Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.
Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
Wang.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105325:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:02 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jul 13 2010, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105238:date=Jul 13 2010, 10:46 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 13 2010, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I don't think anyone has ever in the history of SOI won an argument with you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, I'm getting pretty tired of people treating the fact that I actually back my arguments up with facts, and stick to my guns, as some sort of character flaw. News flash. that is what you are supposed to do on a message board. If you've got a counter argument, make it. Simply saying "no one has ever won an argument with you" is a fucking cop out, as it is utterly meaningless.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->And I don't really care that much to look it up right now, but I have an inkling that Soto "playing in 80% of the games" includes a significant number of games where: 1) Hill started the game and/or 2. Soto was used as a pinch hitter and/or late inning replacement<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll save you the 12 seconds it took me to look this up. There were a grand total of 6 games in which Soto batted one or fewer times.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to pick a nit a bit: You blow off the number of games where Soto has participated on a substitute level because it's a "grand total of 6," but that's almost 10% of his games. That's not exactly as insignificant as "6" sounds.
But, I think the mix of Hill and Soto has been acceptable. Where Soto's been batting, however, is insane.
But for good measure, I'll toss this into the fire. Although I'm one who says Lou should be (and should have been) fired, I can think of another justification for hitting Soto 8th. Arguably, he wouldn't be getting on base at such a savage clip if he didn't have the pitcher hitting behind him.
But that said, I'd have had him batting first or second two months ago.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really is the rare catcher who bats higher in the lineup...unless you're Johnny Bench or Mike Piazza, the traditional rationale has been to help them sustain energy and durability by batting them lower in the order. Most catchers are first measured on their defensive and pitching management capabilities.
I'm not batting Soto too far upstairs...
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105338:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:12 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 13 2010, 07:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please be more specific than "you guys." BT and I have had some epic arguments on this site, but I'd like to believe I've never crossed the line into smarmy and/or shitty.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you have been in this thread, but you have in the past. Off the top of my head, I remember some argument (can't remember what it was) where BT called you out for having a straw man argument and later actually said you were being smarmy. Just because he said it does not make it so of course, but I thought you were being smarmy too.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105341:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.
Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because there was absolutely no sarcasm in anything you said. Right? This line really convinced me of that.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's why I want to keep Hendry and Lou. I can't win. No one can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right?
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105431:date=Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105341:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.
Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because there was absolutely no sarcasm in anything you said. Right? This line really convinced me of that.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's why I want to keep Hendry and Lou. I can't win. No one can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right?
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Piss rain is still rain.
Anyway, in the end, all I'm really doing is complimenting BT. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe that or not.
The fact of the matter is that every time I'm convinced of something, BT presents an argument that has me questioning my own beliefs. That's a fact. If you think that's insulting, that's your prerogative, but i really don't think BT needs you to stand up for him. He does pretty well on his own.
You, on the other, seem to convince me that my beliefs are right on the money. Maybe therein lies the problem?
Wang.
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105432:date=Jul 14 2010, 09:04 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 14 2010, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105431:date=Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105341:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.
Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because there was absolutely no sarcasm in anything you said. Right? This line really convinced me of that.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's why I want to keep Hendry and Lou. I can't win. No one can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right?
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Piss rain is still rain.
Anyway, in the end, all I'm really doing is complimenting BT. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe that or not.
The fact of the matter is that every time I'm convinced of something, BT presents an argument that has me questioning my own beliefs. That's a fact. If you think that's insulting, that's your prerogative, but i really don't think BT needs you to stand up for him. He does pretty well on his own.
You, on the other, seem to convince me that my beliefs are right on the money. Maybe therein lies the problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are sincere in what you say, I apologize.
But look at it from my perspective. You've called BT "Cubs management" and such things and have argued HEAVILY against many of his points. Then you go overboard saying how he's so convincing and you can't win an argument with him. You go as far to say that he's "convinced you to keep Hendry and Lou" (I've seen that song and dance and you are NOT going to convince me that last one is sincere. It's not just me, nobody is going to beleive that).
So, from my perspective, what conclusion do you think I'm going to jump to based on the above statements? Don't get insulted if I insinuate something about you that seems to be the most obvious conclusion.
No, BT does not need me to stand up for him. But I know what it's like to be ganged up on in here. It's not fun, so I'll offer my support and interject with my opinion... because, you know, giving opinions is a huge reason we post here.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
BT is a good debater, but his best quality is his tirades which are second only to Bricklayer here. He didn't take my bait...I'll try harder next time.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105435:date=Jul 14 2010, 09:15 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 14 2010, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105432:date=Jul 14 2010, 09:04 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 14 2010, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105431:date=Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 14 2010, 08:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105341:date=Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105330:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105274:date=Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 12:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105227:date=Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 13 2010, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105208:date=Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 13 2010, 06:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->And then when it's over, he'll say Lou should be fired anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand why this upsets you so much. Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% dump on the current one for every single thing he does?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why, if you believe the Cubs should get a new manager, do you have to 100% defend the current one every single time someone else dumps on him?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't 100% defend him. Case in point, I agree with you on the Soto argument you guys are having with BT. I don't blindly defend him either. I speak my mind on what I think on each individual topic. If I hear someone saying Lou is not paying attention/senile/doesn't care/etc. then I will defend him on that because I think he is paying attention, is not senile, and does care. Not because I blindly defend him. Just because I disagree with you should not automatically make me the subject of your criticism.
Which brings me to my next defense. The way you guys are talking to BT is really smarmy and shitty. You're faulting him for the way he defends his arguments? The guy makes valid points. Even on points I disagree with him on (which, as hard as it is to believe, does in fact happen) I have to admit he makes a good case. Don't try to turn it into "you're actually wrong but you've convinced yourself you're right". That's just bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's real shitty of me to say he's a convincing debater. What a dick I am.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, because there was absolutely no sarcasm in anything you said. Right? This line really convinced me of that.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's why I want to keep Hendry and Lou. I can't win. No one can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right?
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Piss rain is still rain.
Anyway, in the end, all I'm really doing is complimenting BT. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe that or not.
The fact of the matter is that every time I'm convinced of something, BT presents an argument that has me questioning my own beliefs. That's a fact. If you think that's insulting, that's your prerogative, but i really don't think BT needs you to stand up for him. He does pretty well on his own.
You, on the other, seem to convince me that my beliefs are right on the money. Maybe therein lies the problem?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are sincere in what you say, I apologize.
But look at it from my perspective. You've called BT "Cubs management" and such things and have argued HEAVILY against many of his points. Then you go overboard saying how he's so convincing and you can't win an argument with him. You go as far to say that he's "convinced you to keep Hendry and Lou" (I've seen that song and dance and you are NOT going to convince me that last one is sincere. It's not just me, nobody is going to beleive that).
So, from my perspective, what conclusion do you think I'm going to jump to based on the above statements? Don't get insulted if I insinuate something about you that seems to be the most obvious conclusion.
No, BT does not need me to stand up for him. But I know what it's like to be ganged up on in here. It's not fun, so I'll offer my support and interject with my opinion... because, you know, giving opinions is a huge reason we post here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scarey, it doesn't matter if I'm being sarcastic or smarmy. I am both. But in the end, all I'm doing is commenting on his skills. I'm not calling him a dumbass or a retard. All I'm saying is that no matter how much I feel I'm right, BT has an uncanny ability to blow me (and everyone else) out of the water. He's good.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Yes I'm being smarmy. Yes, I'm being disingenuous when I say I'm convinced that Hendry and Lou should stay. You are absolutely right. But my sarcasm, smarminess, and disingenousness is all rooted in the fact that it's impossible to win an argument with him.
To me, it's along the same lines as ripping on phan because he fucks a lot of hot chicks. Is that really such a bad thing?
So lighten up Scarey. And defend the people who need defending. BT doesn't need your help. Lou and Hendry do though, because they suck.
Wang.
Posts: 6,476
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105449:date=Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BT is a good debater, but his best quality is his tirades which are second only to Bricklayer here. He didn't take my bait...I'll try harder next time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you hadn't included the Brussels Sprouts line, you probably would have had me. I had an awesome put down built around you getting a new word-of-the-day calendar I was all ready to bust out.
I appreciate Scarey sticking up for me, but he is essentially sticking up for himself as well. I don't know that it's a new development around here, but the rules of debate seemed to have changed. It seems that peoples opinions are being dismissed out of hand because of their debating tendencies and not because of what they are actually saying. As I explained when we were looking at boobs at Tilted Kilt, my (or Scarey's) opinion backing Hendry or Lou shouldn't be dismissed simply because that is what we "always do" any more than KB's opinion that Hendry fucked up should be dismissed at face value. The actual points we make should stand or fall on their own. As I was telling you, when you mockingly say that Hendry should be resigned, you are "poisoning the well", essentially dismissing what I say because of my past arguments. (To be fair, I've probably done this to KB in the past as well).
I swear I have no allegiance to Hendry or Piniella. I didn't like MacPhail. I really didn't like Lynch. I would really like a GM who is more statistically oriented than Hendry appears to be. I have no problem with the Cubs firing him (although I have a huge problem with losing Wilken). But even if I hated the guy, I still would argue with someone if, to cite a recent example, they try to claim that we overpaid (market-wise) Fukudome. Not because I love Hendry, but because factually it's incorrect.
The team is bad, and the fans mood is ugly. I realize that arguing FOR the guys in charge won't make me the most popular guy on the board, but the fact is, Hendry and Piniella usually have a reason why they do things. If I point this out, my points should be judged on their own merits, not on my debating history scoreboard.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105506:date=Jul 14 2010, 01:36 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 14 2010, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105449:date=Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BT is a good debater, but his best quality is his tirades which are second only to Bricklayer here. He didn't take my bait...I'll try harder next time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you hadn't included the Brussels Sprouts line, you probably would have had me. I had an awesome put down built around you getting a new word-of-the-day calendar I was all ready to bust out.
I appreciate Scarey sticking up for me, but he is essentially sticking up for himself as well. I don't know that it's a new development around here, but the rules of debate seemed to have changed. It seems that peoples opinions are being dismissed out of hand because of their debating tendencies and not because of what they are actually saying. As I explained when we were looking at boobs at Tilted Kilt, my (or Scarey's) opinion backing Hendry or Lou shouldn't be dismissed simply because that is what we "always do" any more than KB's opinion that Hendry fucked up should be dismissed at face value. The actual points we make should stand or fall on their own. As I was telling you, when you mockingly say that Hendry should be resigned, you are "poisoning the well", essentially dismissing what I say because of my past arguments. (To be fair, I've probably done this to KB in the past as well).
I swear I have no allegiance to Hendry or Piniella. I didn't like MacPhail. I really didn't like Lynch. I would really like a GM who is more statistically oriented than Hendry appears to be. I have no problem with the Cubs firing him (although I have a huge problem with losing Wilken). But even if I hated the guy, I still would argue with someone if, to cite a recent example, they try to claim that we overpaid (market-wise) Fukudome. Not because I love Hendry, but because factually it's incorrect.
The team is bad, and the fans mood is ugly. I realize that arguing FOR the guys in charge won't make me the most popular guy on the board, but the fact is, Hendry and Piniella usually have a reason why they do things. If I point this out, my points should be judged on their own merits, not on my debating history scoreboard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boy...I loves this post, and remains in steadfast agreement.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105510:date=Jul 14 2010, 01:49 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Jul 14 2010, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105506:date=Jul 14 2010, 01:36 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 14 2010, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105449:date=Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 14 2010, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BT is a good debater, but his best quality is his tirades which are second only to Bricklayer here. He didn't take my bait...I'll try harder next time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you hadn't included the Brussels Sprouts line, you probably would have had me. I had an awesome put down built around you getting a new word-of-the-day calendar I was all ready to bust out.
I appreciate Scarey sticking up for me, but he is essentially sticking up for himself as well. I don't know that it's a new development around here, but the rules of debate seemed to have changed. It seems that peoples opinions are being dismissed out of hand because of their debating tendencies and not because of what they are actually saying. As I explained when we were looking at boobs at Tilted Kilt, my (or Scarey's) opinion backing Hendry or Lou shouldn't be dismissed simply because that is what we "always do" any more than KB's opinion that Hendry fucked up should be dismissed at face value. The actual points we make should stand or fall on their own. As I was telling you, when you mockingly say that Hendry should be resigned, you are "poisoning the well", essentially dismissing what I say because of my past arguments. (To be fair, I've probably done this to KB in the past as well).
I swear I have no allegiance to Hendry or Piniella. I didn't like MacPhail. I really didn't like Lynch. I would really like a GM who is more statistically oriented than Hendry appears to be. I have no problem with the Cubs firing him (although I have a huge problem with losing Wilken). But even if I hated the guy, I still would argue with someone if, to cite a recent example, they try to claim that we overpaid (market-wise) Fukudome. Not because I love Hendry, but because factually it's incorrect.
The team is bad, and the fans mood is ugly. I realize that arguing FOR the guys in charge won't make me the most popular guy on the board, but the fact is, Hendry and Piniella usually have a reason why they do things. If I point this out, my points should be judged on their own merits, not on my debating history scoreboard.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Boy...I loves this post, and remains in steadfast agreement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT's post is indeed good. BTW, that's why I continue to post pro-Hendry article when I find them, or when I agree with them. I don't want to be seen as this site's designated "anti-Hendry" guy, just because I'm often pointing out why he seems like a square peg for the Cub's GM job.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 233
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
For what it's worth, I think every single one of you are Expert Level Master Debaters
Fat Bastard is an immensely obese, hardly able to walk (weighing a metric ton) gardener and henchman hailing from Scotland. His extreme size endows Fat Bastard with super-human strength as exhibited by his prowess in the Sumo ring from Goldmember. This makes him a formidable enemy for Austin Powers. Fat Bastard is noted for his foul temper, his frequent flatulence, his vulgar and revolting bad manners and his unusual eating habits, which include taste for Human infants (which he calls "the other other white meat") or anything that looks like a baby, e.g. small people. Fat Bastard has been a regular at Cub games since the early 80's when he tried several times (unsuccessfully) to eat the visiting San Diego Chicken.
Posts: 393
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
0
Well hell, 3 days with no games has me wondering what the old man had stirring in his head...I can't imagine what kind of fubar lineup he runs out there tonight. My thinking though, and I am sure I'll be slashed for it, is that this team has 0.0 in the way of a leadoff man. Theriot has the OBP or a mule and Fukudome would spin off trying to hit a ball off of a tee, so, why the hell not let Castro lead off? What does the team have to lose? Have you seen Cincy's schedule the rest of the way? Pretty easy. Cubs aren't catching shit in this division, so put the kid up there for 10 or so games and let's see what he can do. Speed-check. Bunting-check I think. Patience-getting better. Bottom line, cubs cannot do worse than Theriot or Fukudookie batting first. Lou, I hope you are reading!! Why not...
Castro-SS
Fontenot-2B (yes I know Moyer is pitching but who gives a fuck)
Byrd-CF
Ramirez-3B (only because his stroke seems to be kind of back)
Colvin-RF
Soriano-LF
Lee-1B
Soto-C
Yeah I know I said I would like to see Soto batting higher, but stick Lee ahead of him and maybe Lee sees some decent pitching and can climb out of his funk a little. The team has nothing to lose, so why not get a little weird with it??
Dylan McKay is my hero
Posts: 3,745
Threads: 78
Joined: Apr 2022
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105642:date=Jul 15 2010, 02:49 PM:name=willis)-->QUOTE (willis @ Jul 15 2010, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well hell, 3 days with no games has me wondering what the old man had stirring in his head...I can't imagine what kind of fubar lineup he runs out there tonight. My thinking though, and I am sure I'll be slashed for it, is that this team has 0.0 in the way of a leadoff man. Theriot has the OBP or a mule and Fukudome would spin off trying to hit a ball off of a tee, so, why the hell not let Castro lead off? What does the team have to lose? Have you seen Cincy's schedule the rest of the way? Pretty easy. Cubs aren't catching shit in this division, so put the kid up there for 10 or so games and let's see what he can do. Speed-check. Bunting-check I think. Patience-getting better. Bottom line, cubs cannot do worse than Theriot or Fukudookie batting first. Lou, I hope you are reading!! Why not...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't "slash" you for that. I'd be fine with Castro leading off. Give the kid as many AB's as possible.
|
