- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 6,738
- Reaction score
- 7,657
A lot of whining here to the effect that owners should not be in the Hall. Not the issue: they are in the Hall. Anyone who cares to form an objective, adult opinion on this matter should begin by acknowledging the facts of the situation, amongst which is the fact that the Hall does enshrine owners. The whining may or may not be justified, but it is certainly irrelevant.
Given that, it is clear, I think, that Robert should be in. I won't go on and on about the justifications for his inclusion, nor about the asininity of arguments for his exclusion, because those arguments are well known, and because the reasons for his inclusion, it should be obvious to anyone with sound and unbiased judgment, clearly outweigh the reasons for his exclusion.
What are the broader implications, then, of this obvious failure? I will only note that once upon a time, it was an agreed-upon presumption that "sports builds character." It seems to me that this perception has now declined to the status of a delusion, if not a sick joke. One ought not be surprised that so debased an enterprise as professional, and collegiate, sport would compound a greater sick joke by generating another, lesser one.
The voters should have been given clearly established criteria for enshrinement, should have been told that giving weight to or discussing any consideration other than than those criteria will without exception be made grounds for voiding the vote and removing the transgressor from his position as a voter. Instead, it seems all we got was a virtual roomful of old blowhards, superannuated "journalists," and a few token appointees talking loudly out of their asses and hearing one another loud and clear. There's a lot of that going around these days. I mean, you've seen network news, right?
Given that, it is clear, I think, that Robert should be in. I won't go on and on about the justifications for his inclusion, nor about the asininity of arguments for his exclusion, because those arguments are well known, and because the reasons for his inclusion, it should be obvious to anyone with sound and unbiased judgment, clearly outweigh the reasons for his exclusion.
What are the broader implications, then, of this obvious failure? I will only note that once upon a time, it was an agreed-upon presumption that "sports builds character." It seems to me that this perception has now declined to the status of a delusion, if not a sick joke. One ought not be surprised that so debased an enterprise as professional, and collegiate, sport would compound a greater sick joke by generating another, lesser one.
The voters should have been given clearly established criteria for enshrinement, should have been told that giving weight to or discussing any consideration other than than those criteria will without exception be made grounds for voiding the vote and removing the transgressor from his position as a voter. Instead, it seems all we got was a virtual roomful of old blowhards, superannuated "journalists," and a few token appointees talking loudly out of their asses and hearing one another loud and clear. There's a lot of that going around these days. I mean, you've seen network news, right?
Last edited:
