Baseball 101

[Keener98]

i can be nice when i want to. being mean just allows me to figure out whose worth talking to. if you cave in usually youre not worth taking seriously. if you ignore it, i dont talk down to you. you have to show me youre worth talking to. is there really anything wrong with holding people accountable?

 

Hilarious, this post should be stickied

[Drew Doughty]

i can be nice when i want to. being mean just allows me to figure out whose worth talking to. if you cave in usually youre not worth taking seriously. if you ignore it, i dont talk down to you. you have to show me youre worth talking to. is there really anything wrong with holding people accountable?

Good God, get over yourself. No one really likes you. Understand that.

 

i like him.

[Skyballer]

i can be nice when i want to. being mean just allows me to figure out whose worth talking to. if you cave in usually youre not worth taking seriously. if you ignore it, i dont talk down to you. you have to show me youre worth talking to. is there really anything wrong with holding people accountable?

Good God, get over yourself. No one really likes you. Understand that.

 

i like him.

i don't know if Anze was serious but I can seriously say that I like him

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

[swordsman]

Yeah, but why can't talking about baseball just be fun?

[Keener98]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

 

Its not about getting your feelings hurt, its about showing people respect and not being an ass in 99.9% of his posts. nobody else is allowed to be an ass like he is

[Mephistopheles]

im not even as big of an ass as most of you claim. its selective memory.

[bukie]

im not even as big of an ass as most of you claim. its selective memory.

 

Well, when you say things like

 

i can be nice when i want to. being mean just allows me to figure out whose worth talking to. if you cave in usually youre not worth taking seriously. if you ignore it, i dont talk down to you. you have to show me youre worth talking to. is there really anything wrong with holding people accountable?

 

in the same thread, people don't need to reach far to be selective.

 

For a while, I just assumed Meph/LoK was simply a joke account, using the names of demonic lords as a not-so-subtle attempt to be the "official board troll", as there's no way anyone can really be as self-absorbed as your posts appeared to be.

 

Now, I simply think you enjoy posting flippant comments/insults to try to get a rise out of as many people as you can, in an effort to develop some form of board "infamy".

 

It's a shame, too, because if you can just cut through the crap, there is a lot you are able to add to any statistical discussion that everyone can learn from, and not just those you deem worthy as if you were some baseball deity.

[Mephistopheles]

Lord of Khemennu is not a demonic lord. It's an alternate name for the Egyptian god, Thoth. His shrine was at Khemennu, hence the name. Thoth was seen as the great arbitrator and mediator (something I see myself as) and as the god of wisdom.

 

He did judge some dead guys but that had nothing to do with the selection of the name.

[Tracer Bullet]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

 

Great idea. Let's eliminate that whole "attack the post not the poster" part of the guidelines. Surely none of us gets upset when someone is...abrasive (is that what we're calling it?). So obviously, since the sole point of the rule is to make sure people don't get their feelings hurt, there's no point in having the rule. I can't wait for the attacks to start flying.

[Mephistopheles]

Whats ironic is that I pretty much only "attack the post not the poster" but the poster takes it personally even though Im dont what Im supposed to do.

[illiniguy]

Whats ironic is that I pretty much only "attack the post not the poster" but the poster takes it personally even though Im dont what Im supposed to do.

I followed you right up until the dont. huh?

I would like it if you typed up all the terms though. Just because I don't know all of them doesn't mean I place less value on them. It seems you have a good grasp on them and would love to know the exact meanings on them.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

 

Great idea. Let's eliminate that whole "attack the post not the poster" part of the guidelines. Surely none of us gets upset when someone is...abrasive (is that what we're calling it?). So obviously, since the sole point of the rule is to make sure people don't get their feelings hurt, there's no point in having the rule. I can't wait for the attacks to start flying.

 

But that's just it. Meph rarely attacks the poster. He might phrase his answer in a condescending fashion, but he's not attacking anyone. What happens, is it appears that posters take the condescention as an attack and react to that. But, I've seen few occasions of Meph actually, directly attacking the poster.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

 

Great idea. Let's eliminate that whole "attack the post not the poster" part of the guidelines. Surely none of us gets upset when someone is...abrasive (is that what we're calling it?). So obviously, since the sole point of the rule is to make sure people don't get their feelings hurt, there's no point in having the rule. I can't wait for the attacks to start flying.

 

But that's just it. Meph rarely attacks the poster. He might phrase his answer in a condescending fashion, but he's not attacking anyone. What happens, is it appears that posters take the condescention as an attack and react to that. But, I've seen few occasions of Meph actually, directly attacking the poster.

 

Vance.... when you get home from school tomorrow, you can walk in the door and say.....

 

"Jenny, when I'm with you, time seems to stand still.", and you'll probably have a very warm and tender evening. Or, you could say.....

 

"Jenny, you've got a face that could stop a clock.", and you'll sleep on the couch.

 

Are ya getting the idea ??

[Mephistopheles]

this is a better metaphor

 

you can say

 

"Jenny, you're idea that I'm too independent is stupid."

 

or

 

"Jenny, you're stupid because you think I'm too independent."

[Banedon]

Or we can stop splitting hairs and not call anything stupid, and instead use a logical argument to explain why something is incorrect. The whole point is that it's easy to phrase a discussion in a way that doesn't antagonize.

[Tracer Bullet]

Or we can stop splitting hairs and not call anything stupid, and instead use a logical argument to explain why something is incorrect. The whole point is that it's easy to phrase a discussion in a way that doesn't antagonize.

 

That's exactly my point. Saying a discussion is pointless (insinuating that the idea of the original post is dumb) or flatly saying that someone's idea is stupid isn't really different than calling them stupid.

 

Saying "you're wrong, here's why" would be better than "that idea is stupid." Meph does the former, but he also does a lot of the latter. I don't think it's right to condone that behavior because Meph makes other beneficial posts, but that's just me and my opinion on the matter doesn't mean much.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Or we can stop splitting hairs and not call anything stupid, and instead use a logical argument to explain why something is incorrect. The whole point is that it's easy to phrase a discussion in a way that doesn't antagonize.

 

Well, you're about as much fun as root canal work, eh?

[Banedon]

Or we can stop splitting hairs and not call anything stupid, and instead use a logical argument to explain why something is incorrect. The whole point is that it's easy to phrase a discussion in a way that doesn't antagonize.

 

Well, you're about as much fun as root canal work, eh?

 

I have to go get a wisdom tooth pulled tomorrow, so that hits a little too close to home...:P

[Fred Hornkohl]

Or we can stop splitting hairs and not call anything stupid, and instead use a logical argument to explain why something is incorrect. The whole point is that it's easy to phrase a discussion in a way that doesn't antagonize.

 

Well, you're about as much fun as root canal work, eh?

 

I have to go get a wisdom tooth pulled tomorrow, so that hits a little too close to home...:P

 

Believe me, I can empathize !!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Meph adds a lot to the forum. Surely he can be abrasive at times, but I think if you get your feelings hurt over what someone says over the Internet, you may be a tad too sensitive.

 

Great idea. Let's eliminate that whole "attack the post not the poster" part of the guidelines. Surely none of us gets upset when someone is...abrasive (is that what we're calling it?). So obviously, since the sole point of the rule is to make sure people don't get their feelings hurt, there's no point in having the rule. I can't wait for the attacks to start flying.

 

But that's just it. Meph rarely attacks the poster. He might phrase his answer in a condescending fashion, but he's not attacking anyone. What happens, is it appears that posters take the condescention as an attack and react to that. But, I've seen few occasions of Meph actually, directly attacking the poster.

 

Vance.... when you get home from school tomorrow, you can walk in the door and say.....

 

"Jenny, when I'm with you, time seems to stand still.", and you'll probably have a very warm and tender evening. Or, you could say.....

 

"Jenny, you've got a face that could stop a clock.", and you'll sleep on the couch.

 

Are ya getting the idea ??

 

I fully get that, and yes Meph's post are more the latter than the former, but that still doesn't mean he's attacking the poster. He's just attacking the post in a not so nice tone and manner. Is it semantics? Maybe, but it's enough of a difference that he's not breaking the rules of this forum.

 

If I respond to someone, "That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard," I'm attacking the post. If I say, "You're the dumbest poster I've ever encountered," I'm attacking the post. Some may say the first does the same thing, and certainly it's going to cause a lot of anger on the one whose post it is directed, but it's still an attack on the "idea" or the "post" and not the poster himself.

[Derwood]

Maybe there is no answer to this, but....

 

Why does the pitcher who starts the game have to log 5 IP in order to get a Win, but if he's pulled before hand, any pitcher can come in, throw one pitch and get the win? Why shouldn't the rule simply be "no pitcher can get a win before 5 innings are complete"?