Author Topic: random . . . randomness  (Read 399344 times)

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND

  • Member
  • Posts: 20767
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #645 on: February 13, 2015, 01:38:31 pm »
I had already fully disclosed that these LPs are not close to collectible condition even though a couple are autographed.
If Hutch does not want the records, I will gladly take them from you and I'll even come pick them up.
LVMH


ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 13960
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #647 on: February 13, 2015, 04:56:17 pm »

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #648 on: February 14, 2015, 07:03:53 am »
It was NOT an all star team. That's the point.  It was a team built out of the all stars, played together all year, and then played in a playoff that was for non-stacked teams.
I was under the impression the time period that the all stars played together was significantly shorter than a year, but I am probably mistaken. I still maintain that virtually no 11 year olds know the Little League district boundary.

If one of the kids was getting shipped in from 3 hours away, then OK, but absent some smoking gun I do not believe the kids knew in some widespread way that the lineup was ginned up.

I live right next to a LL complex.  The coaches, staff, and players all know full well who is and is not eligible to play.  The sad part is that the typical LL dad in many areas is some washed up never was ball player who is trying to re-live his missed youth by forcing his kid to take a the games way too seriously.
FUKIT

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #649 on: February 14, 2015, 07:07:42 am »
It was NOT an all star team. That's the point.  It was a team built out of the all stars, played together all year, and then played in a playoff that was for non-stacked teams.
I was under the impression the time period that the all stars played together was significantly shorter than a year, but I am probably mistaken. I still maintain that virtually no 11 year olds know the Little League district boundary.

If one of the kids was getting shipped in from 3 hours away, then OK, but absent some smoking gun I do not believe the kids knew in some widespread way that the lineup was ginned up.

Again this was NOT an all-star team.  (In essence it turned out to be one because of the illegal players.)  The LL WS is made up of teams that are regular teams that play together all season.  At the end of the season they are district, are, region, etc playoffs all the way up to the finals in Williamsport PA.  NONE of the teams are all=start teams.  What this team did was break that rule and created an all-star team by picking kids out of many regions (or whatever their term is for the bounded areas) and proceeded through the LL WS with that stacked team.
FUKIT

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 6607
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #650 on: February 14, 2015, 10:48:23 am »
Great perspective from an amazing player.


http://www.theplayerstribune.com/left-out/

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15077
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #651 on: February 14, 2015, 01:17:16 pm »
Great perspective from an amazing player.


http://www.theplayerstribune.com/left-out/

wow..that is really good...

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #652 on: February 14, 2015, 02:29:43 pm »
Great perspective from an amazing player.


http://www.theplayerstribune.com/left-out/

wow..that is really good...

Wow that was really LONG.  Too long to read in fact.  After the first four paragraphs he still hadn't gotten to the point so I stopped reading.
FUKIT

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND

  • Member
  • Posts: 20767
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #653 on: February 14, 2015, 02:37:13 pm »
That article has absolutely nothing to do with this cheating scandal at all. It's completely off topic and his point that baseball is expensive is so obvious it didn't need stating.
LVMH

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15077
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #654 on: February 14, 2015, 04:41:27 pm »
That article has absolutely nothing to do with this cheating scandal at all. It's completely off topic and his point that baseball is expensive is so obvious it didn't need stating.

uh oh...we got one guy who won't read and one guy who can't read.

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND

  • Member
  • Posts: 20767
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #655 on: February 14, 2015, 04:46:30 pm »
That article has absolutely nothing to do with this cheating scandal at all. It's completely off topic and his point that baseball is expensive is so obvious it didn't need stating.

uh oh...we got one guy who won't read and one guy who can't read.
What does it have to do with it? He basically tells a story about being poor and posits that the same adults who were cheating are probably heroes to the kids.

It's like passing off a Zagats restaurant guide as an editorial about 9/11 because they both took place in NYC.
LVMH

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #656 on: February 15, 2015, 10:58:37 am »
That article has absolutely nothing to do with this cheating scandal at all. It's completely off topic and his point that baseball is expensive is so obvious it didn't need stating.

uh oh...we got one guy who won't read and one guy who can't read.

Hey I do very well for having lysdexia!  I made it through four years at VCU graduating with honors, SA Business/Accounting and passed the CPA exam.  The thing I have most trouble with is rambling drawn out diatribe like the article being discussed.  I can read technical manuals, programming guides, and most anything that is structured so to speak.  When it comes to reading something where you have to keep track of the story being related, I get lost.  Back when I actually tried to rad for pleasure, I would ending basically reading the entire book 3-4 times.  As I read, after about 1 - 1 pages or so I lose track of who did what to who, when, and why.  I end up going back not quite to the beginning of where I started up and re-reading.  My mind will add and delete words randomly as well, which can make reading a novel very difficult.  Last book I read for pleasure was the Lord Of The Rings back in the late 70's early 80's while I was on active duty in the Marine Corps.
FUKIT

LosthismindHatch ♆ ✯ ㋡ 🖖 ⛄

  • Member
  • Posts: 6681
  • Lorem Ipsum
    • insta photo
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #657 on: February 15, 2015, 03:28:35 pm »
Back when I actually tried to rad for pleasure
Ok I know this was a typo..but it's frign awesome
For the record...I rad for pleasure everyday!
LAMF

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #658 on: February 16, 2015, 02:15:02 pm »
Back when I actually tried to rad for pleasure
Ok I know this was a typo..but it's frign awesome
For the record...I rad for pleasure everyday!


Don't we all?   Glad I could send an LOL your way at no charge!
FUKIT

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #659 on: February 18, 2015, 08:51:14 am »


That was some time ago!
FUKIT