I see how it is. Ignore my logic, and go straight for the ad hominem.
There's no reason to get snippy, sir. It doesn't do you credit.

Just because I say something means I think I'm better than someone
who disagrees with it? No! Of course not! If it did, what's the point
in even having this conversation? Or any conversation? We should just
quote whoever's #1 in the field and leave at that. Dr. Andrews is the
best, but:

1) Even the best aren't right 100% of the time.
2) No field ever agrees 100% on something; I imagine Bagwell has a
personal doctor who says he's fine, or he wouldn't be pursuing this
so hard.
3) Dr. Andrews (I'm not familiar with Dr. Litner, but I'll assume
he's good) was looking at whether or not Bagwell can play right now,
I think, not if he can play in, say, May.


--- In HoustonAstros@yahoogroups.com, HexDib@a... wrote:
>
>
> Just so I understand your point. You feel you are better versed
than Dr.
> Andrews or Dr. Lintner on whether he is injured or not ?
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/25/2006 12:16:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> texas_musician@y... writes:
>
> Nothing wrong in using the info I provide to make the opposite
point.
> I've done that a few times myself.
>
> If I have insurance and I get sick, yes, I'm going to get paid. So
> will Bagwell - the question is, is he sick, and I don't think he
is.
> I think I posted why not before; I will again below. But first, I
> think it's a mute point to ask if the money should be spent on
> healthy players instead, and not just because Bagwell is healthy.
> It's because the money WON'T be spent on anyone else. McLane is a
> notorious penny pincher; with no big name free agents out there and
> no new rumours about possible big trades, he'll just pocket the
money
> in typical McLane fashion. The AStros with a $95 million payroll?
On
> McLane's watch? HA! The choice is between $95m and loyalty to
> Bagwell, or $80m and the same team sans Mr. Astro.
>
> Why I say he's healthy, I think I already posted it: it seems to
me
> that Bagwell couldn't play last year, and could only hit at the
end
> of the year, because he was recovering from surgery. He's
recovered
> now. He couldn't play well right before the surgery because he
needed
> surgery, but he's had it now. Ergo, there's no reason he can't
play
> anymore.
>