07-14-2010, 03:05 PM
<!--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.
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