Only because the criteria for making the HOF are beyond effed-up, and not just because of the PED issue (although that's the main thing). When you make a difference in the postseason as much as Berkman has (and I'm a Cards fan, so I say this from both sides of the Berkman issue), you've got to be in the conversation.

You are a sad, sad little monkey.

It's not a logical fallacy to expect that, when an entire branch of science (and the overwhelming majority of scientists in related branches) accept AGW as fact, and someone like you — with absolutely zero credibility — cannot manage to mount a single affirmative argument undermining that consensus. If I was saying…

I remember it well. We were living in a St. Louis suburb, and it was not long after Smith had come out of retirement after an outstanding career with our football Cardinals to play for the hated Cowboys. I was eight years old and, like all the kids in the neighborhood who had come over to watch the game at my house,…

Oh, and by the way, I am hardly desperate to defend the AGW theory. It needs no defense by me. I am desperate for the governments of the world to start acting on reality instead of listening to politicized hacks like you.

I'm still waiting for you to make an actual affirmative argument rather than recite Fox News talking points. The burden of proof is on people like you to refute the virtually unanimous consensus of climate scientists, not the other way around.

I search your article in vain for any scientific objection to the consensus which, far from having been plucked out of their collective asses, is based upon decades of experimentation and testing on micro and macro levels. Of all those peer-reviewed papers... ONE that mildly and ineffectually challenges the consensus…

"I consider myself-self-self... The luckiest man-man-man... On the end of this stick."

You are a troll. Re-read the article and, in particular, the original one from Scientific American. Way below one percent of peer-reviewed articles by climate scientists dispute the reality of AGW. Your rhetoric sounds almost-but-not-quite rational, much like Jay Leno's humor is almost-but-not-quite funny. But you're…

Obviously this is a definition of "support" with which I was not previously familiar.

"The reality of the situation is one climate scientist and the majority of the Republicans are dismissing the theory of AGW or they just don't care. And all the science and rational thought to the contrary isn't going to change that."

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' (Upton Sinclair)

Oh my gosh, is everyone on this thread serious?

Six unconstructive minutes on Media Day, followed by way more deconstructive minutes on Deadspin. Which is the bigger waste of time? Ready... Set... Go!

Me too, seriously. That's probably the best book about the entertainment industry I have ever read.

Or playing "he loves me... He loves me not"

+1, not that I would know

"For a moment there, I thought the Viagra was working. So disappointed."

That gradual deflating of the fake smile to something resembling honesty... priceless.