The CardBoard
THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT (/thread-14200.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - cardcrimson - 09-05-2017

Wow. Four pages on this? Seriously?

Well, at least he's been banned for a week so this can be declared a safe space until after the SC game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCb4j0E2p4


Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - JJJ - 09-05-2017

To be fair not all four (and current fifth) page are on topic, and to further add to thread drift, I present the Imagine Dragons' version of "Blank Space." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CFX8VJUtDgY

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

Don't we have a music thread?  If not, we should.

BC

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - fullmetal - 09-05-2017

Can we bring him back on Friday?  I prefer as much real football knowledge here on game day as possible.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - FarmDad.01 - 09-05-2017

With all due respect, fullmetal, playing college football in the 1970s and in the CFL and NFL into the early 1980s doesn't necessarily translate into "football knowledge" in 2017.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Phogge - 09-05-2017

I would be willing to bet that you would still be impressed by his knowledge. Witnessed it first hand when I brought him to an assigned shoot Raiders vs somebody.

However, time to move on.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - CowboyIndian - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:01 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:With all due respect, fullmetal, playing college football in the 1970s and in the CFL and NFL into the early 1980s doesn't necessarily translate into "football knowledge" in 2017.

It's still blocking and tackling....unless you play for UCLA.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - cardcrimson - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 08:01 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:With all due respect, fullmetal, playing college football in the 1970s and in the CFL and NFL into the early 1980s doesn't necessarily translate into "football knowledge" in 2017.

No, no. You're quite correct. Anyone with actual football experience at the college or professional level should be discounted, if not ignored entirely, in a college football chatroom.


Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - FarmDad.01 - 09-05-2017

According to an earlier post in this thread, in the 1970s and early 1980s ALLCAPS was a linebacker for Stanford and then on pro and semi-pro teams.
  Since then, the field has retained the same dimensions. But OLmen now average almost 300 lbs; TEs (a linebacker responsibility) are taller and heavier than 1981 NBA All-Star Adrian Dantley; 1981 NFL All-Star RB Tony Dorsett was three inches shorter and 15 pounds lighter than current "shrimp" Christian McCaffrey; Joe Montana was two inches shorter, and 35 pound lighter, than Andrew Luck.
  Eras matter because player size and speed, and thus strategy, evolve.
  How would Ruth & Gehrig have fared vs. a diet of Koufax and Randy Johnson? George Mikan vs. Dikembe Mutombo? Red Grange vs. Lawrence Taylor?
  Actual experience -- which I lack -- should never be ignored. Nor, I submit, lionized. 

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

I submit that DOC's contributions should be judged by the content of his posts, not by his playing history or his posting style.

BC

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - fullmetal - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:51 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I submit that DOC's contributions should be judged by the content of his posts, not by his playing history or his posting style.

BC

Absolutely. 

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - pefloresjr - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:51 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I submit that DOC's contributions should be judged by the content of his posts, not by his playing history or his posting style.

His contributions are not really relevant here.  If a person posts political comments and/or engages in ad hominem attacks, I don't care if it is the spirit of Bill Walsh posting from the great beyond, he needs to go on timeout.  If he persists, he needs to be banned.  I don't think many of us want the enforcement of the rules of engagement here to be different based on some value judgement about the quality of their comments.  We all know (or now know) that the rules will be enforced.  We won't always agree with the judge's ruling but those rulings have kept the Cardboard the civil, wonderful place that it is.  I support it.  Now, I want to go back to obsessing over our chances of beating the hated Trojans this weekend. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - BostonCard - 09-05-2017

(09-05-2017, 11:16 PM)pefloresjr link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17302.msg199291#msg199291 date=1504677077]
I submit that DOC's contributions should be judged by the content of his posts, not by his playing history or his posting style.

His contributions are not really relevant here.  If a person posts political comments and/or engages in ad hominem attacks, I don't care if it is the spirit of Bill Walsh posting from the great beyond, he needs to go on timeout.  If he persists, he needs to be banned.  I don't think many of us want the enforcement of the rules of engagement here to be different based on some value judgement about the quality of their comments.  We all know (or now know) that the rules will be enforced.  We won't always agree with the judge's ruling but those rulings have kept the Cardboard the civil, wonderful place that it is.  I support it.  Now, I want to go back to obsessing over our chances of beating the hated Literature's Most Famous Losers this weekend. 

Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]

I don't see how your position is incompatible with my post.  I wrote that he should be judged by the content of his posts, which means that if the content of his post violates the cardboard posting guidelines (helpfully available here: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=10890.0), he or she should be judged accordingly.

Quote:2. Attack ideas, not people. It's rare, but those who are repeatedly confrontational have been banned. If the moderators cannot determine the instigator, both parties will be banned.


BC

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - pefloresjr - 09-05-2017

BC,
My post wasn't so much directed at your specific post but more on the general discussion that seemed to be shifting to a focus on his "contributions" and the value of his posts rather than on whether or not he had violated the rules.  As I said earlier in this thread, I hope he comes back and plays by the rules.  If not, I loved it here before he was regularly posting and I am willing to give the admins the benefit of the doubt. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - admin - 09-06-2017

To be clear, I don't recall any specifically political posts. I do remember one ad hominem attack. I have had several reports of his posts.

I'm looking into whether we can get a fresh install of the software and patch some features that have been missing — the video embed, the tweet embed, some anti-spam, and now the lower case fix. The voting software cannot be renewed,  as the modification maker has not updated it in years. That upgrade attempt will not take place until after the UCLA game. Again, the messages will be retained, it's only the source files that will be updated.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Scooter_Stepford - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 02:11 AM)Administrator link Wrote:To be clear, I don't recall any specifically political posts. I do remember one ad hominem attack. I have had several reports of his posts.

Does referring to someone as a "monstrosity" count as an ad hominem attack?

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Mick - 09-06-2017

(09-05-2017, 10:24 PM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:According to an earlier post in this thread, in the 1970s and early 1980s ALLCAPS was a linebacker for Stanford and then on pro and semi-pro teams.
  Since then, the field has retained the same dimensions. But OLmen now average almost 300 lbs; TEs (a linebacker responsibility) are taller and heavier than 1981 NBA All-Star Adrian Dantley; 1981 NFL All-Star RB Tony Dorsett was three inches shorter and 15 pounds lighter than current "shrimp" Christian McCaffrey; Joe Montana was two inches shorter, and 35 pound lighter, than Andrew Luck.
  Eras matter because player size and speed, and thus strategy, evolve.
  How would Ruth & Gehrig have fared vs. a diet of Koufax and Randy Johnson? George Mikan vs. Dikembe Mutombo? Red Grange vs. Lawrence Taylor?
  Actual experience -- which I lack -- should never be ignored. Nor, I submit, lionized. 

Mikan would have been destroyed by most of today's big men.  He was the first really gifted tall basketball player, playing at 6'10" and he was reasonably coordinated, but it was a different game back then.

Red Grange was 5'11" and 175 pounds, but with training, weightlifting and nutrition may have been McCaffrey's size.  He was a McCaffrey type of player.  He won the Illinois state 100 yard dash in 10.4 seconds not at all fast by today's standards.  Taylor would have had a field day with him.  Bronko Nagurski, on the other hand, was 6'2" 230 pounds back then.  Today, he might have been a 260 pound fullback.

Grange and Mikan played at the relative outset of their professional sports.  Ruth and Gehrig started playing almost 100 years after the rules had been laid out.  Ruth started in 1914, and he was a powerfully built six footer.  Negro leagues player Buck O'Neil once said that only Josh Gibson and Babe Ruth could make a particular sound when they hit a baseball.  Ruth swung a 48 ounce bat, most players today are in the 33 to 36 ounce range.  Ted Williams used 35 oz., Stan Musial used 34.5 oz., Willie Mays used a 35 oz. bat before the all star break and 34 ounces thereafter.

Ruth was once given a battery of 20 athletic tests.  Most men scored a perfect score on two of them.  Ruth had a perfect score on 16 of them. 

Circumstances are different.  When Ruth played, there were 16 pro teams and 110 million people in the USA.  Today, there are twice as many teams and three times as many people.  Ruth never faced African-American pitchers, but of the 449 pitchers on last year's rosters, just 14 were African American. 

I believe that with a 35 ounce bat, proper training and nutrition, Ruth would come closer to his original level of success than would Grange or Mikan. 

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - FarmDad.01 - 09-06-2017

Mick: If your Ruthian factoids aren't in Bob Creamer's estimable biography, you should strongly consider writing at least a long essay on the Babe, and how he might fare in today's MLB.

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Goose - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 07:26 AM)Mick link Wrote:I believe that with a 35 ounce bat, proper training and nutrition, Ruth would come closer to his original level of success ... .
I am not so sure. I think the beer was much better quality back then  :)

Re: THERE'S NO NEED TO SHOUT - Mick - 09-06-2017

(09-06-2017, 09:27 AM)FarmDad.01 link Wrote:Mick: If your Ruthian factoids aren't in Bob Creamer's estimable biography, you should strongly consider writing at least a long essay on the Babe, and how he might fare in today's MLB.

Ruthian Factoids:

He was the best baseball player ever.  Why?  Because he could hit AND pitch.  He was the best lefthanded pitcher in the American league in the 1910s.  His ERA was 2.19, he won 23 and 24 games in two successive seasons, he led the league in ERA in 1916 with a 1.75.  He led the Red Sox to three World Series titles in his six years with them.  In the other 104 years of the franchise, the Red Sox have won four World Series titles.  Ruth won the Triple Crown in part as a pitcher.  His winning percentage as a pitcher was .671.  Only four Hall of Fame pitchers have a better winning percentage.

Ruth pitched five times for the Yankees.  Two of them were complete game victories over the Red Sox.

BTW, the owner of the Red Sox, Harry Frazee didn't just sell Ruth to the Yankees.  He sold 17 other players to the Yanks between 1918 and 1923.  When the Yanks won the 1923 World Series, six of their seven core pitchers and half of their starting players in the field came from the Red Sox.

Ruth first broke the home run record of 27 set by the White Sox' Ned Williamson with 29 HRs in 1919.  Williamson had set his record in a park where the fence was 196 feet away.

I'm fairly certain you never heard this oddity: Ruth had real trouble with balls hit in the sun.  He lost a ball in the sun in the Polo Grounds in 1922; thereafter, he would only play the outfield where the sun least came into play.  For the rest of his career, Ruth played exclusively in right field in only the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium and Washington and Cleveland, but played left field in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis.

Ruth won only one MVP award, in 1923.  But the award wasn't given out from 1915 to 1921, and repeat winners weren't allowed until 1933.

Ruth never actually visited Johnny Sylvester in the hospital.  A friend of Sylvester's father gave him the autographed baseball and told him Ruth would hit a home run for him.

Last oddball trivia: Ruth wore the famous #3, but the Yankees weren't the first team to wear numbers.  The Indians did in 1916 and 1917, the Cardinals did for a while in 1923, and the Indians made them a permanent addition in 1929, one game before the Yankees added numbers permanently.

Ruth's last home run for the Boston Braves, the last of three he hit against the Pirates in one game, was the longest HR ever hit in Pittsburgh's stadium from 1909 to 1970 when it was torn down.

Ruth never struck out 100 times in a season.

Did Ruth actually call his shot in game 3 of the 1932 world series against the Cubs?  Here's the video and commentary, judge for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEX0eb2eBo

Ruth never wore the famous Yankee interlocking logo.  That didn't show up until 1936.  Ruth's last year was 1934.
Ruth didn't actually say that he deserved more money than President Herbert Hoover "because I had a better year than he did."  Urban legend.

Ruth appeared as himself in "Pride of the Yankees."  He lost 40 pounds to play that role.