Trembley calls out "idiots"

[RShack]

Well, on the more educational side of things, one of the great new features of the latest version of the software used to make this site run is that there's a capability to give posters "infractions". I now have 2 of them (each one for "inappropriate language" and worth 2 points apiece). I'm not complaining because I understand why I have them.

In case you're wondering how to not get some for yourself, you may be interested in what earns them. Here's what I can tell you about that...

I got the first one when I referred to the Mitchell Report as a 11-letter word, the first 7 of which were "cluster", followed by some asterisks. (There might have been an "f" in there somewhere.) I had thought the asterisks let me off the hook, but evidently I thought wrong.

The second one I got for what I did in post #73 of this thread. I referred to um, "somebody" using an 8-letter word, the last 4 of which were "weed". Now, I suppose I could be a jerk and start whining about how there's nothing wrong with referring to someone as a simple-but-undesirable piece of vegetation, and how that's not as bad as calling DT a "Nazi" (which is a bit different than "SoupNazi", no matter what Lawyer Jim says ;-) but I won't, because that would be BS. (In actual fact, I wasn't referring to vegetation at all, and everybody knows it.) There are various definitions of that kind of weed here. (Warning: there are "language issues" at that site, so don't click on it if you have problems with that.) Of the various definitions there, I think #2 best captures the spirit of the infraction that I very much earned. (You can see even more definitions of it there if you treat it like 1 word instead of 2, but with even more language issues, which might get me another infraction, so you have to look there yourself if you really wanna know what they are.)

So, anyway, the educational lesson for today is about "infractions". Class dismissed.

[olehippi]

Well, on the more educational side of things, one of the great new features of the latest version of the software used to make this site run is that there's a capability to give posters "infractions". I now have 2 of them (each one for "inappropriate language" and worth 2 points apiece). I'm not complaining because I understand why I have them.

In case you're wondering how to not get some for yourself, you may be interested in what earns them. Here's what I can tell you about that...

I got the first one when I referred to the Mitchell Report as a 11-letter word, the first 7 of which were "cluster", followed by some asterisks. (There might have been an "f" in there somewhere.) I had though the asterisks let me off the hook, but evidently I thought wrong.

The second one I got for what I did in post #73 of this thread. I referred to um, "somebody" using an 8-letter word, the last 4 of which were "weed". Now, I suppose I could be a jerk and start whining about how there's nothing wrong with referring to someone as a simple-but-undesirable piece of vegetation, and how that's not as bad as calling DT a "Nazi" (which is a bit different than "SoupNazi", no matter what Lawyer Jim says ;-) but I won't, because that would be BS. (In actual fact, I wasn't referring to vegetation at all, and everybody knows it.) There are various definitions of that kind of weed here. (Warning: there are "language issues" at that site, so don't click on it if you have problems with that.) Of the various definitions there, I think #2 best captures the spirit of the infraction that I very much earned. (You can see even more definitions of it there if you treat it like 1 word instead of 2, but with even more language issues, which might get me another infraction, so you have to look there yourself if you really wanna know what they are.)

So, anyway, the educational lesson for today is about "infractions". Class dismissed.

I most definitely agree with your well-chosen definition.

As for imposing "infractions," this was news to me. But personally, I won't worry about them because I've never been good at "fractions," whether they were "in" or not....

[LookitsPuck]

LJ doesn't appreciate the crowd mentality of ganging up on a "helpless" underdog. I believe he actually visualizes the burn her, burn her scene from "Holy Grail" when things like this happen (). Like most good lawyers, he understands that even a guilty defendant needs an advocate. I don't have a problem with that so long as he does it intelligently, which is never an issue from what I've seen.

I do have a problem with people, who are constantly mean spirited toward certain specific players (regardless of whether the player deserves it or not), coming into threads like this to act like our mother and tell us how we should be acting, but that is an entirely different story. Talk about being a hypocrite.

You guys don't know when to drop things, huh?

Guilty defendent? If I'm guilty, Trembley is guilty. He makes some off colour remarks, and people on here cheer for him. It almost makes me think that if he was the Yankees manager, people would say he's overreacting.

William Shatner is overreacting. He doesn't know respect in this regard. Hey, let's tell Scott Moore he's going to start, then sit him. Then turn around and say he's going to start 4 days in a row, and then start him 1 or 2, and then drop him down to the minors.

Respect!

[LookitsPuck]

You sir are crazy. What if these two idiots had attacked an O's player? Several years ago two idiots came out of the stands and attacked a first abse coach in Chicago. I guess you believe that anyone in the world has a right to do anything he damn well pleases. It didn't hurt anyone so it is okay. So now Dave T is the idiotfor ahving the reaction he did? This is unreal of you. Wake up. We all live in a world of violence. I don't balme Dave for ahving the reaction he had.

It's after the fact.

He's at a press conference. Still fuming over NOTHING. Drunk idiots running across a field that didn't do any harm.

Then, he wants to inflict harm. Not just an off key one liner, but in depth detail.

Pretty classless, to tell you the truth.

[LookitsPuck]

Perhaps, but the big difference is SG isn't moronically stupid.

You really are riding my jock.

Want to throw some more classless insults? Why don't you PM me? Or grow up.

[RShack]

For some reason, I find myself thinking about a certain kind of simple-but-undesirable kind of vegetation...

[LookitsPuck]

Well, on the more educational side of things, one of the great new features of the latest version of the software used to make this site run is that there's a capability to give posters "infractions". I now have 2 of them (each one for "inappropriate language" and worth 2 points apiece). I'm not complaining because I understand why I have them.

In case you're wondering how to not get some for yourself, you may be interested in what earns them. Here's what I can tell you about that...

I got the first one when I referred to the Mitchell Report as a 11-letter word, the first 7 of which were "cluster", followed by some asterisks. (There might have been an "f" in there somewhere.) I had thought the asterisks let me off the hook, but evidently I thought wrong.

The second one I got for what I did in post #73 of this thread. I referred to um, "somebody" using an 8-letter word, the last 4 of which were "weed". Now, I suppose I could be a jerk and start whining about how there's nothing wrong with referring to someone as a simple-but-undesirable piece of vegetation, and how that's not as bad as calling DT a "Nazi" (which is a bit different than "SoupNazi", no matter what Lawyer Jim says ;-) but I won't, because that would be BS. (In actual fact, I wasn't referring to vegetation at all, and everybody knows it.) There are various definitions of that kind of weed here. (Warning: there are "language issues" at that site, so don't click on it if you have problems with that.) Of the various definitions there, I think #2 best captures the spirit of the infraction that I very much earned. (You can see even more definitions of it there if you treat it like 1 word instead of 2, but with even more language issues, which might get me another infraction, so you have to look there yourself if you really wanna know what they are.)

So, anyway, the educational lesson for today is about "infractions". Class dismissed.

You make personal attacks at someone, you deserve them. Deal with it.

I received tons of negative rep, and I don't care. You are not your post count.

I'm here to talk baseball, or issues relating to the Orioles. I may be crass, incite "hyperbole" to provoke discussion, but I'm not personally attacking anyone like has been done plenty of times in this thread.

IMHO, everyone who threw insults deserves an infraction.

I received an infraction for using hyperbole to describe Trembley's attitude in regards to this event. I don't agree with it, but whatever. Forums aren't a democracy.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Come on Moose. This thread isn't nearly as bad as the 20 pagers where four guys surround Old Fan and try to convince him the sky is blue for the fifth time. Is it? LOL

That's only because we can't surround him and beat the sense into him.

Although if this guy had his way, that would apparently be fine as long as we ran onto the baseball field to do it.

[Flip217]

I'm here to talk baseball...

<img src=http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg>