Jump to content

SinceThe70s

Community Member
  • Posts

    6,647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SinceThe70s

  1. Raise your hand if you had Keuchel and Kershaw not making it out of the 5th.

     

    What a great game.

     

    Doubt I'll make it to the last out tonight, but glad that the Houston and LA markets have it easier.

     

    Unsolicited prediction with the score 8-7 top 7 man on third two out: after being told he lost his role as closer, Giles gets the save tonight.

  2.  

    First of all, what "fish reference"?

     

     

    Let me ask you: Do you think all music is equal? Is it all good? Is all the music shared here, good, in your opinion?

     

     

     

     

    Fish reference was to Sturgeon's Law.

     

    Do you think all music is equal? No.

    Is it all good? No. But to me that's a personal preference and subjective. My good isn't your good. The criteria used to decide what is good is equally personal and subjective.

    Is all the music shared here, good, in your opinion? There's some music on this thread that I like and some that I don't like . I just don't classify the stuff I don't care for as crap.

  3.  

    No, again, understandable, but wrong. There is plenty of music I know is of high quality---it just isn't for me. In those cases, I think I'd be better off if I could appreciate it, but I simply don't. I'm actually fairly self aware.

     

    Keep in mind, for me, music is about that: MUSIC. Not image, genre, costumes, stage shows---all that extraneous stuff. In fact, most of that stuff turns me off, even to "quality" music. I suppose that's another thing I need to get over. But I tend to like music I think will be listened to for years. Not stuff that is "of the moment" and is likely to be forgotten in 10 years, if that helps. Quality music (even the stuff that isn't for me) stands the test of time.

     

    I think you don't get yourself and the fish reference. You basically denigrated 95% of posters shared music choices based on the bolded.

     

    Call me out if I missed it but I don't remember many (if any) "this band has a great stage show/image" comments.

     

    WRT to the last bolded piece, what's the statute of limitations when we can determine a song is good enough to be considered "high quality"?

  4.  

    No, that's not what I meant. But it's a good guess, as I am a well known music "snob". I actually thought this was going fairly well--well, you know, for the musical tastes of the hoi polloi, the "common man"---you know, morons.

     

     

    But as thing progressed, the masses showed their usual lack of taste. That's really all I'm saying.

     

    And, BTW, this isn't an "old music vs new music" thing. I think 95% of just about everything is crap. And, yes, I know I'm an !@#$.

     

    Thanks for the explanation but I think I understood you all along. As you said yourself, you're a music snob, if it's not to your taste its in the 95%.

  5. Pointing the finger at nobody in particular, here. But the longer this thread goes, the more I'm reminded of Sturgeon's Revelation (sometimes called Sturgeon's Law):

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

     

    Years before I ever heard of Sturgeon, I came to the same conclusion---but I wasn't as generous as Sturgeon.

     

    Just so I understand: your posts were the 10% (or less generous) and everyone elses's shared music was crap?

     

    I thought I was done with that crap argument when my father passed away.

  6. not only that, the unlikelihood that Hunt will be much of a factor in 2 or 3 years is high.

     

    RB's don't last long in this league. damnest thing. for every Adrian Peterson there are a dozen Alfred Morris' and to a point Zeke Elliot's (he's not exactly on fire this year)

     

    That's a great point.

     

    Amazing how the position has become devalued when you look back at the Herschel Walker mega-trade (1989) and Ricky Williams being traded for the Saints draft board (1999).

  7. This is a serious question to you and everyone else.

     

    Let's just say you are in charge of the Bills and the draft. We have the team we have now. Everyone including you knows we need a QB. You spend months and months scouting players live, watching film, meeting with your scouts, interviewing coaches and the quarterbacks, going to combine and pro days. Everything.

     

    There are let's say two guys you think are clearly above the others. Those are the guys you want. Two guys you like a lot but have serious reservations about. And two guys you think are not as good as others think and probably overhyped.

     

    I don't know this but I would bet this is BASICALLY true of every GM. Maybe they like three guys a lot, maybe only one. But you get the picture.

     

    The question and point is, if both of the two guys you LOVE are gone already, no matter how hard you tried to trade up to get him, do you draft a QB at 15 or 20 that you are not completely sold on because you think you need a franchise QB, instead of a guy available you love at a position of need who was graded much higher than the QB. And just hope the QB works out?

     

    Becaus that is the most likely scenario. We are not getting one of the top two guys. None of them are sure things. Everyone including them have questions. We have a bunch of holes to fill. Do you just draft the QB and hope?

     

    In general terms I would not take the QB in that scenario.

     

    The only thing I'd counter with is that this only takes into account one year. At some point I think you have to take a chance and reach for a QB. They did it with EJ and it didn't work out, but I had no problem with it. But I wouldn't want to do that every year.

  8.  

    I never thought the mistake was letting Harvey go out for the ninth. The mistake was not being decisive about it -- Harvey had to lobby him hard and who knows what impact that had on a head case like Harvey.

     

    And then he left him in too long.

     

    That still pisses me off, should have been the Mets series but not for that and Familia and his idiotic 'slide step'. :censored:

    Nailed it.

  9. So he's allowed no interest in pursuing his own career in parallel?

     

    You can acknowledge you are risking something but still be willing to fight for it, no? Or once you make the statement you just have to grin and watch those that oppose you bury you because you knew there was risk of backlash?

     

    He can do as he pleases. I can think and express what I think.

     

    I find it hypocritical that he acknowledged and accepted that his protest could jeopardize his career and then filed a lawsuit when it actually did.

  10.  

    Verlander is due for an off start, but Rich Hill would concern me more. I think he will get lit up.

     

    You are a complete dumb-a$$!!!!

     

    What Hill did against Altuve was impressive. Made him swing like a girl on the 1st inning strike out and then had him over-swinging in a crucial 2nd at bat.

×
×
  • Create New...