASEBALL STAR, THAT'S HOW HE KNOWS!"!!
!! (from the Broadway hit "Damn Yankees" starring Jerry Lewis) !!
Roger L. Lustig
Sultane wrote:
>
> Yea - thats the kind of country I want to live in. Where you can lose your
> job for having unpopular and unfavorable opinions - lets fire all people
> with poor opinions.
Would you want to work for a company that allowed its employees to say
things, willy-nilly, that brought the company into disrepute? That sort
of thing can harm the business--and YOUR job. Do the owners of MLB not
have a right to protect their investment?
Keep in mind that MLB is highly dependent on public relations; on its
image as a sport for ALL Americans.
> Better yet, lets send an AMerican Opinion letter to
> all the citizens and say " YOu must believe as we do and think what we
> think and you must believe as we do and you must not offend anyone else "
That's not at issue. The issue is whether someone has the right to hurt
the livelihood of others *after she has signed a contract* binding her to
consider the best interests of baseball.
> then we can all pretend we are not human living amongst humans and we can
> live in the realm of non reality.
You're doing a fine job of it right now.
> Until she breaches her contract and the contract is in line of the
> Constitution ( which is the law of the land)
Federal courts have always ruled that the "best interests" clause
in the owners' contracts is indeed constitutional.
> I say the bitch stays.
Whatever.
Roger
Sultane
Of course if your opinion hurts the company you can lose your job - but
she is the company - you cannot fire an owner. MLB can expel the Reds
organization out of MLB but it cannot fire her from her OWNER position -
she is the team and the company - that was my point. She didnt lease the
team from MLB - she owns that team and it is a part of MLB because MLB
lets the REDS be a part of MLB.
STeve
Roger L. Lustig
Sultane wrote:
>
> Of course if your opinion hurts the company you can lose your job - but
> she is the company - you cannot fire an owner.
You can, however, discipline a franchise holder--and that discipline can
be sufficiently harsh to include transfer of chief executive duties to
one of the other owners.
> MLB can expel the Reds
> organization out of MLB but it cannot fire her from her OWNER position -
> she is the team and the company - that was my point.
She and several other owners.
?She didnt lease the
> team from MLB - she owns that team and it is a part of MLB because MLB
> lets the REDS be a part of MLB.
Right--she holds the *franchise*--which MLB owns. They let her use it
under certain conditions.
Roger
David Nieporent
In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960518...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>Of course if your opinion hurts the company you can lose your job - but
>she is the company - you cannot fire an owner. MLB can expel the Reds
>organization out of MLB but it cannot fire her from her OWNER position -
>she is the team and the company - that was my point. She didnt lease the
>team from MLB - she owns that team and it is a part of MLB because MLB
>lets the REDS be a part of MLB.
The Reds have a contract with MLB, which she had to agree to when she
bought the team. No, you can't "fire" an owner, but you can force them
to sell the team. It has been done before.
--
David M. Nieporent |"I have been participating in the USENET for many
niep...@pluto.njcc.com|years now. I have never found it to be a requirement
Plainsboro, NJ |for anyone to know anything about any subject to post
DAVEY & ORIOLES 1996!!!|on any newsgroup." -- seen on talk.politics.misc.
Mitchell J Plitnick
In <4nmap8$k...@earth.njcc.com> niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David
Nieporent) writes:
>The Reds have a contract with MLB, which she had to agree to when she
>bought the team. No, you can't "fire" an owner, but you can force
them
>to sell the team. It has been done before.
Quite so. However, I would wonder if bad press (and, offensive as i
find Marge, her statements and her actions, that's all the grounds for
forcing her to sell would amount to) is sufficient grounds to do this.
I would tend to think not. It would also be interesting if this did
occur and she decided to challenge it. As with many arrangements in MLB
and other major sports, I doubt it would stand up in a court.
---Mitchell---
Jack Heraty
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>Yea - thats the kind of country I want to live in. Where you can lose your
>job for having unpopular and unfavorable opinions - lets fire all people
>with poor opinions.
Happens all the time, in every country that has ever been. People
have been fired for unpopular opinions since the first caveman
employed the first cavelackey.
Welcome to Planet Earth.
And "firing" is not applicable here. Marge Schott owns a major league
baseball franchise. She can't be fired from anything, as she is not
an employee of anyone but herself. If she can be forced to reliquish
her ownership of the franchise by the franchisor, she is due fair
market value. Big difference.
The reason *I* have been saying all along that there isn't much
*legally* that MLB can do in that it doesn't appear that she has
violated her franchise agreement per se because of her ignorant
remarks. She has been suspended in the past, and can be suspended
again. Suspension does not mean she is no longer general partner,
though. It means she can't be involved in day to day
operations (the same thing has happened to Steinbrenner twice, but
he's still the Yankees' owner). MLB and the National League are free
to apply pressure to sell however, and can go a long way to making her
life even more miserable than it is already if they want, though.
> Better yet, lets send an AMerican Opinion letter to
>all the citizens and say " YOu must believe as we do and think what we
>think and you must believe as we do and you must not offend anyone else "
>then we can all pretend we are not human living amongst humans and we can
>live in the realm of non reality.
Have you worked for a private organization in your life? Have you had
a disagreement with your boss? Have you voiced it? If the boss felt
like it, couldn't he/she fire you for any reason? Answer: of course,
unless there was a specific breach of any employment contract you may
have signed. (Hint: such occurrences are why such things as unions
exist.)
Do you remember the reason Henry Ford II gave Lee Iacocca when he
fired him from the Ford Motor Company? He said, "I just don't like
you." That is a true story, and Mr. Ford was entirely within his
rights to do so, because it was the Ford Motor Company, not the
Iacocca Motor Company.
>Until she breaches her contract and the contract is in line of the
>Constitution ( which is the law of the land) I say the bitch stays.
Once again, all together now:
The doctrine of free speech applies to the government. Private
organizations have no such restrictions, and never have.
For example, if one says one's boss is a fourflusher, a blackguard and
a bounder, one's boss has the perfect right to fire one, as long as no
employment contract was breached.
One then has the perfect right to sue, of course, but not on a
constitutional basis for that alone.
If I were your boss and you went around saying nasty things about me,
rest assured that I'd fire your sorry keester in a New York minute.
Now, could we take the Constitution out of this part of the argument?
--
Jack Heraty
Software consultant to the stars.
David Nieporent
In article <4nmlps$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
In the Charlie Finley (vs Kuhn) case, the courts upheld the broad and
sweeping powers of the commissioner to act in the best interests of the
game. They said that the owners were probably stupid for agreeing to
these powers, but once they did, they were bound by them.
Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet it
_would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general partner.
As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which was, if
you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
Mitchell J Plitnick
In <4nno6e$1...@earth.njcc.com> niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David
Nieporent) writes:
>
>In article <4nmlps$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Mitchell J Plitnick <mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) writes:
>
>
>>Quite so. However, I would wonder if bad press (and, offensive as i
>>find Marge, her statements and her actions, that's all the grounds
for
>>forcing her to sell would amount to) is sufficient grounds to do
this.
>>I would tend to think not. It would also be interesting if this did
>>occur and she decided to challenge it. As with many arrangements in
MLB
>>and other major sports, I doubt it would stand up in a court.
>
>In the Charlie Finley (vs Kuhn) case, the courts upheld the broad and
>sweeping powers of the commissioner to act in the best interests of
the
>game. They said that the owners were probably stupid for agreeing to
>these powers, but once they did, they were bound by them.
Again, true, though the circumstances now are different--in that the
commissioner is an owner, and is also termed an "acting commissioner".
I have little doubt that the "best interests of baseball" clause would
be useless in court with a commish with a clear vested interest.
>Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet
it
>_would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general
partner.
>As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
>day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
Absolutely. The point I was making was only in regards to Schott being
forced to sell-- a very different matter from retaining her full
interest but being barred from the day to day operations.
---Mitchell---
David Ross
David Nieporent (niep...@pluto.njcc.com) wrote:
: In the Charlie Finley (vs Kuhn) case, the courts upheld the broad and
: sweeping powers of the commissioner to act in the best interests of the
: game. They said that the owners were probably stupid for agreeing to
: these powers, but once they did, they were bound by them.
I seem to recall this clause being removed from the wording of the "job
description" of the commissioner. The last "real" commissioner was forced
out, in part, by invoking the "Best Interest" clause in with regard to
realignment. He was kicked out and the realignment plan he had put into
motion was killed, if I remember correctly.
The owners then voted to remove the "Best Interest" phrasing from the
duties of commissioner.
It's ironic that there has been realignment anyway--due to expansion and
expanded playoffs...
--
"Two weeks...maybe three. You never know with psychosomatic injuries."
Jim Palmer
_________________D...@freenet.columbus.oh.us_________________
Nelson Lu
In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960518...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>Of course if your opinion hurts the company you can lose your job - but
>she is the company - you cannot fire an owner. MLB can expel the Reds
>organization out of MLB but it cannot fire her from her OWNER position -
But they can -- IF (and it's an if that I have not been able to confirm or
disprove one way or the other) she signed a contract allowing MLB to oust her
from her team. Contract overrides her property rights in that case.
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Nelson Lu
In article <4nmlps$6...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Mitchell J Plitnick <mit...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Nieporent) writes:
>
>>The Reds have a contract with MLB, which she had to agree to when she
>>bought the team. No, you can't "fire" an owner, but you can force
>them
>>to sell the team. It has been done before.
>
>find Marge, her statements and her actions, that's all the grounds for
>forcing her to sell would amount to) is sufficient grounds to do this.
>I would tend to think not. It would also be interesting if this did
>occur and she decided to challenge it. As with many arrangements in MLB
>and other major sports, I doubt it would stand up in a court.
It would depend on a couple of things:
First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to sell the
team.
Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be scrutinized;
basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct detrimental to baseball"
may be sufficient.
Third, however, the contract term has to be not unconscionable. The broad
term above would most likely be unconscionable. Therefore, the term must be
broad enough to contain her behavior but specific enough that it is not
overreaching. I think that such terms are quite possible, but without seeing
such a contract, I cannot say, for certain, of course. MLB has screwed up
so many things before; I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up their
contract with her.
Sultane
So when Disney starts incorporating other aspects of their other
businesses into the Angels - can MLB stop them?? I dont think so - DIsney
is THE mafIA!!!!!!!!! I went to an Angel game last year and bought an ice
cream sandwich - found myself looking at Mickey Mouse in my hand with ice
cream in between him. I released the Angels from my life that game.
Steve
On 20 May 1996, Nelson Lu wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960518...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> >Of course if your opinion hurts the company you can lose your job - but
> >she is the company - you cannot fire an owner. MLB can expel the Reds
> >organization out of MLB but it cannot fire her from her OWNER position -
>
> But they can -- IF (and it's an if that I have not been able to confirm or
> disprove one way or the other) she signed a contract allowing MLB to oust her
> from her team. Contract overrides her property rights in that case.
>
Realto Margarino
David Nieporent pukes:
> Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet it
> _would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general partner.
> As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
> day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
Nothing. Not a goddamned thing.
> Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which was, if
> you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
> reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Not a goddamned thing. Schott's comments weren't even hateful. They
simply displayed an ignorance of history. And even if she is a closet
Nazi, as distasteful as it may seem, she has that right, and it in no
way interferes with her running the team.
Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies with
your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
You have no business posting here. Bugger off.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
Nelson Lu wrote:
> First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to sell the
> team.
>
> Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be scrutinized;
> basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct detrimental to baseball"
> may be sufficient.
You would have to establish causality. Go ahead. Give us a taste. Show us
how Schott's comments could be considered "detrimental to baseball".
You would have a MUCH stronger case, although it would still be weak, if you
argued that allowing Rose to chase the record was detrimental to baseball
because she did not field the strongest team.
But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
> Third, however, the contract term has to be not unconscionable. The broad
> term above would most likely be unconscionable. Therefore, the term must be
> broad enough to contain her behavior but specific enough that it is not
> overreaching. I think that such terms are quite possible, but without seeing
> such a contract, I cannot say, for certain, of course. MLB has screwed up
> so many things before; I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up their
> contract with her.
You'd never get to the third point.
cordially, as always,
rm
Nelson Lu
In article <31A034...@interlog.com>,
Realto Margarino <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Nelson Lu wrote:
>
>> First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to sell the
>> team.
>>
>> Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be scrutinized;
>> basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct detrimental to baseball"
>> may be sufficient.
>
>You would have to establish causality. Go ahead. Give us a taste. Show us
>how Schott's comments could be considered "detrimental to baseball".
Roger, you need to learn how to read. I did not say that I consider Schott's
comments detrimental to baseball.
Rather, I say that it is possible construe the clause as to include her
comments.
Ira K Blum
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
> David Nieporent pukes:
>
> > Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet it
> > _would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general partner.
> > As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
> > day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
>
> What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
Driven fans away. To the owners, that is paramount.
> Nothing. Not a goddamned thing.
see above.
> > Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which was, if
> > you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
> > reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
>
> What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Steinbrenner was forced to give up controlling interest in his franchise
by order of the commissioner of baseball. This is what has been proposed
to be done to Marge Schott. Are you daft?
> Not a goddamned thing. Schott's comments weren't even hateful. They
> simply displayed an ignorance of history. And even if she is a closet
> Nazi, as distasteful as it may seem, she has that right, and it in no
> way interferes with her running the team.
Well, there are two purposes to running a team. one is to win
games/pennants. The other is to make money. Her comments have been
driving fans away which damages the ability of her franchise to make
money. This also hurts the profitibility of the other franchises in
MLB. For which she may be suspended and/or forced to give up controlling
interest.
> Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies with
> your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
That perception is important for the good of baseball. If people
perceive that she is an anathema and that causes them to not go to the
games and the Reds start drawing triple digit crowds (<1000 fans) then
something WILL be done. right now, something should be done, but
probably won't.
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
- Jeff Foxworthy
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Jonathan C. Enslin
.
>>Baseball's ruling executive council - eight owners and the league presidents -
>>has the power to take action against conduct deemed "not to be in the best
>>interests of baseball." The penalty may include "suspension or removal of any
>>officer or employee of a major league or a major league club."
>
>And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
>a very interesting test case.
>
Yeah, you're right. Marge is removed from the day-to-day operations of the
baseball team. Her actions are not directly related to baseball anyway.
Just because she bought the team, doesn't mean she forfeited her first
ammendment rights.
Jon
Realto Margarino
Ira K Blum wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > David Nieporent pukes:
> >
> > > Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet it
> > > _would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general partner.
> > > As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
> > > day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
> >
> > What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
>
> Driven fans away. To the owners, that is paramount.
Oh, so _that's_ why the Jays attendence is down...
> > Nothing. Not a goddamned thing.
>
> see above.
What fans has she driven away? Who? How many? Duh...
> > > Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which was, if
> > > you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
> > > reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
> >
> > What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
>
> Steinbrenner was forced to give up controlling interest in his franchise
> by order of the commissioner of baseball. This is what has been proposed
> to be done to Marge Schott. Are you daft?
Uh huh. And _why_ was Steinbrenner forced to give up controlling interest
in his franchise? Is it because he flunked a reporter's history quiz?
Daft, indeed...
> > Not a goddamned thing. Schott's comments weren't even hateful. They
> > simply displayed an ignorance of history. And even if she is a closet
> > Nazi, as distasteful as it may seem, she has that right, and it in no
> > way interferes with her running the team.
>
> Well, there are two purposes to running a team. one is to win
> games/pennants. The other is to make money.
Nope. There are 28 different sets of reasons to run a major league team.
One set for each team. Your pseudo stat fan generalization is worthless.
Her comments have been
> driving fans away which damages the ability of her franchise to make
> money.
Gee, and we thought it was Deion's retirement.
Rubbish.
This also hurts the profitibility of the other franchises in
> MLB. For which she may be suspended and/or forced to give up controlling
> interest.
How many fans? How much profitability? It seems to me that you are applying
the Jon Avins school of "common sense" thinking here.
> > Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies with
> > your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
>
> That perception is important for the good of baseball.
Prove it.
If people
> perceive that she is an anathema and that causes them to not go to the
> games and the Reds start drawing triple digit crowds (<1000 fans) then
> something WILL be done.
Prove it.
right now, something should be done, but
> probably won't.
The only thing that we have learned from your post is that you are
simply prejudiced against Schott. You don't have an iota of fact to
back up what you say. It kind of reminds me of what the Nazis used
to say about the Jews prior to WWII.
Go away from here. You are small-minded and hateful.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
Nelson Lu wrote:
>
> In article <31A034...@interlog.com>,
> Realto Margarino <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >Nelson Lu wrote:
> >
> >> First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to sell the
> >> team.
> >>
> >> Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be scrutinized;
> >> basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct detrimental to baseball"
> >> may be sufficient.
> >
> >You would have to establish causality. Go ahead. Give us a taste. Show us
> >how Schott's comments could be considered "detrimental to baseball".
>
> Roger, you need to learn how to read. I did not say that I consider Schott's
> comments detrimental to baseball.
>
> Rather, I say that it is possible construe the clause as to include her
> comments.
Nothing the matter with my reading. You say it is possible to construe the
clause so as to include her comments. Therefore you are implying that it
is possible that her comments could be considered detrimental to baseball.
In order for her comments to be detrimental to baseball there must be a
relationship between her comments and the health of baseball.
There is _no_ relationship that can be proven between her comments and the
health of baseball. This being the case the clause could not possibly be
legitimately construed so as to include her comments. It doesn't matter
how broad the clause is, there still must be causation.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger L. Lustig
Jonathan C. Enslin wrote:
> >>Baseball's ruling executive council - eight owners and the league presidents -
> >>has the power to take action against conduct deemed "not to be in the best
> >>interests of baseball." The penalty may include "suspension or removal of any
> >>officer or employee of a major league or a major league club."
> >Again, is she an officer? Is this how they got George?
> >And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
> >a very interesting test case.
> Yeah, you're right. Marge is removed from the day-to-day operations of the
> baseball team. Her actions are not directly related to baseball anyway.
> Just because she bought the team, doesn't mean she forfeited her first
> ammendment rights.
What first amendment rights? No governmental agency is regulating her speech
here. The issue is a contractual one: did her actions violate the best-interests
clause to which she long ago agreed?
They don't have to be directly related for the "commissioner" to decided that
they're a problem.
Roger
Nelson Lu
In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960520...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>So when Disney starts incorporating other aspects of their other
>businesses into the Angels - can MLB stop them?? I dont think so - DIsney
>is THE mafIA!!!!!!!!! I went to an Angel game last year and bought an ice
>cream sandwich - found myself looking at Mickey Mouse in my hand with ice
>cream in between him. I released the Angels from my life that game.
Whether if the Angels are a Mickey Mouse team (as some are calling the Mighty
Ducks of Anaheim of the NHL) is irrelevant to the discussion of whether if
Marge Schott can (let along should) be removed by MLB, legally. Your inability
to conduct this discussion rationally and without bringing in irrelevant things
show a lack of ability to communicate logically.
Ob. Marge: I still don't think she should be punished for her comments;
the comments don't really hurt baseball any more than Bud Selig's lying to
Congress or George Steinbrenner's association with unsavory characters.
Nevertheless, I do believe that, contract permitting, that her removal, if
done, will be upheld in the courts.
Gregg Pearlman
Nelson Lu wrote:
>
> Ob. Marge: I still don't think she should be punished for her comments;
> the comments don't really hurt baseball any more than Bud Selig's lying to
> Congress or George Steinbrenner's association with unsavory characters.
> Nevertheless, I do believe that, contract permitting, that her removal, if
> done, will be upheld in the courts.
Whether her comments *hurt* baseball or not, I still feel that if Marge
is punished somehow, it'll just be for *embarrassing* baseball.
(Do unsavory characters consider Steinbrenner an unsavory character?
Heck, on Seinfeld he's a *great* character.)
Gregg
mr.b...@nightl.com
Sultane
On 20 May 1996, Nelson Lu wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.960520...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> >So when Disney starts incorporating other aspects of their other
> >businesses into the Angels - can MLB stop them?? I dont think so - DIsney
> >is THE mafIA!!!!!!!!! I went to an Angel game last year and bought an ice
> >cream sandwich - found myself looking at Mickey Mouse in my hand with ice
> >cream in between him. I released the Angels from my life that game.
>
> Whether if the Angels are a Mickey Mouse team (as some are calling the Mighty
> Ducks of Anaheim of the NHL) is irrelevant to the discussion of whether if
> Marge Schott can (let along should) be removed by MLB, legally. Your inability
> to conduct this discussion rationally and without bringing in irrelevant things
> show a lack of ability to communicate logically.
Give me a break. I was taking the conversation in a different direction. I
thought this could be easily figured out without need of me explaining it.
Perhaps I should have changed the title of the subject. Either way, I don't
think you are in any position to speak of my alleged lack of ability to
communicate logically.
Steve
Realto Margarino
Roger L. Lustig wrote:
> What first amendment rights? No governmental agency is regulating her speech
> here. The issue is a contractual one: did her actions violate the best-interests
> clause to which she long ago agreed?
That's right. And since even a complete idiot can see that her comments do not
in any way affect the interests of baseball this is a non-issue.
> They don't have to be directly related for the "commissioner" to decided that
> they're a problem.
Thank the Lord the Commissioner isn't nearly as stupid as you and a few others
who regularly pollute this group.
cordially, even to Lustig,
rm
David Nieporent
In article <devensli.18...@amber.indstate.edu>,
Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
.
>>>Baseball's ruling executive council - eight owners and the league presidents -
>>>has the power to take action against conduct deemed "not to be in the best
>>>interests of baseball." The penalty may include "suspension or removal of any
>>>officer or employee of a major league or a major league club."
>>Again, is she an officer? Is this how they got George?
>>And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
>>a very interesting test case.
>Yeah, you're right. Marge is removed from the day-to-day operations of the
>baseball team. Her actions are not directly related to baseball anyway.
>Just because she bought the team, doesn't mean she forfeited her first
>ammendment rights.
There's no such thing as "her first amendment rights." At least in this
context.
The first amendment limits what government can do. That's it.
Geez, is the educational system really that bad?
Nelson Lu
In article <Pine.HPP.3.92.96052...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Sultane <sul...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>On 20 May 1996, Nelson Lu wrote:
>> Whether if the Angels are a Mickey Mouse team (as some are calling the Mighty
>> Ducks of Anaheim of the NHL) is irrelevant to the discussion of whether if
>> Marge Schott can (let along should) be removed by MLB, legally. Your inability
>> to conduct this discussion rationally and without bringing in irrelevant things
>> show a lack of ability to communicate logically.
>
>Give me a break. I was taking the conversation in a different direction. I
Funny; it didn't seem to me that you had a direction of any kind other than
let-whoever-disagree-with-me-go-to-hell.
>thought this could be easily figured out without need of me explaining it.
>Perhaps I should have changed the title of the subject. Either way, I don't
>think you are in any position to speak of my alleged lack of ability to
>communicate logically.
Given that not even this message of yours had any logic in it, perhaps I was
expecting too much out of you.
Ira K Blum
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Ira K Blum wrote:
> > >
> > > What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
> >
> > Driven fans away. To the owners, that is paramount.
>
> Oh, so _that's_ why the Jays attendence is down...
I don't know what the Jays have to do with it, but the Jays attendence is
down because they are losing (20-23) and are perceived to be not a factor
in winning anything this year. Also their management is committed to
rebuilding, which is not usually good for attendance. The Reds, while
actually playing worse (16-23) are only 2.5 games out of their division
lead, have the NL MVP playing SS, as well as a resurgent Eric Davis (long
time hero). Plus, Toronto is averaging 29,832 in their 21 home games
where Cincinnati is averaging 21,617. Plus, the Reds are the worst road
draw in the NL and third worst in the majors, behind California and Oakland.
> > > What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
> >
> > Steinbrenner was forced to give up controlling interest in his franchise
> > by order of the commissioner of baseball. This is what has been proposed
> > to be done to Marge Schott. Are you daft?
>
> Uh huh. And _why_ was Steinbrenner forced to give up controlling interest
> in his franchise? Is it because he flunked a reporter's history quiz?
> Daft, indeed...
The why of this is not important. The importance is that its been done
before.
> > Well, there are two purposes to running a team. one is to win
> > games/pennants. The other is to make money.
>
> Nope. There are 28 different sets of reasons to run a major league team.
> One set for each team.
If an owner does something that affects every team's bottom line, you
will bet that that owner will be disciplined.
> This also hurts the profitibility of the other franchises in
> > MLB. For which she may be suspended and/or forced to give up controlling
> > interest.
>
> How many fans?
An average of 1700 fans or 7% less than last year, when they went to the
playoffs. For comparison, Texas's attendance is up by 25% Houston's went
up 22%, and Seattle's went up a whopping 81%!
> How much profitability?
duh. if there are fewer fans in the stands then the team is less
profitable, duh....
> > > Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies with
> > > your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
> >
> > That perception is important for the good of baseball.
>
> Prove it.
why?
> If people
> > perceive that she is an anathema and that causes them to not go to the
> > games and the Reds start drawing triple digit crowds (<1000 fans) then
> > something WILL be done.
>
> Prove it.
why?
> right now, something should be done, but
> > probably won't.
>
> The only thing that we have learned from your post is that you are
> simply prejudiced against Schott.
Yep. I'm a Schott-hater. Which is the same as saying that I am a
rational human being. In another thread I stated that I show no
disrespect twords people unless they bring it on themselves. Guess
what? Both you and Marge qualify.
C Kahrl
In article <4nqoqk$a...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson
Lu) wrote:
> Ob. Marge: I still don't think she should be punished for her comments;
> the comments don't really hurt baseball any more than Bud Selig's lying to
> Congress or George Steinbrenner's association with unsavory characters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Shall we assume you're talking about George's attachment to Richard Nixon,
and his illegal contributions scheme to CREEP, which led to his felony
conviction as well as his first suspension?
That's big, bad, roided-up potatoes compared to meeting Howie Spira in an
alley, or Marge Schott's ignorance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Realism has nothing to do with reality; realism is what we have come to
accept as true, because it is familiar." -- Roland Barthes
C Kahrl, AotLB & SS, RobDeerFanClub (RDFC). Co-author, Baseball_Prospectus_
Mike Funk
On Sat, 18 May 1996, Roger L. Lustig wrote:
> Sultane wrote:
> >
> > Yea - thats the kind of country I want to live in. Where you can lose your
> > job for having unpopular and unfavorable opinions - lets fire all people
> > with poor opinions.
>
> Would you want to work for a company that allowed its employees to say
> things, willy-nilly, that brought the company into disrepute? That sort
> of thing can harm the business--and YOUR job. Do the owners of MLB not
> have a right to protect their investment?
Schott is the owner, not an employee. If my boss made such comments, my
only options would be to either deal with it or quit. As a consumer, I
would have the option of ceasing my patronage.
The owners do have a right to protect their investment, however, it
would be quite a stretch to assume that other owners will be hurt by her
comments. I find her opinions disgusting, but I certainly will not stop
attending or watching Orioles games because of Marge Schott. Will you
stop supporting your favorite team because of her? I believe she is only
hurting herself by alienating her own fans.
>
> Keep in mind that MLB is highly dependent on public relations; on its
> image as a sport for ALL Americans.
Agreed.
>
> > Better yet, lets send an AMerican Opinion letter to
> > all the citizens and say " YOu must believe as we do and think what we
> > think and you must believe as we do and you must not offend anyone else "
>
> That's not at issue. The issue is whether someone has the right to hurt
> the livelihood of others *after she has signed a contract* binding her to
> consider the best interests of baseball.
>
Again, the only owner suffering harm from Schott's comments is Schott. I
would be surprised to hear that even one fan in any city except
Cincinnati stopped going to games because of her comments. If MLB took
legal action to remove her, they would have a difficult case to prove,
especially since MLB probably hasn't suffered any damages whatsoever.
Mike Funk
Jonathan C. Enslin
In article <4njch8$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> canyo...@aol.com (CanyonFish) writes:
>From: canyo...@aol.com (CanyonFish)
>Subject: Re: MLB's power to eject Schott
>Date: 17 May 1996 22:26:48 -0400
>In article <4ni4ba$b...@ka.worldbank.org>, Jon Avins <jav...@worldbank.org>
>writes:
>
>>
>>First, the definition of "officer" is crucial. I would argue that an
>>owner is not an officer. Is this how they got George? If Marge has named
>>herself CEO she should resign that post pronto and would therefore I
>>
>>
>
>She is an employee of the corporation. No?
Maybe not. Just because you are a part owner of a corporation, doesn't mean
you are an officer. She is a minority owner at that, but she does control a
greater portion of the team than any other entity.
On the other hand, she does represent the Reds at all owners meetings right?
She's basically a de facto officer then right?
It really doesn't matter. I doubt any substantial penalty would stand up in
court on issues not directly related to baseball.
Jon
Sultane
On 21 May 1996, Nelson Lu wrote:
> >On 20 May 1996, Nelson Lu wrote:
>
> >> Whether if the Angels are a Mickey Mouse team (as some are calling the Mighty
> >> Ducks of Anaheim of the NHL) is irrelevant to the discussion of whether if
> >> Marge Schott can (let along should) be removed by MLB, legally. Your inability
> >> to conduct this discussion rationally and without bringing in irrelevant things
> >> show a lack of ability to communicate logically.
> >
Sultane wrote:
> >Give me a break. I was taking the conversation in a different direction. I
>
> Funny; it didn't seem to me that you had a direction of any kind other than
> let-whoever-disagree-with-me-go-to-hell.
That was not even my tone. If you had trasfered my paragraph over here,
everyone could read that that wasnt my tone. In other words, support your
arguement.
Sultane Wrote:
> >thought this could be easily figured out without need of me explaining it.
> >Perhaps I should have changed the title of the subject. Either way, I don't
> >think you are in any position to speak of my alleged lack of ability to
> >communicate logically.
>
> Given that not even this message of yours had any logic in it, perhaps I was
> expecting too much out of you.
It was a story that happened to me with a question about Disney and its
practises - IT WASNT MEANT TO BE A MESSAGE WITH LOGIC BUT A TRUE STORY
ABOUT DISNEY AND ITS INFILTRATION OF MICKEY MOUSE TO THE BALLBARK> PERHAPS
YOUR LOVE FOR THE ANGELS CAUSED YOU TO READ INTO MY STORY MORE THAN WAS
PRESENT> EITHER WAY< PLEASE DONT TAKE MY DISNEY BASHING PERSONALLY MR
ANGEL ( 1 of about 50,000) FAN
SUtlane
Steve
K. M. Bose
In article <c-kahrl-21...@antioch.uchicago.edu>,
C Kahrl <c-k...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <4nqoqk$a...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson
>Lu) wrote:
>
>> Ob. Marge: I still don't think she should be punished for her comments;
>> the comments don't really hurt baseball any more than Bud Selig's lying to
>> Congress or George Steinbrenner's association with unsavory characters.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Shall we assume you're talking about George's attachment to Richard
Actually, I was under the impression that Nelson was referring to The
Boss' guest shot on Seinfeld...he's been involved in other creepy things?
{ducking}
--
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kb...@unm.edu * Official SDCN * Net.Hermit
Get your head out of a Peter Gammons column and watch a game for once!
"There have been 3 documented cases of couples having sex during Blue Jays
games, suggesting that the Skydome be renamed Exhibition Stadium." -AP
mr.b...@nightl.com
> > Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll
> bet it
> > _would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general
> partner.
> > As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
> > day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
>
> What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
>
> Nothing. Not a goddamned thing.
>
> > Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which
> was, if
> > you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
> > reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
>
> What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at
> all.
>
> Not a goddamned thing. Schott's comments weren't even hateful.
> They
> simply displayed an ignorance of history. And even if she is a
> closet
> Nazi, as distasteful as it may seem, she has that right, and it in
> no
> way interferes with her running the team.
>
> Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies
> with
> your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
>
> You have no business posting here. Bugger off.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
RM, cordially bugger off yourself. The discussion was whether or not baseball
has the power to force her out. You say the concerns expressed are not dealing
with the good of baseball, and that she hasn't hurt baseball. You must live in
either Cleveland (where the bandwagon will grind to a halt in a few years) or
Colorado, where attendance and interest is high. Everywhere else baseball
attendance and viewer ratings are down. And Cincinnati is down much more than
the average.
First you take the Pete Rose fiasco. Cincinnati residents, did that not divide
the community? Then you have the strike. Now you've got an owner who
ridicules the fans for not attending (late last season), calles her players
"million-dollar ni**ers" or "spics," and you'll find that good, decent people
don't want to attend because it might put money in her pocket, and are afraid
to openly support the Reds for fear of being considered in support of Schott,
or are just plain tired of hearing about the witch.
The only thing you said with any truth or relevance is that she's ignorant of
history. If you have nothing constructive to add, and it appears you don't,
then I would conclude you have no business posting here.
Dave
Jonathan C. Enslin
.
>>And what about the vagueness of that term "best interests"? This could be
>
>>a very interesting test case.
>
>"best interests" clause didn't empower Bowie Kuhn unilaterally to void
>his sales of star players to the Yankees and Red Sox. The court said,
>basically, "You accepted this language when you bought the team, and now
>you're stuck with it." Schott hasn't a prayer in Hell -- a place she'd
>probably find quite congenial.
Although Schott could probably argue successfully that her comments reflect
a personal opinion and have nothing to do with baseball. The courts would
be hard-pressed to allow that clause to apply to everything an owner does.
At least Finley's case had something to do with the operation of a baseball
team.
Jon
Realto Margarino
Ira K Blum wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
> > Ira K Blum wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Oh, so _that's_ why the Jays attendence is down...
>
> I don't know what the Jays have to do with it, but the Jays attendence is
> down because they are losing (20-23) and are perceived to be not a factor
> in winning anything this year. Also their management is committed to
> rebuilding, which is not usually good for attendance.
Rubbish. Even if the Jays were in first place the attendence would be down.
The Reds, while
> actually playing worse (16-23) are only 2.5 games out of their division
> lead, have the NL MVP playing SS, as well as a resurgent Eric Davis (long
> time hero).
Davis is a long-time hero? Mr. Unrealized Potential? Mr. Get the bum out of
here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus, Toronto is averaging 29,832 in their 21 home games
> where Cincinnati is averaging 21,617. Plus, the Reds are the worst road
> draw in the NL and third worst in the majors, behind California and Oakland.
What's happening in California? Is Joseph Stalin buying all the teams?
Mussolini? Ghenghis Khan? Gary Huckabay?
> > > > What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
> > >
> > > Steinbrenner was forced to give up controlling interest in his franchise
> > > by order of the commissioner of baseball. This is what has been proposed
> > > to be done to Marge Schott. Are you daft?
> >
> > Uh huh. And _why_ was Steinbrenner forced to give up controlling interest
> > in his franchise? Is it because he flunked a reporter's history quiz?
> > Daft, indeed...
>
> The why of this is not important. The importance is that its been done
> before.
The "why" certainly is important. The importance is that there must be just
cause. In Schott's case there is _no_ connection between what she is saying
and baseball. None.
What next? Maybe Marge sits with her legs spread when she is wearing a dress.
My God, that has to be conduct unbecoming to baseball. Get rid of her!
> > > Well, there are two purposes to running a team. one is to win
> > > games/pennants. The other is to make money.
> >
> > Nope. There are 28 different sets of reasons to run a major league team.
> > One set for each team.
>
> If an owner does something that affects every team's bottom line, you
> will bet that that owner will be disciplined.
Like fielding a losing team? Like charging too much for hot dogs? Charging
too little for beer?
Your head is wedged so far up your ass that you can't even think. The _only_
reason you hate Marge Schott is because you _suspect_ that she doesn't like
Jews.
And that makes you a prejudiced, and worthless, piece of garbage.
Get out of here. Moron.
cordially, as always,
rm
craf...@nascom.com
RLM Writes:
RL>You would have a MUCH stronger case, although it would still be weak, if you
RL>argued that allowing Rose to chase the record was detrimental to baseball
RL>because she did not field the strongest team.
RL>But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
RL>wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
Okay Roger - what is the objective of a baseball team if not to maximize
wins?????????????
Russ Craft
--
Provided by NaSPA, Inc., The Association for Corporate Computing Technical
Professionals. Located in Milwaukee, Wi 53154, with over 30,000 members in 65
different countries. First four months of membership free. call (414) 768-8000
or send Email to mbr...@nascom.com and leave name, address and phone number!
mr.b...@nightl.com
On Mon, 20 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
> What fans has she driven away? Who? How many? Duh...
> Uh huh. And _why_ was Steinbrenner forced to give up controlling
> interest
> in his franchise? Is it because he flunked a reporter's history
> quiz?
> How many fans? How much profitability? It seems to me that you are
> applying
> the Jon Avins school of "common sense" thinking here.
Where are YOUR numbers showing SUPPORT of Marge, that she has NOT hurt
baseball (either in Cincinnati or all markets), and why WAS Steinbrenner forced
to give up controlling interest? You ask a lot of questions and cut people
apart, but provide no "substance" to support your argument. You say "Prove it"
because it's future tense and cannot be substantiated as of yet. But let's use
history: Only 32,000 in the stanmds for the playoffs last October. Capacity
is 55,000, inclusing SRO.
> Go away from here. You are small-minded and hateful.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Cordially? You don't know the meaning. You attack and condemn without
supporting your side with facts. THAT is small-minded, and you are definitely
hateful. I'm really tired of your posts here. Be gone.
Dave
mr.b...@nightl.com
> That's right. And since even a complete idiot can see that her
> comments do not
> in any way affect the interests of baseball this is a non-issue.
You ask anybody in the Cincinnati area if they're proud of her comments, or
agree with them, or if they think she is doing a good thing for her team. Then
you'll find out what her comments have done to baseball right in her own
market. Plus the constant media attention paid the team that has NOTHING to do
with their play on the field gets frustrating for the players. You're the
non-issue.
> Thank the Lord the Commissioner isn't nearly as stupid as you and a
> few others
> who regularly pollute this group.
Unfortunately, you LEAD the "others" polluting this group. Get the hell out of
here!
Dave
Realto Margarino
mr.b...@nightl.com wrote:
> RM, cordially bugger off yourself. The discussion was whether or not baseball
> has the power to force her out.
Baseball has no business even considering whether it has the power to force her out
unless she does something detrimental to the game. And she has done nothing that
could be shown to be detrimental to the game. Your discussion implies that she has.
Whether or not MLB has the power to dump Schott is moot. What, are you stupid or
something?
You say the concerns expressed are not dealing
> with the good of baseball, and that she hasn't hurt baseball. You must live in
> either Cleveland (where the bandwagon will grind to a halt in a few years) or
> Colorado, where attendance and interest is high. Everywhere else baseball
> attendance and viewer ratings are down. And Cincinnati is down much more than
> the average.
Attendence is way way down in Toronto. And it has absolutely NOTHING TO DO
WITH MARGE SCHOTT. The bandwagon ground to a halt, here, just as it has in
Cincinnati.
All you are trying to do is make Schott a scapegoat for other, far more serious
problems that the game faces. Why is that? Is it because you are more concerned
with fixing Schott than you are with fixing baseball?
> First you take the Pete Rose fiasco.
Then you had the WS sweep.
Cincinnati residents, did that not divide
> the community?
What, the sweep? Did the sweep divide the community?
> Then you have the strike.
This is all Marge's fault.
> Now you've got an owner who
> ridicules the fans for not attending (late last season), calls her players
> "million-dollar ni**ers" or "spics," and you'll find that good, decent people
> don't want to attend because it might put money in her pocket, and are afraid
> to openly support the Reds for fear of being considered in support of Schott,
> or are just plain tired of hearing about the witch.
That must be why no one goes to games in Montreal. Gee. It's all Marge's fault.
Can you give us the reference to the time she said "million dollar niggers"? We
missed that.
> The only thing you said with any truth or relevance is that she's ignorant of
> history. If you have nothing constructive to add, and it appears you don't,
> then I would conclude you have no business posting here.
It's no accident that most of those dumping on Schott in this thread are Jewish.
Go elsewhere to spread your hate. Marge Schott is not the problem with baseball,
either in Cincinnati, or anywhere else.
Go on. Bugger off.
cordially, even to morons,
rm
David Ross
Distribution:
Realto Margarino (r...@interlog.com) wrote:
: Davis is a long-time hero? Mr. Unrealized Potential? Mr. Get the bum out of
: here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reds fans don't feel this way--at least the ones I know. Sure, he coulda,
woulda, shoulda, done better, but now that he's back and playin' hard--all
is forgiven.
Don't add Reds fans to your all-inclusive "we".
--
"Two weeks...maybe three. You never know with psychosomatic injuries."
Jim Palmer
_________________D...@freenet.columbus.oh.us_________________
David Nieporent
In article <31A033...@interlog.com>,
Realto Margarino <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>David Nieporent pukes:
>> Anyway, maybe it wouldn't stand up in court in this case, but I'll bet it
>> _would_ be enough to force her to step down as managing general partner.
>> As in, she could keep her share of the team, but couldn't make the
>> day-to-day decisions the way she does now.
>What exactly has Marge Schott done that is detrimental to baseball?
>Nothing. Not a goddamned thing.
If you'd actually read my post, I never said she did. I was discussing
what MLB _could_ do. What she has done is say some rather ignorant
things that make her look stupid at best, and a bigot at worst. It's
detrimental if it alienates fans so that they stop going to games.
We have read several posts here from people who have said that they
refuse to spend money on the Reds while she's in charge. Whether these
people make up a significant enough group of people to show up on the
team's bottom line is a separate question.
>> Just like what happened to Steinbrenner a few years ago. (Which was, if
>> you'll remember, a _permanent_ ban with the option to apply for
>> reinstatement, not a temporary one.)
>What does Steinbrenner have to do with Schott? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Never said he did. You still haven't learned that reading comprehension
trick, huh?
>Not a goddamned thing. Schott's comments weren't even hateful. They
>simply displayed an ignorance of history. And even if she is a closet
>Nazi, as distasteful as it may seem, she has that right, and it in no
>way interferes with her running the team.
That's Bud Selig's call, and ultimately that of the other owners, not yours.
>Your concern is not with the good of baseball. Your concern lies with
>your perception that she _may_ be anti-semitic.
And whether she's anti-semitic or not doesn't seem to bother you. I'm
not surprised. You're very familiar with hate.
David Nieporent
In article <31A034...@interlog.com>,
>> First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to
>> sell the team.
>> Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be
>> scrutinized; basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct
>> detrimental to baseball" may be sufficient.
>You would have to establish causality. Go ahead. Give us a taste. Show us
>how Schott's comments could be considered "detrimental to baseball".
No, he wouldn't "have to establish causality," because he's not the one
who would be banning Marge.
It's the judgment of the commissioner that matters. Or even the acting
commissioner.
As for how they _could_ be considered detrimental, you've been told
several times. If they cause fans to stay away from the ballpark.
>You would have a MUCH stronger case, although it would still be weak, if you
>argued that allowing Rose to chase the record was detrimental to baseball
>because she did not field the strongest team.
>But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
>wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
Only baseball fans believe that. So that explains why you don't
understand it.
>> Third, however, the contract term has to be not unconscionable. The broad
>> term above would most likely be unconscionable. Therefore, the term must be
>> broad enough to contain her behavior but specific enough that it is not
>> overreaching. I think that such terms are quite possible, but without seeing
>> such a contract, I cannot say, for certain, of course. MLB has screwed up
>> so many things before; I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up their
>> contract with her.
>You'd never get to the third point.
Legal advice from the man-who-can't-read. How quaint.
Ira K Blum
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Ira K Blum wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what the Jays have to do with it, but the Jays attendence is
> > down because they are losing (20-23) and are perceived to be not a factor
> > in winning anything this year. Also their management is committed to
> > rebuilding, which is not usually good for attendance.
>
> Rubbish. Even if the Jays were in first place the attendence would be down.
Why is this? Skydome wear off? We know its not because of you, you
never attended their games in the first place!
> The Reds, while
> > actually playing worse (16-23) are only 2.5 games out of their division
> > lead, have the NL MVP playing SS, as well as a resurgent Eric Davis (long
> > time hero).
>
> Davis is a long-time hero? Mr. Unrealized Potential? Mr. Get the bum out of
> here? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please tell us the attitude in Cincinnati! I'm sure that from your lofty
perch in Toronto you know all about it. sure. right. whatever.....
> Plus, Toronto is averaging 29,832 in their 21 home games
> > where Cincinnati is averaging 21,617. Plus, the Reds are the worst road
> > draw in the NL and third worst in the majors, behind California and Oakland.
>
> What's happening in California? Is Joseph Stalin buying all the teams?
> Mussolini? Ghenghis Khan? Gary Huckabay?
hmm... Lets see, Oakland and California are both at the bottom of the AL
West. Neither sports alot of big names (star power). therefore they are
bad draws. Cincinnati's Barry Larkin is more well known than anyone on
either of their's roster.
> > The why of this is not important. The importance is that its been done
> > before.
>
> The "why" certainly is important. The importance is that there must be just
> cause. In Schott's case there is _no_ connection between what she is saying
> and baseball. None.
Why must there be just cause if Selig invokes the "best interests of
baseball rule"?
> > > Nope. There are 28 different sets of reasons to run a major league team.
> > > One set for each team.
> >
> > If an owner does something that affects every team's bottom line, you
> > will bet that that owner will be disciplined.
>
> Like fielding a losing team? Like charging too much for hot dogs? Charging
> too little for beer?
Ted Turner did all three for years, didn't hurt MLB's bottom line. Now
if an owner came out and said, "Baseball Sucks!" and started signing
Actors to play on his team, he wouldn't last long.
> Your head is wedged so far up your ass that you can't even think. The _only_
> reason you hate Marge Schott is because you _suspect_ that she doesn't like
> Jews.
SUSPECT? Now who's got their head jammed up their ass? Marge has
demonstrated that she hates Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, People of
opposite sex who are not married living together, Single mothers, and
people who dislike being rubbed with dog hair. Think of an older,
uglier, version of Archie Bunker without the laugh-track. If she isn't
senile already, then its coming quickly.
That's it!!! A court could declare her mentally incompetent!!
> And that makes you a prejudiced, and worthless, piece of garbage.
Why? As a Jewish person, I think that anyone who has nice things to say
about Hitler is an ass. But you did just describe two people I can think
of. (yourself being one.)
Realto Margarino
mr.b...@nightl.com wrote:
>
> > That's right. And since even a complete idiot can see that her
> > comments do not
> > in any way affect the interests of baseball this is a non-issue.
>
> You ask anybody in the Cincinnati area if they're proud of her comments, or
> agree with them, or if they think she is doing a good thing for her team. Then
> you'll find out what her comments have done to baseball right in her own
> market. Plus the constant media attention paid the team that has NOTHING to do
> with their play on the field gets frustrating for the players. You're the
> non-issue.
Ever hear of Harold Ballard? He used to own the Toronto Maple Leafs. He would
have gotten along well with Schott and she would learned lots about being an
asshole from Ballard.
However, during the Ballard era, the Leafs sold out damned near every game. And
that was with a perennial losing team. Schott has won the WS. How many other
owners and cities can boast a WS win in the 90's?
> > Thank the Lord the Commissioner isn't nearly as stupid as you and a
> > few others
> > who regularly pollute this group.
>
> Unfortunately, you LEAD the "others" polluting this group. Get the hell out of
> here!
Sure. Whatever you say, laddie.
cordially, as always,
rm
---
Jon Avins writes:
"Shows you where the priorities of the sportswriters are: aggresiveness
is just the thing for a ballplayer, but God forbid a black man should show
that side of himself other than silently."
Jon Avins refuses to substantiate his claim. He refuses to retract. Jon
Avins refuses to take responsibility for his slander. We ask Jon Avins
to stop posting to this group.
Roger Maynard
niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) writes:
> If you'd actually read my post, I never said she did. I was discussing
> what MLB _could_ do.
And that question is moot. In asking the question you are just taking a
shit on Schott. In asking whether or not MLB has the right to dump Schott
don't you think that you should have a legitimate reason to dump on her
first?
> What she has done is say some rather ignorant
> things that make her look stupid at best, and a bigot at worst. It's
> detrimental if it alienates fans so that they stop going to games.
That's impossible to prove. If she moved her team to Montana do you think
attendence would sky-rocket?
Rubbish.
> We have read several posts here from people who have said that they
> refuse to spend money on the Reds while she's in charge. Whether these
> people make up a significant enough group of people to show up on the
> team's bottom line is a separate question.
These people aren't baseball fans. In any case, price increases will drive
people away. Trades will drive people away. Marge Schott isn't going to
drive anyone away.
Try to use your head. There is no rational connection between what Schott
is saying and conduct unbecoming to baseball. By asking whether Schott can
be disciplined you are implying that she has done something that would make
her subject to disciplinary action. She hasn't.
And you know it.
cordially, as always,
rm
Bill Snyder
Since when do WE determine to limit or deny an individuals right to
freedom of expression!!What Marge S. said was stupid..yes..and we
disagree with it...yes....but what you are espousing is as bad as what
you accuse her of . There seems to be much tolerance for those ideals WE
determine to be moral. Apparantly , we have taken on the role of
deciding what is and is not moral behavior. Just drop it already and get
on with ....what ever it is that you all do.
Roger Maynard
niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) writes:
> In article <31A034...@interlog.com>,
> Realto Margarino <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >Nelson Lu wrote:
>
> >> First, there would need to be a contract allowing MLB to force her to
> >> sell the team.
> >> Second, the condition on which MLB can force her would need to be
> >> scrutinized; basically, I think a broad term like "for conduct
> >> detrimental to baseball" may be sufficient.
>
> >You would have to establish causality. Go ahead. Give us a taste. Show us
> >how Schott's comments could be considered "detrimental to baseball".
>
> No, he wouldn't "have to establish causality," because he's not the one
> who would be banning Marge.
Duh. Well, is he isn't going to ban Schott, who is? Certainly not the
commissioner...
> It's the judgment of the commissioner that matters. Or even the acting
> commissioner.
You are priceless. Ultimately is the judgment of the courts that would matter.
And unless you can establish that her conduct is unbecoming to baseball you
would get laughed right out.
> As for how they _could_ be considered detrimental, you've been told
> several times. If they cause fans to stay away from the ballpark.
There is no way you could _prove_ this, short of some kind of petition. And
Schott could just as easily drum up a petition going the other way.
>
> >You would have a MUCH stronger case, although it would still be weak, if you
> >argued that allowing Rose to chase the record was detrimental to baseball
> >because she did not field the strongest team.
> >But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
> >wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
>
> Only baseball fans believe that. So that explains why you don't
> understand it.
I think I understand it well enough. After all, I wrote "it", didn't I?
The truth is, only stat fans believe this. And the reason they believe it is
because they need a bottom line from which to create their model. And so they
actually distort the game, turning it from a sport into some exercise in
efficiency simply to suit their anal-retentive drive to model.
Modelling is more important to the stat fan than the game itself.
And you know this as well as I do.
> >> Third, however, the contract term has to be not unconscionable. The broad
> >> term above would most likely be unconscionable. Therefore, the term must be
> >> broad enough to contain her behavior but specific enough that it is not
> >> overreaching. I think that such terms are quite possible, but without seeing
> >> such a contract, I cannot say, for certain, of course. MLB has screwed up
> >> so many things before; I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed up their
> >> contract with her.
>
> >You'd never get to the third point.
>
> Legal advice from the man-who-can't-read. How quaint.
No, it's hardly "legal advice", since I am not talking to the commissioner...
I can read perfectly well. If you don't like Schott, don't buy a ticket and don't
buy any of her cars. That's what free enterprise is all about. But you just want
a bunch of people to gang up on her because you are so sure that you are right
and she is evil.
But then again, you idiots gang up on everyone who doesn't agree with you, don't
you?
Duh.
cordially, as always,
rm
mr.b...@nightl.com
> Your head is wedged so far up your ass that you can't even think.
> The _only_
> reason you hate Marge Schott is because you _suspect_ that she
> doesn't like
> Jews.
>
> And that makes you a prejudiced, and worthless, piece of garbage.
>
> Get out of here. Moron.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
RLM, you're the most "cordial" pomposs ass I've run into--next to Marge, which
is why you support her in here. You deserve each other. I hope she buys your
Blue Jays AFTER fan outcry forces her to sell the Reds. Or maybe you LIKE her
because you suspect she doesn't like jews. You attack people on a basis that
has nothing to do with baseball. YOU are the prejudiced, worthless, piece of
garbage, and DEFINITELY a moron. Get the fuck out of here.
"Respectfully,"
Dave
Wheat Thin
In article <4o2lkf$1...@steel.interlog.com>,
Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) writes:
>> We have read several posts here from people who have said that they
>> refuse to spend money on the Reds while she's in charge. Whether these
>> people make up a significant enough group of people to show up on the
>> team's bottom line is a separate question.
>
>These people aren't baseball fans. In any case, price increases will drive
>people away. Trades will drive people away. Marge Schott isn't going to
>drive anyone away.
Only if you limit the definition of a baseball fan to someone who has no
opinions on related to baseball. Or someone who thought Hitler was a swell
guy, at least until 1939. I think real people who aren't neo-Nazis make up
a large portion of baseball fans. Disagree if you will.
And, for what it's worth, it depends on the trade. If the Yankees traded
Steve Howe for Greg Maddux, I'd go to a _lot_ more games. Hell, if they
just traded Howe for anyone I'd go to more games.
>Try to use your head. There is no rational connection between what Schott
>is saying and conduct unbecoming to baseball. By asking whether Schott can
>be disciplined you are implying that she has done something that would make
>her subject to disciplinary action. She hasn't.
Well don't you think morons should be subject to disciplinary action?
I think her conduct is unbecoming to baseball more because of the way she
alienates her employees than fans. As a fan I can just not go to Reds games,
but 25 major league players and a host of other people have to work for her.
She has insulted a number of them, and alienated or embarassed even more.
Her employees may be well within their rights to sue her ass.
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
Shane B. Parendo
Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> writes:
>No, it's hardly "legal advice", since I am not talking to the commissioner...
>I can read perfectly well. If you don't like Schott, don't buy a ticket and don't
Roger,
That sounds like a good idea. If you don't like her or her
views, just don't buy a ticket. I'm sure a lot of other people feel the
same way. Let's see...Cincinnati doesn't sell their games out, so every
person not going to a game costs Schott money, also causing attendence
to fall. But wait, I thought you were arguing the other side there,
Roger. You should really chose what you're going to decide and stick
with that.
I'm sure any sane reader can see this, I just wanted to get on rlm's bad
side :)
Duh.
Mike Emeigh
> >But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
> >wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
>
> Only baseball fans believe that. So that explains why you don't
> understand it.
I don't ordinarily get involved in debates between rlm and David, but I
couldn't resist this one...
From the rules of major league baseball, Rule 1.02:
*The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the
opponent*.
Not a stat fan argument, not a baseball fan argument, just a major league
rule :) The objective of each team is to win. Every game.
Mike
Michael David Jones
Bill Snyder <bsn...@postoffice.ptd.com> writes:
>Since when do WE determine to limit or deny an individuals right to
>freedom of expression!!What Marge S. said was stupid..yes..and we
Every day. Try this experiment. Take out a display ad in your local
newspaper with a photograph of your boss and the legend "This man
fucks sheep" and see how long you keep your job.
>disagree with it...yes....but what you are espousing is as bad as what
>you accuse her of . There seems to be much tolerance for those ideals WE
> determine to be moral. Apparantly , we have taken on the role of
>deciding what is and is not moral behavior. Just drop it already and get
>on with ....what ever it is that you all do.
We decide what is moral behavior. That *is* what societies - more
precisely, people who make up societies - do. We all do it. Even
Roger, scary a thought as that is.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
September 23, 1949: When Cleveland is mathematically eliminated, Bill
Veeck buries the Indians' 1948 World Championship pennant in center
field.
Roger Maynard
>Okay Roger - what is the objective of a baseball team if not to maximize
>wins?????????????
To represent the community in honourable and sportsmanlike competition.
cordially, as always,
rm
Albert Yang
Mike Emeigh (m...@nomos.com) wrote:
While you do want to win every game, there are a few instances where
you probably wouldn't take all possible measures to win a particular game,
in order to win more in the long run.
--
Albert Yang |Why are there interstate highways
Internet: apy...@ucdavis.edu |in Hawaii?
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/ |
Jack Heraty
Gregg Pearlman <gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Nelson Lu wrote:
>>
>> Ob. Marge: I still don't think she should be punished for her comments;
>> the comments don't really hurt baseball any more than Bud Selig's lying to
>> Congress or George Steinbrenner's association with unsavory characters.
>> Nevertheless, I do believe that, contract permitting, that her removal, if
>> done, will be upheld in the courts.
>
>Whether her comments *hurt* baseball or not, I still feel that if Marge
>is punished somehow, it'll just be for *embarrassing* baseball.
>
>(Do unsavory characters consider Steinbrenner an unsavory character?
>Heck, on Seinfeld he's a *great* character.)
>
Read the "Open Letter to Jerry Seinfeld" on ESPNet/MLB Sportszone.
The true story about working for Steinbrenner contained therein
effectively says that George Costanza should watch his back.
--
Jack Heraty
Software consultant to the stars.
Reported Mutterings
In <960523213...@nightl.com>, mr.b...@nightl.com writes:
>
>RLM, you're the most "cordial" pomposs ass I've run into--next to Marge, which
>is why you support her in here.
No, I don't support her. Where on earth would you get that idea from?
>You deserve each other. I hope she buys your
>Blue Jays AFTER fan outcry forces her to sell the Reds.
I would think that stat fans in many cities would be happy to have Marge
Schott as an owner. After all, she is better than most at putting together
a winning team.
>Or maybe you LIKE her
>because you suspect she doesn't like jews. You attack people on a basis that
>has nothing to do with baseball.
No. I question the motive of those who attack Marge Schott on a basis that
very clearly has nothing to do with baseball.
>YOU are the prejudiced, worthless, piece of
>garbage, and DEFINITELY a moron. Get the fuck out of here.
I see that I don't have to question your motive. You're simply an idiot.
David Nieporent
In article <4o7md3$h...@steel.interlog.com>,
Reported Mutterings <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In <960523213...@nightl.com>, mr.b...@nightl.com writes:
>>RLM, you're the most "cordial" pomposs ass I've run into--next to Marge,
>>which is why you support her in here.
>No, I don't support her. Where on earth would you get that idea from?
Probably the fact that she hates people, and that all you post is hate.
>>You deserve each other. I hope she buys your
>>Blue Jays AFTER fan outcry forces her to sell the Reds.
>I would think that stat fans in many cities would be happy to have Marge
>Schott as an owner. After all, she is better than most at putting together
>a winning team.
Sez who? From all reports, she has nothing to do with putting together
the team.
>>Or maybe you LIKE her
>>because you suspect she doesn't like jews. You attack people on a basis that
>>has nothing to do with baseball.
>No. I question the motive of those who attack Marge Schott on a basis that
>very clearly has nothing to do with baseball.
This from someone who spends all his time attacking Rickey Henderson and
Barry Bonds on a basis that very clearly has nothing to do with baseball.
>>YOU are the prejudiced, worthless, piece of
>>garbage, and DEFINITELY a moron. Get the fuck out of here.
>I see that I don't have to question your motive. You're simply an idiot.
This from someone so fooled by style over substance that he thinks it's a
sign of wisdom that he is.
>Jon Avins writes:
>"Shows you where the priorities of the sportswriters are: aggresiveness
>is just the thing for a ballplayer, but God forbid a black man should show
>that side of himself other than silently."
>Jon Avins refuses to substantiate his claim. He refuses to retract. Jon
>Avins refuses to take responsibility for his slander. We ask Jon Avins
>to stop posting to this group.
"If he had done the things people are criticizing him for as a white
player he would have been praised to the skies as a fighter, a holler
guy, a real competitor, a ballplayer's ballplayer. But because he's
black, his aggressiveness is offensive to some white people."
-- Branch Rickey on Jackie Robinson.
Sanford Sklansky
-> To represent the community in honourable and sportsmanlike
-> competition.
-> To represent the community in honourable and sportsmanlike
-> competition.
If you read anything about baseball history, baseball teams never tried
to represent the community in honurable and sportsmanlike competition.
Players would do anything they could to win a game, scuffing the ball,
tripping runners. Ball players in the late 1800's were thought to be
nothing but ruffians. No parent wanted his child to play professional
baseball. Like today players thought nothing of jumping teams for more
money, until Albert Spaulding (owner of the Cubs) was able to get the
reserve rule written into the players contracts. Needless to say the
owners weren't any more honurable then they are now.
mr.b...@nightl.com
> Sure. Whatever you say, laddie.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Thank God! You're leaving!
mr.b...@nightl.com
> To represent the community in honourable and sportsmanlike
> competition.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
I guess Marge Schott represents baseball honorably and with sportsmanship; just
as you do this newsgroup, you FUCK.
Mr_Breeze
tlo...@umr.edu
dr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (David Ross) wrote:
>The object of Major League Baseball is to make money. If winning is a
>by-product of that goal or a occasionally necessary for that goal, fine.
>If an owner could make the desired millions and never win a game there
>would be a winless team--at least until they played another team whose
>owner felt the same way.
>Major League Baseball is not about stats, fans, players, records,
>traditions, juiced-unjuiced balls. Major League Baseball is about M-O-N-E-Y.
>Nothing else matters.
You can't just get money for nothing, though. There has to be
something there to attract the fans to the product to generate the
income. Despite constant complaining about the high salaries, etc.,
fans are rarely reluctant to contribute financially. Money is really
a by-product of the fan interest in the game which stems from stats,
players, records and traditions. Without that interest there would be
no MLB.
Obviously, you are correct that from the owners perspective money is
usually most important, but at the same time, they can't afford to
cause fans to lose interest in the game, or their income will suffer.
The fans could really have a say in how the team is run if teams are
prevented from relocating. The threat of relocation is something that
is hard to overcome. Most fans would rather have a mediocre team than
no team at all, so they are at the mercy of the owners. If, OTOH, the
threat of relocation was removed, the fans could dictate with their
wallets how the team should be run.
David Ross
Albert Yang (sza...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Mike Emeigh (m...@nomos.com) wrote:
: : David Nieporent wrote:
: : >
: : > In article <31A034...@interlog.com>,
: : > Realto Margarino <r...@interlog.com> wrote:(snip)
: : > >But then you would have to show that the object of every team is to maximize
: : > >wins. Only clueless stat fans believe that.
: : >
: : > Only baseball fans believe that. So that explains why you don't
: : > understand it.
: :
: : I don't ordinarily get involved in debates between rlm and David, but I
: : couldn't resist this one...
: :
: : From the rules of major league baseball, Rule 1.02:
: :
: : *The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the
: : opponent*.
: :
: : Not a stat fan argument, not a baseball fan argument, just a major league
: : rule :) The objective of each team is to win. Every game.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^
: While you do want to win every game, there are a few instances where
: you probably wouldn't take all possible measures to win a particular game,
: in order to win more in the long run.
: --
: Albert Yang
The object of Major League Baseball is to make money. If winning is a
by-product of that goal or a occasionally necessary for that goal, fine.
If an owner could make the desired millions and never win a game there
would be a winless team--at least until they played another team whose
owner felt the same way.
Major League Baseball is not about stats, fans, players, records,
traditions, juiced-unjuiced balls. Major League Baseball is about M-O-N-E-Y.
Nothing else matters.
The man with the 4-way hips
>
> No. I question the motive of those who attack Marge Schott on a basis that
> very clearly has nothing to do with baseball.
When people won't go to the game because of an intense dislike of Schott's
views, and they do, it has everything to do with baseball. When she
tells staffers to keep black Reds staffers to a minimum, it has everything
to do with baseball. When a reporter asks her what team(s) in the
division will give the reds the most competition, and she can't name a
team in the division(it happened a few years ago), it has everything to do
with baseball.
You responded to someone who said basically what I am saying that"people
who don't come to the game because of Schott's views aren't really fans
anyway".
So, if they were fans, they wouldn't care about schott's views, right?
And so in order for one to be a fan, one must agree with you on this
issue, right? And when one doesn't agree with you on this issue, they
cease being fans, making this an argument that "clearly has nothing to do
with baseball" Am I following you line of reasoning correctly?
You are wrong about a lot of things, but this is the thing that you are
the most tragically wrong about. Certain things, you *DON'T* have a right
to say. Hatred is not a birthright.
Ban Marge from baseball
Kevin
Peter F. DeMos
mr.b...@nightl.com writes, to RLM:
>I guess Marge Schott represents baseball honorably and with sportsmanship;
>just as you do this newsgroup, you FU*K.
As do *you* Mr Potty Mouth, as do YOU.
peterd
Jonathan C. Enslin
>When people won't go to the game because of an intense dislike of Schott's
>views, and they do, it has everything to do with baseball.
Which she suffers from because she owns the team
>When she
>tells staffers to keep black Reds staffers to a minimum, it has everything
>to do with baseball. When a reporter asks her what team(s) in the
>division will give the reds the most competition, and she can't name a
>team in the division(it happened a few years ago), it has everything to do
>with baseball.
So let me get this straight...you now must know something about baseball or
else you can be banned from the game.
(snip)
>You are wrong about a lot of things, but this is the thing that you are
>the most tragically wrong about. Certain things, you *DON'T* have a right
>to say. Hatred is not a birthright.
"Hitler was right at first but he went way too far" (or something like
that), is a perfectly legal thing to say.
Jon
Nelson Lu
In article <devensli.19...@amber.indstate.edu>,
Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
>"Hitler was right at first but he went way too far" (or something like
>that), is a perfectly legal thing to say.
It is a perfectly legal thing to say, yes. Neither is there anything
inherently illegal about betting on baseball.
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
David Nieporent
In article <devensli.19...@amber.indstate.edu>,
Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
>>When people won't go to the game because of an intense dislike of Schott's
>>views, and they do, it has everything to do with baseball.
>Which she suffers from because she owns the team
As do the other owners. They lose gate receipts.
>>When she
>>tells staffers to keep black Reds staffers to a minimum, it has everything
>>to do with baseball. When a reporter asks her what team(s) in the
>>division will give the reds the most competition, and she can't name a
>>team in the division(it happened a few years ago), it has everything to do
>>with baseball.
>So let me get this straight...you now must know something about baseball or
>else you can be banned from the game.
Well, no, you don't have it straight.
>>You are wrong about a lot of things, but this is the thing that you are
>>the most tragically wrong about. Certain things, you *DON'T* have a right
>>to say. Hatred is not a birthright.
>"Hitler was right at first but he went way too far" (or something like
>that), is a perfectly legal thing to say.
And since no one is proposing throwing Marge Schott in jail, that's
utterly irrelevant to the conversation. The GOVERNMENT can't strip the
Reds from Marge Schott. But nobody has suggested that, so the legality
of her statements aren't at issue.
David Pease
In article <devensli.19...@amber.indstate.edu>,
Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
[deletia...]
>"Hitler was right at first but he went way too far" (or something like
>that), is a perfectly legal thing to say.
Cripes. If you seriously think anyone is advocating throwing Marge
in jail, you are not at all following this thread and need to keep your
yap shut.
It has *nothing* to do with "legality". It has *nothing* to do with
"First Amendment rights". The government is *not* involved. It is
Marge, and the rest of MLB. If MLB thinks Schott is hurting the game's
public image, they have the power to take the team away from her. It's
happened before, and it will probably happen again.
The government (and legality) has nothing to do with Marge Schott's
situation.
Thank you for your time
dp
--
EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC dpe...@qualcomm.com
"What's a 'SILICONE SURFER'? A tiny little person who slides around
on Anna Nicole Smith's breasts? G1F! G11II!!FFF!!!" -- Ben Weiner
Heather Henderson
niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Nieporent) wrote:
>In article <devensli.19...@amber.indstate.edu>,
>Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Schott's views, and they do, it has everything to do with baseball.
>
>>Which she suffers from because she owns the team
>
>As do the other owners. They lose gate receipts.
I'm unaware of any instance in which the owners voted to boot another
owner because his team wasn't doing well enough. Do you know of
any?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Henderson hea...@calhoun.lakes.com
my home page: http://calhoun.lakes.com/~heather
my fiction: http://calhoun.lakes.com/~heather/fiction.html
my baseball gallery: http://calhoun.lakes.com/~heather/baseball.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Robbins
I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
Major League Baseball shouldn't get involved with legislating
which views are okay to express and which views are not okay to
express. This decision is best left up to individuals. If people
boycott Major League Baseball because of things Marge Schott has
said, then these people are fools to think Schott speaks for all
of Major League Baseball.
What surprises me about the latest controversy surrounding Schott
is people haven't actually paid attention to what she said. While
it is true Hitler was one of the most vile men ever to assume power
of a nation and use his power to execute some eight million
people for no reason at all, it is true the man did have a hand
in initiating an intricate highway system. Hitler created the
Autobahn so his troops could move about Europe quickly and
efficiently. Former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower introduced
the concept of such a highway system to the United States. The
interstate highway system is a descendant of Hitler's regime.
I guess we should tear up the interstates in the United States
and denounce Eisenhower as a Nazi sympathizer. Yes, it's
possible for madmen to make positive contributions to society,
even if those contributions were invented to carry out evil
and dastard deeds. The German air force was the first to employ
jet-engine technology in fighter aircraft. Throughout history
evil empires have played roles in furthering education, either
directly or indirectly.
The true shame in all of this latest controversy over Schott is
it just goes to show people think that because somebody points
something out about an evil person that person must be a
sympathizer to the evil person. Has America exactly been
squeaky clean with its advances in nuclear technology? In some
cases nuclear technology has improved society. But in other
cases it has proven to be detrimental to society.
Major League Baseball shouldn't be in the business of judging
what is and is not acceptable speech. That's the bottom line.
Determining what is and is not acceptable is up to individuals.
Would it be fair for Major League Baseball to say, "Well, the
Montreal Expos owners and management are terrible at drawing
fans to baseball. Let's force them to sell the team"? Of course
not. But wouldn't it be in the "best interests of baseball" for
the owners to be ousted? The "best interests of baseball" clause
is one of the lamest justifications there is.
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
RROB...@Maine.Maine.Edu ____________________________________________
http://maine.maine.edu/~rrobbi32/____________________________________
Michael David Jones
Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
>I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
>We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
>First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
>Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
>Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
>Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
However, the First Amendment applies to government action, not
activities of private parties. Just like you can't balk with no one on
base, MLB can't violate Marge's First Amendment rights.
>Major League Baseball shouldn't get involved with legislating
>which views are okay to express and which views are not okay to
>express. This decision is best left up to individuals. If people
It's not about whether Marge's *views* are "okay", it's about whether
Marge's *actions* are detrimental to the business of MLB. What MLB's
customers and potential customers think about her has a lot to do with
that.
>boycott Major League Baseball because of things Marge Schott has
>said, then these people are fools to think Schott speaks for all
>of Major League Baseball.
I tend to agree, but I also recognize that there *are* a lot of fools
out there.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
If you open this Pandora's box, you will find it full of Trojan horses.
- Ernest Bevin
mr.b...@nightl.com
Sir,
I frankly meant no offense to anyone but "RLM" and reacted instead of acted.
You will notice (I hope) that my posts on any given subject NOT directed to RLM
do not contain such language, nor will they.
It has been nice not having RLM and his "cordial" language and insults no
better than m
Ira K Blum
On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Ryan Robbins wrote:
> I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
> We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
> First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
> Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
> Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
> Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
Then I guess you've never heard of verbal assault? Sorry, but not all
speech is protected under the first amendment.
> Major League Baseball shouldn't get involved with legislating
> which views are okay to express and which views are not okay to
> express. This decision is best left up to individuals. If people
> boycott Major League Baseball because of things Marge Schott has
> said, then these people are fools to think Schott speaks for all
> of Major League Baseball.
Fools pay money (or not) to see Major League Baseball, and their money
spends the same way the doctors and lawyers' do. In my mind there is as
much reason to suspend Schott now as there was when she made racist
remarks earlier. (In fact much more.)
> What surprises me about the latest controversy surrounding Schott
> is people haven't actually paid attention to what she said. While
> it is true Hitler was one of the most vile men ever to assume power
> of a nation and use his power to execute some eight million
> people for no reason at all,
You forgot to add instigating a war which cost the lives of millions of
other people.
> it is true the man did have a hand
> in initiating an intricate highway system. Hitler created the
> Autobahn so his troops could move about Europe quickly and
> efficiently.
Yawn. Not to mention that it wasn't a new idea either. Ceaser was the
one who first popularized a federally funded highway system. And he
didn't have to kill people to build it. (well, at least not as many.)
> Former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower introduced
> the concept of such a highway system to the United States. The
> interstate highway system is a descendant of Hitler's regime.
> I guess we should tear up the interstates in the United States
> and denounce Eisenhower as a Nazi sympathizer.
No, but since Hitler got his from the Romans, I guess than that
Eisenhower was part of the Ides of March plot. At least Eisenhower
didn't keep a swastika arm band in his desk at the White House.
> Yes, it's
> possible for madmen to make positive contributions to society,
> even if those contributions were invented to carry out evil
> and dastard deeds.
True. But to many people these evil deeds are not simply things done to
someone else, but they were done to your family. I'm sorry if I can't
look past the indescribeble hell which Hitler and his cronies put my
family members through, and can't forgive him, but I just can't. So it
really pisses me off when people say nice things about him.
> The German air force was the first to employ
> jet-engine technology in fighter aircraft.
That was done in spite of Hitler, and not because of him. The German jet
could have led the Battle of Britain if Hitler hadn't kept screwing up
the designs. (by the way, I know just a bit about WWII history.)
> Throughout history evil empires have played roles in furthering
> education, either directly or indirectly.
Sorry, but some lessons society need not pay so dearly to learn.
> The true shame in all of this latest controversy over Schott is
> it just goes to show people think that because somebody points
> something out about an evil person that person must be a
> sympathizer to the evil person.
Schott is not simply someone who poings out that Hitler did something
good. Schott is one of the many who refused to believe (or recognize)
what was really going on and instead bought the Nazi propaganda. As
Hitler said, "If you lie, and suppress the truth, eventually the lie
supplants the truth." This was his philosophy.
> Has America exactly been
> squeaky clean with its advances in nuclear technology? In some
> cases nuclear technology has improved society. But in other
> cases it has proven to be detrimental to society.
Even the Japanese internment camps were nothing in comparison to the
Ghettos of Warsaw and the Concentration camps in Auschwitz, Krakau,
Buchenval (which I can't spell) Sorry, I can't say that the USA has ever
been as bad as Nazi Germany, not even the ATF.
> Major League Baseball shouldn't be in the business of judging
> what is and is not acceptable speech. That's the bottom line.
The bottom line here is money. If Schott is going to cost MLB money
through her mouth, then she's going to be gone. If she costs MLB its
anti-trust exemption because of her mouth, then she's gone. Obviously
Butt Selig has not decided that she has cost enough to his Brewer's
bottom line to merit suspension. Its common knowledge that her partners
in the Reds want her gone, but can't because of the contract which she
used to purchase the club.
> Determining what is and is not acceptable is up to individuals.
> Would it be fair for Major League Baseball to say, "Well, the
> Montreal Expos owners and management are terrible at drawing
> fans to baseball. Let's force them to sell the team"? Of course
> not. But wouldn't it be in the "best interests of baseball" for
> the owners to be ousted? The "best interests of baseball" clause
> is one of the lamest justifications there is.
If the Expos delibrately fielded a team designed to lose games, they
might be subject to the "best interests" clause. Of course they might
also be subject to a half-dozen other competition clauses too. The fact
that they don't draw flies because they don't know how to market their
product is irrelevent to MLB's bottom line.
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
- Jeff Foxworthy
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
kper...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Ryan Robbins (RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU) wrote:
: I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
: We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
: First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
: Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
: Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
: Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
Would people stop saying First Amendment? The First Amendment
is only in effect on things the government does, not on what
MLB does. We *are* talking a censorship issue here, and values
on censorship come into play. If you want to sat that you oppose
MLB taking action on Schott because it amounts to censorship,
I'll first ask you if you think Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek
should not have been fired. If your answer is no, you have a
consistent, arguable position: not one that I am inclined to agree
with, but nevertheless one that is reasonable (I *do* think that
JtG should not have been fired, as what he said about blacks
that got him fired Malcolm X also said, but that's off topic).
Knock action against Schott as a form of censorhip if you want,
but it is not the sort of governmental censorship the First
Amendment protects against.
kper...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Ira K Blum (ib...@utdallas.edu) wrote:
: > Yes, it's
: > possible for madmen to make positive contributions to society,
: > even if those contributions were invented to carry out evil
: > and dastard deeds.
: True. But to many people these evil deeds are not simply things done to
: someone else, but they were done to your family. I'm sorry if I can't
: look past the indescribeble hell which Hitler and his cronies put my
: family members through, and can't forgive him, but I just can't. So it
: really pisses me off when people say nice things about him.
I generally agree with your post, but right here you go beyond what
I think is right, to the point I desire to point it out.
I don't know if Hitler ever did anything good. I know that Schott's
statement that he was "good at the beginning" is wrong, because
he was already starting many horrible things at the beginning.
I would guess that even as evil and demented a leader as Hitler
did something good while he was in office. Stalin, rather evil
and demented himself, did at least one good thing-- he helped to
defeat Hitler.
If one wants to deny the fact that Hitler was involved in possibly
the most evil event in human history then they should be denounced,
although not even Schott denied that. If someone points out _something_
good that he did among all his evil (and I bet if I researched it
I'd turn up _something_) I fail to see the harm in it, as long as
one does not deny the extent of his evil and his dementia.
Billy
Ira K Blum <ib...@utdallas.edu> writes:
>Then I guess you've never heard of verbal assault? Sorry, but not all
>speech is protected under the first amendment.
"beat" Hannah Storm?
Political correctness invades the national pastime.
>
Billy
Jack Heraty
Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
>We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
>First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
>Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
>Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
>Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
Once more with feeling:
The First Amendment protects the people from denial of free speech by
the GOVERNMENT! The GOVERNMENT! Get it?!!
>
>Major League Baseball shouldn't get involved with legislating
>which views are okay to express and which views are not okay to
>express. This decision is best left up to individuals. If people
>boycott Major League Baseball because of things Marge Schott has
>said, then these people are fools to think Schott speaks for all
>of Major League Baseball.
Major League Baseball has the right, as a PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY
organization to enforce its rules on its members, that is, the owners
of its franchises.
(Sorry for the caps, but GEEZ! The general ignorance of basic
constitutional law is astounding. If you told your boss he/she was a
fourflushing bounder, and he/she took offense and fired you for
"exercising your right to free speech", asbent any contractual
violation all a court of law could say to you would be, "Good luck in
your job search!" In fact, Marge Schott comes to mind here. By all
indications she treats her non-playing employees like dirt.)
>
>What surprises me about the latest controversy surrounding Schott
>is people haven't actually paid attention to what she said. While
>it is true Hitler was one of the most vile men ever to assume power
>of a nation and use his power to execute some eight million
>people for no reason at all, it is true the man did have a hand
>in initiating an intricate highway system.
Well, then, I guess that balances things out quite a bit, yes sirree!
And he used his power to execute at least 13 million people, but who's
counting?
> Hitler created the
>Autobahn so his troops could move about Europe quickly and
>efficiently.
And it certainly ended up helping Patton's Third Army immensely. For
that we certainly must thank Der Fuhrer.
>Former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower introduced
>the concept of such a highway system to the United States. The
>interstate highway system is a descendant of Hitler's regime.
>I guess we should tear up the interstates in the United States
>and denounce Eisenhower as a Nazi sympathizer.
That is a totally inane leap of logic (if you can even call it that).
> Yes, it's
>possible for madmen to make positive contributions to society,
>even if those contributions were invented to carry out evil
>and dastard deeds. The German air force was the first to employ
>jet-engine technology in fighter aircraft. Throughout history
>evil empires have played roles in furthering education, either
>directly or indirectly.
Gee, I'm certain that the 25 million Russians, 6 million Jews, 3
million non-Jewish Poles, and so on that didn't survive the war would
be happy to know their deaths weren't in vain, so that the jet engine
and autobahn could exist a few years before they would have come about
anyway.
BTW, the Germans didn't invent the jet engine in the first place, just
as they didn't invent rocket technology. They were just the first to
employ it.
>The true shame in all of this latest controversy over Schott is
>it just goes to show people think that because somebody points
>something out about an evil person that person must be a
>sympathizer to the evil person.
Now, you're talking. That I agree with.
> Has America exactly been
>squeaky clean with its advances in nuclear technology? In some
>cases nuclear technology has improved society. But in other
>cases it has proven to be detrimental to society.
>
>Major League Baseball shouldn't be in the business of judging
>what is and is not acceptable speech. That's the bottom line.
>Determining what is and is not acceptable is up to individuals.
>Would it be fair for Major League Baseball to say, "Well, the
>Montreal Expos owners and management are terrible at drawing
>fans to baseball. Let's force them to sell the team"? Of course
>not. But wouldn't it be in the "best interests of baseball" for
>the owners to be ousted? The "best interests of baseball" clause
>is one of the lamest justifications there is.
So if Marge Schott loses fans in Cincinnati in droves due to stupid
and ignorant actions, or George Steinbrenner breaks the law, you
don't think MLB has the right to do anything about it. Got news for
ya: Every private, voluntary organization I've ever heard of has
rules, and has the right to enforce them on its members, providing the
rules themselves don't violate the law. MLB has the perfect right to
suspend or seek to oust Mrs. Schott, and she in turn has the perfect
right to sue.
Jack Heraty
Billy <just...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Ira K Blum <ib...@utdallas.edu> writes:
>
>>Then I guess you've never heard of verbal assault? Sorry, but not all
>>speech is protected under the first amendment.
>
>Would verbal "assault" be like the time Albert Belle
>"beat" Hannah Storm?
>
>Political correctness invades the national pastime.
It's not political correctness, Billy-boy, it's understanding the
Constitution of the United States. Which you obviously don't.
>
>>
>
>Billy
William Allen
In article just...@delphi.com, Billy <just...@delphi.com> writes:
>Ira K Blum <ib...@utdallas.edu> writes:
>
>>Then I guess you've never heard of verbal assault? Sorry, but not all
>>speech is protected under the first amendment.
>
>Would verbal "assault" be like the time Albert Belle
>"beat" Hannah Storm?
>
>Political correctness invades the national pastime.
>
>>
>
So exactly how do you verbally assault a dead man from another
country?
---
Bill
William Allen
In article 298...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, spr...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Heraty) writes:
> Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>
>>I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
>>We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
>>First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
>>Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
>>Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
>>Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
>
>Once more with feeling:
>
>The First Amendment protects the people from denial of free speech by
>the GOVERNMENT! The GOVERNMENT! Get it?!!
I'm not a lawer so I don't know the details but it seems to me I've
heard of many instances where the government protected a persons
right to free speach when another private citizen was trying
to silence them.
>>
>>Major League Baseball shouldn't get involved with legislating
>>which views are okay to express and which views are not okay to
>>express. This decision is best left up to individuals. If people
>>boycott Major League Baseball because of things Marge Schott has
>>said, then these people are fools to think Schott speaks for all
>>of Major League Baseball.
>
>Major League Baseball has the right, as a PRIVATE, VOLUNTARY
>organization to enforce its rules on its members, that is, the owners
>of its franchises.
>
>(Sorry for the caps, but GEEZ! The general ignorance of basic
>constitutional law is astounding. If you told your boss he/she was a
>fourflushing bounder, and he/she took offense and fired you for
>"exercising your right to free speech", asbent any contractual
>violation all a court of law could say to you would be, "Good luck in
>your job search!" In fact, Marge Schott comes to mind here. By all
>indications she treats her non-playing employees like dirt.)
Again I don't know the law, but I think it is wrong for an employer
to have signicant control over an employees private off the job
actions.
>>
>>What surprises me about the latest controversy surrounding Schott
>>is people haven't actually paid attention to what she said. While
>>it is true Hitler was one of the most vile men ever to assume power
>>of a nation and use his power to execute some eight million
>>people for no reason at all, it is true the man did have a hand
>>in initiating an intricate highway system.
>
>Well, then, I guess that balances things out quite a bit, yes sirree!
>And he used his power to execute at least 13 million people, but who's
>counting?
No, but even Schott admitted he went crazy, she just obviously didn't
say it with enough conviction.
(snip the rest)
Bill
Regan Sturge
Just as Albert Belle delivers physical blows that hurt people and the
game of baseball, Marge Schott delivers mental blows that hurt many more
people than Belle can ever hurt. Freedom of Speech is all good, but what
good is it if this is what the game of baseball is turning out to be???
David Pease
In article <DsL9...@ceco.ceco.com>,
William Allen <dp...@ceco.ceco.com> wrote:
>In article 298...@nntp.ix.netcom.com,
>spr...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Heraty) writes:
[deletia...]
>>Once more with feeling:
>>
>>The First Amendment protects the people from denial of free speech by
>>the GOVERNMENT! The GOVERNMENT! Get it?!!
>
>I'm not a lawer so I don't know the details but it seems to me I've
>heard of many instances where the government protected a persons
>right to free speach when another private citizen was trying
>to silence them.
Who's trying to silence anyone?
As has been stated elsewhere, this is as much a "violation" of
free speech as is MTV's not wanting to play your music video with
"controversial" content. You have no right to be played on MTV;
it's not censorship. Similarly, Marge Schott has no inherent
right to own a baseball team; it's a privlege, given her by MLB,
and it can be taken away by MLB in just this sort of situation.
Schott agreed to this when she took over the club, as every other
owner did.
>>(Sorry for the caps, but GEEZ! The general ignorance of basic
>>constitutional law is astounding.
You ain't just whistling Dixie, Jack.
I can't believe the shrill "Constitutionalist" arguments we've
been getting around here lately.
>Again I don't know the law, but I think it is wrong for an employer
>to have signicant control over an employees private off the job
>actions.
What's private about looking like a buffoon to ESPN? What's
private about a fairly negative cover story in SI?
On the contrary, Schott has been very public about being a raging
idiot. Since any owner (and especially *this* owner, the media
being what it is) is associated with MLB in people's minds, I
can't see where Schott has a leg to stand on here, and I hope she's
laughed out of court if she insists on taking her crusade for
stupidity there.
Ryan Robbins
I am far from ignorant of who the First Amendment protects and under
what circumstances. My point is, we are being hypocrites to cherish
the First Amendment when it comes to the government's attempt to
squelch speech. But we turn around and thumb our noses at free speech
when we simply don't like what the message is or who the messenger is.
That's being hypocritical to the bone. The concept of free speech
goes beyond the government, even if the Constitution doesn't.
Let's be honest here: Marge Schott is being attacked because people
don't like what she says. Morally, this is wrong. And there is little
evidence to show Schott's words have hurt Major League Baseball's
reputation. Her words have had no more of an effect on the game than
the 1994-95 strike, Albert Belle, wild cards, interleague play plans,
the DH, or free agency.
Eric Smith
kper...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu () writes:
>I don't know if Hitler ever did anything good. I know that Schott's
>statement that he was "good at the beginning" is wrong, because
>he was already starting many horrible things at the beginning.
>I would guess that even as evil and demented a leader as Hitler
>did something good while he was in office. Stalin, rather evil
>and demented himself, did at least one good thing-- he helped to
>defeat Hitler.
>If one wants to deny the fact that Hitler was involved in possibly
>the most evil event in human history then they should be denounced,
>although not even Schott denied that. If someone points out _something_
>good that he did among all his evil (and I bet if I researched it
>I'd turn up _something_) I fail to see the harm in it, as long as
>one does not deny the extent of his evil and his dementia.
The statement that "Hitler was good at the beginning" implies to me the
belief that Hitler originally had good policies and that sometime later
those policies changed to something "bad." I don't take Schott's
statement as equivalent to "in the beginning Hitler did some good things."
Certainly Hitler did some things that benefitted some people, and those
people would be likely to call those things "good things." That's a
different contention than "Hitler *was* good," which to me means
"Hitler's *policies* were good." I don't think that statement is
defensible by any means.
As far as I know, Scott did not say things like "in the beginning under
Hitler the German economy improved," or "in the beginning Hitler created
better conditions for the majority of German workers." Those statements
are probably defensible to a large degree. But at the same time it would
be necessary to reply, "that may be true, but at the same time Hitler
was dismantling democracy, ending free speech, beginning persecution of
Jews and other minorities, establishing concentration camps and preparing
for war. So we can't say that Hitler was 'good' by any means."
-----
Eric Smith | "They were like travellers unwillingly
er...@netcom.com | returned from brilliant realms, not yet
http://www.best.com/~catsdogs/ | adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
Jonathan C. Enslin
>Would people stop saying First Amendment? The First Amendment
>is only in effect on things the government does, not on what
>MLB does. We *are* talking a censorship issue here, and values
>on censorship come into play. If you want to sat that you oppose
>MLB taking action on Schott because it amounts to censorship,
>I'll first ask you if you think Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek
>should not have been fired. If your answer is no, you have a
>consistent, arguable position: not one that I am inclined to agree
>with, but nevertheless one that is reasonable (I *do* think that
>JtG should not have been fired, as what he said about blacks
>that got him fired Malcolm X also said, but that's off topic).
Jimmy the Greek and Campanis were employees. Schott is not an employee of
baseball...she owns the team. The two stances are incomperable.
Jon
Wheat Thin
In article <DsL9...@ceco.ceco.com>,
William Allen <dp...@ceco.ceco.com> wrote:
>In article 298...@nntp.ix.netcom.com, spr...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Heraty) writes:
>>
>>>I think we Americans are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrits.
>>>We say we cherish the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
>>>First Amendment. But do we really? Most Americans support the First
>>>Amendment only in cases where they agree with the message. The First
>>>Amendment is not meant to protect only popular speech. The First
>>>Amendment gets its strength from protecting unpopular speech.
>>
>>Once more with feeling:
>>
>>The First Amendment protects the people from denial of free speech by
>>the GOVERNMENT! The GOVERNMENT! Get it?!!
>
>heard of many instances where the government protected a persons
>right to free speach when another private citizen was trying
>to silence them.
Well, we are talking about an institution here, not "another private citizen".
MLB has the right to make up its own rules, and enforce them. After all, its
perfectly legal to consort with gamblers, but if a ballplayer does it he'll be
suspended, if not banned from the game entirely. If Schott chooses to sue,
fine. That's her right.
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
Nelson Lu
In article <96158.1851...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>,
Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>I am far from ignorant of who the First Amendment protects and under
>what circumstances. My point is, we are being hypocrites to cherish
>the First Amendment when it comes to the government's attempt to
>squelch speech. But we turn around and thumb our noses at free speech
>when we simply don't like what the message is or who the messenger is.
>That's being hypocritical to the bone. The concept of free speech
>goes beyond the government, even if the Constitution doesn't.
So what would you propose? That we kill the other owners for considering
suspending Schott?
The thing is, we have no recourse whatsoever (except by boycotting MLB, which
I would consider counterproductive) to object to MLB's consideration of
suspending Schott. They are well within their legal rights to suspend her.
Ryan Robbins
In the same vein it would be extremely difficult for anyone to libel
Major League Baseball because MLB is a public figure in a corporate
sense, if I were Schott's lawyers I would argue it's virtually
impossible for her comments to severely impact MLB's reputation with
the public.
Schott's words would have to blatantly impair MLB's reputation with
the public for her colleagues to claim she's hurting the game. MLB
doesn't own Marge Schott. And with the proliferation of computer
networks that allow people to voice their opinions, corporations
will undoubtedly attempt to squelch their employees' or contractors'
opinions. Doesn't it strike anybody as frightening that an employer
or business partner can claim to essentially own your thoughts? And
don't try to say, "Well, nobody's telling you what you can think."
The very thought others can control what you can and cannot say is
downright scary.
Nelson Lu
In article <96159.0043...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>,
Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>Schott's words would have to blatantly impair MLB's reputation with
>the public for her colleagues to claim she's hurting the game. MLB
>doesn't own Marge Schott. And with the proliferation of computer
>networks that allow people to voice their opinions, corporations
>will undoubtedly attempt to squelch their employees' or contractors'
>opinions. Doesn't it strike anybody as frightening that an employer
>or business partner can claim to essentially own your thoughts? And
>don't try to say, "Well, nobody's telling you what you can think."
>The very thought others can control what you can and cannot say is
>downright scary.
It may be sacry, but even more scary would be a future in which the government
can essentially rewrite the Constitution by interfering with the freedom to
contract guaranteed in the Constitution by claiming that they are doing some
greater good even if the powers given to Congress under the Constitution do not
permit it, without even passing a law that at least tries to justify it (which
seems to be what you're advocating, for a (federal?) court of law to throw out
MLB's power to suspend Schott without a law making such powers disappear, when
such powers had been established by contract between Schott and MLB).
I am not advocating that Schott should be suspended. I think that for MLB to
suspend her would be highly hypocritical. Nevertheless, it sets a dangerous
precident for a court of law to be trampling over MLB's rights to discipline
her when that discipline is not based on an impermissible criterion.
Ira K Blum
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Ryan Robbins wrote:
> I am far from ignorant of who the First Amendment protects and under
> what circumstances. My point is, we are being hypocrites to cherish
> the First Amendment when it comes to the government's attempt to
> squelch speech. But we turn around and thumb our noses at free speech
> when we simply don't like what the message is or who the messenger is.
> That's being hypocritical to the bone. The concept of free speech
> goes beyond the government, even if the Constitution doesn't.
The problem here is purpose. Free Speech is there so that people can
voice unpopular political or social views. It's purpose is not to
protect stupidity or hatefullness. In technicality, it means that no one
can pass a law preventing a person from wearing an SS uniform. But it
won't protect you if you are wearing a white sheet to a NAACP meeting.
> Let's be honest here: Marge Schott is being attacked because people
> don't like what she says. Morally, this is wrong.
On the contrary. Marge has been told numerous times to "shut up" and to
cease being a source of bad publicity for the league. She has repeatedly
failed to do so. IMO she deserves to be disciplined.
> And there is little
> evidence to show Schott's words have hurt Major League Baseball's
> reputation. Her words have had no more of an effect on the game than
> the 1994-95 strike, Albert Belle, wild cards, interleague play plans,
> the DH, or free agency.
Actually, it could be shown that the last two have actually helped
baseball. And certain people in basebal feel that wild cards and
interleague play plans will help too. (all those Seattle fans too!) In
fact, the only thing above here which I have seen quotes from people
stating that they were leaving baseball was the strike. (and Marge
Schott). Now this is a small sample size, but I see it as valuable.
David Pease
In article <96158.1851...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>,
Ryan Robbins <RROB...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> wrote:
>I am far from ignorant of who the First Amendment protects and under
>what circumstances. My point is, we are being hypocrites to cherish
>the First Amendment when it comes to the government's attempt to
>squelch speech. But we turn around and thumb our noses at free speech
>when we simply don't like what the message is or who the messenger is.
What the heck are you talking about? It's not rsbb that's trying to
drum Margie out of baseball; it's the ownership council.
All 90% of the people who have been arguing with you have been saying
is that this is *not* an issue of free speech, as defined by the
Constitution, and by comparing it to such you look silly. There are
no parallels. None.
Again, I don't really have an opinion about whether Marge Schott should
be kicked out of baseball. She should keep her mouth shut, for her own
good, but she is of course free to say whatever she wants about fruits
with earrings, million-dollar niggers, Hitler being worthy of a Mister
Congeniality award, or whatever.
Nobody is disputing that. But if she's hurting the image of MLB, then
the other owners have every reason to want her gone.
>That's being hypocritical to the bone.
I am fully aware that I am a hypocrite sometimes. This isn't one of
those times.
>The concept of free speech goes beyond the government, even if the
>Constitution doesn't.
That's nice--and completely off-topic. There IS NO FREE-SPEECH ISSUE.
Schott can say what she wants. End of story.
And if what she's saying is damaging MLB, the other owners can get
rid of her. Not muzzle her, not silence her, just take away her
baseball franchise.
She agreed to this being a possibility, and gave the council the power
to do so, or she never would have gotten control of the Reds in the
first place.
>Let's be honest here: Marge Schott is being attacked because people
>don't like what she says.
Yes. This is a reasonable basis of attack.
If it's not, I shall open up an advertising agency on Madison Avenue,
say bad things in ads for everyone that comes for me for business,
and then raise hell when my accounts desert me. After all, just
because I'm saying bad things about them doesn't mean they have to
desert me, right? That's not moral, and that's not fair, and that's
not in line with "the concept of free speech as it goes beyond
government" (whatever that means.)
>Morally, this is wrong.
You are incorrect. If Schott is hurting people with what she says,
and those people choose not to go to an MLB game that they would
ordinarily attend because they are disgusted by Schott's actions,
then she is hurting MLB. It is perfectly valid for MLB to excise
her in these circumstances.
Again, there is no Constitutional--or even moral--right for one to
own a baseball team. It's a privledge, and one that can be revoked.
>And there is little
>evidence to show Schott's words have hurt Major League Baseball's
>reputation.
Most people I know think she's a maroon. I haven't looked any
further than this, but I don't really see any need to.
David Nieporent
In article <devensli.19...@amber.indstate.edu>,
Jonathan C. Enslin <deve...@amber.indstate.edu> wrote:
No. She owns a _franchise._
If you own a McDonalds and you go around throwing ethnic slurs or
praising Hitler on national television, you're not going to own it much
longer.
If you happen to own the physical building, you might be allowed to keep
it, but you're not going to be calling it McDonalds anymore.
tommy
Wiffleball love page containing info about national tourney this summer
(as featured in Sports Illustrated) and other assorted thingys.