User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0804 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I agree. I wonder what would happen if a blogger had this sort of email correspondence with a mainstream media guy. I'm thinking the blogger would be raked over the coals.
In the broader view, I don't think anyone should assume that anything posted on the Internet is private. It's just not realistic.
As for Conlin, he deserves any criticism directed his way. He treats other people very poorly.
What? I think when a complete stranger e-mails you and you respond as rudely as Conlin did, not only do you have no expectation of privacy, but you almost have to assume that the information will be made public.
It might be different if a third party had gotten hold of the e-mails and released them with neither participants' consent. But this is a case where one of the participants in the conversation obviously was ok with it.
If you don't want the public to know that you treat people like crap, then don't treat people like crap.
One might think that the odds are that the person will post it, but posting private correspondence without permission from the other party involved is generally considered a breach of ethics.
Conlin may have expected that Williams would have been likely to post the mail, but Williams probably also didn't have any reasonable expectation that Conlin wouldn't act like a #########.
I disagree. I have no idea who Conlin is, but I saw that column because it was pretty popular here for a bit. If I sent him an email, I certainly wouldn't be expecting him to act like an asshat. Writers should encourage getting feedback from readers for a variety of reasons, and Matt's initial email to Conlin was well thought out and totally fine, and Colin's behavior was out of line.
Also the idea that posting Conlin's snide bullshittery is a breach of ethics is ridiculous.
Send e-mail to bill1chair@aol.com.
Okay, that's not relevant to anything, so I retract that comment. FAIK, he may be a Democratic ward politician in his spare time.
But when you respond to an e-mail like that, AFAIC you pretty much forfeit any normal deference to privacy. It's pretty obvious that Conlin's got such a bee in his bonnet about sabermetrics and steroids that it clouds any comment about anything that even remotely touches upon either of those two subjects. All he really had to say in response to that first e-mail was "This wasn't a column about advanced statistics. It was a column that incorporated my impressions of watching these players."
Nice try, ace.
Ahole responds to Ahole. Film at 11.
Just as the one astute commenter pointed out in that Crashburn thread from 2007, this Matt Williams guy had no intention of engaging in a constructive dialogue with Conlin, and once he rattled the gorilla's cage, he had what he wanted.
None of this speaks very well of Conlin, obviously, but the Triple Nine Society types aren't looking much better.
It doesn't bother me that Conlin got annoyed, it bothers me that his insults are so hacktastic. He's not doing much for his guild.
Well he did pithy the fool.
If you're including me in there, I actually did e-mail Conlin thinking A) that I wouldn't get a reply and B) if I did get a reply it would be civil discourse. I was wrong on both fronts.
Yeah, about 21,200 of them. You might also have read past the first sentence if you really think I meant the first one seriously.
Thoughtful analysis like, "How do we know Howard wasn't juicing?" Some Yankee fanboy blog treating a Bill Conlin fluff piece as if it's an academic treatise seems to be the main problem here. For me, the first clue that this particular column was not be taken seriously is that Conlin seems to think that the 1900s Cubs infield is the greatest pre-integration infield because there's a poem about them.
1. As noted in another thread, they (by EqA or WS, pick your poison) had the best infield of all time.
2. By a simpler measure, they had one of the 2 or 3 best catchers of all time, one of the 2 or 3 best 2B of all time, another HOFer (whose off-field activities are keeping him out of said HOF), and two borderline HOFers (one in, one out) all in the prime of thier careers.
3. Bench was clearly the best catcher in Cinci history; Morgan was clearly the best 2B in Cinci history; Concepcion was clearly the best SS in Cinci history at the time; and while they played multiple positions, Rose was one of the best 2-3 Reds of all time and Perez was in the top 10.
These guys played together for 5 years, and he never even mentioned them.
The NoMaas proprietors are OK with revealing the identity of an anonymous poster because he pisses them off. This is an ethical step up for them.
I'm all for speaking nonsense, but mix a little bit of whimsy or clever in there.
I bet that he wouldn't reply if I emailed him. Few reply to me.
I dunno. I remember growing up a a kid and newspaper writers routinely turned their letters into mailbag columns. This practice ranged from forgettable sportswriters to Mike Royko in the real newsroom. Posting emails is just an extention of posting letters.
1. As noted in another thread, they (by EqA or WS, pick your poison) had the best infield of all time.
2. By a simpler measure, they had one of the 2 or 3 best catchers of all time, one of the 2 or 3 best 2B of all time, another HOFer (whose off-field activities are keeping him out of said HOF), and two borderline HOFers (one in, one out) all in the prime of thier careers.
3. Bench was clearly the best catcher in Cinci history; Morgan was clearly the best 2B in Cinci history; Concepcion was clearly the best SS in Cinci history at the time; and while they played multiple positions, Rose was one of the best 2-3 Reds of all time and Perez was in the top 10.
These guys played together for 5 years, and he never even mentioned them.
STEROIDS
STEROIDS
(Then hang up)
Interrupt by saying:
STEROIDS
Then use the moment of confusion to run out of the room.
Career he's .310 .444, far above "replacement level", as he claims Howard is in that regard.
He's a bigger douche than Rahm Emanuel! Oops--didn't mean that. I'll leave that stuff to BBTF's own Frank Rich.
Yes.
Same dynamic here. Easy enough to send somebody an email. I'd be surprised to read the contents of an exchange in a public forum.
Different if there's no public/private option though.
Right. What the hell did Conlin want him to retract? I would've responded saying, "Sure," and sending an exact copy of the previous message with just the word "probably" removed. And possibly adding a comment saying that it's sadder than I previously implied.
I see what you're doing there.
Conlin really wasn't asking him to retract antyhing. He was responding to the "are you going to retract that statement?" conclusion to the letter. It was appropriate, if Conlin were still 7.
I'm not sure how Royko operated, since he was probably big enough to get away with just about anything. But it's quite possible that the reporter had to get permission/confirm identity (the latter of which is is standard practice when dealing with letters to the editor) before publishing letters.
I think it makes more sense if you imagine him saying it while pointing to his crotch.
In any case, I don't think presenting a substantive rebuttal to a newspaper column, whether it's a "fluff piece" or not, makes someone a troll. Nor does using "LOL."
Really? My brother once got a letter published in Rolling Stone magazine and I don't think he went through anything like that.
Odd, because it's fairly standard practice at newspapers, if for no other reason than to make sure that the name on the bottom of the letter is actually the person who wrote the letter. Printing some pointed criticism from Chris Jaffe can cause a bit of problem if Chris Dial wrote the letter and signed your name to it.
We do have a regular poster here who may be familiar with the Rolling Stone's policies.
Makes sense.
See, that's a real joke.
Oh, and...
INCONCEIVABLE
There are two good ways to get off telemarketers list (Do Not Call seems hit and miss).
- Act like you're the dumbest person in the planet. Listen to the pitch but need every single thing explained to you. And forget previously explained items.
- Turn the tables. If someone's trying to sell you Sprint service, lecture them on the virtues of switching to AT&T;.
But the dead bloated carcass of an obese sport journalist still works best. Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas...
A lot of employers like to emphasize that employees should have no expectation of privacy with respect to email they send or receive through the employer's system. I assume that holds true for emails sent to a reporter's company email address.
That is definitely the approach one should take. You shouldn't be leaving it in the hands of the other party to do the right thing (whatever you might think the right thing is).
And if you don't want it published, you should note that in the e-mail. It may not be binding, but the publishing party would look like the jackass if it defied the request.
And if you don't want it published, you should note that in the e-mail. It may not be binding, but the publishing party would look like the jackass if it defied the request.
OTOH if either an individual or a writer fires off an e-mail on the vituperative level of what Conlin did, it's not going to look any less ridiculous if it's followed by "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." And if I were on the receiving end of such a message, I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of obligation to honor the request.
That was the entire reply.
My reply to him may have included the terms "fat tub of goo" and "too stupid or lazy to to your job" while further pointing to the MVP voting at the time, where each hitter ranked league-wide, and Gold Glove awards.
From said blog, here's Conlin reply #1:
“2009 Phillies of Feliz, Rollins, Utley and Howard 109 homers. 1975 BRM of Rose, Concepcion,, Morgan and Perez 65. A rout. RBIs. Phils quartet 393, Reds 334. A rout. Concepcion 27 errors, Rollins 6. A rout. Runs scored: Phils 379, BRM infield 355. Phils infield errors 47, BRM 58. Anything else. And don’t tell me “World Series title.” That was not question. Best infield was the question and the numbers are the numbers.”
Here's Conline reply #2:
I covered Rose, Morgan and Perez when they were with the Phillies, know them well, and don’t really care what you post on your blog. I write a commentary column and it attracted an enormous response. That’s the coin of my realm and why I’m still drawing a paycheck 11 years past age 65. Thanks for helping to keep me in the game.
My first thought at seeing this was, "When the hell did Tony Perez play for the Phillies?" So, I looked it up and he actually did play 91 games for the Phillies in 1983 at the age of 41. Rose, meanwhile, played for the Phillies from ages 38 - 42, and Morgan played for the Phillies at age 39. Needless to say, an infield featuring these three guys in their late 30s / early 40s isn't anywhere near as good as an infield featuring Howard, Utley, and Rollins (although these three guys did overlap on the '83 Phillies, who actually won the NL pennant).
Of course, the infield that people are saying was better than the 2009 Phillies was the 1975 Reds, when these guys were all 8 years younger.
Possibly, though I'm starting to wonder if Conlin is engaging in these e-mail slapfights simply to amuse himself.
Jay Mariotti figured this out a long time ago - in the world of sports "journalism", being a loudmouth idiot is a lot more profitable than being thoughtful and intelligent. It's trolling, plain and simple.
Yep. Conlin is trolling people. I gotta give the old fart props... hopefully I'll be alive and trolling people young enough to be my grandchildren when I'm 76.
Yeah, Dolf's #75 seems to close the case.
Then someone should call him a troll. Just to see if he knows what it means.
He pretty clearly is, which is why I'm so disappointed his rejoinders are so lame.
That is an understanding between members of an established community. It's really not analogous to an exchange between two complete strangers, in which one of them acts like a complete dick. If you treat someone like crap, then you forfeit the right to any common courtesy from them (and in general, not publishing e-mails is no more than that, a courtesy).
I've always been advised that any e-mail I send at work could end up in the Wall Street Journal or New York Post (and I know people to whom that has happened).
EDIT: It's also pretty clear that Conlin is quite pleased with these emails being released.
Well, you DO email in crayon.
At the same time it still feel "wrong" to me to print the contents of an email exchange. Even if it's something like David Grabiner correcting a mistake in private email.
I want to keep this thread alive just so that I can see which future response Ron is replying to.
And thanks for the gentle sense of humor.
SHAZAM!
SUCKERS! 'Course, the motivation of the bloggers and correspondents is to get in the game themselves.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main