OGTEleven

I loved season 6 and am glad there is one more. Mark Konpfler is my favorite musician and I was blown away when the last song played. It fit so well. It was a nice surprise in a show that does everything right.

I loved Ozark and Bosch. Anything else like those anyone can recommend? I thought Bosch was almost perfect and then they played Knopfler at the end and I realized there was no almost involved.

I'll add three. (Two are from the same album)

This clip shows it happening at 1:10

A little music and history. The song can be found on Youtube and James Taylor sings in the original.

Merry Christmas everyone. I thought it a good time of year to share inspirational or meaningful lyrics from songs we enjoy. There are a lot that hit me from time to time. The one below can be interpreted as religious or not, but either way, I think it is pretty on the mark. Please share yours if you'd like. - Genius Mark Knopfler summing up the meaning of life in 10 words

As a San Diego Padres fan (ouch) I usually have to dig for a reason to root in the World Series. This year I thought there was a lot to like about both teams and very little to dislike. I decided to root for the Nets, and Strasburg in particular because there was a connection to the Padres. It was my all time favorite player, Tony Gwynn. I recently found this article on his relationship with Strasburg. It is definitely worth the read. I thought the series was great. I was very impressed with several players and their approach. I guess the top ones for me were Strasburg, Greinke ,Rendon, Eaton, Springer, Urquidy and more (not Fernando Rodney). As much as I dislike the all power hitting-all power pitching that has taken baseball by storm, I thought this series had elements of how to beat that. I found two little parts of game 7 very interesting. Early in the game I noticed Greinke shake off his catcher twice just before getting a big out on the next pitch. I can't remember if it was the double play or a K. That told me he's have a good game, which he did. He was very calm. Although I'm sure it must have happened I didn't notice him shaking off the catcher again until he was 2-0 on Rendon in the 7th. They seemed locked in and I thought the shake off was weird. The next pitch was a home run. Rendon was so good the whole series I wonder if he had the pitch figured out because of the shake offs.

Mark Knopfler is a legitimate composer which can be seen not just in his work on albums but also on soundtracks he scored. A lot of his music is very complex. I'm not sure who composed Close to the Edge by Yes but whoever did is also damn good.

This seems to have turned into a craziest golf shots thread which is good for me since I am short on great ones. My craziest was also my first Eagle. I hit a good drive and a decent approach that was even with the hole but faded just off the right side of the green. I had one of those little 7 iron bump and run type shots and a very readable line. I thought it was makable. I knew exactly what I wanted to do and got a little excited when I started to come forward because I had executed the first part of the swing. I peaked something fierce and hit a scorching line drive far better than I had ever hit in all my years of baseball. My opponent in the trap on the other side of the green ran a quick two or three steps in an effort to avoid being hit. I was pissed but then thought "at least I hit it straight". The ball hit the flag a foot up and dropped straight into the cup. I raised my hands in triumph and my opponent called me a name. The craziest shot I ever witnessed is something I still can't believe. It was in the same league as the shot above. It was place rounds on the last week. We were in second but needed a dominant performance to pass the team we were playing. It was a fun league with wildly varying handicaps. We won the point on the first hole. I was ok and one of the opponents (an older guy that was a lot of fun to be around) was equal with my handicap. We had busted each others chops all week leading up to the match. I worked with him and knew him well. My partner was better and his partner was terrible. On the second hole the average opponent and myself were getting one shot each from my partner but his partner was getting two. I hit a decent drive on the par 5 and my partner crushed one. Decent opponent hits one equal to me and his partner barely clears a little pond and goes into a medium sized patch of woods between the mens and women's tees. We all waited while he went into the woods to look. He gave up and was going to take a drop behind the pond and hit #3. My partner (who could find a golf ball in the jungles of the Congo) says wait, and finds the ball in a nanosecond (dirty look from me). Bad golfer punches out #2, and hits a good #3 up the middle (dirtier look from me to my partner). Myself and other opponent screw up the fairway and eventually end up lying 4 with me in the trap on the right and him in the trap on the left. Partner hits a good #2 and opponent hits an real good (for him) #4 ending up just 10 yards behind my partner's ball. 3 of us are lying 4 and my partner is lying 2 so we're in good shape. Not really. With me standing in the trap the bad opponent hits a screamer that looks to be destined to go 30 yards past the large green. Similar to my shot above however, it is very straight (although standing to the side I couldn't tell at the time). This ball hit the flag 4 feet up and came back an exact 180 degrees directly at the opponent 50 yards away. It came backwards a full 20 feet (still on the green), landed with a wicked forward spin on it and rolled directly into the cup. I still can't believe I saw it. My jaw dropped (I was and still am pissed at my partner for finding that ball). The best part is when I looked up, having cursed three times already in my head and about to from my mouth, I saw the opponent in the trap across from me look me directly in the eye, smile, laugh and give me the finger. My partner failed to chip in for Eagle to get half a point. I didn't hit a good shot the rest of the night and we finished in 3rd.

Nothing is better than Chet but everything is better with Knopfler. It's a mystery for the ages. I'm seeing MK this summer. He is on tour in Europe now and he has added Silvertown Blues and Once Upon a Time in the West to his set list. He'd never played Silvertown and last played OUATITW 35 years ago. Should be fun.

1. For the pure excitement only youth can bring I'd say Genesis post Gabriel. I also saw Gabriel post Genesis. Both in Saratoga. Add Queen. All three were great shows. For music quality and enjoyment more appreciated by old fogies, I'll go with Mark Knopfler who I have seen twice and will see again next Summer. He has an incredible band and an amazingly diverse library. 2. My worst was also my first. The Cars. I remember asking some older friends if all concerts were like that. Thank God they aren't. I still like their songs though. 3. I'm not sure there is one because most would fall into category 4. 4. I think I'll go with a Traffic for this one. Zep is obvious but has also been mentioned a bunch. Add Pink Floyd on The Wall tour.

If you like it and haven't heard post Dire Straits Knopfler, dig in. There is a ton and it is awesome. Start with Shangri-La and Ragpicker's Dream and just keep going.

For today:

I put this one in the Pats fan thread that turned into a Wile E. Coyote thread. It fits here too.

Dire Straits - Dire Straits Close to the Edge - Yes Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd (Call me crazy but I think The Wall deserves consideration too) Shangri-La - Mark Knopfler (check out all his solo stuff) These Wilder Things - Ruth Moody (way different from the rest of the list). I love Zep and agree that III is way underrated. I can't say it is their best and even like some of their later stuff like In Through the Out Door, but I think I and II are strong but overrated when compared to III. III to me showed way more range. I have no argument with IV.

I haven't been a frequent poster for a long time (I used to be) and I'm not sure why this thread and your post made me want to reply. I'm conservative but I wasn't always. My whole family is liberal (to varying degrees) and I started out that way. I don't remember everything about why I changed stripes but I do remember when it started. I was about 20 and went to a Jackson Browne concert. I didn't like President Reagan at the time. I liked Browne's music (something else that I wonder about now, but he is ok I guess). I left the concert annoyed because of all the railing against Reagan between songs, the pictures on the screens behind JB during songs and certain things he said that I knew were only part of the story (I shared his overall beliefs but wondered why he left things out that didn't fit his theme). For this reason, it was the worst concert I'd ever attended and I saw The Cars play live (ugh). You make interesting points about Drudge, but I look at it from the opposite angle as well. Even though I agree with you about Drudge scooping by use of the internet, I think there is a lot Drudge did that exposed the shortcomings of network and cable news in ways that had little to do with scoops. To this day his page is almost completely links. He posts his own stuff (scoops) from time to time but most of it sends you somewhere else. People can say he mostly links right leaning articles and that can be argued either way. Even if you buy that, the middle column of his simple page, has for as long as I can remember been simple links to the latest editorials written by people left, right and center. His page is basically aggregation. There is nothing stopping anyone (especially CNN, Fox and other news outlets) from copying him. They could have very easily done that 20 years ago, but they were too tied to their filters. Why can't CNN link Thomas Sowell or Fox link Maureen Dowd? Shouldn't they want their audience to get a complete picture that draws them to a nightly broadcast? To me, Drudge exposed the politics of others. Maybe he didn't do it on purpose but I'm glad he did. Now he has a name and people go to the site, but when he started, he could have easily been beaten, or at least copied. Travelocity vs. Trivago vs. Hotels.com vs. 15 others isn't really all that different but Drudge is still by himself? These filters still exist. I can't count how many times I've gone on Drudge in the last two years and followed a link about an American political topic and found myself landing at an article from the UK. Very often these article have turned out to be very truthful and hit American news outlets months later. What is that? As for the overall topic I find the political takes of sports figures annoying. This is mostly for two reasons. First, I find them mostly uninformed and the better ones usually have a spin or filter. Lebron James seems like a nice well intending guy to me but he does not sound like he knows about politics. Colin Kaepernick is articulate to an extent and has formed beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. but I don't think he considers all sides and I think if he did there would be a lot less reporting about him. The second is that these guys are doing this at work and it creates problems for their employers. I have zero problems with a guy saying he will give his full opinion on something right after he leaves the locker room and that the reporters can wait for him ini the parking lot, but while he is at work? I pretty much stopped posting on the main board because although I am a fan I don't know how to evaluate a 3 technique or a cover 2 so I don't feel like I contribute much. I look at athletes the same way when they speak on politics until they prove otherwise.

I like a lot of guys mentioned here already. I love that Gilmour is getting a lot of mentions. I like classic rock for the most part so I thought about Hendrix, Gilmour Page, and a bunch of others. For a lot of them I like some of the lesser known deep tracks type songs. I was trying to pick one of those to post and was surfing around Youtube. When this popped up I couldn't look past it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Wp2ASqyxI For one that you might not have heard, look up a live version of "Speedway at Nazareth".

The Cars were my first favorite band as a kid and it is nice to see them nominated, but i don't think they really deserve to get in. There music was fun, but did not exactly require an overwhelming amount of talent. Dire Straits, on the other hand is almost a victim in that a lot of their commercial success came via MTV (Money for Nothing, etc.) although their primary work was far better and about as Rock and Roll as Roack and Roll can be. Songs like Sultans, Tunnel of Love, Telegraph Road and Romeo and Juliet should have had them in the Hall a long time ago. E Even so, it is really Mark Knopfler that belongs as he was the singer, songwriter and guitarist for everything they did and a lot of band members changed over time. His collaborations throughout his career are widely varied (Bob Dylan, Tina Turner, James Taylor, Van Morrison, Emmylou Harris, Eric Clapton, Chet Atkins and many many others) He has been covered by an equally diverse group (Indigo Girls, The Killers, Randy Travis, The Judds, Kenny Rogers, Metallica), His post DS career outstanding. He is absolutely one of the most talented musicians of the last 75 years. If you don't realize it, listen to some of the post DS work or just look up the things he has done. The HOF doesn't really mean much though, given who is already in. Being a Bills fan I have no comment on Bon Jovi, but if Madonna is in, almost all of the bands mentioned in this thread need to be in 10 years ago.

I get it and you're probably right about a lot of people. I think you are right about Trump playing that game and large portions of the press and Democrats falling for it. I also agree about disinformation being increased. I disagree with it being the right approach because there are also people on the other side of the argument that aren't the best people. There are racists and bigots. There are bad cops. I'd prefer the other side not think every cop is a racist or everyone not agreeing with Kaepernick is a bigot. The shout down and shaming arguments are fine one on one I suppose (Personally I don't even bother with the discussion). What gets me is when the Sean Hannity's of the world make them. From everything I have seen, Hannity is a decent guy who is not a racist or anything like that. But the way he makes his arguments would lead someone on the other side to want to shout back as a group and fight rather than talk. He's not the only one and Bill Maher is no better. But none of it makes sense to me if the goal is a society that keeps moving forward gradually. We are not going to be a perfect society tomorrow or any time soon, but we are far better than a Castro society and the fact that someone following Castro can get such action tells me that we are not communicating very well. McLaughlin lives (you'll see) I get what you're saying about triangulating facts and agree. I just think that too often the known facts get skipped over and people go right to the triangulation. Or they skip facts that they can't reconcile and go hammer the ones that bolster them. Both sides do it. The fact that more whites were killed by cops is a fact, but so is the fact that more blacks per capita were killed. You can't use one and ignore the other and frame a good argument. As for the last part, yes I need to lose a little weight and I also need to improve my skills but that doesn't make your comments less mean or unnecessary.

Well then I guess I got owned then. But I wasn't arguing with Levi's points so I don't know how. I was really talking about how he made his points and why I thought people don't listen.

Hallmark fired me but I got them back because I stole the company sarcasm detector on my way out. It still works.

I'm not attempting to separate or ignore crime rates any more than you are attempting to say that skin color leads to the higher crime rates. Some people would read what you said and think you feel that way because they have made false assumptions about your intent. I think that when conversing with someone on the other side of an argument, it is smart to attempt to discern what the person factored in when arriving at their conclusion. And even though I like to think I have the noblest of intent, I have to realize that the other person might think the exact opposite of me. For that reason, I try to avoid making points with partial data and blanks filled in by things that ring true to me. If they simply ring true to me, they probably ring false to the person on the other side of the table. It is better to start with things that are simply true and explain your side from that foundation. It is fair for someone to challenge the things that you feel are obvious just as it is fair for you to challenge someone that thinks it is obvious that all cops are racists. I completely agree with what you say about the quickness and charged nature of deadly encounters leading to foggy memories. From what I can see, emotion takes too prominent a place in this discussion (most discussions really but even more so in this). I think that needs to be stripped out to whatever degree it can be and replaced with facts. If that doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion, it should at least be helpful in having them trust people with opposing points of view and not lump them into some unnecessary category. I remember way back in school one of the things that stuck with me was the assumptions of pure competition and at first thinking they were simply bad assumptions. One was "full knowledge of the available products by all consumers". I thought it was crazy because how could anyone know everything that went into making a Corn Flake as opposed to a Wheatie and how would this knowledge matter anyway? As I got older I realized that the point was that pure competition had not yet been achieved but we should always move toward it, not away from it. My guess is that with the advent of the internet and many other tools, people know a lot more about they products they buy than at any other time in history. We still don't know everything, but we know a lot more and that is a good thing. There is still a lot of filtering out that needs to be done, but if you want to compare a Ford to a Chevy you are in a much better position to do so today than you were in 1970. Do Chevy and Ford each try to highlights their strengths and ignore their weaknesses? Of course. But there is much more out there can be found much more quickly. The same should apply to things we aren't buying. We know more now about events around the country and the world than we ever have. If Michael Brown happened in 1980 we probably barely hear about it unless we live within a relatively close distance to Ferguson. In some cases the stuff we hear about is useful, in others it is useless (reality TV), and it certainly can carry unintended consequences. The whole country is like a big neighborhood now in many aspects and if there is a theme someone wants to drive, it can be driven. It doesn't even have to be something serious like race relations or police shootings. Remember all the creepy clowns last Summer? That stupid thing fed on itself. If it happened in 1980 in two neighboring towns in Pennsylvania it would have made the local news, tops. As time moves on, facts should inevitably become clear if information is allowed to flow freely. Right now, we are in a place more similar to the 1970s Ford vs. Chevy paradigm than the 2017 Ford vs. Chevy paradigm. There is a lot of spinning going on and it is coming from more angles than simply two competitive auto companies. The point is that the more we move toward fully objective information and not away from it, the better off we'll be.

In the part you colored red I wasn't trying to use analytics at all. I was putting myself in the shoes of the person who thinks cops are racist and trying to figure out how I'd respond to Levi's points. His facts weren't wrong, but they were incomplete and they hopped around trying to fit his conclusion. If i were someone who disagreed with his premise, I'd probably dismiss his arguments more quickly than I should and might even start to mistrust him. That would probably be the wrong thing to do, but it probably wouldn't stop me. I'd probably proceed to cite incomplete facts of my own leading Levi to believe he couldn't trust me or my intent. The rest of what you wrote is something I'll have to come back to at a later time. Sorry about that.