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

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Sad news coming soon

A prominent Valley resident died today, but it remains a mystery who the person is.
Phoenix police said they were called to a northeast Phoenix home for a call of an unknown death and discovered a person dead and alone.
Police said the prominent person has two young children who are away at camp, and until the kids are notified, the person’s name won’t be released.
No foul play is suspected, police said, but authorities are investigating the death since the person was alone. The cause of death will be determined by the medical examiner.

This is a baseball death and I know who it is, but it wouldn’t be right to release the name before his kids know.

Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 11:24 AM | 214 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: obituaries, rumors

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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2415399)
But, to answer your question, I posted the story to pass info that people here would want to know and would discuss.

But you have to realize the only info you passed along was that someone with some connection to baseball died. It's silly, or perhaps just grandstanding, to pretend that in and of itself is going to lead to a useful and productive exchange isn't it? People would want to 'know' that someone died, but not who? I guess I don't think that is really the case, either, by itself.

To each their own, I guess.
   102. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2415409)
North Side, re-read that exchange.

I realize that. I thought that people might like that link too.
   103. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2415420)
Honest question: Say I posted the same story, with the crucial difference the police said it was a baseball player. The same speculation ensues. Am I at fault?
   104. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2415421)
Posting this story, with the addition that "This is a baseball death and I know who it is," is coyly dropping hints. That's what people are objecting to. Either don't post anything (correct choice) or wait until everything's been made public and post that (also correct choice).

Or, just post and reveal the player's name.
   105. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2415423)
Or, just post and reveal the player's name.
And when people demand proof, I say what?
   106. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2415425)
Honest question: Say I posted the same story, with the crucial difference the police said it was a baseball player. The same speculation ensues. Am I at fault?

Do you think that thread, with that information, would lead to a useful discussion of something? I don't.

That's putting aside that it would be surprising if the police gave out that precise set of information.
   107. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:34 PM (#2415427)
And when people demand proof, I say what?

Say that it is coming, or reveal the information about the block number and the player who is listed at that address.

If you are worried about posting without proof, why post at all?
   108. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2415433)
BTW, you don't have proof even of what you did post. You have second-hand info from a reporter (according to you) and the fact is reporters get things wrong sometimes, too.

I mean, whatever...if you properly caveat things and accurately describe sources I don't have an issue with speculative stuff if it can possibly go somewhere useful. But I really just don't see what your objective was here, or your thought process. I should just stick with 'to each their own' I guess.
   109. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:38 PM (#2415439)
Do you think that thread, with that information, would lead to a useful discussion of something? I don't.
Are you serious? If news breaks that the police are investigating the death of a baseball player, you wouldn't think it worthy of a post?
As for useful discussions, are you blaming the Primates for not living up to you ideals, Mr. High Standards? They'll talk about what they want when they want, and they may not want you tut-tutting over appropriateness.

That's putting aside that it would be surprising if the police gave out that precise set of information.
Not the point. Information is information. Why should the source matter?
   110. wcw Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:40 PM (#2415445)
Blah, blah. Two seconds with Google will tell you who this is. It's not a big secret, but you might as well play along 'til the news is out and shut yer yaps about the for of the post.

As an erstwhile fan (also in SF, and also despite the heart attacks induced), I'm sad. He always struck me as the kind of guy you could hang out with for an hour sometime, and certainly had his moments on the mound. And what a haircut!

But clean living, not so much.
   111. Tony H. Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:41 PM (#2415453)
I just question what you were trying to accomplish with this post. You obviously didn't think it was right for the name to be revealed, or you would have done so yourself. So what were you hoping/expecting the comments to look like? What discussion were you trying to provoke?
   112. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2415456)
I just question what you were trying to accomplish with this post.
To pass along information.
   113. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2415457)
I haven't commented on the appropriateness of what anyone said in the thread, though, just on the strangeness of starting it and withholding info as you did. Suggesting that the issue is people 'tut tutting' over appropriateness shows a real lack of understanding of what has been said in the thread.

You are the one who asked whether it would make a difference if the info came from the police, not I...so you should be asking yourself why you think the source matters because I have not claimed it does.
   114. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:43 PM (#2415460)
I am hearing that ESPNNews has reported this - did anyone see?
   115. JH (in DC) Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2415468)
I am hearing that ESPNNews has reported this - did anyone see?


I just looked, it's their "Breaking News" on the scroll now.
   116. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:45 PM (#2415472)
You are the one who asked whether it would make a difference if the info came from the police, not I.
The question wasn't directed at you, but to the board.
   117. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:45 PM (#2415473)
Everyone is free to disagree with being posted. However, Gold Star has proven himself on the site to be friendly, courteous, and informative. I trust his posting this came from the right place, so lay off the moralizing, please.
   118. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2415476)
I just looked, it's their "Breaking News" on the scroll now.
There you have it.
   119. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:47 PM (#2415480)
Thanks, Wale.
   120. shoewizard Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2415485)
Question:

Did any of the people criticizing GSfRB for posting this thread spend any time at all trying to figure out who it was? If you did, then just give it a rest. If you didn't, fine, then flame away. I just think everyone should just give it a rest. What difference does it make what his motives were?

Just thinking about his kids, and imagining my own son being away at camp, and having someone pull him away from whatever fun activity he was involved in to tell him his dad died, and what a crushing blow that would be, breaks my heart and makes me want to cry.
   121. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2415488)
Post 118:

There is nothing inappropriate by folks providing constructive criticism. It helps maintain the proper balance here at BBTF.

"Because I said so" may be acceptable as a response from a parent to their three year old. It is insufficient for the denizens of BBTF.
   122. TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2415492)
I agree with Walewander; I think GSFRB is a pretty solid poster. But I still don't know why this was posted. "To pass along information"? But no relevant information was provided. It's not baseball news if it's "some unspecified person in Arizona" died. It's just not.
   123. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2415495)
There you have it.

I definitely believed you. And I wasn't moralizing at all.

Did you post this thinking that people would figure it out? That is a good enough reason, I suppose.
   124. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2415498)
Whoever has the keys and clears threads for posting, what's their culpability in this?
   125. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2415501)
BTW, RIP Rod Beck. We loved you in SF.
   126. Jeff K. Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2415502)
How about people take responsibility for their own posts? GSfRB posted the story (and besides, don't those go through a review process?) Those who actually guessed are the ones responsible for the guessing, I suppose myself included.
   127. Tony H. Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2415504)
Everyone is free to disagree with being posted. However, Gold Star has proven himself on the site to be friendly, courteous, and informative. I trust his posting this came from the right place, so lay off the moralizing, please.


Are you suggesting that the rest of us have not proven those things, or that it is simply impossible to honestly and friendly offer constructive criticism/question why people did certain things?

Seriously, I disagree with people I respect all the time; that doesn't make it "moralizing."
   128. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2415506)
As a brief follow up, I am not questioning or even discussing the poster's motives. Just that other posters shouldn't be told to "hush" when they voice a legitimate concern.

Though I find said poster's unwillingness to even consider the possibility of an alternative view on this matter somewhat disappointing. As someone a tad closer to the Grim Reaper than most, I found the situation somewhat ghoulish and can certainly understand an individual saying, "Hey, wait a minute".
   129. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2415507)
Did you post this thinking that people would figure it out? That is a good enough reason, I suppose.
Actually, what people did with the info never entered into my decision.
   130. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2415510)
id any of the people criticizing GSfRB for posting this thread spend any time at all trying to figure out who it was? If you did, then just give it a rest

You are missing the primary point of criticism, though.

I haven't read many people saying "it's wrong to speculate on someone dying" which would be a comment your thoughts certainly respond to. Someone can't really say "I don't think it's our business" and then try to figure out who it is, I don't think.

What people are asking is different, and it's what the purpose of posting only part of the story is when more is known and there's a high probability that the response to posting only part of a story will be thrashing around and naming other people.
   131. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2415511)
Whoever has the keys and clears threads for posting, what's their culpability in this?


I would say that person is fully culpable, as they are the gatekeepers here.
   132. Tony H. Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2415516)

Did any of the people criticizing GSfRB for posting this thread spend any time at all trying to figure out who it was? If you did, then just give it a rest.


Posting the information on a public forum (or posting fragments of information that would lead to the information being publicly displayed) is quite different than simply looking up the information for oneself, IMO.
   133. The Artist Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2415521)
BTW, RIP Rod Beck. We loved you in SF.


Amen. That mullet and mustache will live on forever.
   134. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2415525)
No, Harvey, I have spent all morning considering the alternative view. But re-read what was posted before my entrance at 9:03 a.m. MST:

These things apparently serve only to gratify the person who says "ohh.. I know but I can't tell you... but I know.. did I mention that I know? And you don't?"
So I'm a show-off.

And how does this poster know who it is? That's even creepier.
Creepy, too.

We are all worse off now than before this thread started, even the children.
Why didn't I think of the children?

It's asinine to give the amount of info they gave without giving the name, and it most certainly doesn't reflect human decency
And I commit crimes against humanity.

Harvey, please tell us all why I should be feeling charitable toward these detractors?
   135. shoewizard Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2415527)
What people are asking is different, and it's what the purpose of posting only part of the story is when more is known and there's a high probability that the response to posting only part of a story will be thrashing around and naming other people.

Fair enough. That is a valid criticism. Certainly tossing out random names in speculation on this was not a highlight for BTF.
   136. Jeff K. Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2415530)
and there's a high probability that the response to posting only part of a story will be thrashing around and naming other people

What's so wrong with that? Jesus, this isn't the Algonquin Roundtable.
   137. McCoy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2415534)
Someone died, it was a baseball player, I know, I'm not telling you who, but I will tell you a baseball player died and that I know.

So why should we feel charitable?
   138. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:01 PM (#2415536)
I haven't commented on the appropriateness of what anyone said in the thread...
pkb, Nos. 3 and 4 came from you. So your denial is flat #### wrong.
   139. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2415543)
What's so wrong with that? Jesus, this isn't the Algonquin Roundtable.

The question to ask isn't what's wrong with that, it's why requesting that response is better than just giving the info in the first place, or just waiting for the story to develop sufficiently so that you could link to more information.
   140. Dudefella Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2415544)
Everyone is free to disagree with being posted. However, Gold Star has proven himself on the site to be friendly, courteous, and informative. I trust his posting this came from the right place, so lay off the moralizing, please.


I'm sure he is, and I don't believe I ever questioned his motives, either explicitly or impliedly. That said - and for the second time - I don't believe that this is about morals or ethics, merely about poor timing in making a post that will naturally lead to pointless speculation.

Question:

Did any of the people criticizing GSfRB for posting this thread spend any time at all trying to figure out who it was? If you did, then just give it a rest. If you didn't, fine, then flame away.


I'm not sure how your argument follows.
   141. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2415545)
Someone died, it was a baseball player, I know, I'm not telling you who, but I will tell you a baseball player died and that I know.
And you just had to know who, NOW. But because you didn't, and I did, you couldn't live with that affront, apparently.
   142. McCoy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2415546)
Also by the way names were not bandied about. I'm the only one who named names I believe and I did it to make the point I was talking about in the post above the naming of names.

Lots of ballplayers live in the Phoenix area and I'm pretty sure they have family and friends throughout the country. Hearing some oddball report in which somebody died it was a baseball player we ain't gonna say who can possibly lead to stress and sorrow to a ton of people that need not go through that.
   143. McCoy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2415549)
And you just had to know who, NOW. But because you didn't, and I did, you couldn't live with that affront, apparently.

I would counter with you couldn't live with the fact that we wouldn't know that you knew.

But what I would truly counter with is that there are people in baseball that I have fond memories of and I didn't want to spend the day or days wondering who in the hell died and if it was somebody I cared about. I guess human beings are funny that way, we like to know is dead and who is alive.
   144. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2415551)
pkb, Nos. 3 and 4 came from you. So your denial is flat #### wrong.

I didn't comment on the posters in the thread, though, I commented on your post and on the info released by the paper. See the difference?

You are flat wrong and I'd hope you can acknowledge that on your comment above, if not the larger issue. You said I was moralizing about what those in the thread said, and that's simply inaccurate.
   145. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2415552)
That's a hell of a parse, pkb.
   146. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2415555)
What's so wrong with that? Jesus, this isn't the Algonquin Roundtable.

No one expects the Algonquin Roundtable!
   147. Flynn Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:10 PM (#2415559)
I'm almost certain it's Rod Beck, as ESPN is reporting his death.
   148. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2415572)
Thanks, Flynn. :)
   149. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2415574)
That's a hell of a parse, pkb.

Hardly, it's pretty damn obvious from what I wrote actually. I guess I figured if you were going to take the time to look reasonably closely, but whatever. The way you characterized the quotes was rather umm....aggressive too.
   150. McCoy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:17 PM (#2415591)
His death is back up on Wiki now but they have his death stated as today.
   151. Lassus Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:19 PM (#2415596)
In my defense, I said the fact you knew but no one else did was creepy, not that YOU were creepy.
   152. Swedish Chef Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:22 PM (#2415606)
What if you're one of two siblings from a prominent Scottsdale family and read this news report at your camp? This article contains either too much or too little information...
   153. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2415608)
My original motive to post was to defend one's right to provide feedback.

I will close by pointing out that I did find your wondering of the culpability of third parties (those with "keys") disappointing. As if to say, "Well, they let me post it so they must be as bad as I am".

If you are going to take a stand then take a stand. Using others to deflect accountability is a questionable tactic in any debate.
   154. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:24 PM (#2415610)
It's noted on a Trib blog.

No other news.google.com hits yet.
   155. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:25 PM (#2415614)
Get this: The Chicago Tribune did the same thing I did.
Mike (sic) Gonzalez of the Tribune noted in his blog earlier this morning that someone had passed away, but wouldn't release a name.
   156. The District Attorney Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2415628)
I just question what you were trying to accomplish with this post.
To pass along information.
But... you... didn't.
   157. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2415633)
I will close by pointing out that I did find your wondering of the culpability of third parties (those with "keys") disappointing. As if to say, "Well, they let me post it so they must be as bad as I am".
Gee, sorry to let you down, Harv.
Let's re-read what I posted:
Whoever has the keys and clears threads for posting, what's their culpability in this?

I assign no blame, only ask a question. One person answered.
But you're more than free to think I'm trying to duck out. But duck out of what, Harvey? What punishment do I face from this? A fine? Jail time? Would I be trying to save face with you? We've never met.
Face it, Harvey - as much emotion as we've exhausted this morning, in the end it's just a bunch of electrons lined up in words to discuss men playing with a stick and a ball.
   158. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:36 PM (#2415637)
But... you... didn't.
Yes... I... did. Just not as much information as everyone then demanded.
   159. The District Attorney Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:38 PM (#2415641)
They demanded more information because your original post contained none, just the promise of some later.
   160. xbhaskarx Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:38 PM (#2415642)
I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character.
I'm talkin' about--Hell, Leo, I ain't embarrassed to use the word.
I'm talkin' about ethics.
   161. Padgett Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2415648)
GSfRB: it's possible to question the reasonableness of starting this thread without also calling you a bad person or impugning your character. And without nitpicking over every word posted here, that's the impression I have of what's happened. As I said in the very first post, starting a thread premised on the information you provided strikes me as very odd.

I disagree that there is any degree of moral culpability to be assigned here; if anything, I bear some of it for posting the link in #18. People are simply saying, "what was the point of this?" It seems that your response is that you felt a journalistic obligation to pass on as much information as you felt you could, and that's fine. It's just that people can reasonably disagree on that point.
   162. jayjay Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:45 PM (#2415652)
The Giants players and staffers were told last night, according to MLB.com.

Link
   163. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2415666)
It seems that your response is that you felt a journalistic obligation to pass on as much information as you felt you could, and that's fine. It's just that people can reasonably disagree on that point.
Absolutely. I have no problem discussing ethics.
But while I was sleeping, lots of bad motives were ascribed to me. That's why I'm defending myself with such vehemence.
   164. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2415679)
A 'defense' which included flat-out mischaracterizing of what others said, unfortunately. I guess the basic questions asked of you are just not going to be responded to, either...that's too bad.

I suspect most of us are not questioning you as a person, but rather what your thinking was on this thread.
   165. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2415680)
Add me to those who have no problem whatsoever with GSFRB's posting what he did. Maybe it's just my newspapering background at work ... (Not saying that others with the same orientation might have all sorts of problems with it, of course.)
   166. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:02 PM (#2415686)
pkb, we're never going to agree on much of anything.
I'll stay out of your way if you stay out of mine.
   167. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:14 PM (#2415708)
Count me as one who thinks it was a mistake for you to post, Gold Star. I understand why you didn't reveal a name and I agree that it would have been inappropriate to do so.

Nevertheless, to post at the time you did, all you really did was invite a game of 20 Questions as posters were left to speculate who the person is. I realize you didn't consider this, but you should have.

Most importantly, though, you knew -- or should have suspected -- that the news would eventually reach the media, as well as the identity of the person. Why not wait until it becomes public?

By posting when you did -- when you knew it would become public eventually -- really only serves to say "I've got a secret," which is a lousy reason for posting.

I do consider you a decent guy with a good heart and a valuable person in the BTF community, but I really thought I should say this. You should have waited until the information became public.
   168. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2415710)
I couldn't care less which way you go, but geez...not a good show here from you.
   169. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:29 PM (#2415728)
dJF, Thank you much for that.
I realize you didn't consider this, but you should have.
You are right. In my rush to get the information out, I didn't consider the ramifications of what incomplete information would do. The Twenty Questions outcome was probably inevitable.
But, at the same time, I was too uncomfortable with printing Beck's name. The police hadn't released it, and there's usually an excellent reason for doing so.
All morning, I've been trying to think of a way I could've worded the original post that would've accurately conveyed the information without giving up too much or sparking speculation. Still trying.
   170. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2415734)
I couldn't care less which way you go, but geez...not a good show here from you.
pkb, you feel you've been wronged, as do I.
I just offered you if not an olive branch, then a graceful way out for both of us.
And you took that branch and hit me with it.
   171. Johnny Chimpo Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2415737)
Nevertheless, to post at the time you did, all you really did was invite a game of 20 Questions as posters were left to speculate who the person is.


And what precisely is wrong with this? Christ, between this and the incredibly stupid HOM vote BS, I'm led to the undeniable conclusion that some of you on the board take your selves (and this site) WAY the #### too seriously.
   172. McCoy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2415743)
All morning, I've been trying to think of a way I could've worded the original post that would've accurately conveyed the information without giving up too much or sparking speculation. Still trying.

Well you could've you know not posted a thing.
   173. jayjay Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2415744)
The police hadn't released it, and there's usually an excellent reason for doing so.

How did the Giants players and staffers find out last night, then?
How did you find out in advance of the public, Gold Star?
Just curious.
   174. Padgett Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:38 PM (#2415751)
All morning, I've been trying to think of a way I could've worded the original post that would've accurately conveyed the information without giving up too much or sparking speculation. Still trying.
Your best bet would have been to refrain from posting until the name had been publicly released.

If you'd provided any less information (i.e., leaving out the fact that it was a baseball player), then it would have appeared completely irrelevant to the forum. And if you'd provided more information, that would merely have accelerated the inevitable discovery. As it turned out, the conjunction of your baseball reference and the Republic's mention of the street name and block was functionally the same as providing Beck's name in the first place.
   175. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2415758)
How did the Giants players and staffers find out last night, then?
Had that been known, I would've put in Beck's name. (Then again, if that was known then so is the official word.)

How did you find out in advance of the public, Gold Star?
Reporter friend.

Well you could've you know not posted a thing.
That was an option, had I failed to thread the needle.
   176. Dudefella Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2415761)
And what precisely is wrong with this? Christ, between this and the incredibly stupid HOM vote BS, I'm led to the undeniable conclusion that some of you on the board take your selves (and this site) WAY the #### too seriously.


Funny how there's always someone on the internet who's willing to chime in with a "LOL u guys take this too seriously LOL" post. Leaving me forced to ask: well, if you're so unconcerned, why post?
   177. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:41 PM (#2415764)
As it turned out, the conjunction of your baseball reference and the Republic's mention of the street name and block was functionally the same as providing Beck's name in the first place.
Unfortunately, my friend doesn't work at the Republic. (Well, fortunately for her, 'cause that paper sucks.)
If I had seen the Republic story... Well, I'm not sure what I would've done with the address. Might've looked it up myself and then post with "Hey, clues are adding up..."
   178. Johnny Chimpo Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2415777)
eh... Boredom. And a sense that GSfRB is getting hammered for something that he shouldn't be. Besides, if you'll notice, I almost never post. The particular brand of self-importance around here lately has caught my eye, though.

Of course, I ask again, what is wrong with unbridled speculation?

So, GSfRB, although I didn't catch this until now, I'm glad you posted it, and think it was ENTIRELY appropriate that you did so.
   179. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2415779)
How did the Giants players and staffers find out last night, then?
I'm guessing, through a third party. Just because the name isn't released to the public, doesn't mean it's not released. Is Beck married? Or, maybe his former agent told his former team.
   180. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2415781)
I actually didn't have a problem with what GSRB posted and I think he handled it appropriately. I do think the random guesses (as opposed to the detective work done here on this site) could have been avoided, IMO.

Of course, if he had been totally wrong about this person being a baseball player, then he would deserve any criticism his way. But he has shown to be a creditable poster in this case.
   181. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2415784)
So, GSfRB, although I didn't catch this until now, I'm glad you posted it, and think it was ENTIRELY appropriate that you did so.
Seemed appropriate at the moment, is all I can say.
   182. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2415802)
Of course, if he had been totally wrong about this person being a baseball player, then he would deserve any criticism his way.
And that criticism would've been handed off to my friend. But I don't think it would have the same impact, as she's an Orange County upscale mallrat whose only contact with sports is that she was a high school classmate of Matt Leinart.
"Primates? Huh? Gold Star, what are you talking about?"
   183. Padgett Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2415803)
Look, I wouldn't worry about it. Yeah, there was some crazy wondering earlier, but it all seems rather unimportant in the context of the real story, which is that Beck sadly left behind two young kids.

I think that a lot of what happened earlier can be attributed to the fact that to wake up on a Sunday and read something like this can cause some tense reactions. I know that I certainly felt very anxious to find out or uncover who actually died, and even more so when I actually did. (When I scrolled down that address list, I almost jumped out of my seat.)

As I said above, I'm not sure that anyone is actually hammering you, and if they were, it's not the majority view.
   184. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:54 PM (#2415811)
if they were, it's not the majority view.
Yeah, but the minority always yells the loudest, it seems.
Were you the one who did the reverse address lookup? That's awesome. Is it a Website, or you have a database of some kind?
   185. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:55 PM (#2415816)
Afraid to ask, but what's happening with the HoM?
   186. Padgett Posted: June 24, 2007 at 08:58 PM (#2415821)
I recalled whitepages.com from some sleuthing I've done in the past. Also, it's the #2 Google hit for "reverse address lookup." The secondary lesson here is that it's really, really creepy what you can find on the Internet.
   187. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:01 PM (#2415837)
Yeah, I've got some Usenet posts from 1996 that would sink my political career, if I wanted one.
   188. Dudefella Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2415839)
Given the general tone and feel of usenet, I'd be far more suspicious of a usenet poster who didn't have any regretable posts.
   189. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2415841)
Afraid to ask, but what's happening with the HoM?


Everything is okay now, GSRB. We had a dilemma as to whether or not we should include a post-deadline ballot during an extremely close race.
   190. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2415844)
The Usenet era was the Summer of Love, as far as the Internet goes.
"We can write whatever we want, with no ramifications!"
And then the first spam came, in '93 or '94, (from a Phoenix law firm), and that's when the party started to end.
   191. greenback calls it soccer Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2415845)
The secondary lesson here is that it's really, really creepy what you can find on the Internet.


But I still can't find out what Szymborski knew about Petagine.
   192. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2415846)
We had a dilemma as to whether or not we should include a post-deadline ballot during an extremely close race.
Really?
Fingers were pointed, blame was assigned and feelings were hurt, I'm sure.
   193. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:17 PM (#2415872)
FWIW, reporter friend just sent me the e-mail with the police (finally) confirming his name. Has this passage:
Thank you to all for your patience and community concern in not releasing the name. I am told by MLB and the family that your restraint is greatly appreciated.
Only one local media outlet did not respect the family’s request as related to us. I know it appeared in a couple of national outlets prior, and again, your restraint is appreciated.

No idea who the guilty party was.
   194. rr Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:31 PM (#2415903)
I agree with those who say that GSRB had a slight lapse in judgment here, and I agree with those who think some folks here are being too nasty about it.

I wanted to add that I am sympathetic to the idea that we sometimes take ourselves too seriously. At the same time, I am reminded of something that happened a couple of years ago. There was a discussion about the Taylor Hooton case going on--(he was a high school baseball player who committed suicide in 2003, and his dad believes this was triggered by steroids--there is a foundation and a webpage)--and Hooton's dad and some of his friends wound up finding it and posting here. It got pretty tense, and there was a separate discussion, later, about how the Primates should have handled the situation, which also got fairly tense.

Now, there are huge differences between the Hooton situation and the Beck story, one being that we are talking about a breaking news story as opposed to analyis of an already-reported event, another being the late young man's dad in all likelihood googles his son's name from time to time to see if the case is being discussed anywhere on-line. I know a couple of sets of grieving parents, who also have web pages honoring their kids, who do that. And I'm not saying we should have to conduct ourselves as if relatives/friends of the deceased are logged on. But, the internet creates odd bedfellows in terms of unexpected interaction, so it is something to be aware of.


One way to look at it is this: Suppose a well-known (in this little circle) Primate died. Would we want to read a thread intro that said "One of our favorite posters has died, but we can't tell you you who until his/her family has been notified." Now, of course this wouldn't happen in all likelihood for obvious reasons--in that case, a family member might log on to tell us, or would email Furtado, or we might possibly never know--the person would just stop posting. But I think this kind of drives the point home.
   195. Len Lansford, Carney Barker Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:32 PM (#2415905)
I dunno. From where I'm sitting, this whole thread just seems ghoulish.

"Someone died, but I can't tell you who, but he's someone you know!" Imagine Vincent Price saying that. Spooky.
   196. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:36 PM (#2415911)
But I think this kind of drives the point home.
That's a take I hadn't thought of. Thanks, rr.
   197. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:38 PM (#2415914)
In retrospect, I think all would've been better off had I taken the post to the Lounge, put up the newspapers' stories and said I'm hearing that it's Beck.
Lounge is far less formal than a devoted post.
   198. pkb33 Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:39 PM (#2415915)
I just offered you if not an olive branch, then a graceful way out for both of us.
And you took that branch and hit me with it.


I did nothing removely wrong, thus I don't need an olive branch from you. Fix the mistakes you made and stop trying to lay your mistakes off on just about everyone else.

"In retrospect, I think all would've been better off had I taken the post to the Lounge, put up the newspapers' stories and said I'm hearing that it's Beck."

Umm, yeah. We seem to agree on that point now.
   199. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:40 PM (#2415917)
There are some men you just can't reach.
   200. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 24, 2007 at 09:44 PM (#2415927)
If nothing else this episode will lend one pause before posting an article for discussion. And thoughtful deliberation is never a bad thing.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(99 - 12:24am, Oct 31)
Last: SuperGrover

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(75 - 12:19am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(50 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4784 - 12:02am, Oct 31)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(8 - 11:44pm, Oct 30)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(623 - 11:37pm, Oct 30)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1020 - 11:23pm, Oct 30)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(16 - 11:21pm, Oct 30)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(9 - 10:22pm, Oct 30)
Last: Chris Fluit

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1442 - 10:22pm, Oct 30)
Last: S.F. Giangst

NewsblogA Visit to Madison Bumgarner Country, and a Proud Father's Home - NYTimes.com
(1 - 10:06pm, Oct 30)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

Page rendered in 0.7723 seconds
53 querie(s) executed