Well we dated once so I don't know how personal you'd call that. But on a serious note I would like to hear your story.
We used to be more high profile members on a different Web site. Anytime anybody posted something that he perceived as not agreeing with him 1000%, he would refer to the person as an idiot and then when that person would prove their point (it wasn't just me, but many others), he would go apoplectic over it. He would often interject himself in conversations that had nothing to do with him and act like this.
I remember one time in particular I was stating that a certain Yankees team (can't remember the year) are going to have problems in October because they can't manufacture runs without the long ball. He went the typical Sabermetrics (aka Moneyball) argument not knowing I've been reading Bill James since I was 10 years old. I then showed data of past teams that couldn't manufacture runs that well outside of the long ball and in general they didn't win the World Series. He was set out to antagonize me ever since regardless of the subject and would never admit that I was right, especially when that Yankees team....failed to make it to the WS because they couldn't manufacture runs outside of the long ball. And Billy Beane stating to the effect
my stuff (Moneyball) doesn't work in the playoffs.
So, this article is typical of him. He doesn't want to admit that he was wrong about Frederick, starts claiming that Frederick had a 'third round grade' and contradicts himself by saying he should have been taken at 18, but was taken too high at 31.
YR