Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-12-2018, 02:59 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
In the past?
I didn't say how LONG in the past.

Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg line:

Quote:
I used to do drugs.

(pause)

I still do them. But also, I used to.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 07-12-2018 at 03:00 PM.
  #52  
Old 07-12-2018, 03:55 PM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Why not a full roster for offense and defensive players, then? We can have nine "designated hitters," and a bunch of highly specialized outfielders and infielders that never hit.
Nobody but opponents of the designated hitter rule ever makes that proposal. Other sports have specialized defensive players who almost never play offense. Why not make the goalies in soccer and hockey play on offense too?

Quote:
My answer is: because that ruins the trade-off choices that make baseball so intriguing to manage and are (or should be) an essential element of the game.
When I watch baseball I like to see good hitting and good pitching. If I want to see strategy, I'll watch chess.

Last edited by Colibri; 07-12-2018 at 03:57 PM.
  #53  
Old 07-12-2018, 04:06 PM
kunilou kunilou is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Nobody but opponents of the designated hitter rule ever makes that proposal. Other sports have specialized defensive players who almost never play offense. Why not make the goalies in soccer and hockey play on offense too?



When I watch baseball I like to see good hitting and good pitching. If I want to see strategy, I'll watch chess.
Meh, I see a lot of basketball players who are crappy on foul shots, to the point that their opponents will deliberately foul them for the chance to get the ball back after a missed free throw. Sometimes the last two minutes of an NBA game can last 10 minutes because of all the fouls. Why don't we just give the NBA a designated foul shooter, so we can concentrate on offense and defense, and not get bogged down by strategy?
  #54  
Old 07-12-2018, 04:10 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 21,267
Wait wait!

Are we still mad at me? What happened to ME being the center of attention?
  #55  
Old 07-12-2018, 04:39 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Why not make the goalies in soccer and hockey play on offense too?
The soccer ones do.
  #56  
Old 07-12-2018, 04:40 PM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
The soccer ones do.
How many goals have they scored?
  #57  
Old 07-12-2018, 05:40 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,353
Madison Bumgarner, pitcher for the SF Giants, has 17 career home runs and batting average of 0.181 ... yup, occasionally pinch hits ...

The umpire calls "Infield fly, if fair" ... if foul then the play proceeds as normal ... i.e. dead ball ... thanks, I won a bet ...
  #58  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:28 PM
andros andros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 9,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
How many goals have they scored?
It happens, and it's awfully funny when it does.

But soccer is not the best comparison, nor is hockey, as the transition between offense and defense is extremely fluid. My Timbers had a 12 second counterattack the other day: keeper makes a stop, distributes to midfielder, pass to striker for the goal. The goalie went immediately from defense to offense without the sort of hard line we see in baseball, cricket, or American football.

All that's to say, I'm with Bricker. The DH roont the game. Roont it, I tells ya.
  #59  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:53 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
Nobody but opponents of the designated hitter rule ever makes that proposal. Other sports have specialized defensive players who almost never play offense. Why not make the goalies in soccer and hockey play on offense too?
Sometimes they do. This is actually more in support of my point than yours, I think. No rule forbids a hockey team from playing their goalie as an attacker. In fact, it's common for the losing team in the final minutes to pull their goalie, and sometimes even in the middle of the game a team that's on power play will empty their net to give themselves a really strong numerical advantage center ice.

But the decision comes with important tradeoffs: an empty net means that you risk giving up a goal easily in the midst of trying to gain one. So the choice is a strategic one, weighing the cost against the benefit.

That's the value (at least to me) in having rules that incentivize strategic thinking over brute-force repetition of a single tactic. Decide whether you need a pinch-hitter, knowing you'll pay the cost of leaving him in for the rest of the game. That's the pure form of baseball. Having your cake and eating it too with the designated hitter seems the lazy substitute for strategy.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #60  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:58 PM
kunilou kunilou is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,453
Will this be the first thread ever moved from ATMB to The Game Room?
  #61  
Old 07-12-2018, 10:28 PM
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 10,162
I'm not sure how we ended up talking DH, but I'm agin it. Also, go Dodgers.
  #62  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:29 AM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,567
Raise the jolly roger!!!!
  #63  
Old 07-14-2018, 11:42 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by John DiFool View Post
I've about had it. Note the much-rumored but probably nonexistent forum for Pitting Moderators isn't open for business at the moment (checks again...durn it), so this goes here.

Ok. Fine. So the new watchwords are "respect" and "civility."

How many fucking times have we seen this play out? An alt-righter says something provocative/stupid/trolling/broken recordish, someone else calls them out on it, yet it is only the latter who get the notes and warnings?

Now. How TF is long-term trolling showing any sort of "respect and civility for all"? Because that's what we have here. A cadre of mindless Trumpian bozos who continue to trot out their moronic, false, and endlessly repetitive horseshit.

But this thread isn't about them. It's about their enablers in the mod loop.

In case TPTB here have yet to figure it out, WE ARE NOW AT WAR WITH A HOSTILE NATION. One which PAYS mindless assholes like the ones infesting this site to troll message boards with their disruptive dogcrap, over and over and over and over and over, for the sole purpose of destablizing our nation and our society. And hey they have almost pulled it off. Partially because people have coddled their worthless asses, both here and elsewhere, for far too long.

Our mods here will constantly overlook the giant shit one of them just left on the sidewalk, and will instead throw the full weight of the book at the gumchewers who toss a small sticky one out there. All because they managed to somehow evade the precise "letter" of the rules.

I've almost left this board several times over this crap in the past year, after witnessing endless trolling like in the above thread that only rarely gets any actual substantive action. Fuck, we only recently saw one long-term troll, who openly admitted same, hang around far far past his sell-by date before the banhammer finally fell on his worthless ass. Well, what in the fuck were you waiting for?!?

I am one more incident like the above away from buggering off for good. You really need to dump the entire lot out the back door, and not get into this "Welp, I cannot mind-read the bastard to see if he is truly sincere or not, so I guess he stays." This curious notion that we have to direct a mind-scanning ray at someone to divine their true mindset before they finally get shit-canned is utterly preposterous. BY DEFINITION these kinds of people are NOT the least bit interested in your quaint notions of "respect" and "civility", no matter how often they may evade your little dragnet (with its gaping holes).

Either they go, or I (and a lot of other Dopers, many of which are already splitsville) go. Simple as that.

Many on the right would say the same thing about people on the left. I find it funny that under the banner of "Respect and civility for all." You’re dropping an F bomb, calling at least some Trump supporters bozos and stating they “….trot out their moronic, false, and endlessly repetitive horseshit.” Just how is that civil? When you consider that almost 62 million people voted for him (almost 66 million for Clinton) Also, how many is some, almost half, less more? Yes, I voted for Trump, that doesn’t mean I support all his actions, just like I didn’t toss all of Obama’s ideas aside just because Obama suggested them. Personally, I want to hear what the other side has to say, I might not agree with them but I want to know what they have to say.

There are two ways to deal with trolls, one is to ignore them ie don’t feed the trolls, they want to stir up trouble and get a reaction out of you, which appear they have successfully done with you. Or hit them with fact after fact, while the troll may think they got a reaction out of you, you successfully defused them by show the readers of the thread how unintelligent their post is while scoring point for your argument.

I also find it interesting that you are willing to surrender while at the same time saying “…., WE ARE NOW AT WAR WITH A HOSTILE NATION. “ What hostile nation? I can think of several nations off the top of my head, or do you mean left vs right?

Here’s two things to think about, given that Trump supporters generally fell into the 40+ range, that means at least some of his supports were hippies or grew up in that era back in the 1960’s and early 70’s. And odd are that today JFK, given his stance on the issues including abortion, taxes, trade, etc, couldn’t win the Democrat nomination and he probably would have been considered a Republican by the Democrats of today.
  #64  
Old 07-14-2018, 02:47 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
... given that Trump supporters generally fell into the 40+ range, that means at least some of his supports were hippies or grew up in that era back in the 1960’s and early 70’s. And odd are that today JFK, given his stance on the issues including abortion, taxes, trade, etc, couldn’t win the Democrat nomination and he probably would have been considered a Republican by the Democrats of today.
As to being hippies, well for certain very small values of "some" maybe. Grew up then? Well duh. But really only a small fraction of young adults of the '60s and early '70s actively participated in "the counter culture". There were conservative youth, especially in the same rural areas that represent Trump's strength today, and in 1969 only 35% of the leading edge of the Boomers identified as Democrats.

Of course some of those who at least identified as Democrats then have shifted to the more conservative side with age but of the much smaller group who were actually active counterculture participants? Facts not in evidence.

Kennedy?

Stated: "Can we do more, should we know more about the whole reproduction cycle, and should this information be made more available to the world so that everyone can make their own judgment, I would think that it would be a matter which we could certainly support." That is really the closest we've got as to his political position on choice. Choice was just not an issue then. That he was personally against abortion is immaterial. Many who support and have supported choice are.

Civil Rights? He was placed pretty firm in the support camp. True his take was to go a bit slower but he did take a big political chance in the South in calling Coretta King when MLK was in jail just before the election and did get the Civil Rights Act of 1963 passed. In the time this how that was played:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1963 The New Republic
The President’s new objective is stated in the proposed Omnibus Act, which declares that discrimination “is incompatible with the concepts of liberty to which the Government of the United States is dedicated.” The Act understands discrimination to be not merely deprivation of rights, but also of “privileges accorded to other citizens.” And, perhaps most notably, it aims to eradicate not merely deprivations, but also “inconveniences, humiliations, and hardships,” to the end that we may achieve “the fullest development of the capabilities of the whole citizenry,” and unlimited “participation in the economic, political, and cultural life of the Nation.” The rest of the bill goes into detail, with almost no holds barred.

This is the new commitment.
I think that would play today. You think his being against quotas would disqualify him? Many Democrats of today support affirmative action but few call for quotas.

International affairs? The idea of winning the hearts and minds by good works in service that was created by college kids was something he embraced and fast tracked int reality. I don't think either HRC (in particular) or Obama were any less strong in the belief that military engagement was sometimes required and the knowledge held by others that we had the strength and the willingness to use it was an important part of not needing to use it.

Taxes ... not sure. He felt tax rates were too high. But at that time the top bracket then (≥ $400K married filing jointly) was paying a marginal rate of 91% (!) and even a married couple filing jointly who made less than $4000 a year paid 20%. I think a Democrat could argue against those rates as too high and do well in a primary.

Trade? I think a Democrat today saying, as Kennedy did as he signed H.R. 11970, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFK
we cannot protect our economy by stagnating behind tariff walls
would do well. Yes, populist movements on both sides of the aisle have railed against trade agreements, but Democrats who have won the office have always been for good trade agreements recognizing, as Kennedy did, that our economy requires trade to grow and that a strong economy across the world with countries interconnected is the best "counter" to the threats we all face.

He was an NRA member but the NRA was a completely different critter back then, more of a sportsman's club. There is plenty of room in the party for those who believe what the NRA of the '60s advocated. Back then the NRA was for some gun control in balance with rights ... it wasn't until the mid '70s that the NRA became the no slippery slope no compromise organization it is today.

Hmmm. A GOP candidate right now calling for the release of a ... make it a BLM leader today ... calling attention to civil rights and demanding not only an end to discrimination but to "the fullest development of the capabilities" of all ... promoting the Peace Corps as a means of having international influence ... being against protectionist tariffs ... for some reasonable gun control that recognized the individual right to bear arms comes with responsibility as well and who'd agree with Reagan when he said “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”? He'd not be considered even a RINO today. A Kennedy would be in the tent of Democrats with some agreeing and some not. He'd be way off the reservation in today's Trumpian GOP.
  #65  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:46 PM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,568
Moderator Note

ATMB isn't the appropriate forum for a political discussion. Please keep all comments relevant to the rules and moderation of this message board.

If you want to discuss politics, feel free to do so in a more appropriate forum.
  #66  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:50 PM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,568
Moderator Action

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Will this be the first thread ever moved from ATMB to The Game Room?
This thread seems to want to jump to lots of different forums other than ATMB.

I'm going to take that as a sign that the original topic has run its course. It's probably best to close it now before it veers off in yet another direction.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017