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

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

OTP 04 December 2017: Baseball group accused of ‘united front’ tactics

New Power Party (NPP) Legislator Hsu Yung-ming (徐永明) said that the baseball association should bear the brunt of the blame for letting Taiwanese players become political tools in China’s “united front” strategy and for giving Chinese media an opportunity to promote the “both sides of the Strait are one family” view without restraint.

China is not a top-tier nation in baseball and positive effects on Taiwanese baseball from the tournament would be limited, Hsu said.

The Chinese Taipei Baseball Association should not go along with China, he said, adding that the Sports Administration should investigate whether the association accepted financial aid and whether it reported issues to the government in advance.

“The government should clearly standardize the guidelines for cross-strait sports exchanges,” Hsu added.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 05, 2017 at 08:57 AM | 1673 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: china, politics, taiwan

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 8 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   701. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 05:57 AM (#5587845)
I'm pretty sure many more homes of climate change alarmists are on fire. Why, Mother Nature, WHY???

Yes, but that's un-ironic, karma-free scientifically foretold destruction.
You missed his joke. He was channelling Michael (not Roy) Moore, whose reaction to 9/11 was, literally, that Osama should have attacked red states instead of NY and Washington because the latter are Democrats.
   702. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 06:24 AM (#5587846)

You're right. I will put you back on ignore. Because your whatabout posts are tiresome and entirely irrelevant.
I don't think you understand the concept. A post about bad things Democrats did is not a whatabout post.
   703. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 06:28 AM (#5587847)
Democrats should offer Ellison pretty much anything he wants to not run for that Senate seat in either 2018 (or 2020, if the GOP somehow picks it up).

Out of curiosity why do people think he will run?
Setting aside that he's a high-profile politician and high-profile politicians almost always want a promotion, the fact that he was running for DNC chair is a specific sign that he has ambitions.
   704. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 06:34 AM (#5587848)
If those accounts are true, and there appears to be substantial reason to believe they are, those attorneys should get the full Mike Nifomg treatment - disbarment and disgrace. Government attorneys misusing the power of their office is a greater threat to the integrity of the legal profession than some hapless practioner who can't file motions on time or keep his bookkeeping straight.
Well, yes. But if we're going to start punishing government attorneys misusing the power of their office -- and we should -- we should probably start with those whose victims are ordinary people rather than powerful politicians. The many many many other Mike Nifongs of the world virtually always skate without any discipline at all. In fact, the system so protects them that even when judges expressly find prosecutorial misconduct and overturn guilty verdicts, they refuse to name the prosecutors in question in their opinions. And that's not an accident or oversight; prosecutors expressly request that the courts not name the prosecutors by name so as not to tarnish their reputations.


EDIT: I just want to make clear that I am not making light of the John Doe investigations, which were a massive, and partisan, abuse of power. It's easy to forget because of the outcome of the 2016 elections how much of an up-and-comer Walker was seen as, and how desperate Wisconsin Dems were to take him down (particularly after the anti-union bill he successfully promoted). I am only saying that I wish a lot lot lot more attention was paid to quotidian abuses of power by prosecutors.
   705. spycake Posted: December 07, 2017 at 07:37 AM (#5587849)
Are you an idiot?


I post here, don't I?

Defend it if you like


Not sure why you think I am defending anything. I was just needling you over your earlier definition of personal/private.
   706. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:07 AM (#5587853)
EDIT: I just want to make clear that I am not making light of the John Doe investigations, which were a massive, and partisan, abuse of power. It's easy to forget because of the outcome of the 2016 elections how much of an up-and-comer Walker was seen as, and how desperate Wisconsin Dems were to take him down (particularly after the anti-union bill he successfully promoted). I am only saying that I wish a lot lot lot more attention was paid to quotidian abuses of power by prosecutors.
I'd be curious to hear Andy's thoughts about the news out of Wisconsin, since he has been ridiculing Walker practically from the moment he became governor.
   707. The Fallen Reputation of Billy Jo Robidoux Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:09 AM (#5587854)
the unlawful John Doe "investigation" up in Wisconsin


I've spent several years actively avoiding doing anything beyond skimming the headlines in this whole thing (because people would sometimes ask my opinion, and it was wise not to have one), so I'll only say this: at the time of the recall effort against Walker, a lot of people were dead certain that the John Doe would lead to his indictment. "Just wait," was something I heard more than once. We can see how it ended.

Pinning your political hopes on any opaque investigation is unwise, be it state or federal.
   708. Greg K Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:11 AM (#5587855)
It's hard to square John Oliver not being funny with the Bugle Podcast.

I think there are certainly some comedic shortcomings in his HBO show, and hi-jacking a public event to go after Dustin Hoffman might have been a poor decision (I think it depends on what evidence there is against him, I don't know, but my understanding is it's not exactly a Weinstein-esque pattern of behaviour).

But he's a funny person.
   709. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:14 AM (#5587856)
But he's a funny person.
When I first saw Oliver on HBO, I mistook him for the Michael Bolton dude from Office Space.
   710. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:36 AM (#5587859)
It should probably be noted that Texas Democratic Congressman Al Green attempted to force a vote today in the House of Representatives on a "privileged" Resolution to Impeach President Trump. That was tabled (defeated) on a 364 - 58 vote. The 58 votes in favor of going forward were all from Democrats. That leaves only 135 Dems who will need to be primaried by the crazies.


Your party chose Donald Trump.... and now it's close to sending Roy Moore to the Senate.

Clapper is in no position to say anything about crazies unless it's the form of "Man, I wish we had fewer"
   711. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:37 AM (#5587860)
When I first saw Oliver on HBO, I mistook him for the Michael Bolton dude from Office Space.
You mean the no-talent ass clown, or the other one?
   712. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:38 AM (#5587861)
EDIT: whoops
   713. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:39 AM (#5587862)
Re: #698:
John Oliver reads off a teleprompter; Kelsey Grammer just made up all of those beautiful words from his comic soul. Stephen Colbert is a hateful homophobe; the "Frasier" writers never stooped to gay panic jokes or verbal insults for their own sake. Jon Stewart gets high fives by pandering to effete, self-congratulatory liberals; "Frasier" is forever the #1 choice at the beans 'n grits truck stops of America. All talk shows are no longer watchable or funny, if they ever were; Kelsey Grammer played the same character 470 times and it remains endlessly fresh and surprising to this day.


I had to look up Kelsey Grammer on Wiki, and after finding out that he's a Tea Party loving Republican whose first choice in 2016 was Ben Carson, I think I'm beginning to understand Ray's mancrush.
   714. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:43 AM (#5587863)
I'd be curious to hear Andy's thoughts about the news out of Wisconsin, since he has been ridiculing Walker practically from the moment he became governor.

I haven't followed whatever news you're talking about, but about the only thing that could change my opinion of Scott Walker would be if he volunteered to castrate a non-sedated bull in his own living room.
   715. Greg K Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:53 AM (#5587865)
But he's a funny person.
When I first saw Oliver on HBO, I mistook him for the Michael Bolton dude from Office Space.


He is funny-looking too. That's just a bonus!
   716. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:14 AM (#5587867)
I had to look up Kelsey Grammer on Wiki, and after finding out that he's a Tea Party loving Republican whose first choice in 2016 was Ben Carson, I think I'm beginning to understand Ray's mancrush.


Right, Andy -- because every last thing in life is political.

Your inner Lenin is showing again.
   717. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:15 AM (#5587868)
John Oliver is dreadful. Samantha Bee is dreadful.(*) They offend me as comedians.(**) It's comedic harassment.

(*) Even though she smiled at me on W 95th a couple months ago although almost certainly because I had my 12 yo son with me. Nice family. Now, Tina Fey -- that's an annoying woman. Had her nanny save a place in the supermarket line with nothing in her hands, a couple places in front of me, on a very busy Saturday afternoon while she continued shopping. Then she dropped into the line with her stuff as the nanny got to the cashier. Very bad form. That said, she's funnier on her crabbiest, lemon-suckiest day than Samantha Bee.

(**) Politically tinged humor of their genre is virtually never funny, no matter who the target is. Unless you're Soviet Man or somesuch.
   718. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:24 AM (#5587870)
Right, Andy -- because every last thing in life is political

Grammer, like Alec Baldwin, is an enormous asshole.
   719. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5587872)
(**) Politically tinged humor of their genre

I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but which genre would you prefer?
   720. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5587874)
I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but which genre would you prefer?


The only point there is to make it clear that not every last piece of "political" humor is unfunny. Needless to say, the Two Minutes Hate, Brutalist style of recent vintage is positively dreadful.
   721. Ishmael Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5587875)
DaVoice of DaPeople, from last week’s thread, I'm sure you've seen that Trump has asked Saudi Arabia to end the blockade of Yemen.

I have directed officials in my administration to call the leadership of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to request that they completely allow food, fuel, water and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it. This must be done for humanitarian reasons immediately.

There’s nothing in there about whether the US will continue to support the Saudi led coalition if they don’t, but it’s a start.
   722. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:45 AM (#5587878)
Leftist-types and their media outlets often speculate as to why there's no leftish analogue to right-wing talk radio and why all the efforts to get them going fail -- but in point of fact, shows like Bee and Oliver are the Limbaugh shows of the left.
   723. Morty Causa Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:48 AM (#5587879)
Jolly Old,

You don't know who Kelsey Grammer is? Of course, I mostly know who him through Sideshow Bob, and filter everything he does, however fleeting my sampling of his other work is, through that personification. Is that wrong? Is he different on Fraiser?
   724. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 09:54 AM (#5587881)
Leftist-types and their media outlets often speculate as to why there's no leftish analogue to right-wing talk radio and why all the efforts to get them going fail -- but in point of fact, shows like Bee and Oliver are the Limbaugh shows of the left.

Oliver is on 30 minutes a week. Isn't Limbaugh on 3 or 4 hours a day? Great comparison.

   725. SteveF Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5587883)
I like Oliver's show. It's a good launching point for the average person to think about a particular topic, assuming you have a skeptical mind and a willingness to do some research.

Samantha Bee's show is significantly less useful.
   726. BrianBrianson Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:05 AM (#5587884)
but in point of fact, shows like Bee and Oliver are the Limbaugh shows of the left.


The analogy largely fails because Bee and Oliver are perfectly happy to take shots at leftist politicians. Rush Limbaugh doesn't run segments anything like this. They have biases - but are partisan only so far as their views align with a party.
   727. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:08 AM (#5587885)
Right, Andy -- because every last thing in life is political


I couldn't tell you what Peter Falk's politics were. And I've spent some time going down various rabbit holes reading about him.

Jack Lord appears to have been a staunch liberal.
   728. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:09 AM (#5587886)
I wonder if there’s anything California can do to prevent these fires from turning into raging infernos so often.
No, it's nature. Probably been going on for thousands, if not millions of years.

The better solution is for people to not live in a place God never intended people to live in.
   729. Hot Wheeling American Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5587887)
I like Oliver's show. It's a good launching point for the average person to think about a particular topic, assuming you have a skeptical mind and a willingness to do some research.

Samantha Bee's show is significantly less useful.

This is where I come out. I never cared for Oliver pre-HBO, but it's a good show that packs a lot into thirty minutes. He's got his tics and a specific cadence, but any comparison to Rush Limbaugh betrays a lack of seriousness (and, dare I say, a level of derangement) on the part of the one making the comparison.

I find Bee's show a tough watch, but my wife likes it and it's only once a week (and not every week), so I can manage.
   730. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5587888)
Now, Tina Fey -- that's an annoying woman. Had her nanny save a place in the supermarket line with nothing in her hands, a couple places in front of me, on a very busy Saturday afternoon while she continued shopping. Then she dropped into the line with her stuff as the nanny got to the cashier. Very bad form.


She has people is a woman of the people.

   731. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:12 AM (#5587890)
Leftist-types and their media outlets often speculate as to why there's no leftish analogue to right-wing talk radio and why all the efforts to get them going fail -- but in point of fact, shows like Bee and Oliver are the Limbaugh shows of the left.

Oliver is on 30 minutes a week. Isn't Limbaugh on 3 or 4 hours a day? Great comparison.


Yes, some are on tv every night. Others are on antiquated AM radio dials during the middle of the work day.
   732. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5587892)
Stewart, Oliver, Colbert, Bee, now Kimmel....... Leftists flock to these shows every bit as much as the right flocks to Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin/Ingraham.

The only difference is that the rightest entertainers don't hide that they're rightist while the leftist entertainers pretend they're "mainstream" and are presented in so-called "mainstream" outlets.

Folks on the left didn't like it when O'Reilly pretended to be an "independent" with "no spin."
   733. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:24 AM (#5587893)
The only difference is that the rightest entertainers don't hide that they're rightist while the leftist entertainers pretend they're "mainstream" and are presented in so-called "mainstream" outlets.


Nonsense, Dancing Monkey #3.
   734. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:28 AM (#5587895)
I had to look up Kelsey Grammer on Wiki, and after finding out that he's a Tea Party loving Republican whose first choice in 2016 was Ben Carson, I think I'm beginning to understand Ray's mancrush.


Also a secret cross-dresser, FWIW.
   735. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:31 AM (#5587897)
The only difference is that the rightest entertainers don't hide that they're rightist while the leftist entertainers pretend they're "mainstream" and are presented in so-called "mainstream" outlets.


For the majority of the country, Ray, leftist IS mainstream.

Also, there's kind of an important difference between someone generating primarily entertainment content with some political elements (e.g. Kimmel) and someone generating primary political content with some "entertaining" elements (e.g. Limbaugh).
   736. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:32 AM (#5587898)


Ray, what was the point of that Jack Lord clip? There was no political statements in it that would lead anyone to believe anything about his politics. None.

You really are an annoying troll, just like they say you are.

edit...either you're an annoying troll or a complete ####### moron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXm41pKQ9Bc in case he deletes it, this is the link about Jack Lord he provides...which supposedly shows Lord "appearing to be a staunch liberal". Don't waste 12 minutes of your life, like I did, because the link doesn't get political, at all. They have a luau. They talk about Lord as an artist (he painted). About Lord not marrying an actress ("Thank god!" he proclaims.)

#### you, Ray. Lying Ray. Lying Dancing Monkey #3.
   737. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:36 AM (#5587900)
Ray, what was the point of that Jack Lord clip? There was no political statements in it that would lead anyone to believe anything about his politics. None.

You really are an annoying troll, just like they say you are.


There are three parts to it; it's lengthy, so I don't expect anyone to watch it.

He's a peacenik. And note his comments on guns.

There's also an interesting discussion on Israel.
   738. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5587901)
Jolly Old,

You don't know who Kelsey Grammer is? Of course, I mostly know who him through Sideshow Bob, and filter everything he does, however fleeting my sampling of his other work is, through that personification. Is that wrong? Is he different on Fraiser?


Love Sideshow Bob, but the only non-HBO TV series I've ever watched more than once** since around the time of Sgt. Bilko have been Seinfeld and The Simpsons.*** And okay, if Kelsey Grammer was the voice of Sideshow Bob, I guess he can't be all bad.

** Because once was enough for shows like AITF, Cheers, Friends, and that one with Roseanne Barr

*** Two other exceptions: For awhile I was watching reruns of Cagney and Lacey, and when my wife used to watch Twitchy and Witchy (AKA Law and Order: Criminal Intent), I'd sometimes watch along out of curiosity. But network TV shows in general have to reach Seinfeld or Simpsons levels of excellence for me to be able to sit through those endless commercial interruptions more than once.
   739. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5587902)
Kelsey Grammer played the same character 470 times and it remains endlessly fresh and surprising to this day.


Looks like Grammer will have to play the character at least 471 times before Andy learns who he is.
   740. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:42 AM (#5587903)
There are three parts to it;


Then you're a troll, because you only linked to Part 1 (if there are 2 other parts to it).
   741. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5587905)
Love Sideshow Bob, but the only non-HBO TV series I've ever watched more than once** since around the time of Sgt. Bilko have been Seinfeld and The Simpsons.*** And okay, if Kelsey Grammer was the voice of Sideshow Bob, I guess he can't be all bad.


His character in the other two shows - both of which I like, though Cheers was far better than Frasier - is basically Sideshow Bob.
   742. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5587907)
I wonder if there’s anything California can do to prevent these fires from turning into raging infernos so often.


Cloud-seeding?
   743. Hot Wheeling American Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5587908)
   744. Hot Wheeling American Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:53 AM (#5587910)
   745. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:54 AM (#5587912)
I'll agree with SteveF. I think Oliver is quite funny and there are lots of times that he does have an interesting point, frequently that I disagree with. But his ratio is worse than Jon Stewart's (I also enjoyed his show) and there are occasionally topics that him (and his staff obviously) hit quite shallowly.

Bee, on the other hand, is really stretched even in one show a week. She's easily best in very small doses, like when she was a correspondent on a better show, but like pancakes, she gets exhausting very quickly. She just goes over the self-righteous/comedy line more than I care for. And it pains me to say this as I know several people working on her show.

Haven't listened to Limbaugh in years. His schtick worked better in the days there really was little media that wasn't essentially the leftish, white limousine liberal, point-of-view. Many of the large legacy outlets are left-of-center, but there are a lot of places to see, listen to, or read other opinions out there to really worry all that much.
   746. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:54 AM (#5587913)
And okay, if Kelsey Grammer was the voice of Sideshow Bob, I guess he can't be all bad.


Of course not! After all, he speaks German...
   747. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:54 AM (#5587914)
Then you're a troll, because you only linked to Part 1 (if there are 2 other parts to it).


Yes, the "troll" here is the one who linked to something substantive, while the Serious Person is the one who keeps wandering through the town square mumbling incoherently about dancing monkeys.
   748. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5587915)
700

Kelsey Grammer played the same character 470 times and it remains endlessly fresh and surprising to this day.


Notable exception being the classic Down Periscope...
   749. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5587919)
I brought his name up n the first place and qualified that I had no reason to believe he was under consideration for appointment. I wouldn’t expect him to run. Just curious, Mouse, are you in Ellison’s district?


Sorry for the delay - I spent the morning getting my marriage license. Anyway, nope I live just to the right* of Ellison's district (5th) in Betty McCollum's district (4th). I have plenty of far left (Bernie is conservative for their tastes) who like him well enough, for a Democrat.

I have not heard anything about him wanting to be a Senator. Despite some here's fever imaginings he has done a fine job and is well enough liked in MN. He is a pretty good politician. He would have a solid chance of winning the nomination, and if he won that the general if he did run, but still a solid chance is under 50% to win the primary (depending on who ran against him).

* Both politically and directional when the map is up/north.
   750. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:07 AM (#5587920)
EDIT: Post deleted. reading is funformentals...
   751. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:13 AM (#5587925)
It's a good launching point for the average person to think about a particular topic, assuming you have a skeptical mind and a willingness to do some research.

The problem with Oliver is that he doesn't really present any thing close to an objective perspective. Over the past few years there have been segments on subjects where I know a fair amount and I've been very disappointed with how he frames the issue. He overgeneralizes using one or two anecdotes that are not necessarily representative. Moreover, he summarizes based on journalism interpretation of research, which is highly problematic.

His segments are occasionally funny, but often ill-informed. He's a lot closer to some assclown like Rush or Hannity than he is 60 Minutes. But too many of his viewers think that they're watching a funnier, hipper version of an actual news magazine.

I haven't watched Bee enough to have as well-formed an opinion, but my initial impression was that she was basically doing the same thing. Only with less capable writers.
   752. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5587926)
My spidey sense is telling me that Travolta is next. Lionsgate, the studio set to release his Gotti film, dropped it from its schedule just 10 days ahead of its release date.

Travolta, for his part, says that this is "bordering on fake news" and that he begged them to drop it so that he could go for wider release.

There have been some stories about Travolta in the past and my guess (total speculation; I have zero evidence) is that we're going to see a Kevin Spacey Light depiction of him emerge.
   753. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5587927)
Bee, on the other hand, is really stretched even in one show a week. She's easily best in very small doses, like when she was a correspondent on a better show, but like pancakes, she gets exhausting very quickly. She just goes over the self-righteous/comedy line more than I care for. And it pains me to say this as I know several people working on her show.


Her yelling and gesticulating at the camera against a backdrop of an enemy national politician must sound better in the original Russian.
   754. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:16 AM (#5587928)
751

I haven't watched Bee enough to have as well-formed an opinion, but my initial impression was that she was basically doing the same thing. Only with less capable writers.


...and she really needs to switch to decaf.
   755. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5587929)
I'd also bet -- total speculation -- on Al Gore as well. He has one or two shady encounters in his past already.
   756. Hot Wheeling American Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5587930)
must sound better in the original Russian

betrays a lack of seriousness (and, dare I say, a level of derangement)
   757. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5587932)
My spidey sense is telling me that Travolta is next. Lionsgate, the studio set to release his Gotti film, dropped it from its schedule just 10 days ahead of its release date.

Travolta, for his part, says that this is "bordering on fake news" and that he begged them to drop it so that he could go for wider release.

There have been some stories about Travolta in the past and my guess (total speculation; I have zero evidence) is that we're going to see a Kevin Spacey Light depiction of him emerge.


The letters to the editor in today's Times about Levine were very good.(*) People are starting to push back against the hysteria and the disappearing of artists.

Gerry Studds came up yesterday and warrants further commentary. It pretty much goes without saying that the descent from the environment in which he was censured, said flat out the page was an adult and it was a consensual affair, and the electorate assessed and returned him to office to ... today's neo-Puritanism ... doesn't represent improvement or "progress," but instead devolution.

(*) One:

To the Editor:

Re “Met Suspends Top Conductor in Sex Inquiry” (front page, Dec. 4):

I have heard James Levine conduct over 200 times at the Metropolitan Opera since 1976. He is a musical genius and has created one of the greatest opera orchestras in the world. These facts are incontestable.

The tragedy here is that Mr. Levine is now being publicly disgraced because of accusations that he preyed on male teenagers more than 30 years ago.

Such conduct cannot be condoned, but should Mr. Levine now, at this late stage in his career, be dismissed after what he has given the world through his musical artistry?

The Met must have known for a very long time about allegations of Mr. Levine’s sexual misconduct; it was also never a secret among seasoned operagoers. But the psychological scars it has left upon his accusers will unfortunately never be erased.

And whatever happens to Mr. Levine, his accomplishments will not be forgotten.


Two:

James Levine may well be a sinner, but I am less shocked by his sins than by how we instantly throw overboard people who, in the course of their long careers, have made such immense contributions to the world of music and society.


Three:

Anthony Tommasini’s article, asking whether he should remove his James Levine recordings because of the allegations of sexual assault, raises a couple of interesting questions. One is whether we can or should separate the work of the artist from the human being.

Should we poke around in the closets of all artists and approve only the works of those who are squeaky clean? Spoiler alert: We’ll be left with nothing. (As the Apostle Paul writes, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”)

Second, in trashing Mr. Levine’s records, we’re trashing not just Mr. Levine, but also the work of the individual performers he’s conducting. Should their work also be banished in a sort of guilt by association? And as a society, are we not depriving ourselves of something beautiful because a flawed human being produced it?


Four:

Anthony Tommasini’s article quotes a 1998 interview in which James Levine had asked, in effect, how good one has to “before you are given a pass to keep your private life private?” “As we now know,” Mr. Tommasini continues, “he should never have gotten such a pass.”

As we now know? Talk about trial by newspaper! What we “know” is that Mr. Levine has been accused of sexual misconduct by several men. The accusations are serious and troubling. But they are just that — accusations — and we “know” that accusations are sometimes inaccurate. We do not “know” whether they are true or false in this case, and we do not know whether Mr. Levine’s conduct crossed the line separating the obnoxious or crude from the immoral and unpardonable.

In short, we don’t “know” what, if anything, transpired between Mr. Levine and his accusers, and it is deeply unfair of Mr. Tommasini to suggest otherwise.


All from coastal types, not flyover country.
   758. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5587934)
The problem with Oliver is that he doesn't really present any thing close to an objective perspective. Over the past few years there have been segments on subjects where I know a fair amount and I've been very disappointed with how he frames the issue. He overgeneralizes using one or two anecdotes that are not necessarily representative. Moreover, he summarizes based on journalism interpretation of research, which is highly problematic.


Someone like Sam Harris can actually get into the issues intelligently, as he's informed about them and has thought a long time about them.

John Oliver, from what I've seen, is all surface. He thinks standing on a moral soap box and asking Hard Hitting Questions in an inappropriate forum so that he belittles his guest is a substitute for actually thinking about an issue. That came through in his Hoffman dustup. Hoffman was trying to put it into the context of 40 years ago and everyone is on the set 16 hours a day and they're clowning around and making dirty comments to each other -- the actors *and* the crew -- and now Oliver is taking one comment from Hoffman that came out of all of that and ignoring the context and crucifying him for it decades later and particularly after a sea change has occurred over the past two months.

It's frankly disgusting behavior on Oliver's part, and betrays a fundamental lack of objectivity and knowledge about the subject, as well as the inability to think intelligently about it. Oliver has no shame. He's just there to show you how much Better than Hoffman he is.
   759. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5587935)
There have been some stories about Travolta in the past and my guess (total speculation; I have zero evidence) is that we're going to see a Kevin Spacey Light depiction of him emerge.


There have been a lot of whispered stories in the past about him signing up for massages and trying to talk the masseur into a rub-and-tug, that sort of thing.
   760. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5587936)
That came through in his Hoffman dustup. Hoffman was trying to put it into the context of 40 years ago and everyone is on the set 16 hours a day and they're clowning around and making dirty comments to each other -- the actors *and* the crew -- and now Oliver is taking one comment from Hoffman that came out of all of that and ignoring the context and crucifying him for it decades later and particularly after a sea change has occurred over the past two months.

It's frankly disgusting behavior on Oliver's part, and betrays a fundamental lack of objectivity and knowledge about the subject, as well as the inability to think intelligently about it. Oliver has no shame. He's just there to show you how much Better than Hoffman he is.


Hoffman should have just gotten up and walked out, thanked the audience, and grabbed a sandwich. Oliver's behavior desecrated the Y.
   761. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:30 AM (#5587937)
The problem with Oliver is that he doesn't really present any thing close to an objective perspective. Over the past few years there have been segments on subjects where I know a fair amount and I've been very disappointed with how he frames the issue. He overgeneralizes using one or two anecdotes that are not necessarily representative. Moreover, he summarizes based on journalism interpretation of research, which is highly problematic.

His segments are occasionally funny, but often ill-informed. He's a lot closer to some assclown like Rush or Hannity than he is 60 Minutes. But too many of his viewers think that they're watching a funnier, hipper version of an actual news magazine.


I seriously doubt if Oliver's audience (and I'm a big fan of his) is seeing him as much more than a first rate politically liberal comedian who gives them nuggets of information along with his rapid-fire and visually supplemented sarcasm. Obviously the hardcore Trump voter is going to view him less favorably than they view a certain candidate who preys on 14-year old girls.

And I realize that this is a subjective call, but Limbaugh and Hannity are basically lying trolls, while Oliver is nothing of the sort. He's in a completely different category than right wing talk radio or 60 minutes, although that grilling he gave to Dustin Hoffman the other night would've fit quite nicely into the non-celebrity suckup version of the Mike Wallace tradition.
   762. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5587939)
This is why I predict Al Gore will be next.

Plus, the late in life divorce.

Traveling around the world lecturing on silly topics, city to city, hotel to hotel, bathrobe to bathrobe, masseuse to masseuse, never doing any actual work but just raking in money by the truck load.

Same with Lauer. These people have no actual talents. At least Louis CK produced something. Lauer was a good "interviewer." Which does take skill but it's not anything wide swathes of the population couldn't do.
   763. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5587940)
And I realize that this is a subjective call, but Limbaugh and Hannity are basically lying trolls, while Oliver is nothing of the sort. He's in a completely different category than right wing talk radio or 60 minutes, although that grilling he gave to Dustin Hoffman the other night would've fit quite nicely into the non-celebrity suckup version of the Mike Wallace tradition.


You mean the loutish and harpy-ish and judgmental know-nothing jackassery he aimed at Hoffman in a civilized public forum?
   764. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5587941)
John Oliver, from what I've seen, is all surface. He thinks standing on a moral soap box and asking Hard Hitting Questions in an inappropriate forum so that he belittles his guest is a substitute for actually thinking about an issue. That came through in his Hoffman dustup. Hoffman was trying to put it into the context of 40 years ago and everyone is on the set 16 hours a day and they're clowning around and making dirty comments to each other -- the actors *and* the crew -- and now Oliver is taking one comment from Hoffman that came out of all of that and ignoring the context and crucifying him for it decades later and particularly after a sea change has occurred over the past two months.

To clarify, my comments about Oliver in #761 were about his Sunday night HBO Last Night show, not about anything else he does. I saw enough of that Hoffman interview to be turned off by it myself, but then I was never much of a fan of Mike Wallace, either.
   765. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:35 AM (#5587942)
According to Deadline, Oliver questioned the validity of Hoffman’s official response to the alleged harassment, a statement in which the actor said of his behavior: “It is not reflective of who I am.” Remarked Oliver, “It’s that part of the response to this stuff that pisses me off. It is reflective of who you were. You’ve given no evidence to show that it didn’t happen. There was a period of time when you were creeping around women. It feels like a cop-out to say, ‘Well, this isn’t me.’ Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?”‘


LOL. What a tosser. Does anyone other than the wildly maladjusted give a single #### whether Dustin Hoffman's remarks "pissed off" John Oliver? Who talks that way in public in front of an audience to another person?

#### that jagoff. Is his green card in order?

   766. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:38 AM (#5587943)
that grilling he gave to Dustin Hoffman the other night would've fit quite nicely into the non-celebrity suckup version of the Mike Wallace tradition.


Do you mean...to sit there...and tell me...?
   767. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:43 AM (#5587946)
that grilling he gave to Dustin Hoffman the other night would've fit quite nicely into the non-celebrity suckup version of the Mike Wallace tradition.

Do you mean...to sit there...and tell me...?


Yeah, exactly that, and that's what put me off about Oliver in that interview, and about Wallace's whole schtick. There are plenty of ways for an interviewer to make a moral point about even the lowest of scumbags without trying to play the part of a District Attorney at a criminal trial.
   768. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5587947)
The letters to the editor in today's Times about Levine were very good.(*)

The ones you quoted aren't. #1 is basically "He was a great conductor, so who cares what he did?"
   769. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5587949)
The ones you quoted aren't.


Yeah, they are. They all evince a mature and adult perspective on the matter. Quite good indeed.

And of course, you completely mischaracterize #1. It isn't "basically" anything like you said it was and there wasn't even a hint of "who cares what he did?" anywhere in it.

Here's a hint: If you have to completely mischaracterize people's statements to make your arguments, your arguments quite likely aren't very good.
   770. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5587950)
I'll agree with SteveF. I think Oliver is quite funny and there are lots of times that he does have an interesting point, frequently that I disagree with. But his ratio is worse than Jon Stewart's (I also enjoyed his show) and there are occasionally topics that him (and his staff obviously) hit quite shallowly.
Stewart was funny for a very long time, but (and I've noted this before), he was funny because he realized that his real target was the media rather than the stories they covered. (Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't mock politicians and celebrities, but that wasn't the focus of the show.).

Plus, Stewart rarely tried to get into the nitty-gritty of policy, which was good. Oliver, from what I've occasionally seen - I don't watch him regularly -- pretends to delve into the details. But he's a comedian, not a wonk.
   771. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:49 AM (#5587953)
Yeah, exactly that, and that's what put me off about Oliver in that interview, and about Wallace's whole schtick. There are plenty of ways for an interviewer to make a moral point about even the lowest of scumbags without trying to play the part of a District Attorney at a criminal trial.


Ever see any clips of his old, pre-60 Minutes show, Nightbeat?

That was brutal.
   772. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5587956)
There have been a lot of whispered stories in the past about him signing up for massages and trying to talk the masseur into a rub-and-tug, that sort of thing.

I have a family member who worked at the Pebble Beach spa when he got banned for exactly that sort of thing around the turn of the century.
   773. BrianBrianson Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:53 AM (#5587957)
If recent history has taught me anything, it's those that feel the need to defend the harassers and abusers from people being rude to them about it, or hurting their delicate feelings, who're likely to be next to be outed.
   774. Greg K Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:57 AM (#5587959)
Oliver's value is less in the actual wonky discussion he provides, but in suggesting that certain topics are even worth knowing anything about.

So, the car financing industry, or net neutrality, civil asset forfeiture, or special purpose districts.

I'm sure Oliver gives a vastly over-simplified reading on those topics, mashing them into a 15 minute talk where landing a few jokes and providing his own ideological take elbows out depth of analysis as priorities.

Ideally, that serves as a jumping-off point to actually following up on these issues as something a politically engaged person should care about. Though, I tend to read the best possible construction of people's actions. I'm sure in reality the take of most viewers is "now I know everything I need to know about net neutrality, and luckily enough it reinforces most of my existing beliefs!"
   775. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:59 AM (#5587960)
Ideally, that serves as a jumping-off point to actually following up on these issues as something a politically engaged person should care about.


Except that no one ever jumps off. They just stay reductionist and binary and stupid and clownish. The ideal is imaginary.

Oliver is just a Twitter harpy who harpies on TV (*) every now and then.

(*) And unfortunately, places like the great 92nd Street Y. Hopefully, he's unwelcome there now -- but not holding my breath.
   776. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:00 PM (#5587961)
Yeah, exactly that, and that's what put me off about Oliver in that interview, and about Wallace's whole schtick. There are plenty of ways for an interviewer to make a moral point about even the lowest of scumbags without trying to play the part of a District Attorney at a criminal trial.

Ever see any clips of his old, pre-60 Minutes show, Nightbeat?

That was brutal.


Indeed they were, and of course being an ancient geezer, reading about Nightbeat** was my introduction to Wallace, a full decade or so before 60 Minutes came along. IIRC there was a brutal parody of that show that appeared at one point in MAD, but I'd need Gonfalon to do a tracer on that.

** Wallace's performances there were every bit as much the subject of newspaper discussion as any TV show is today. I never actually saw any of those shows until they started appearing on YouTube.
   777. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5587962)
The fierce Santa Ana winds that have driven massive wildfires in Southern California could get even stronger Thursday, officials warned, as four fires near Los Angeles grew to engulf more than 115,000 acres.

Forecasters are predicting wind gusts of up to 80 mph, likely grounding helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that can drop water on the blazes.

"The forecast for [Thursday] is purple," Ken Pimlott, director at the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said last night, referring to the only color above red on the wind scale. "We've never used purple before."


NPR

EDIT

From CNN:


Officials say they will see a "recipe for explosive fire growth" and an unprecedented fire danger score. According to the Los Angeles Fire Department, experts grade fire danger by measuring the moisture in dead vegetation, the temperature, wind speed and direction, and then assessing historical weather information.

A value of 48 is considered high danger, while 162 is extreme. Thursday's score: 296, a record.
   778. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5587964)
I spent the morning getting my marriage license


Congrats!
   779. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:05 PM (#5587965)
Franken out of the Senate, Roy Moore soon to be in.

Nice work, "liberals."
   780. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:05 PM (#5587966)
It isn't "basically" anything like you said it was and there wasn't even a hint of "who cares what he did?" anywhere in it.


Offer me your sane and adult interpretation of this statement:

Such conduct cannot be condoned, but should Mr. Levine now, at this late stage in his career, be dismissed after what he has given the world through his musical artistry??
   781. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5587969)
Offer me your sane and adult interpretation of this statement:


"Such conduct cannot be condoned."

And in another place in the letter:

"But the psychological scars it has left upon his accusers will unfortunately never be erased."

Hardly the "who cares?" of your fantasies.

The fundamental error of you and yours is pretending everyone who doesn't want to fully subscribe to and join in your witch hunt, "doesn't care." But the point remains that adults were able to and very much did watch things like Roman Polanski's movies for decades, in full possession of their sanity and faculties -- and without remotely condoning anything he'd done in his private life.

That was the normal time. This is the abnormal time.

   782. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5587970)
Congrats!


Thanks. Weirdly the only place to get such is in downtown St. Paul, in a largely unmarked building, except for the clinic in the building. So we wandered around looking for the building until cold drove us inside to ask. Oh well, hopefully I never have to go there again.
   783. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5587971)
Gerry Studds came up yesterday and warrants further commentary.


Because you brought him up...

But that's OK - because I'm also disappointed we didn't get more discussion on Tales of the Gold Monkey, so go ahead and bring him up again.... because while I'll admit the chances are slim it ever gets resurrected; two of the starring actors being dead and all - I still haven't given up hope that there's a groundswell of support just waiting for someone to tap and lead it.
   784. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5587973)
776

IIRC there was a brutal parody of that show that appeared at one point in MAD


The folks at Warner Bros. cartoons found it worthy of parody as well (calling the short Nightseat and having a Wallace-like interviewer/host cast in shadow.)
   785. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:13 PM (#5587974)
"Such conduct cannot be condoned." And in another place in the letter: "But the psychological scars it has left upon his accusers will unfortunately never be erased."
Hardly the "who cares?" of your fantasies.The fundamental error of you and yours is pretending everyone who doesn't want to fully subscribe to and join in your witch hunt, "doesn't care."


You can easily note that I left in "Such conduct cannot be condoned", as I'm less dishonest than you.

You, on the other hand, completely and totally ignored what I actually asked you about and quoted, the bolded portion.

Try again.
   786. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:14 PM (#5587975)
Why did you completely and totally ignore what I actually asked you about, the bolded portion?


Because you said the guy had a "who cares?" attitude about what happened and that was completely false. I never disagreed that he also said Levine was a worthy artist.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your ... cough ... philosophy.
   787. PepTech Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5587976)
but should Mr. Levine now, at this late stage in his career, be dismissed after what he has given the world through his musical artistry??
"Who cares" might be a bit extreme, but that quote has more than a hint of willingness to let bygones be bygones. The "cannot be condoned" and "psychological scars" quotes indicate the writer is conflicted, at least, which is something. But the "should he be dismissed??" implies the writer is at least considering a Moore job.
   788. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:16 PM (#5587977)
The tragedy here is that Mr. Levine is now being publicly disgraced because of accusations that he preyed on male teenagers more than 30 years ago.

Such conduct cannot be condoned, but should Mr. Levine now, at this late stage in his career, be dismissed after what he has given the world through his musical artistry?


Nobody is dismissing his talent as a conductor, but his offenses are what they are. Every prison in the world has among its inmates talented people who let their baser instincts get in the way of capitalizing on those talents.

Actions have consequences. That's just life. If Levine wasn't prepared to deal with those consequences, he shouldn't have molested his students. It's not like nobody knew in the '70s and '80s that you shouldn't diddle kids.
   789. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:19 PM (#5587978)
Nobody is dismissing his talent as a conductor,


Um, yeah they are -- the NYT music critic is speculating aloud about throwing away his Met recordings. And of course people like CK and Spacey have been disappeared.

Actions have consequences. That's just life.


Thanks for the insight, Robespierre. How very deep.
   790. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5587979)
I spent the morning getting my marriage license


Mnohaya lita!
   791. Lassus Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5587981)
"Who cares" might be a bit extreme, but that quote has more than a hint of willingness to let bygones be bygones. The "cannot be condoned" and "psychological scars" quotes indicate the writer is conflicted, at least, which is something. But the "should he be dismissed??" implies the writer is at least considering a Moore job.

I would consider this correct regarding both what I said and the letter-writer said.
   792. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5587982)
Thanks for the insight, Robespierre. How very deep.


You don't need to be all that deep to understand "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
   793. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5587983)
You don't need to be all that deep to understand "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."


Or to understand that no one's said a word about him doing time -- so you must not be very deep.

Another hint: If you have to keep moving the goalposts to make your argument, you're argument typically isn't very strong.
   794. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5587985)
You don't need to be all that deep to understand "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."


And still too deep for the shallow end.
   795. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:29 PM (#5587987)
And of course people like CK and Spacey have been disappeared.


You can acknowledge a person's talent and still choose not to work with them for personal reasons. Nothing at all wrong with that. David O. Russell is a talented director, and there have been times when he had trouble getting work because he's a gigantic #######. The same principle is at work here.

Similarly, you can be talented and not bankable for whatever reason. William H. Macy is a great actor, but you don't see him heading many summer tentpole popcorn flicks. As long as Hollywood is operated as a capitalist enterprise, studios are going to go where the money is, and right now it isn't with projects associated with creepy pervs or child molesters.
   796. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5587990)
Or to understand that no one's said a word about him doing time -- so you must not be very deep.


You don't need to be all that deep to understand metaphors, either. But if you can't operate on that level, I can explain with terms suitable for a toddler, instead.

Another hint: If you have to keep moving the goalposts to make your argument, you're argument typically isn't very strong.


I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever tempted to do so.
   797. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5587991)
776

IIRC there was a brutal parody of that show that appeared at one point in MAD

The folks at Warner Bros. cartoons found it worthy of parody as well (calling the short Nightseat and having a Wallace-like interviewer/host cast in shadow.)


I just spent a futile few minutes trying to find that cartoon on YouTube, and if anyone can better crack the Google code, I'd love to see it.
   798. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5587992)
I've seen posted recently: don't lament the loss of talent of the harassers who've been outed; lament the talented women we never saw because the toxic environment that kept them away. The current movement is long overdue and we'll be better for it.
   799. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5588001)
I've seen posted recently: don't lament the loss of talent of the harassers who've been outed; lament the talented women we never saw because the toxic environment that kept them away.


LOL. Louis CK was only on TV because the "toxic environment" -- that you don't actually have the first clue about -- kept people more talented than him away.

Sure.
   800. PepTech Posted: December 07, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5588002)
flip
Page 8 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAlan Trammell worthy of Cooperstown call
(24 - 7:30pm, Dec 10)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogRosenthal: He’s 53 and hasn’t played in the majors since 2005, but Rafael Palmeiro is eyeing a comeback, and redemption – The Athletic
(93 - 7:26pm, Dec 10)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOTP 04 December 2017: Baseball group accused of ‘united front’ tactics
(1673 - 7:24pm, Dec 10)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(324 - 7:15pm, Dec 10)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1895 - 7:03pm, Dec 10)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogThe Giancarlo Stanton Trade Shines a Light on the Sad Difference Between the Mets and Yankees
(25 - 6:54pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogYankees in talks on Giancarlo Stanton trade
(182 - 5:33pm, Dec 10)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogShohei Ohtani agrees to deal with Angels | Los Angeles Angels
(55 - 4:51pm, Dec 10)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(313 - 4:40pm, Dec 10)
Last: bachslunch

NewsblogShohei Ohtani’s Value Has No Precedent | FiveThirtyEight
(19 - 4:31pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(296 - 4:03pm, Dec 10)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(288 - 1:16pm, Dec 10)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogIf Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer, Johan Santana Is Too
(46 - 12:40pm, Dec 10)
Last: karlmagnus

NewsblogMariners Acquire Gordon As Marlins Pick Up Trio Of Prospects | BaseballAmerica.com
(58 - 9:16am, Dec 10)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBill Liningston's HOF Article
(24 - 8:47am, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.6219 seconds
47 querie(s) executed