Mark McGwire admits to long-term steroid use!

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Okay, Mr, Rutledge, I get the hint. You won't answer my question. So, I'll have to make do with what you've already said to demonstrate your level of understanding.

Who could forget:

"The last time I checked Steroids were legal when Mac was playing."
(MLB banned steriods in 1991 providing unspecified punishment. Testing and punishment were added by Selig in 1997)

"And it must be noted that we have no idea if and when he used them illegally "
(McGwire has admitted he used them illegally and prrovided a timeline.)

"People that have asthma and other muscle conditions can take and do take steroids. But hey, they are illegal right?"
(As we all know, these are corticosteroids and were not banned.)

"Here is the thing, we do not know what McGuire used or did not use."
(McGwire claims he illegally used banned steriods.)

Debating JR is like the proverbial "nailing jello to the wall." His logic is fluid with no constraints. He ignores facts. He creates facts. He changes his positions then denies doing so. He will deny saying something that can still be seen in his prior posts. Then he will lock on an argument that is so absurd it can hardly be debated within the confines of broadband. (For example, "if no one has been punished for a certain action, no law or prohibition against that action can exist.")

Fortunately he is unique. If you will note, not one of over a hundred posters at this site agrees with him, which gives us hope for this site.

My advice is to give up. You can present facts, you can demonstrate reality, you can discuss possibilities. You can't make someone think.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Debating JR is like the proverbial "nailing jello to the wall." His logic is fluid with no constraints. He ignores facts. He creates facts. He changes his positions then denies doing so. He will deny saying something that can still be seen in his prior posts. Then he will lock on an argument that is so absurd it can hardly be debated within the confines of broadband. (For example, "if no one has been punished for a certain action, no law or prohibition against that action can exist.")

Fortunately he is unique. If you will note, not one of over a hundred posters at this site agrees with him, which gives us hope for this site.

My advice is to give up. You can present facts, you can demonstrate reality, you can discuss possibilities. You can't make someone think.

+1.

I generally ignore his logic-impaired pap. Every so often I can't help myself. I'm grateful for the ignore feature at those times.