Hitch

*sigh* Yes, it was irresponsible. This is patently obvious. You said that she reported it without knowing who Hanley was. I then said that a reporter does background checks on people before actually mentioning their name in connection with a crime. This is standard. It is why the Oregon Post got the story about Luke Heimlich being an admitted pedophile. Because they run a background check on him because he was about to be drafted and it showed up in the records. So even if they didn't know who Hanley was, they soon would have. Of course that point doesn't matter because you then followed it up a few minutes later with the above. So the reporter did actually know who he was now, but knew nothing of him. And again, I feel the need to point out the stupidity of this statement. They knew he was a professional ball player but didn't actually know anything about him. Quite why you've brought it back to the point (last discussed 3/4 pages ago) that the reporting was knee-jerk is anyone's guess. My guess is it was easier to go back to that than say "yeah I got it wrong on my first reply".

I'm not sure why you've pivoted to this from what we were discussing, but no, I don't disagree with that as I've already said on the previous page.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I think you have misread the context of my post if you think that reply is in keeping, or arguing against, what I was saying. My post was saying that a journalist would run checks on a name of anyone they were about to out publicly, never mind a Red Sox player they knew. I was also pointing out A700's lie and then stupidity of his subsequent new position of the reporter knowing of Hanley, but then somehow....not knowing him. edit: Ah I just saw your post above. No problem.

Lie. Get called on it. Lie about the lie. Call somebody a troll for pointing out said lies. And they say the art of conversation is dead.

I have no idea what your reply has to do with my post.

You should settle down. Anger isn't good for blood pressure in older fellas. Or just admit you got something very wrong, rather than being forced to lie about it. That would help too, Donald.

If you've got a friend that's doing illegal stuff that you don't know about, should we blame you, too?

So the reporter did know it was him? So your line of: "i was referring to the person who broke the story on Hanley. That person didn’t know who he was." is completely false? Even if it were the case (which it clearly isn't) they would have known who Hanley was within 10 minutes of hearing his name for the first time. To now say that they knew he was on the Red Sox, but didn't know anything about him before they posted is so absurd a comment there's very little else needs saying on the matter.

And I was referring to the amount of people who commented on that story without waiting for all the facts and/or more sides of the story. Dismissing hurried and dangerous opinions and not waiting for all the facts to come forward as 'of course people will give opinion' is as lazy as it harmful. There was irresponsible behaviour all round. And there is no way a reporter did not know who Hanley Ramirez was before they posted. They would have done background on the person before reporting his name. The fact that the US have an extradition treaty with DR means whether he comes back or not means little. If they want him, they will have him.

It's the age of instantaneous news. So we don't have time for that any more.

Absolute nonsense. There were reactions everywhere to it when the news article broke. There were posts in here of 'I knew there was more to it' and you even posted (and repeated) 'I wouldn't come back to the US for a while if I was Hanley'. All off one news report very low in fact, very high in insinuations. However, I do agree that it is the nature of the instantaneous news age. Why people recognise that and still jump in feet first is anyone's guess, however.

A lot of people instantly believes the worst about Hanley over this. Perhaps next time they will wait until the full facts are at hand. The court of public opinion has no time for patience, unfortunately.

Nah Theo has always been Kimmi's man. I think she just felt inclined to push back against some of the more absurd and childish nonsense spouted out about Ben.

I don't know what the cure to dyslexia is, but I'm pretty sure Natic is the cause.

And only one period.

Only one question mark is required you annoying lunatic.

I raise you to two...

The amount of complaining about the Moreland deal was insane. "Wasted money!" "Put the club over a barrel!" It was a good signing at the time and its a good signing now.

What would we do without Jacko being here to start a new thread every time there's bad news/an injury to report?

Yeah I hear you. I agree with all that. That's the part of sports that will never allow me to fully love it. It's all about the business.

Well, similarly as on the other thread I've just replied to you on, I think that was mostly about Hanley's vesting option. They give him enough rope to hang himself so to speak. He was struggling and if they had dropped him out of the line up some time earlier to get Swilhart more at bats they couldn't really have gotten away with cutting Hanley without that lengthy period of poor form. Personally I think it comes down to them wanting to take a real good luck at Swilhart and desperately wanting to get rid of Hanley to give them some freedom next year.

It did hurt us depth wise and who knows Hanley might have started hitting again, but leaving that option getting any close to realisation would make the DFA all the harder to do later. He's definitely gone for no other reason than the clause. We had to take the shot now even if it does leave us a little light.

I think it's actually that the Sox really rate him and think there is potential there. They see him as somebody that can play multiple positions so there would be no need to move Vaz or Leon, especially as it leaves us light if either of those two gets injured.

I'm not sure it come off as I intended but my post was very much tongue in cheek and just messing around. I really don't care about any sport enough to dislike somebody because of a team they support. And no amount of gloating either way bothers me at all, so it's all good. I'm actually looking forward to getting to know some Yankee fans. I like joking around with other fans but I just don't take any game seriously enough to care past that. Yeah the hipster thing worries me...i could do without it after living in hipster central in London. That said I do have a bitching beard so I'll fit in at least.

As do I.