Piazza's never been implicated in any steroid investigation; not the Mitchell Report, which Mets clubhouse employee during his stint with the team, Kirk Radomski, was a major part of, nor has he ever tested positive once. He's only been vilified in columns from New York Times writer, Murray Chass. On that note: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/26/dermatologists-...

Good article, Lobstah. I saw Grantland and had to check that Simmons had nothing to do with it before I carried on. Just some random thoughts: The thing that really irks me is the those that are being punished because they are suspected of something. Whether it be Piazza's bacne, Bags' propensity to lift a lot and his known association with Ken C., or the others; these guys have never tested positive and have vehemently denied usage. You can't tell me that Piazza, who is arguably the greatest hitting catcher of all time (at least top 3), shouldn't be inducted as a first year candidate all because some guy says he saw acne on his back! Ridiculous.

All they did this year was create a backlog that they are not going to be able to rectify unless they change some of the rules. For instance, I can't believe they count blank ballots. Granted, I believe there was only 5 of them this year, but it doesn't make any sense. If those writers don't want to vote, bye bye. Also, anyone that votes for Aaron Fucking Sele needs to lose their voting privilege as well. Actually, strike that. Whoever added him to the ballot in the first place needs to go. You know what, I'm starting to get angered over this and there's nothing I can do to change it. I could sit here and bitch and write more paragraphs, but I'm gonna stop now. One last note, though, I would really like to see transparent voting. That wouldn't fix anything per se, but it would be nice to know the next time someone votes for one of the Aaron Fucking Sele's of the world.

Thanks for lending your fellow hubber a helping hand. What is so great about this site is people are willing to help each other out without any snark like other sites named reddit that I shall not name. Such an amazing community, this is.

I'm sure it's your pleasure to have me.

While this doesn't answer your question, Jorge, here's a little blurb I saw on Slate the other day:

... What are the odds that a movie that is not nominated for Best Director will win Best Picture?

Very, very low. Only three films in the Oscar’s past 84 ceremonies have won Best Picture without having been nominated for Best Director as well. The last time this happened was in 1990, when Driving Miss Daisy won the big prize even though Bruce Beresford was not honored at all for his directorial work. For the other two examples, you have to go back a full 70 years: Wings won Best Picture at the first Academy Awards in 1929, though William A. Wellman was passed over in the directing category, and Grand Hotel won in 1932, though director Edmund Goulding was not nominated.

Garnering a Best Picture nomination without a directing nod is fairly common—especially so in the last few years, as the former category has expanded to include up to 10 candidates, while the latter has stayed at the standard five. But so far the winners in the former category continue to be the ones that show up in the latter as well.

Source - http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/10/oscars_2013_b...

While I concur that they may be more than capable of participating in serious discussion, I'm just not sure they want to. They yearn for that instant gratification they receive when they see their inane comments receive attention. The faster they put forth their garbage, the more attention they get. If they were to attempt to add quality content, it would severely slow down the highs they feed off of.

Boom! Burn Centers, etc... DAE come to hubski and instantly lower property values with garbage comments?

Would you like to have consensual sexual relations with me after forming a meaningful relationship?