Allow me to clarify then. Where I am joking: When I say Michael Cuddyer has zero chance at doing anything well in the World Series. This is an attempt to play off the "Curtis Granderson Sucks" thread and hope that Cuddyer gets a big hit in the Series. Where I am being serious: Everything else. Back to your points: You cannot be proven wrong no matter how the evidence breaks. That sort of logic doesn't sit well with me, and I try and respond to it when it is presented, and respond in the same vein: lightly if it's delivered lightly, seriously if it's delivered seriously. I don't know why you continue to think that my statement can be proven right or wrong depending on how things break from there. I have tried to illustrate this to you many times. I didn't say whether or not he would continue to suck. I pointed out that for a year plus, Curtis Granderson had sucked. The point you think I made (aka "BooBird's FailSafe) Curtis Granderson sucks! He's not going to get better unless we boo his ass and motivate him!" The point I actually made: Curtis Granderson sucks. No one calls him on it. Discuss But whether you are booing a guy directly or ripping him online, the logic is the same. This is an interesting statement. I don't agree with it, but it's very illustrative of your thinking. You're on record as saying booing a player is wrong. If "the logic is the same", then one can only conclude that ripping a player online is wrong. If that's the case, one can't have an objective discussion with you about baseball. Sometimes players suck. Sometimes criticism is warranted. If it's the same as booing, and booing is wrong, and lends itself to the BooBirds' Failsafe, you are effectively saying no one can have an honest online discussion.