Rockies got smoked, yo
I haven't done bullet points that aren't really bullet points in a while. It's time for a distraction. Let's load this mofo up, bitches!
- I turned off the "game" after it was very very apparent that the Franchise didn't have his stuff and Beckett had all his stuff. I thought fleetingly before I drifted off to sleep that maybe the Rockies would perform some miracle, but that obviously wasnt' so. I can confidently say that the Padres could've done that. I was trying to listen to some of the fan reaction in Boston after the game, but couldn't get anything intelligible through their thick, and frankly, ridiculous accents. The Rockies reactions were no better through all the sobbing and wailing that heaven has forsaken them.
Where's your God now, bitches!? - Update [2007-10-25 13:44:51 by Dex]: OK. I misread it. Jeez.
- Does anybody else think that this horrible showing in game 1 is like fossils of dinosaurs? In other words, it's just God's way of testing the faith of the Rockies?
- Here. I'll pretend to be Barry Bonds and you pretend to be anybody else in the world.
You: Hi Barry. How's it go-
Me: WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! - Hardball Times has some interesting analysis regarding the question, "Have pitchers become more fragile?" I don't know why the Hardball Times would care so much about the influx of Italian pitchers to the MLB, but they do.
I will almost, but not quite, spell this joke out for you: Hmmmm.... Frah-GEE-lay! Must be Italian!
0 recs |
30
comments
Comments
Red carpet for Bonds in San Francisco
The evening, an hour-long conversation with KGO radio host Ray Taliaferro, was more a tribute to Bonds than an actual interview. Taliaferro, who all but blew kisses at the man he called a close friend, practically hyperventilated as he recited a list of Bonds' career accomplishments, including the all-time home run record he claimed from Hank Aaron this summer. Then Taliaferro asked his first question: "Did you really do all of that?"
Maybe I can actually stop seething with hatred for the Giants now that Barry is no longer with the team. But I'm thinking the fans will still be really stupid.
by SD Chick N on Oct 25, 2007 8:48 AM PDT 0 recs
Talk
by Jonny Dub on
Oct 25, 2007 8:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
SC
by Jonny Dub on
Oct 25, 2007 8:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I was just glad
by Jonny Dub on Oct 25, 2007 8:49 AM PDT 0 recs
I was actually embarrassed
If this is indicative of the rest of the series, then the Red Sox Nation has to officially drop any last pretense of underdog, 'little engine that could' nonsense and admit they are actually worse, so much worse, than everything that they said about the Yankees in the 90's ('buying championships,' arrogant fans etc.).
by goose1 on Oct 25, 2007 9:35 AM PDT 0 recs
and the f#*%ing pink hats
by dcfriar on
Oct 25, 2007 9:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Rocky Start
- Hmm, Read the text of that image again please, it makes complete sense as "Rocky Start...". Who's the dumb reporter now?
by TheDude on Oct 25, 2007 10:23 AM PDT 0 recs
I see what you're insinuating
by Dex on
Oct 25, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
FREE TACO
by sdsuaztec4 on Oct 25, 2007 6:58 PM PDT 0 recs
Come on now...
As a Christian, yes, I'm offended.
I like that your site has off-the-wall humor. The language doesn't offend me, but don't disprespect my faith.
by peterf on Oct 25, 2007 9:01 PM PDT 0 recs
What's offensive about it?
by SD Chick N on
Oct 25, 2007 10:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Direct or Implied?
I'm asking because I haven't followed this very closely. But using the language of faith and miracles in no way implies by itself that you believe you are God's team.
by Jacojre on
Oct 26, 2007 7:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
in reference to this...
So... Sorry if I was offensive, Peter. I just hate when people imply that their religious beliefs make them better than people who don't share those beliefs. It probably makes me unnecessarily aggro.
by Dex on
Oct 26, 2007 8:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Monfort Quotation
To play apologist for the Rockies, these claims still doesn't imply that God is exclusively on the Rockies side. What is logically implied (as opposed to conversationally implied) is the following:
(1) The Rockies are the strongest character guys in baseball.
(2) Claim (1) may be due to their being so many Christian players on the team.
(3) Some non-Christians are also the strongest character guys in baseball.
(4) Some of the Rockies players believe they are seeing signs from God.
None of these in isolation or together implies that the Rockies are God's team, or that God favors them over any other team. It does seem to imply that God does approve of the Rockies.
What about this do you see as troubling? Certainly not (3). (1) might be controversial, but teams say this all the time. If someone believe (1) because of (2), that might be controversial, but let's be honest: if any team followed the precepts of Christianity (or most other world religions) they'd be strong character guys (i.e. self-sacrificing, doing their best, etc.).
The only thing that looks worrying to me is (4). What are the nature of these signs that the Rockies are seeing and what do they mean? Do you have a quotation that might answer that? That would be really interesting -- and I think the key to our problems.
Thanks again Dex!
by Jacojre on
Oct 26, 2007 9:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
man... that's some kinda breakdown
How I conclude this: There's an unspoken assumption that the Rockies have more Christians than other teams in baseball. He also says that "character-wise", the Rockies "stronger than anyone in baseball". Although he qualifies this somewhat by saying that Christians are "some" of those that have the strongest character, the logical conclusion is: The Rockies are stronger character-wise than other teams in baseball because they have more Christians. Therefore, any team that has fewer Christians on it than the Rockies is weaker, character-wise, because of the lack of Christians. Therefore, any individual Christian is stronger, character-wise, than any non-Christian.
The implication that God approves of the Rockies is fine. However, when it comes to sporting events, one team wins and one team loses. Does this mean that God disapproves of the teams that the Rockies beat? I find that troubling as well.
by Dex on
Oct 26, 2007 9:43 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm going to have to disagree
I think the difference between conversational implication (see H.P. Grice) and logical implication are very different. Logical implication involves whether or not one statement necessarily follows from another (set) of statement(s), which conversational implicature involves what a ordinary person would reasonably infer or expect from what someone says.
Nothing necessarily follows from the claims that
(a) The Rockies are stronger character-wise than anyone else and baseball.
and
(b) Christians are some of the strongest people in baseball.
Nor does (a) follow logically from (b), even in the quotation. The key qualifier is "some". Because of that qualifier it is consistent to believe that some non-Christians are also some of the strongest people in baseball. In order to get the implication that the Rockies are the best character team because they're Christians, we'd also need something like
(c) The team with the highest concentration of Christians is the team with the strongest character.
But the quotation doesn't come out and say it. It explicitly acknowledges that you can be a non-Christian and be someone who equally strong character-wise.
What we need then is some evidence that the Rockies believe something like (c). (If we get this evidence, it's probably from a lot of different quotations, some behaviors, etc.). And I'm not saying that the Rockies (or some of them) might not believe (c). But at the same time I think we owe it to people to give them the benefit of the doubt -- even Rockies, Diamondbacks, Broncos, etc...
Oh and to clear it all up -- as we all know, God's favorite team is the Padres. ;)
by Jacojre on
Oct 26, 2007 2:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Over Complicating the Matter.
by sdsuaztec4 on
Oct 26, 2007 6:31 PM PDT
up
0 recs
As a Christian...
However, I think Huddle's point wasn't that God was on his side, but that Christians tend to be high-character people (I'd hope that is the case - but obviously we can think of people who call themselves Christians who were not high-character)... Now that said, while character counts in baseball (not giving up, putting team first, etc.), talent matters more. And Boston (whether they have less character, the same character, or more character) is the more talented team.
by peterf on
Oct 26, 2007 1:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Huddle???
by sdsuaztec4 on
Oct 26, 2007 3:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hurdle/Huddle
And yes, I'm a baseball fan.
by peterf on
Oct 26, 2007 5:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Can't we all agree...
by SD Chick N on
Oct 26, 2007 6:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
come on.
by motoole on
Oct 27, 2007 12:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Holliday
by Winfield's Ghost on Oct 26, 2007 7:46 AM PDT 0 recs
Yep. He didn't touch first either.
by goose1 on
Oct 26, 2007 8:19 AM PDT
up
0 recs
haha
by sdsuaztec4 on
Oct 26, 2007 6:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Watching this series
- When Holliday is up, I want him to strike out.
- When Manny is up, I don't care what kind of out he makes, I just want him to look ridiculous doing it.
- I root for Papelbon to blow saves. His face is stupid.
- Okajima I like. Hold that game, kid with the jerking freak head!
- Schilling I want to get lit up.
- Mike Lowell is allowed to get hits. As is Todd Helton (he helped Uncle Milty get those umps. after the fact, anyway).
- Dustin Pedroia, for some reason, annoys me.
- Coco Crisp might end up in our CF next year (shudder) so I might as well start trying to root for him, no matter how bad at non-defense related baseball he is.
by goose1 on Oct 26, 2007 8:26 AM PDT 0 recs
I'm the same way.
by TheThirdGonzalez on
Oct 26, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Speaking of
by sdsuaztec4 on
Oct 26, 2007 6:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs












