Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 01, 2013

[OTP-July] SportsGrid: Brewers’ Minor League Team Is Holding A Gun Raffle On “2nd Amendment Night”

OTP caterwauling! Get your OTP caterwauling here! Can’t tell the players without your OTP caterwauling thread for July!

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:33 AM | 5787 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp

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.

Page 1 of 58 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   1. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: July 01, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4482154)
Being a Tigers fan these days violates the Eighth Amendment...the one about cruel and unusual punishment.
   2. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: July 01, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4482155)
Being a Tigers fan these days violates the Eighth Amendment...the one about cruel and unusual punishment.
   3. Jay Z Posted: July 01, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4482169)
How many centuries until the "How many gun owners can dance on the head of a pin" arguments?
   4. Swedish Chef Posted: July 01, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4482194)
How many centuries until the "How many gun owners can dance on the head of a pin" arguments?

Just because I'm a killjoy:
Related to the total number of angels is the alleged question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This was supposed to be a question debated by Christian theologians in the Middle Ages. According to Isaac D’Israeli (1766–1848), the father of the British Prime Minister, Thomas Aquinas once asked: ‘How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostlingone another?’ However, D’Israeli did not read Aquinas. He took this idea from a satirical writer of the seventeenth century. It goes back no further. The idea that theologians debated this question is in fact a modern invention, like the idea that people in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat (they did not—anyone with an education knew the earth was a globe).
   5. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4482202)
Here's some more nightmare fuel for snapper:

Marriage rate falls 66% since 1950!

In an unrelated note, I had a nightmare last night that I somehow forgot my tuxedo jacket to a performance of the Mahler #8 I was singing in.
   6. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 01, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4482233)
ust because I'm a killjoy:


Guns don't kill joy, people kill joy.
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4482262)
Oh, so you can win a gun, but you can't bring it into the stadium? AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS MERICA! THANKS OBAMA!
   8. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4482271)
Guns don't kill joy, people kill joy.


Nicely done.
   9. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4482274)
This is for Good Face -

Even though I'm by now more than convinced you're a total bozo, because I'm a caring modern liberal here's a clip of Gene Wolfe and Isaac Asimov talking to Calvin Trillin and others, if you haven't already seen it.
   10. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:32 PM (#4482279)
Pretty damn good piece on Bob Uecker in this week's SI.
   11. GregD Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4482287)
Wonder if the news that Dolan sought to hide money from the courts in Milwaukee will have an impact? On the one hand, everyone knows the big parameters (about him and others.) On the other hand, sometimes something concrete can snap up and bite somebody. This seems more tricky than outrageous to me, but one never knows.
   12. GregD Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4482289)
Cardinal Dolan not Jimmy Dolan. Though it would be great if some scandal swallowed him up and spat him into the solar system
   13. The Good Face Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:39 PM (#4482296)
Even though I'm by now more than convinced you're a total bozo, because I'm a caring modern liberal here's a clip of Gene Wolfe and Isaac Asimov talking to Calvin Trillin and others, if you haven't already seen it.


Asimov was a lousy writer and Trillin has no redeeming qualities, but since I'm more than convinced you're a dull-witted buffoon, I don't expect you to be a reliable filter as to what's interesting or worth watching. So I forgive you.
   14. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:44 PM (#4482300)
Asimov was a lousy writer


Asimov had weaknesses as an author, he is however inner circle HOF for SciFi authors.
   15. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 04:52 PM (#4482310)
...and Trillin has no redeeming qualities, but since I'm more than convinced you're a dull-witted buffoon, I don't expect you to be a reliable filter as to what's interesting or worth watching.

Well, if you don't find Wolfe, Ellison, and Terkel in conversation worth watching, don't blame me for your lack of taste.
   16. dlf Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4482319)
Asimov had weaknesses as an author, he is however inner circle HOF for SciFi authors.


And who else is in that inner circle? I wouldn't try to defend my list, but dlf's Mount Rushmore would have Heinlein, Varley, Asimov, and Niven.
   17. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4482335)
Clarke.
   18. Morty Causa Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4482338)
Calvin Trillin is no Thurber or E. B. White (to restrict myself to New Yorker Hall of Famers only, but he has had his moments.

He also wrote in the early '70s a fine article on the Crawfish Festival in Breaux Bridge, and is a devotee of Cajun cuisine, so I'll always have a soft spot for him.
   19. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4482352)
I had a nightmare last night that I somehow forgot my tuxedo jacket to a performance of the Mahler #8 I was singing in.

So will Lassus be singing the National Anthem at the Great BBTF Softball Game(s)? Might be time to have his vocal abilities "crowd-sourced", and it could add a touch of sorely needed professionalism. Just my two cents, but in a just world that type of gig should be a real career booster.
   20. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4482353)
PK Dick
Stanislaw Lem?
Obviously Verne and Wells for the old-timers game.
Ray Bradbury and Frank Herbert are canonical

I think you have to count William Gibson, Bruce Sterling and, Neal Stephenson.
can we claim Lovecraft or Howard?


This is actually a pretty solid list including honorable mentions. 15 greatest Not going to quibble about the rankings, although I am a sucker for Harry Harrison!
   21. dlf Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4482356)
#17 - I've tried Sir Arthur, but just haven't been able to really get into his work. What would you suggest I read of his? I've read 2001 -- the first 4/5th were a great book, but the last 1/5th was tripe - the first couple of Rama books, Childhoods End, and some of his short stories like the Nine Billion Names of God.

#20 - Is there anything other than the Dune series that you would recommend from Herbert? I loved the first, thought the second was ok, made it through the third, tried the fourth, and gave up.
   22. Scott Lange Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4482359)
And who else is in that inner circle? I wouldn't try to defend my list, but dlf's Mount Rushmore would have Heinlein, Varley, Asimov, and Niven.
Clarke.


I'm aware of his work.
   23. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2013 at 05:54 PM (#4482379)
@21: You got the main ones. I actually think his short stories are the best of his work.

I personally like Le Guin and Mike Resnick.
   24. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4482395)
? I've read 2001 -- the first 4/5th were a great book, but the last 1/5th was tripe


That's a recurring problem with a lot of his longer stuff.

I'd throw Turtledove out there, Haldeman (in small doses)

   25. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4482398)
Vance? Delany? Wolfe?
   26. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4482400)
I didn't say I liked him (Herbert) I said he was canonical. Mostly for Dune. And in fact the sequels are mostly horrid.
I did really like "The Green Brain" (if you can find it), I think it would make a great movie now that we have CGI.


I am a big fan of Turtledove and also Michael Moorcock and a few others but I can't put them in the HOF let alone the IC. Although I can't really say that Moorcock's tripe is any less literary than Heinlein. RAH does have Stranger and Moon is a Harsh Mistress though - like Asimov has Foundation and I, Robot (and 1,500 other titles).

I also like Orson Scott Card, politics be damned. He I think is probably HOF but not IC.
   27. SteveF Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4482413)
I've read Neuromancer and Snow Crash and thought they were pretty mediocre. Setting aside your opinion of my opinion, would it make sense for me to try reading something else by either of them? If so, which books?
   28. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:56 PM (#4482421)
I guess (old) Gibson is too dated now to make any sense. It's like reading the kiddie Heinlein with the jungles of venus and martian canals. You kinda have to go with it.

His recent work is basically contemporary fiction rather than speculative. He still has ideas though.
Didn't like Snow Crash... hmmm... Anathem I really liked and is not much like Snow Crash. Cryptonomicon is good too... but those are both VERY long, so I am a bit loath to recommend them.

What DO you like, SteveF?
   29. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4482423)
Zelazny is there for me. Bujold. For a bit harder science Clement is good old school.
   30. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4482427)
So will Lassus be singing the National Anthem at the Great BBTF Softball Game(s)?

I thought we were getting Pavement.


I've read Neuromancer and Snow Crash and thought they were pretty mediocre. Setting aside your opinion of my opinion, would it make sense for me to try reading something else by either of them? If so, which books?

I thought "Pattern Recognition" by Gibson was damned brilliant. I liked the ones that followed them up in the same setting too, but they were treading ground that was masterfully exposed in the first one. Not really quite sci-fi, but forward-thinking in innovative ways. (I'd ask what year you read Neuromancer, though.)

As far as Stephenson, a lot of people consider "The Diamond Age" his sci-fi masterpiece, but I really found "Anathem" more to my liking as a narrative; and with the best ending he's yet written, something that has been a constant criticism of his work.


I think the authors in the link in #20 is really just a list of sci-fi HOF emeritus writers. Which is fine, but a bit stodgy.
   31. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4482431)
The thing to know about Gibson is that he wrote the same sequence three times. First in the Neuromancer far future. Then as near future in the Iduro cycle. Then as current time with the Pattern Recognition cycle.
   32. SteveF Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4482434)
What DO you like?


I like Bradbury. I dug Brave New World. Does Vonnegut count? I also like Dick. (I'm secure enough in my own sexuality to leave that as written, but not so secure not to comment on it in a parenthetical.) I liked the Dark Tower series. To be fair, I don't read a ton of science fiction, though I have no particular problem with the genre.

I suppose my objection to Neuromancer was the muddy writing. (Though I'll grant, having read it more recently, it's harder to give Gibson his just due for his ideas.) In the case of Snow Crash, the prose was clean and snappy but the ideas just weren't interesting (to me). Reading the descriptions of Sumerian history reminded me of a cross between Dan Brown and the rough parts of Moby Dick.
   33. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:19 PM (#4482442)
Along with the above-mentioned Jules Verne & H.G. Wells, pioneering status probaby gets E.E. "Doc" Smith, Olaf Stapledon & maybe Jack Williamson into the sf HOF IC as well.

I've read very little of his work, & then not in the last 33 years or so, but the recently departed Jack Vance probably makes the sf HoF as well, though I suppose not the IC.

Others --

Fredric Brown
Cliff Simak
L. Sprague de Camp
Henry Kuttner
C.M. Kornbluth
Fred Pohl
Robert Sheckley
Keith Laumer
Eric Frank Russell
Harry Harrison (edit: I see zenbitz cited him)
James Blish
Alfred Bester

Just a few off the top of my head that I don't think have been mentioned so far.

Phil Dick is of course my favorite writer, period.

can we claim Lovecraft or Howard?


Maybe HPL. REH I don't see as remotely sf; I'm not sure Almuric overcomes that.
   34. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:29 PM (#4482454)
I've read Neuromancer and Snow Crash and thought they were pretty mediocre. Setting aside your opinion of my opinion, would it make sense for me to try reading something else by either of them? If so, which books?
Diamond Age is pretty great (coke to Lassus, and I haven't read Anathem). For Gibson, I liked The Difference Engine which he co-wrote with Sterling.
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:42 PM (#4482461)
Today jurors saw the video of Zimmerman being interrogated by police.

Is there a good spin on this from the prosecution's side? My question is not meant to be sarcastic or rhetorical; I haven't been following today other than reading this one news story. Unless you just conclude that you don't believe Zimmerman - won't believe him no matter what - then at first glance I don't see how this helps the prosecution at all.

And even if you won't believe him no matter what, there's still no evidence that *Zimmerman* started the actual physical confrontation following the 911 call. (Is there?)

Yes, there's no evidence other than Zimmerman's testimony in large part because Zimmerman killed the witness. I get that, but from a purely objective standpoint that still means there's no evidence other than evidence supporting Zimmerman's version.

So how then do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had intent to kill Martin? How do you find that there's not a preponderance of the evidence supporting Zimmerman's self-defense claim?

Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin, got out of his car to call police and was walking back to his vehicle when the 17-year-old attacked him.

“He jumped out of the bushes and he said ‘What the f..k is your problem, homie?’” Zimmerman said on the tape.

“And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time, and I said ‘I don’t have a problem.’ And he goes, ‘No, now you have a problem,’ and he punched me in the nose.”

In court, jurors listened closely to the tape, while Zimmerman showed no emotion and Martin’s father closed his eyes from time to time.

Zimmerman told police he fell down to the ground after being punched repeatedly. “I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face, and I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe.”

“He puts his hand on my nose and mouth, and he says ‘You are going to die tonight.’

He said “the suspect” was “mounted on top of me” and began to bang his head onto the ground.

“As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him,” Zimmerman said.

He said Martin fell backward. “And he’s like ‘Alright, you got me, you got me.'”


This is _the prosecution's_ case. The defense hasn't even put on any evidence yet.

The more I look at it the more it looks like the state, led by Angela Corey, acted beneath contempt in bringing murder charges against a man while simply lacking the evidence to do so. This is mob rule.
   36. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4482468)
I loved Doc Smith when I was a teenager, but I wonder if he's aged well. Anybody else like Philip Jose Farmer (pornographic or not, your choice)?
   37. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 07:59 PM (#4482476)
Anybody else like Philip Jose Farmer (pornographic or not, your choice)?

I tried to read Riverworld when I was 16 or whatever and it bored me to death. I think that was my sole Farmer experience.
   38. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4482485)
Hey everyone, how about an atheists' monument?

Granted, I was alone in my house, but this
‘‘When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench,’’ said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.
made me do an actual spit-take because it was so stupidly hilarious.
   39. Mike A Posted: July 01, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4482506)
So we're supposed to believe everything Zimmerman said even though he's a proven liar?

Talked to a lawyer last night who believed they could have gotten Zimmerman on manslaughter. Though under Florida law, apparently all you have to do is yell 'he's coming right for me' to then legally shoot someone.
   40. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 08:44 PM (#4482510)
So we're supposed to believe everything Zimmerman said even though he's a proven liar?


Can you elaborate? A proven liar as to what?
   41. Mike A Posted: July 01, 2013 at 08:56 PM (#4482518)
You didn't see his bail hearing? Zimmerman lied through his teeth and the judge absolutely killed him. He lied about the amount of money he had, he lied about having a second passport...the same disgust that was directed at Jaentel for being a liar should also be directed towards Zimmerman. You can trust the guy about as far as you can throw him.

That said, Zimmerman was likely losing the fight, but you don't shoot someone just because you're getting your butt kicked. I think his claims of 'having his head slammed repeatedly into the pavement' are quite exaggerated, which the one witness who sorta saw the fight seems to collaborate. His injuries were way too superficial to support that claim. Plus, the lack of DNA on Martin's hands suggests it wasn't a total pummeling.

Zimmerman started to lose, panicked, and shot the kid. In my eyes, that *should* be the textbook definition of manslaughter. But Florida law, yadda, yadda, yadda.
   42. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 08:58 PM (#4482520)
So we're supposed to believe everything Zimmerman said even though he's a proven liar?

Talked to a lawyer last night who believed they could have gotten Zimmerman on manslaughter. Though under Florida law, apparently all you have to do is yell 'he's coming right for me' to then legally shoot someone.


Zimmerman's version of events appears to be corroborated by both testimonial and physical evidence. Not so for the prosecution, at least thus far. In addition, there doesn't appear to be anything unique to Florida law in Zimmerman's defense. If Zimmerman's version of the case is true, he would be acquitted on grounds of self-defense in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

And, of course, the reason many people have come to Zimmerman's defense is that he hasn't been shown to be a liar. Perhaps folks are confusing him with the MSNBC reporters that deliberately edited the police call tape in a deceptive manner to make Zimmerman look racist? Or the media folks that used an old photo of a much younger Martin to color early perceptions of the case? Those are the folks that shouldn't be trusted.
   43. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4482525)
Talked to a lawyer last night who believed they could have gotten Zimmerman on manslaughter. Though under Florida law, apparently all you have to do is yell 'he's coming right for me' to then legally shoot someone.


By the way, which lawyer told you this? The one who defended My Cousin Vinny?

Florida law allows for the use of deadly force if one reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. So you need to show more than prove that you yelled "he's coming right for me!" You need to show that you reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent severe bodily harm or death.
   44. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:05 PM (#4482526)
You didn't see his bail hearing? Zimmerman lied through his teeth and the judge absolutely killed him. He lied about the amount of money he had, he lied about having a second passport...the same disgust that was directed at Jaentel for being a liar should also be directed towards Zimmerman. You can trust the guy about as far as you can throw him.


Can you point to a lie Zimmerman told about the facts of the case or his version of the case?

That said, Zimmerman was likely losing the fight, but you don't shoot someone just because you're getting your butt kicked.


If you reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of severe bodily injury or death - and you haven't relinquished your self defense claim - you have a valid self-defense claim. Sorry, that's just the way the law is.

Zimmerman started to lose, panicked, and shot the kid. In my eyes, that *should* be the textbook definition of manslaughter. But Florida law, yadda, yadda, yadda.


Based on what we know of the facts and evidence, there is nothing unique about Florida law here.
   45. SteveF Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:06 PM (#4482528)
Talked to a lawyer last night who believed they could have gotten Zimmerman on manslaughter.


The jury is allowed to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter instead of second degree murder, based on what I've read. The prosecution probably would have been better served charging with manslaughter. In so doing, the case would be more focused on the self-defense claim where the burden of proof (well, to be more precise, the evidentiary burden) is significantly more favorable to the prosecution.
   46. Mike A Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4482534)

By the way, which lawyer told you this? The one who defended My Cousin Vinny?


One who went to Duke Law School, so probably a step up from Vinny. He felt (based on the evidence to this point) that he could prove that Zimmerman was not in a position where deadly force needed to be used. Again, that's his feel for the case, though IMO he's not biased towards Martin because he's quite conservative. Though of course, all lawyers believe they can win. It's interesting how differently prosecutors and defense lawyers look at this case.
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4482536)
It's interesting how differently prosecutors and defense lawyers look at this case.


The talking lawyer heads on tv usually break down along these lines, but actually by and large the prosecutors I've seen on tv commenting on this case think the prosecution's case on second degree murder is very weak bordering on laughable. That's not typical.
   48. SteveF Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:18 PM (#4482538)
The talking lawyer heads on tv usually break down along these lines, but actually by and large the prosecutors I've seen on tv commenting on this case think the prosecution's case on second degree murder is very weak bordering on laughable. That's not typical.


The mere fact there was a physical confrontation when Zimmerman had a gun makes second degree murder hard to believe. Why didn't he just shoot him in the chest before Martin threw a punch? Why bother wrestling with Martin at all if the plan was to hunt him down and kill him? That part of the case makes no sense to me.
   49. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:24 PM (#4482541)
#20 - Is there anything other than the Dune series that you would recommend from Herbert? I loved the first, thought the second was ok, made it through the third, tried the fourth, and gave up


The White Plague.
   50. Greg K Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:29 PM (#4482543)


The White Plague.

I did a grade 8 book report on that one!

A bit like Children of Men.
   51. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:30 PM (#4482544)
His injuries were way too superficial to support that claim.

Nonsense. Perhaps you've only looked at the photos of Zimmerman after he was cleaned up. Here's a collection of photos, some quite graphic. Also worth noting, you don't actually have to be injured in order to claim self-defense, although Zimmerman was clearly injured.

Plus, the lack of DNA on Martin's hands suggests it wasn't a total pummeling.

Martin's body was left in the rain -- described as heavy rain by two prosecution witnesses, IIRC -- without any measures taken to preserve DNA evidence. I believe there will be expert testimony showing that under those circumstances a lack of DNA wouldn't be inconsistent with Zimmerman's testimony.
   52. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4482548)
A bit like Children of Men.


Yeah, I suppose it is.
   53. Karl from NY Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4482557)
It's weird reading Asimov nowadays. It reads like some beginning author's attempt to imitate the SF greats. The stories are simple and straightforward and the embodiment of sci-fi cliches... and then you remember that the author and story you're reading invented that cliche.

Vonnegut is great. Underrated because he doesn't quite fit the genre, more speculative fiction than science fiction. I can see where the nihilistic tone might put some off, though.

The best modern SF I've read is The Golden Age, by John C Wright. I'll let the Amazon description and reviews do the talking: http://www.amazon.com/The-Golden-Age-John-Wright/dp/0765336693 "Dazzling" is a great description.
   54. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:50 PM (#4482558)
Nonsense. Perhaps you've only looked at the photos of Zimmerman after he was cleaned up. Here's a collection of photos, some quite graphic.

I'd call nonsense on calling those images proof of a pummeling myself, but I'm not an expert witness.


I believe there will be expert testimony showing that under those circumstances a lack of DNA wouldn't be inconsistent with Zimmerman's testimony.

DNA isn't isn't the only evidence that proves a pummeling or lack thereof. There's also bruising to the hands and knuckles, I would assume.


With all this, count me among those who feel the overreach by the prosecution was idiotic.
   55. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 09:57 PM (#4482559)
One of the most astonishingly cool books I ever picked up randomly was Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams.

I also think most everything by Alastair Reynolds has been incredible. Pushing Ice especially. I love the whole Revelation Space universe, but the standalone "Ice" is less Space Opera and a more intimate character study if you find vastness tiresome after awhile.
   56. vortex of dissipation Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4482564)
If we're still doing nominations for the SF Mount Rushmore, Cordwainer Smith would be on mine.
   57. TDF, situational idiot Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:08 PM (#4482570)
Nonsense. Perhaps you've only looked at the photos of Zimmerman after he was cleaned up. Here's a collection of photos, some quite graphic.

I'd call nonsense on calling those images proof of a pummeling myself, but I'm not an expert witness
I'm going to claim expertness here.

I shave my head every other day (every day isn't worth the effort). My scalp can bleed so much it runs to my collar, and I won't know it until someone at work points it out. Those pictures don't show anything like the attack Zimmerman has described.
   58. Ron J Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:14 PM (#4482574)
#8 And yet you were still wearing pant!
   59. Ron J Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:19 PM (#4482576)
#57 I have expertise though its decades past. If somebody's getting his head pounded against pavement he isn't walking later. If somebody is administering a bare knuckle beating to somebody else there's going to be significant damage to his hands.

   60. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4482578)
Here's an analysis of the cross-examination of the Chief Investigator of the Zimmerman case:
Asked if there was ANYTHING that Zimmerman had said that contradicted the wealth of evidence possessed by Serino, the Investigator answered, “No, sir.” No physical evidence, no witness evidence, no officer statements, nothing? “No, sir.” In fact, noted O’Mara, the evidence Serino had all fit into a self-defense theory, and Serino agreed that it did . . .

The last O’Mara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the State’s theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to ever bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed–applying increasing from each interview to the next–O’Mara asked him: “Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?” Serino's succinct answer: "Yes." [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing. Keep in mind, this is the prosecution's witness.
   61. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:34 PM (#4482582)
Some folks here have a funny idea of what "expertise" is. The medical testimony Friday (another Prosecution witness) indicated Zimmerman had a broken nose, bloodied lips, facial bruises, and cuts, scrapes and abrasions on the back of his head. All consistent with his testimony. Suggesting his wounds aren't consistent with his testimony or aren't consistent with a claim of self-defense appears to be incorrect, but perhaps our self-proclaimed experts will enlighten us as to how they reached such a conclusion.
   62. cardsfanboy Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:44 PM (#4482593)
Anybody else like Philip Jose Farmer


Big fan of his, I actually like Dayworld better than Riverworld, but liked them both a lot(at least the early Riverworld books, the later ones were lacking)

Someone mentioned Zelazny and have to agree with him. It's telling that he was the "superstar" writer on the wild cards super hero anthology.

I grew up loving Gordon Dickson, but a lot of his work doesn't stand up to an adult sensibilities(or at least my current preferences) And of course for just fun writing where you can turn off your brain and enjoy the ride, you have Piers Anthony. (I love Incarnations of Immortality series, and liked Bio of a Space Tyrant, the first three-five Xanth books were fun)

   63. cardsfanboy Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4482598)
Suggesting his wounds aren't consistent with his testimony or aren't consistent with a claim of self-defense appears to be incorrect, but perhaps our self-proclaimed experts will enlighten us as to how they reached such a conclusion.


Aren't the self proclaimed experts saying that Martin doesn't have the signs of someone who pummelled someone? At least that is what the second part of post 59 is saying.

edit:And post 54.
   64. Ron J Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4482604)
#61 They're not inconsistent with a claim of self-defense because (as Ray among others have noted) the test is what you can reasonably believe.

I've seen or heard nothing that makes me think he was actually in mortal danger, but that's not the test.

I'd be happier if the theory JSLF laid out (in last month's thread) for manslaughter was applicable here. But as he noted at the time that doesn't seem to be how a manslaughter case would work in Florida.
   65. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4482608)
at least the early Riverworld books, the later ones were lacking


Agreed.
   66. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 10:59 PM (#4482609)
Aren't the self-proclaimed experts saying that Martin doesn't have the signs of someone who pummelled someone?

Why, yes, except for the part when I explicitly said I wasn't an expert, that's exactly accurate.
I'd call nonsense on calling those images proof of a pummeling myself, but I'm not an expert witness.
   67. Ron J Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:00 PM (#4482611)
And yeah, #63 there's no way to lay a serious beating on somebody bare handed without leaving evidence on your hands. Oh you can break somebody's nose and not really damage your hands.

Thing is that as Ray and others have pointed out that probably doesn't matter to the case. Nor does it particularly matter if Zimmerman's account of the fight doesn't precisely square up with the evidence. From what I can (tell the state needs to prove that) Zimmerman actually started the fight and that's just not happening. No evidence that Martin did either but that's of no import to Zimmerman's defense.

EDIT: Cleaned up bad edit.
   68. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4482615)
That said, Zimmerman was likely losing the fight, but you don't shoot someone just because you're getting your butt kicked. I think his claims of 'having his head slammed repeatedly into the pavement' are quite exaggerated, which the one witness who sorta saw the fight seems to collaborate. His injuries were way too superficial to support that claim.


This is a losing argument, having to argue that "Well, yes, he was getting his butt kicked and his head was bloodied, but, hey, there is no way he had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury; for that his bloody head needed to be much more bloodied!"

Yeah, good luck trying to sell that to a jury.
   69. Mike A Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4482619)
Can you point to a lie Zimmerman told about the facts of the case or his version of the case?

That will likely come out soon. But since everyone was all over Jaentel for saying she was 16 and not 19 among other lies (and yes, I feel she was a terrible witness), I figured someone should point out that Zimmerman doesn't exactly have a honest track record either, so I'm not buying everything he says at face value. His lying during the bail hearing was pretty egregious. It's just hard for me to buy he was getting his head slammed into the pavement over and over (and again, the key witness did not see that happening). I feel pretty confident he exaggerated the danger he was in.

Now of course, this doesn't really matter because there's probably enough to the self-defense claim to get Zimmerman off. But it ticks me off that this guy is going to walk over this. And it also ticks me off how many people are applauding him for his cowardly actions. It's a shame.
   70. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4482622)
I have to think, that with the State playing this video/audio interview with Zimmerman providing his story, that the Defense doesn't need to put him on the stand now. Generally in self defense cases, you do see the Defendant on the stand, now ...... I could see a good argument of keeping him seated.

Most damaging Q & A of the State's witness, the Lead investigator after a very good cross by O'Meara, which included Serino's testimony in which he believed the evidence fit right into the defense's self-defense theory. (this is not the way it typically works in a murder case, the lead investigator normally doesn't testify that the evidence supports a self-defense theory).

O'Meara (defense atty) “Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”

Serino (Lead Investigator) answer: “Yes.”
   71. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:23 PM (#4482624)
But it ticks me off that this guy is going to walk over this.


He wouldn't be "walking" in the sense that he was guilty under the law and yet got off, which is my understanding of what the term "walking" in this context means.

It would be a travesty if a man who was innocent of murder and had a valid self-defense claim was convicted anyway, just because we don't like the fact that he lit the fuse that led to Martin being killed.
   72. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4482626)
I have to think, that with the State playing this video/audio interview with Zimmerman providing his story, that the Defense doesn't need to put him on the stand now. Generally in self defense cases, you do see the Defendant on the stand, now ...... I could see a good argument of keeping him seated

That's an interesting question, and I wonder if the defense would weigh whether there is a benefit beyond a favorable verdict that's worth seeking. Would Zimmerman be more likely to return to a normal life if he testifies and convinces more of the general public of the reasonableness of his actions? Hard to say. Too many folks have already indicated they don't care about evidence or something as legalistic as a trial.
   73. Ron J Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4482632)
#68 Crazy as it sounds to you, that's the only plausible theory I can see for the prosecution. And as I said in the last thread I can see some chance of convincing a juror or two. I don't think they have much chance of convincing all of the jurors (even if -- as some of our legal experts have noted -- juries love to split the baby)
   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:33 PM (#4482634)
The legal expert O'Reilly had on who has been following the trial, I think from inside the courtroom, Alex Ferrer (of what I imagine is a Judge Wapner type tv show called Judge Alex), said tonight that manslaughter is indeed on the table, and here it would carry not the usual 15 year sentence but 30 years since Martin was a minor.

So IMO this isn't the typical compromise verdict situation; the jury is going to think long and hard before they convict Zimmerman even of manslaughter.
   75. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4482637)
I liked riverworld when I was 16. Wow I think I never read difference engine! Waited sooooo long for the paperback.
   76. cardsfanboy Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4482642)
I liked riverworld when I was 16. Wow I think I never read difference engine! Waited sooooo long for the paperback.


Riverworld made me interested in a lot of historical people that I hadn't known much about. The concept was fantastic, arguably one of those "Wow!" concepts in science fiction literature. I can see why they made two tv movies for it(and screwed it up both times.) there is just something fantastic about a concept that puts every single human being in history in the same playground.

   77. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4482644)
It would be a travesty if a man who was innocent of murder and had a valid self-defense claim was convicted anyway, just because we don't like the fact that he lit the fuse that led to Martin being killed.

I forget if you've said already, but do you personally, based on the facts you've read, think Zimmerman is guilty of anything, Ray?
   78. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:46 PM (#4482645)
I thought "Pattern Recognition" by Gibson was damned brilliant. I liked the ones that followed them up in the same setting too, but they were treading ground that was masterfully exposed in the first one. Not really quite sci-fi, but forward-thinking in innovative ways. (I'd ask what year you read Neuromancer, though.)

As far as Stephenson, a lot of people consider "The Diamond Age" his sci-fi masterpiece, but I really found "Anathem" more to my liking as a narrative; and with the best ending he's yet written, something that has been a constant criticism of his work.


I agree with all of that. Pattern Recognition was great, The Diamond Age was great, and Anathem was my favorite book of the year.
   79. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2013 at 11:55 PM (#4482652)
That's an interesting question, and I wonder if the defense would weigh whether there is a benefit beyond a favorable verdict that's worth seeking. Would Zimmerman be more likely to return to a normal life if he testifies and convinces more of the general public of the reasonableness of his actions?


Lawyers advise clients based on the law. They make recommendations and advise of the likely risks and benefits of adopting various strategies. If the client is fixated on PR instead, the lawyer will say "Ok, but if you go down that path you will be facing risks X, Y, and Z."

I can recall only one situation in recent memory that pretty clearly went against sound legal advice: Roger Clemens walking into a perjury trap in front of Congress. No lawyer would have advised him that it was a good idea from a legal standpoint to testify in that hearing. And you see what it got him: an indictment and a trial. I am pretty confident that Clemens informed Hardin that Clemens would be ignoring Hardin's advice not to testify in front of Congress, at which point Hardin repeated the risks to Clemens for doing it his way and then said, okay, up to you. (Had I been Hardin I would have then immediately following the meeting sent an email to Clemens repeating the risks of testifying just so there was a record that I had so advised him.)

Now, the ultimate PR outcome for Clemens doing it his way was beneficial to him, since he won at trial. But he risked his liberty to do so. I don't see why Zimmerman would adopt a PR strategy over a legal one, since he's not the public figure that Clemens was.
   80. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2013 at 12:00 AM (#4482655)
I forget if you've said already, but do you personally, based on the facts you've read, think Zimmerman is guilty of anything, Ray?


No.

From everything I've seen so far Zimmerman is not guilty of any crime. There is no evidence supporting intent to murder, and his strong self defense claim washes away both murder and manslaughter.
   81. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: July 02, 2013 at 01:09 AM (#4482693)
manslaughter is indeed on the table, and here it would carry not the usual 15 year sentence but 30 years since Martin was a minor.

So IMO this isn't the typical compromise verdict situation; the jury is going to think long and hard before they convict Zimmerman even of manslaughter.

Are Florida juries involved in sentencing? I assumed the verdict was up to them, and the sentence was up to the judge.
   82. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4482698)
So do I, but if the guy can only get 3 years and you're conflicted, maybe you shrug and leave him open to getting 3 years. OTOH if the guy can get 30 years and you're conflicted, you're probably less likely to convict him.
   83. Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling Posted: July 02, 2013 at 01:54 AM (#4482701)
here's a clip of Gene Wolfe and Isaac Asimov talking to Calvin Trillin and others, if you haven't already seen it.


Awesome quote in that link at about 5 minutes in- I guess it was Gene Wolfe talking?

(paraphrased) "We aren't really talking about good writing. What we're really talking about are wire racks. Ellison is a Big Indian. He's up at the front of the book store, in the Big Indian wire rack, where he wants to be. Isaac is a Little Indian. He's in the back of the bookstore, in a different set of wire racks. I'm in the same set of wire racks as Isaac, but it doesn't bother me."

Lol. I would also not mind to have my books in the same rack as Isaac Asimov.

Anyway, I think Charles Stross is the missing link between Lovecraft and SF. His work generally takes place in a Lovecraftian universe, 50-75 years later, ish, but is definitely sci-fi. Like Stephenson, he's shown great promise, and could be as good as a Heinlein or Asimov, but he's got some work to do, and (unlike stephenson) needs to balance the politics a bit better lest he become a footnote like Brunner or Pournelle. Two other guys I think should be mentioned in this conversation are Vernor Vinge and David Brin. Vinge invented the singularity device, and also did an amazing job creating the secondary offshoot concept idea of the AI that was so intelligent that it became an effectively godlike entity (love the "applied theology" field of future research study; also the idea of the programmer-archaeologist) and Brin's uplift series was a unique take on the implications of biological versioning that we're going to have to deal with soon. I'm amazed it took until the 90's for for someone to write those books, but that doesn't make them less poignant. Brin's latest, existence, is a bad book, but it also raised some fun near-future questions (and the idea of interstellar spam mail destroying civilizations is just too awesome).

other topic: I think #59 and #67 are probably false. Hitting someone without hurting yourself is not that hard to do, and unless you have a huge weight advantage, it is really, really hard to bang a conscious person's head against the ground hard enough to really hurt them. 3 million years of monkey-on-monkey violence has created the neck muscles that make this the case.

However, on the flip side, it's also really, really easy to handle someone in a way that makes them think they are going to die, and when you make someone who might have a gun think they are going to die, sometimes you die. That's not such a bad message to send to society at large.
   84. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 02, 2013 at 01:56 AM (#4482702)
The legal expert O'Reilly had on who has been following the trial, I think from inside the courtroom, Alex Ferrer (of what I imagine is a Judge Wapner type tv show called Judge Alex),

Ferrer was a state criminal court judge in Miami before he landed the TV show, so he should know what he's talking about. (On the other hand, Miami isn't known for having the world's best judges.)
   85. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: July 02, 2013 at 02:29 AM (#4482706)
I shave my head every other day (every day isn't worth the effort). My scalp can bleed so much it runs to my collar, and I won't know it until someone at work points it out. Those pictures don't show anything like the attack Zimmerman has described.


This is entirely correct, and tells us that Zimmerman is lying. This plus the plain and indisputable fact (except to Ray, who's only here trolling the trial because he needs the practice, I suppose) that Zimmerman has shown himself to be more than willing to lie under oath elsewhere (and lie as part of a conscious plan, not merely out of fear or fright) should make it very simple for a jury to ignore anything he attests to that is not completely consistent with the facts.

Since the details Zimmerman has offered to support his claim that Martin attacked him are far, far from being especially credible, and since Zimmerman has proven himself to be a calculating liar even under oath, the jury should look only at other evidence as it would support or refute Zimmerman's claims. There's nowhere near enough other evidence that Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin to a degree that would justify killing him (indeed, there's no evidence beyond that offered by Zimmerman, which we can obviously dispense with, that Martin instigated the physical confrontation), and there's certainly evidence that Zimmerman was not so assaulted.

It should be a straightforward matter to convict Zimmerman of killing Martin. Whether that's second degree murder or manslaughter depends on how statutes read, but it shouldn't take an intelligent jury long to arrive at a guilty verdict.
   86. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 02, 2013 at 02:51 AM (#4482712)
Jack Carter's view of Zimmerman's injuries is at odds with the medical testimony -- a prosecution witness whose view is likely to be reinforced by the defense case. He also seems unaware of which side has the burden of proof. The desire for conviction without evidence is reminiscent of the Scottsboro Boys. Shameful.
   87. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 02, 2013 at 03:44 AM (#4482715)
I also like Dick. (I'm secure enough in my own sexuality to leave that as written, but not so secure not to comment on it in a parenthetical.)


Far be it from me to interrupt the valiant effort to allay the dearth of internet commentary on the Zimmerman trial, but both my 12-year-old and 36-year-old selves had to laugh at this.
   88. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2013 at 07:55 AM (#4482738)
I think Banks is pretty good as a writer and I don't remember him being mentioned yet. Glen Cook has some very good books, but has declined a great deal the last ten years (and does more fantasy than sci fi).
   89. Lassus Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:09 AM (#4482744)
I think Banks is pretty good as a writer and I don't remember him being mentioned yet

Iain Banks' work has been such an absolute wonder; I only found him about 6 or 7 years ago. His self-written sudden news of his ensuing death from cancer a couple months ago did have me taering up upon reading it. He passed a few weeks ago. Booo.

A good amount of Dick's work I think of as completely brilliant (Flow my Tears, the Policeman Said specifically), but it also has so much of the Beats in him as far as influenced by mind-altering states that much like the Beats as a non-drinker, non-drug-user, not-ever-mind-altered person it does begin to bore me a bit.
   90. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:15 AM (#4482750)
However, on the flip side, it's also really, really easy to handle someone in a way that makes them think they are going to die, and when you make someone who might have a gun think they are going to die, sometimes you die. That's not such a bad message to send to society at large.


But "hey, if you have a gun on you, follow random strangers to their homes until they feel threatened enough to defend themselves, and then shoot them dead; it's all good, you were 'defending yourself!'" is a great message to be broadcasting far and wide.

George Zimmerman is a murderer.
   91. cardsfanboy Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:23 AM (#4482753)
But "hey, if you have a gun on you, follow random strangers to their homes until they feel threatened enough to defend themselves, and then shoot them dead; it's all good, you were 'defending yourself!'" is a great message to be broadcasting far and wide.


That is the point I'm having a hard time grasping. Couldn't it be argued that even if Zimmerman's point of view is accurate, that Martin was acting in self defense? That Zimmerman is the aggressor here, and being that he was the one doing the pursuing/instigating, that he gives up the right to claim self defense? Isn't his actions an extension of someone breaking into your house to rob you, and you attempt to defend your property and he ends up killing you, would the robber be legally able to claim self defense?
   92. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:29 AM (#4482761)
Couldn't it be argued that even if Zimmerman's point of view is accurate, that Martin was acting in self defense?


No, because Florida law is constructed in a manner to never allow a self-defense claim if you die.
   93. cardsfanboy Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:46 AM (#4482770)
No, because Florida law is constructed in a manner to never allow a self-defense claim if you die.


As if we need another reason to acknowledge that Florida is one of the five most ###### up states in the Union(along with Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona...and take your pick for the last one) (I'm sure they aren't the only ones set up like that, but it's a f-ed up state still)
   94. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 02, 2013 at 08:51 AM (#4482775)
I forget if you've said already, but do you personally, based on the facts you've read, think Zimmerman is guilty of anything, Ray?


Him guilty being cheeken poosy, give up mount easy. 6 month train jiu-jitsu easy defend. Lesson to all, you jiu-jitsu weak end up murderer, no lie.
   95. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:02 AM (#4482787)
A defendant is not, and should not be, on trial for his general character. He is on trial for what he did in a particular instance. In the United States of America, trials are about cases in controversy. That means a defendant's general personality traits are played down. It's irrelevant and impertinent, as it should be, that Zimmerman lied about his income (if he did) in a bail hearing, just as it would be if he cheated on his income tax return or on his wife. Most of the people here with the lynch mob mentality (as elsewhere discussing other persons accused of crimes) come across as losing IQ everytime they open their mouth. There's is a vigilante standard. That's really scary if you can imagine yourself as an accused.
   96. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:08 AM (#4482791)
FYI, the gun raffle has now been cancelled.

-- MWE
   97. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:09 AM (#4482792)
49 years ago the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. Anyone who thinks we have not made progress in the last 49 years (partly due to the law) is wrong. Anyone who thinks we are done making progress is even more wrong.
   98. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:16 AM (#4482800)
Others --

Fredric Brown
Cliff Simak
L. Sprague de Camp
Henry Kuttner
C.M. Kornbluth
Fred Pohl
Robert Sheckley
Keith Laumer
Eric Frank Russell
Harry Harrison (edit: I see zenbitz cited him)
James Blish
Alfred Bester

Just a few off the top of my head that I don't think have been mentioned so far.


Aaaaaand AFAICT, no one yet has mentioned Ted Sturgeon, A.E. Van Vogt or Fritz Leiber. *Ack*
   99. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:18 AM (#4482803)
   100. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 02, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4482808)
A good amount of Dick's work I think of as completely brilliant (Flow my Tears, the Policeman Said specifically), but it also has so much of the Beats in him as far as influenced by mind-altering states that much like the Beats as a non-drinker, non-drug-user, not-ever-mind-altered person it does begin to bore me a bit.


As a non-drinker, non-drug-user, not-ever-mind-altered person (unless really weird dreams count), I condemn you as the ignorant slut you are.

Nah ... j/k, of course; there is of course something to what you say. Though offhand I'm not positive when PKD started ingesting drugs as a writing aide, but I'm pretty sure it was after what I regard as his first truly phildickian novel, Time Out of Joint (though the earlier Eye in the Sky at least approaches that ballpark), & possibly after Man in the High Castle (unless one wants to interpret the I Ching as "mind-altering") & We Can Build You.

Page 1 of 58 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogStephen Strasburg pitching like the Nationals’ Game 1 starter
(2 - 10:19am, Sep 22)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(113 - 10:15am, Sep 22)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogPhilly Sports: Chico Ruiz’s dash for home began the 1964 Phillies’ unraveling
(2 - 10:13am, Sep 22)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogRoyals encounter problem with online sale of playoff tickets
(35 - 10:09am, Sep 22)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(358 - 10:09am, Sep 22)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-22-2014
(1 - 10:07am, Sep 22)
Last: Corn On Ty Cobb

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3435 - 10:03am, Sep 22)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-22-2014
(10 - 10:00am, Sep 22)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8040 - 9:32am, Sep 22)
Last: Joey B. "disrespects the A"

NewsblogJohn Thorn: Fame & Fandom
(21 - 8:20am, Sep 22)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(206 - 8:08am, Sep 22)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-21-2014
(103 - 6:35am, Sep 22)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(297 - 6:25am, Sep 22)
Last: Mirabelli Dictu (Chris McClinch)

NewsblogCameron: The Stealth MVP Candidacy of Hunter Pence
(48 - 1:07am, Sep 22)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(92 - 12:40am, Sep 22)
Last: Toothless

Page rendered in 0.9909 seconds
52 querie(s) executed