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 0.4999 seconds
54 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.
1. Chris Dial Posted: July 25, 2008 at 12:53 PM (#2872530)The problem with George Brett is that he's a cheating crybaby.
"Funny thing, though, he never got in trouble...."
Not funny, really, unless you're suggesting he did cocaine.
It may be the same logic employed by Kevin and me. Am I wrong to think there's a distinction b/w what Kevin and I did and what Rob as a professional baseball writer does? If not, god bless Rob, his family, and his flannel shirt.
Is that even legal?
This guy still doesn't seem to get that James was being intentionally ridiculous with the Twins comment, so I'm finding it hard to trust his interpretation of this one.
The same applies to Neyer and James, of course.
Well, in the guy's defense, it IS difficult to separate out the times when James is being intentionally ridiculous from the times when he's being unintentionally ridiculous.
Neyer opines that, although Brett leaped out of the dugout like a maniac during the infamous Pine Tar game incident, Brett "restrained himself" before others had to do so. He says that while early in his career Brett punched out water coolers, etc., when angry, he never risked injury by punching a wall. Neyer also notes that Brett avoided cheating on his wife by not having one, not getting married until late in his career (and that he and his wife are still married).
The "cocaine paragraph" is probably meant to be read in that context, i.e. Brett was a huge partier but he was careful not to do anything that could really hurt him, like regularly use cocaine.
I have to say, though, that Neyer's intent could have been more clearly expressed, unless he really was trying to imply Brett used cocaine.
What should be a general rule? Copyright infringement?
What should be a general rule? Copyright infringement?
In a word: Yes. Because (a) it's such a trivial use, and ESPN isn't going to gain any new subscribers by complaining about it; and (b) what's the bloody point of linking to an article that you have to pay to read, and that you have to read in order to form a coherent opinion on?
And yes, I know about "precedent," but since I'm not a lawyer my perspective is simple: BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.
Why not? Neyer isn't accusing Brett of anything, and doesn't claim to have knowledge of anything. At most Neyer reports that Brett was "considered one of the hardest partiers in the Midwest." Big whoop.
Funny, it doesn't seem to give many people pause when the mainstream media accuses, say, Sammy Sosa of using steroids based on no evidence.
Then pay for access.
That was my take on the James piece also.
And I'd still encourage anyone with access to copy and paste the full articles. Perhaps Jim should work out some deal with key restricted sites in order for Primates to be able to access their articles. I've paid BTF my voluntary "dues," and it seems that that would be a good partial use of our contributions.
But the bottom line is that it's absurd to be holding out a link for discussion on the one hand, and then pulling it back with the other. BTF is not a private club.
If Jim can do that, then fine. Until then, if ESPN or BPro had decided that certain content is restricted to paying customers, then I think that ought to be respected, even if you don't like it. And if BTF chooses not to link to restricted sites, that's fine with me too.
But I suppose my opposition to theft is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Well, when you become the president of ESPN, you can decide that for them. Until then... not so much.
You might as well have suggested "a way of getting around" having to pay to fill up your car, by asking someone to rob the gas station and then send you the stolen money.
To very closely paraphrase what Neyer wrote, Neyer mentioned how a lot of baseball players used cocaine in the early 1980s. He also mentioned that a number of baseball players had problems because of cocaine use, including members of the Royals, who were put into prison. Then Neyer says he did not want to suggest that Brett used cocaine, and yet, he mentions that Brett was the Jason Giambi of the midwest (Neyer states that Brett was one of the biggest partiers in the midwest in those years).
Neyer then mentions that Brett never got into problems, or at least none that were reported by the media.
You can make your own determination, but I think that it was a pretty unprofessional paragraph by Neyer (if you don't know that Brett was doing cocaine, then you have no business implying that he did).
I don't think Rob decided to restrict access; it was likely a decision made by ESPN.
And whether Rob "has cause to complain" has nothing to do with the issue.
Well, If find that hard to believe.
Or because they don't like seeing people encouraging others to steal.
We've actually explored something like this in the past, but big media companies do not like relinquishing their iron grips on premium content one iota.
Unfortunately, we're big enough that there's no way we don't instantly get ############ with a takedown notice if someone cuts and pastes an entire article, even from a non-walled source. Now, while I have no intention of complying when we're talking about the AP's recent draconian attack on fair use (though I can't speak for Jim), what you're talking about would be a huge stretch.
EDIT: We've actually explored something like this in the past, but big media companies do not like relinquishing their iron grips on premium content one iota.
Unfortunately, we're big enough that there's no way we don't instantly get ############ with a takedown notice if someone cuts and pastes an entire article, even from a non-walled source. Now, while I have no intention of complying when we're talking about the AP's recent draconian attack on fair use (though I can't speak for Jim), what you're talking about would be a huge stretch.
Yet I've copied plenty of articles from the NY Times at times when their archives were restricted. Did that result in angry letters from lawyers?
Bill Lee mentioned a Brett party in The Wrong Stuff. If George was into the booger sugar, he must've been pretty discreet. Willie WIlson got busted. Yeah, he may've been the wrong color, but he was perceived as a very good player at the time. I'd be curious to hear ballfan's take on this.
Dan, is there some legal reason why ESPN Premium or BPro Premium articles aren't linked? I don't subscribe to either, but I do subscribe to Bill James Online. But I don't check that site every day. I would like to know when there's a worthwhile article there if one of the other subscribers notices a linkworthy one.
-- MWE
People post here ALL THE TIME that the only reason they subscribe to ESPN Insider is for Neyer. So I think posting full articles of his here would undermine their bottom line.
Huh?
Did I stumble onto Bizarro BTF?
I thought we were expected to form opinions without RTFA, ask what it all had to do with Frank Tanana anyway, then veer into quasi-political arguments.
RTFA?
What is this... Stalin's BTF?
You do understand that not only can the person who does this be sued, but Jim/BBTF could be, as well, right? ESPN isn't going to go after some semi-anonymous poster with a cutesy username for posting a single article, but it may well go after the very easy to find website for hosting many such articles.
I wouldn't say he has no cause to complain, but if he's acting suspicious in other ways, then people will draw conclusions from whatever evidence they see.
Andy lives with Steve Garvey?
Andrea Reiher looks cute. Just don't bring up the Edmund Fitzgerald around her.
Stalin's BTF? Bolshevik Think Factory? Not even close. More like Milton Friedman's Think Factory.
Those on the right think that this place is Moscow in the bleachers. It looks like those on the left disconcur.
Andy has the right to keep the front door of his house locked, but by doing so he also has no cause to complain if we assume it's because he's trying to hide the kidnapped children he molests in his basement. I suppose.
So much hyperbole. But who told you about those children? That information was only supposed to be accessed by my luxury box holders.
But for the record, I don't molest children. That's what I hire those carpet munchers for.
------------------
BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.
Huh?
Did I stumble onto Bizarro BTF?
I thought we were expected to form opinions without RTFA, ask what it all had to do with Frank Tanana anyway, then veer into quasi-political arguments.
That's probably the only proper perspective on this. Why should anyone want to read what was actually written before replying to it?
Well, some of us have access to Insider, and it's nice to have one's attention drawn to articles of particular interest, since I don't look at the articles that assiduously. I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.
That's what I was asling Dan, but he hasn't got back to me yet. He's probably busy mailing kevin $15.
There's no legal reason, but we don't like to link articles that the vast majority of people will be unable to read.
If every primate were as adept at thread hijacking as Mets fans - no such discussion would be necessary.
I'm not sure if we ever got a complaint from the Times, but in the old days, there were plenty of times people cut-and-pasted an entire article and we got notified to take it down. It's almost never an issue because people almost never do it on BBTF.
Well, some of us have access to Insider, and it's nice to have one's attention drawn to articles of particular interest, since I don't look at the articles that assiduously. I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.
Oh, great, the luxury box mentality comes to BTF. I guess it was but a matter of time.
Or in another context, "The President has access to information that we can't let you see, but if only you could see it, you'd understand the wisdom of his ways. But if you pony up for our weekly Ronald Reagan statue dedication luncheon, we'll be more than glad to let you sneak a peek, and you'll agree with us even more."
Not every link must be of benefit to every member, but we'd like at least a majority of our readers to be able to read the material. I'd be shocked beyond belief if even 10% of the people who read ESPN.com daily have premium memberships.
I don't get the nature of your complaint, Andy.
Thanks for your reply, Dan. I wonder what percentage RTFA. I usually don't unless it's something that interests me and I didn't already know about it.
The link here is to Bugs and Cranks, not ESPN Insider. Am I missing something? Should we only be linking to articles that reference other free articles?
That is a pretty big statement to say, without actually saying it. Looks like Brett didn’t have Neyer’s Hall of Fame vote.
So Rob had a vote all along...
I probably read about 20% of the posted articles and about 50% of those that I comment on. News releases I generally don't read because all the info I need is usually in the excerpt, so it's mostly the opinion and analysis stuff I'll actually read. Also, I don't RTFA's of Plaschke or Richard Griffin or Mariotti and that ilk for GP's.
As someone who was a young man in the late '70s/early '80s, jeezus. Practically everybody did cocaine at some point or another. It wasn't exactly a big deal.
Maybe they're working on a remake of "Brewster's Millions"?
Speaking of your shop, Andy, what's your URL again? I seem to have misplaced it.
The 80s were a special time. I was 12 or 13 when that came out, and my first thought was "why doesn't he just buy everyone coke?"
/thread synergy FTW!
If they had DVD's then, that would be the accompanying "Behind the Scenes" documentary.
I read it the same way.
The link here is to Bugs and Cranks, not ESPN Insider. Am I missing something? Should we only be linking to articles that reference other free articles?
The nature of the complaint is that while the link is technically to Bugs & Cranks, the entire column revolves around the inaccessible Neyer article. If Neyer's piece had been merely a random and marginal link rather than the central point of Bugs & Cranks, I wouldn't have even mentioned it.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. In blunter terms, the link was little but a cockteaser.
-------------
Speaking of your shop, Andy, what's your URL again? I seem to have misplaced it.
Two links: Prints of Propaganda and Historic Football Posters, which now has over 150 different schools and over 850 different game programs.
Dude, you just share with the cops. Problem solved!
I couldn't access the whole article, but I heard that Neyer said that it was the cleverly labeled "Preparation H" brand that reporters were too grossed out about to inspect very carefully.
Nah, both Brett and Manny got their passes on some weird shlt stuff.
I don't think I'd have any trouble spending that loot in a week, much less 30 days.
Andy, a subscription to ESPN insider (and I subscribe only for the purpose of reading Neyer) is like $35/year. That's not "luxury" to anyone who can afford internet access in the first place. But whether it's "luxury" or not is not the issue: it's your choice to subscribe or not. But whining about it and encouraging theft is a bit much.
Let me know if you ever come up with a Northeastern poster.
Insider and BPro subscriptions for everybody so everyone can at least have the ability to RTFA?
Naw. I would just rent Rob Neyer and Keith Law and invite you all over for lectures and, perhaps, a dunking booth. For $30 million, I'm having a damn dunking booth.
Ray, I know you're right about this on principle, though I'd much rather give an extra $35 to BTF than fatten up ESPN.
Perhaps Vaux put it better than I have when he wrote this:
None of this is a slam on Neyer, BTW. It's his decision, and ESPN's. But the whole idea of premium mainstream websites leaves me cold. It's not like BPro where that's likely to be their major source of income.
But correct me if I'm wrong. Is it possible that ESPN Insider is free of advertising?
They are out in the open. They're publicly available to everyone; they're just not freely available. (Contrast this with, say, some of BP's formulas, which are not disclosed.) You might as well complain that ESPN doesn't send a copy of Neyer's column to your home for free. Of course, when ESPN does do that -- e.g., with ESPN The Magazine -- people (including me) complain.
You guys don't have a right to ESPN's content for free. You think you do -- because you don't mind when the entire content is posted without permission -- but, actually, you don't.
Of course we don't have a "right" to free ESPN content, any more than someone who doesn't report his gambling winnings to the IRS has a "right" to do that---and please, no deep philosophical distinctions between Good Private Enterprise and Evil Rapacious Government. Laws are laws.
But just as I'm not particularly disturbed if my friends don't let Uncle Sam know when they win a few hundred bucks on the Super Bowl, I don't care a bit if someone copies the full text of a "premium" Neyer column here. It's a matter of proportion, not absolute principle. These two don't always dovetail, and you surely know that.
Tell me, do you scold your gambling friends if they don't keep full records for the IRS? Do you expect every waiter or waitress to declare every last dime of every tip?
And if BTF started making it a habit of posting restricted articles, I wouldn't like it a bit, for the OBVIOUS reason that BTF is supposed to be a public forum, and in a public forum the idea of restricted information is an inherent contradiction. I'm glad to see that Dan agrees with this concept. If ESPN Insider customers want to discuss restricted content, let them do so on the ESPN Insider forums. That would seem to be a more logical place to do so than here.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main