Who’s more likely to off somebody on the street?

Subject #1: Walking down the street he encounters a man who calls him a m’ther f’er.

Subject #2: He heard Samuel L Jackson call someone a m’ther f’er on TV last night.

Social circumstances trump hypothetical circumstances every time.

Damn Grey, all thought and no baseball makes Steve and Hippo philosophical men. Can’t wait for the pitchers and catchers to report.

To paraphrase Grey above, if violence on TV makes you do something violent, you probably already have some violent tendencies in the first place.

I believe in this, you’re either:
A. An asshole
B. Not an asshole

More inclined to think upbringing/social circumstances/financial situ have more to do with crime than whether one owns a TV/radio/books.

For instance, all of my friends have seen Pulp Fiction. None of my friends have blown a kids head off in the back seat of a car.

You’re dead on with the rhoids theory. I had friends in college who were power lifters, great guys, not a Milton Bradley among em. This was in the 80′s, so no designer drugs like HGH or the clear. Still, it didn’t change their personality, just made em stronger and able to work out harder. Crashing frat parties was a lot more fun though!

The Sig Chi’s are still looking for their kegs.

In one of the papers I did at university many moons ago I read some good stuff that argued that those people who were affected by what they saw/heard in the media (eg violence on TV) were, because of upbringing/social circumstances/whatever, more receptive to the messages they were getting.

In other words, the violence (for example) tapped into something that was already there.

According to this movie, roids only enhance what you are. So if you’re an asshole, you become a bigger asshole. With that said, I have been around steriods users and they were a bit psychotic. They were a bit like this to being with though. So it’s the chicken and the egg, no? Do steroids make you psychotic? Eh, maybe not, but you need to be a bit on the edge to take them? Maybe.

Interesting conversation you guys are having. Have you ever been around anybody on the juice? Good times man.

Did you watch Entourage?

Maybe get it out of the library – won’t cost you anything if you don’t like it!

They wouldn’t understand anyway.

Like I said the other day, if I ever have occasion to talk to my wife about it, it’s going to sound like I have this bunch of imaginary friends that I only talk to when I’m alone.

I’d probably say that Moneyball is more entertaining (that is possibly also due to the fact that it was the first I’d ever heard about sabermetrics and thus was likely to find it pretty interesting – plus Beane is a pretty entertaining character), but Shadows in no less worthy for all that.

Given that the book was written a wee while ago now and thus everything in it is somewhat after-the-fact/overtaken by events, I guess the main interest lies in seeing how the whole BALCO thing came to be uncovered.

Definitely worth a read.

Okay, so was Shadows more or less entertaining than Moneyball?

Yup – really enjoyed Moneyball. I have a soft spot for the A’s because of it.

You’ve read Moneyball, right?

The book is fantastic – terrific piece of investigative journalism. If I had something to hide, I wouldn’t want those guys on my case.

No, I haven’t read it. Any good?

The acne’s not good, but there are one or two other side effects of steroids that I’m not crazy about either.

Have you read Game of Shadows?

BTW, Bigger Stronger Faster was a great documentary. If you like that sorta thing.

Holliday protecting Pujols? Money.

Sign me up!

Holliday in St. Louie, huh? For who? Ludwick?

@Steve: Yeah, I went to college in Boston.

Early Xmas for the Hippo.