Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, April 12, 2021

Minnesota Twins, Timberwolves postpone games in wake of police shooting of Daunte Wright

The Minnesota Twins and Minnesota Timberwolves postponed games on Monday following the police shooting of Daunte Wright on Sunday night.

“Out of respect for the tragic events that occurred yesterday in Brooklyn Center, and following the additional details in this evolving situation, the Minnesota Twins have decided it is in the best interest of our fans, staff, players and community to not play today’s game” the Twins said in a statement.

The Twins were slated to play the Boston Red Sox. The Timberwolves were scheduled to play the Brooklyn Nets.

The decision to postpone the game was made by the Twins after consulting Major League Baseball, in addition to local and state officials.

Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, died Sunday after a police officer shot him in the suburb of Brooklyn Center during a traffic stop. The Brooklyn Center police chief said the shooting was accidental, as the officer involved intended to fire a stun gun and not a handgun during a struggle with Wright. Police were trying to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 12, 2021 at 03:56 PM | 310 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: twins

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 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 03:28 PM (#6013841)
Increasing inequality is the single largest economic problem the U.S. faces. You can't achieve greater equality without raising the price of lesser skilled labor. If people in the top 20% of income are inconvenienced, too bad. Drive Chevys instead of BMWs and you can afford to hire legal workers on the books.
or, you could tax the rich to prevent them from hoarding trillions of dollars of generational wealth, while reinvesting that money into housing subsidies, food subsidies, reducing the cost of a college education, guaranteeing free (or at least, affordable) healthcare and a universal basic income.
   202. Captain Joe Bivens, Elderly Northeastern Jew Posted: April 16, 2021 at 03:49 PM (#6013844)


Increasing inequality is the single largest economic problem the U.S. faces. You can't achieve greater equality without raising the price of lesser skilled labor. If people in the top 20% of income are inconvenienced, too bad. Drive Chevys instead of BMWs and you can afford to hire legal workers on the books.


Wow, look who's a lefty!
   203. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 16, 2021 at 03:52 PM (#6013845)
He's a populist, with a strong anti-abortion bent.
   204. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 16, 2021 at 03:58 PM (#6013847)
or, you could tax the rich to prevent them from hoarding trillions of dollars of generational wealth, while reinvesting that money into housing subsidies, food subsidies, reducing the cost of a college education, guaranteeing free (or at least, affordable) healthcare and a universal basic income.


OOORRR we could just trust the market to self regulate itself and 'trickle down' all that delicious wealth onto the lesser, sorry, lower classes.
   205. JJ1986 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 04:26 PM (#6013853)
If you guys make your kids do the gardening, you no longer need to hire gardeners or nannies.
   206. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 16, 2021 at 04:36 PM (#6013854)
or, you could tax the rich to prevent them from hoarding trillions of dollars of generational wealth, while reinvesting that money into housing subsidies, food subsidies, reducing the cost of a college education, guaranteeing free (or at least, affordable) healthcare and a universal basic income.

People need jobs, not checks from the Gov't. Tax and redistribution is a very inefficient way to improve peoples' lives; the sociological effects of not being self-supporting are dire. Not to mention the rich will evade your taxation.
   207. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 16, 2021 at 04:41 PM (#6013855)
People need jobs, not checks from the Gov't. Tax and redistribution is a very inefficient way to improve peoples' lives; the sociological effects of not being self-supporting are dire. Not to mention the rich will evade your taxation.


How does that square with you wanting to eliminate 40% of the landscaping industry?
   208. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 05:25 PM (#6013863)
People need jobs, not checks from the Gov't. Tax and redistribution is a very inefficient way to improve peoples' lives; the sociological effects of not being self-supporting are dire. Not to mention the rich will evade your taxation.

that's a damned outright lie.


stimulus checks and unemployment insurance have proven (time and again) to be extraordinarily efficient ways to improve peoples' lives. and a universal basic income is just the next logical step to take:
The best way to get people out of poverty is just to get them out of poverty; the best way to offer families more resources is just to offer them more resources.
...
More work, less destitution, more family stability, less strained social networks, less stress, fewer incidences of homelessness, fewer skipped meals: This is what welfare could give the country.
   209. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2021 at 05:28 PM (#6013864)
The grocery chains by me are paying about 12 dollars and that goes for Trader Joe's. Costco is at 15 and above.
   210. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2021 at 05:30 PM (#6013865)
What's the difference between an illegal immigrant getting a job and a legal one? Why does it matter what their legal status is?
   211. McCoy Posted: April 16, 2021 at 05:33 PM (#6013866)
Wanting to pay people 15 or 18 dollars instead of 12 is a tax of course on consumers. Instead of taxing the lower and middle class excessively, which is what these pay raises will do, why don't we just tax the wealthy and redistribute that wealth?
   212. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 06:00 PM (#6013876)
police and other public officials have been financially contributing to the legal defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old “Kenosha shooter” and rightwing icon currently on trial for [killing two people].
...
A recent data breach involving the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo shows just how much online support the shooter would appear to have in rightwing circles—including some members of our nation’s law enforcement community. Using the platform, Rittenhouse raised upwards of half a million dollars over a period of several months—clearing $586,940 between last August and early January of this year. A certain number of those contributions apparently came from police and other public officials spread throughout the country.
...
The data leak involving GiveSendGo has shown that the site has raised millions and millions of dollars for far-right figures and groups—including the Proud Boys.



   213. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 06:04 PM (#6013884)
Wanting to pay people 15 or 18 dollars instead of 12 is a tax of course on consumers. Instead of taxing the lower and middle class excessively, which is what these pay raises will do, why don't we just tax the wealthy and redistribute that wealth?
the average american is roughly as smart as snapper (i'm not sure if that reads like an insult), and they've been weaned on the teat of reaganomics for 40+ years. they're not going to suddenly realize it's a con that's been crushing their own economic stability for their entire adult lives.

it's one of the reasons why donald trump's early support in the republican primary was so intractable. he campaigned, hard, against the legacy of reaganomics...he just didn't actually ####### care about any of it.
   214. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: April 16, 2021 at 06:22 PM (#6013889)
police and other public officials have been financially contributing to the legal defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old “Kenosha shooter” and rightwing icon currently on trial for [killing two people].
...
A recent data breach involving the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo shows just how much online support the shooter would appear to have in rightwing circles—including some members of our nation’s law enforcement community. Using the platform, Rittenhouse raised upwards of half a million dollars over a period of several months—clearing $586,940 between last August and early January of this year. A certain number of those contributions apparently came from police and other public officials spread throughout the country.
...
The data leak involving GiveSendGo has shown that the site has raised millions and millions of dollars for far-right figures and groups—including the Proud Boys.
1. Be a neo-Nazi.
2. Murder some people.
3. PROFIT! $$$
   215. JJ1986 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 06:33 PM (#6013891)
I thought the police were against children running around with illegally obtained firearms.
   216. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 16, 2021 at 07:42 PM (#6013901)
I thought the police were against children running around with illegally obtained firearms.
"children" with firearms...

Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.
   217. baxter Posted: April 16, 2021 at 07:52 PM (#6013905)
185 Glad I'm able to be somebody at something.

While I didn't say it was an excuse; it certainly could be depends on the charges.

From a California perspective, 1st degree murder is an intentional killing, not done in self-defense, that is willful, deliberate AND premediated.

2nd degree murder is an intentional killing that is not willful, deliberate and premeditated.

Also, a killing during an unjustifiably risky act that one is aware is unjustifiably risk, even if the killing is unintentional, can be a 2nd degree murder.

Voluntary manslaughter would be in the heat of passion; I will assume, as poster Nierpont has mentioned, that MN law does not allow for unreasonable self defense.

A criminally negligent homicide would be an involuntary manslaughter.

These definitions are pretty confusing, even to lawyers.

A lay jury, they try their best. They could figure, in a highly charged, split second decision, the officer committed a tragic mistake. It was an accident, not a crime.

the issue is the propriety of the entire system.

It is not going to be fixed one heart-wrenching killing after another.
   218. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2021 at 09:25 AM (#6013959)
People need jobs

No. A job is a requirement, a bane, a yoke. Not a need.
   219. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:43 AM (#6013969)
stimulus checks and unemployment insurance have proven (time and again) to be extraordinarily efficient ways to improve peoples' lives. and a universal basic income is just the next logical step to take:

No. A job is a requirement, a bane, a yoke. Not a need.

We've seen again and again, across societies the horrible social outcomes for families and children who are perpetually on the dole. Fatherlessness, crime, drug and alcohol abuse, high dropout rate, very early sexual activity and teen pregnancy. You don't see nearly the level of pathology when parents are poor, but work.

Most people need the self-worth that comes from a job to thrive. Far better to subsidize work than to subsidize idleness.
   220. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:00 PM (#6013970)

People who have a lot of idle time and lack some other source of purpose in their lives are also very vulnerable to extremism/radicalization, in all of its forms. I'm not saying that people need a "job" in the traditional sense of the word, but just sending people a check is not a solution on its own, in my opinion.
   221. Buck Coats Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:19 PM (#6013971)
This is true, you should see the roving gangs of 70+ retired people in my neighborhood. You take your life in your hands if you walk into the buffet before 11 am
   222. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:34 PM (#6013973)
People who have a lot of idle time and lack some other source of purpose in their lives are also very vulnerable to extremism/radicalization, in all of its forms. I'm not saying that people need a "job" in the traditional sense of the word, but just sending people a check is not a solution on its own, in my opinion.

I grok. I am saying that a traditional job is not required for growth and fulfillment as a human being. I'm speaking philosophically more than about sending checks.

I mean, we're an easy four or five centuries - if not a millennia - from this mindset (if it ever comes, in my science fiction future of extended human survival, also in doubt); but just felt it important to comment on the acceptance of a "need" for a job.
   223. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:40 PM (#6013975)
People who have a lot of idle time and lack some other source of purpose in their lives are also very vulnerable to extremism/radicalization, in all of its forms. I'm not saying that people need a "job" in the traditional sense of the word, but just sending people a check is not a solution on its own, in my opinion.

That's an excellent point. People often look to ideology for a sense of purpose/meaning if they don't have career, family or other sources.
   224. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:43 PM (#6013976)
This is kind of absurd. We've seen everything. We've people riot, revolt, burn things down when they're chained to the land or assembly line.

The idea that one shouldn't tax the rich and redistribute to the rest of society because the rest of society is fat, stupid, lazy and have to be kept occupied or they'll turn dangerous is absurd and classist.
   225. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:57 PM (#6013978)
People who have a lot of idle time and lack some other source of purpose in their lives are also very vulnerable to extremism/radicalization, in all of its forms. I'm not saying that people need a "job" in the traditional sense of the word, but just sending people a check is not a solution on its own, in my opinion.


Seemed to be a lot of gainfully employed at the capital on 6 Jan.
   226. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 17, 2021 at 12:59 PM (#6013979)

I'm not necessarily opposed to a UBI or something along those lines. I just think that, by itself, it is not a complete or sustainable solution.
   227. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 17, 2021 at 04:19 PM (#6014022)
House Bill 1927 would nix the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry handguns if they’re not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun. Texans under current state law must generally be licensed to carry handguns, either openly or concealed.


It passed the TX House of Reps 86-54. This'll give people with no jobs something to do with their time.
   228. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2021 at 08:56 PM (#6014079)
19 jurisdictions now allow permitless handgun carry. Predictions of ensuing carnage by those opposed have been been off the mark.
   229. GregD Posted: April 17, 2021 at 09:46 PM (#6014083)
Fantasy:

19 jurisdictions now allow permitless handgun carry. Predictions of ensuing carnage by those opposed have been been off the mark.


Reality:
Our synthetic control approach also strongly confirms that RTC laws are associated with 13-15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates ten years after adoption.
NBER paper

Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates
American Journal of Public Heath

States with discretionary permit laws have 11 percent fewer homicides than those with automatic or permit less approval. Rockefeller Institute

But what are some dead spouses and children when you’re facing the important issues, like helping Wayne LaPierre keep those expense accounts flowing?

The NRA was founded to promote gun safety training. The fact that it now lobbies against safety training and the law enforcement groups that support gun safety training is a pretty clear sign that it exists solely to juice profits for manufacturers and take a big juicy cut for their own spending. They make Jerry Falwell Jr look like honest Abe.
   230. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 17, 2021 at 10:04 PM (#6014086)
19 jurisdictions now allow permitless handgun carry. Predictions of ensuing carnage by those opposed have been been off the mark.


I know you and snapper are not the same person, but earlier in this thread, snapper cited Daunte Wright's previous arrest for carrying without a permit justified the police attempting to tase and accidentally shoot him after pulling him over for expired tags. You are not responsible for his statements, nor he for yours, but it would be nice for your side to get their stories straight. Was he a threat to the public, which required the escalation of force lest he temporarily get away, or is carrying without a permit no big deal?
   231. GregD Posted: April 17, 2021 at 10:27 PM (#6014088)
Was he a threat to the public, which required the escalation of force lest he temporarily get away, or is carrying without a permit no big deal?


It’s almost like there’s some other variable at play here
   232. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2021 at 10:33 PM (#6014089)
I don’t think anyone has contended that those who aren’t in a permitless carry jurisdiction can just disregard the more restrictive laws, or fail to show up in court to answer to charges of violating such laws.
   233. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2021 at 10:56 PM (#6014091)
229 seems to be junk science. There’s zero correlation between state homicide rates and state gun laws. For example, two of the lowest states for homicide rates are Vermont, which essentially has no gun laws, and New Hampshire which is a permitless carry jurisdiction.
   234. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:13 PM (#6014094)
I don’t think anyone has contended that those who aren’t in a permitless carry jurisdiction can just disregard the more restrictive laws, or fail to show up in court to answer to charges of violating such laws.


Not saying that. It's the assumption that because he was carrying without a permit before, and therefore he might be dangerous now and thus the escalation of force was necessary to protect the police and the public was necessary. Why are people who carry without a permit in states where a permit is required inherently more dangerous than people who carry in states where it not required?
   235. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:23 PM (#6014096)
When you count on Libertarian lawyers for science, or Clapper for anything approaching honest commentary:

You wrote a paper last year giving examples where distance correlation improves on Pearson’s method. Talk about the case of homicide rates and state guns laws.

This was prompted by an opinion piece in The Washington Post in 2015, by Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA. The title of the article is “Zero Correlation Between State Homicide Rate and State Gun Laws.” What he did was — you know, my eyes bugged out; I couldn’t believe it — he found some data on the states’ Brady scores, which are ratings based on the toughness of their gun laws, and he plotted the Brady scores on an x-y plot against the homicide rates in each of these states. And if you look at the plot, it looks like there’s no pattern. He used Excel or something to fit a straight line to this data set, and he calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient for this data set, and it came out to be nearly zero. And he said, “Aha, zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws.”


That’s not kosher?

I was horrified. There are so many things wrong with this analysis. The first thing you notice in the scatter plot is that there’s one dot which is way, way out from the others, with both a high Brady score and high homicide rate. That turns out to be the District of Columbia, which is not a state; it’s really a city, so if you include it in the analysis, because it’s so far away from everybody else, it’s going to have a major effect on the slope of the regression line. That’s the first complaint; he should have removed that data point — you learn that in Stat 100. If you remove it and refit the linear regression line, the Pearson correlation is not zero, actually.

But should you even fit a linear regression line to this data set? If you look at the rest of the data, you don’t see any linearity to the relationship, and it’s easy to understand why: There are bunches of points that correspond to geographic and culturally similar regions. If you break up the states by region, then you see reasonably linear relationships starting to show up in the scatter plots. And then in each case, you find that the higher the Brady score, the lower the homicide rate.


"Junk science". Good christ.
   236. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:26 PM (#6014097)
But what are some dead spouses and children when you’re facing the important issues, like helping Wayne LaPierre keep those expense accounts flowing?
from time to time, we all get sad.
   237. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:30 PM (#6014098)
When you count on Libertarian lawyers for science, or Clapper for anything approaching honest commentary:

That link doesn't work. This is the correct link.
   238. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2021 at 11:45 PM (#6014099)
Dammit. Or when you count on me to copy/paste like someone who isn't old. Thank you.
   239. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 12:06 AM (#6014102)
The first thing you notice in the scatter plot is that there’s one dot which is way, way out from the others, with both a high Brady score and high homicide rate. That turns out to be the District of Columbia, which is not a state; it’s really a city, so if you include it in the analysis, because it’s so far away from everybody else, it’s going to have a major effect on the slope of the regression line. That’s the first complaint; he should have removed that data point — you learn that in Stat 100.
Really Lassus, that’s your rebuttal? That you can’t count Washington, D.C. along with the States? Just about every government agency does so for a myriad of purposes and programs. Your one-minute google, cut & paste is an epic fail.
   240. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 18, 2021 at 12:33 AM (#6014104)
It’s almost like there’s some other variable at play here

Naaah, the issue is totally black and white.
   241. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 18, 2021 at 01:22 AM (#6014105)
Really Lassus, that’s your rebuttal?
It was part of a rebuttal given by a professional statistician, against an argument presented by an amateur one.
   242. Lassus Posted: April 18, 2021 at 05:34 AM (#6014106)
Really Lassus, that’s your rebuttal?

You're incapable of good faith debate.
There are so many things wrong with this analysis.
If you look at the rest of the data, you don’t see any linearity to the relationship, and it’s easy to understand why: There are bunches of points that correspond to geographic and culturally similar regions. If you break up the states by region, then you see reasonably linear relationships starting to show up in the scatter plots. And then in each case, you find that the higher the Brady score, the lower the homicide rate.

(Also of note, this was a small part at the end of a profile of a scientist, not even a directed article about guns or anything political.)
   243. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 18, 2021 at 01:28 PM (#6014132)
You're incapable of good faith debate.

Just reaching that conclusion now?
   244. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 02:10 PM (#6014137)
It was part of a rebuttal given by a professional statistician, against an argument presented by an amateur one.
I have some doubt that either you or Lassus are familiar with Professor Volokh, but long before he was a libertarian, a lawyer, or the country’s leading active 1st Amendment scholar, he was a noted math prodigy:
Volokh exhibited extraordinary mathematical abilities from an early age. At the age of 9, he was attending university-level mathematics and calculus courses after he was found studying differential equations on his own. When only 10 years 1 month old, he earned a 780 out of a possible 800 on the math portion of what is now called the SAT-I. He is one of the youngest children to have achieved this feat. At the age of 12, he began working as a computer programmer and was enrolled as a sophomore at UCLA.
I wouldn’t so lightly accuse Volokh of being numerically illiterate, and certainly wouldn’t do so based on some poser who suggested that including the District of Columbia along with the States is an invalid methodology. It most certainly isn’t, and it has nothing to do with his claimed expertise in statistics. The District long ago enacted its own highly restrictive gun laws, although they have done little or nothing to lower crime or homicide rates. The District is routinely counted along with the States in all kinds of data compilations by statisticians of all kinds. Any claim that is improper is laughable, and I seriously doubt you will find any other instance where someone else makes that claim.
   245. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 18, 2021 at 02:22 PM (#6014140)
The District long ago enacted its own highly restrictive gun laws, although they have done little or nothing to lower crime or homicide rates. The District is routinely counted along with the States in all kinds of data compilations by statisticians of all kinds. Any claim that is improper is laughable


Sure, if you are looking for support rather than illumination.
   246. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6014141)
OK, Misirlou, what is improper with including Washington, DC, along with the States in a gun control database, or any database? The authority Lassus cited gives no reason for his conclusion to that effect, and he is contradicted by the routine practice of statisticians inside & outside of government. Certainly no one is going to be so pedantic to claim that one must then refer to the data as a list of ‘jurisdictions’, rather than ‘States’.
   247. GregD Posted: April 18, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6014142)
As a principled defender of good science, I am sure clapper strongly supports funding the CDC and NIH to conduct research on guns and public health and strongly condemns the NRA’s efforts to prevent the federal agencies from researching guns and public health at all

If guns make us so safe, why would they be afraid of conducting research on the issue? Sounds like they don’t believe their own bullshit
   248. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 18, 2021 at 02:59 PM (#6014145)
OK, Misirlou, what is improper with including Washington, DC, along with the States in a gun control database


Because gun violence is highly correlated with population density. DC's density is 11,500/mi. The most dense state is NJ I believe. Their density is 1/10 of that. If you are comparing DC to other states in a metric that is highly dependent on population density, it is wrong to do so, unless your goal is to score internet points. DC has roughly the same population as Alaska. Comparing the two on a metric like this is like comparing apples to bitcoins. You will gain no meaningful information.
   249. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 03:12 PM (#6014148)
Because gun violence is highly correlated with population density.
So, you’re saying homicide rates have nothing to do with gun control laws, just population density? Hmm.
   250. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 18, 2021 at 03:19 PM (#6014149)
So, you’re saying homicide rates have nothing to do with gun control laws, just population density? Hmm.


that is a patently dishonest reading of what I wrote.

I'm done with you.
   251. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 03:31 PM (#6014150)
Sorry, Misirlou, but your own words undermined the claim that it was improper to include Washington, DC in a database with the 50 states. You shouldn’t feel bad, it’s an absurd claim that’s impossible to defend.
   252. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 18, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6014152)
Compare cities to cities and states to states.

It's this kind of stupid #### that made OT so toxic.
   253. Ron J Posted: April 18, 2021 at 05:27 PM (#6014160)
Of course Clapper is dishonest. It's his MO.

   254. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 05:42 PM (#6014166)
Lots of ad hominem, not much analysis, from the usual suspects. Sad.
   255. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 18, 2021 at 05:58 PM (#6014168)
Lots of ad hominem, not much analysis, from the usual suspects
Two people linked to it, and you handwaved it away. What's sad is that you think you're scoring points for Republican Jesus.
   256. Lassus Posted: April 18, 2021 at 06:12 PM (#6014171)
As you've been dishonest specifically on this topic in this conversation, calling you dishonest is not an ad hominem.
   257. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 06:23 PM (#6014172)
Two people linked to it, and you handwaved it away. What's sad is that you think you're scoring points for Republican Jesus.
I linked to a scholarly article indicating that there was no correlation between gun control laws and homicide rates, which produced an immediate ad hominem response from Lassus (as usual), who linked to and excerpted a claim that it was improper to include Washington, DC in the gun control database. That’s complete & utter nonsense - Washington, D.C. is included in just about every database that ranks states in any category, without a murmur of complaint from statisticians of any stripe. Those attempting to defend the nonsense Lassus excerpted have been unable to do so, so they claim that it is somehow ‘dishonest’ to point out their failings. Not impressed.
   258. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 18, 2021 at 06:39 PM (#6014173)
say what you will about 57i66135' belligerence and "partisanship", about my coarseness of language and intolerance of nazis and their many republican enablers, but i am very, very rarely accused of being pathetically dishonest.


honestly, it's the one trait i'm most ashamed of lacking.
   259. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 18, 2021 at 06:45 PM (#6014174)
I linked to a scholarly article

speaking of flagrant dishonesty or flatulent ignorancce
   260. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 18, 2021 at 06:51 PM (#6014176)
you run into an ####### in the morning, you ran into an #######.
you run into ######## all day, you're the #######.
   261. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 18, 2021 at 07:11 PM (#6014179)
the first time somebody calls you a horse, you punch him on the nose
the second time somebody calls you a horse, you call him a jerk.
but the third time somebody calls you a horse, perhaps it's time you go shopping for a saddle.
   262. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2021 at 07:37 PM (#6014186)
. . . but i am very, very rarely accused of being pathetically dishonest
I think you’re making my point here, steagles. You’ve long been one of the biggest a-holes on the Internet, but since your perspective is from the left, crickets from most here. On the other hand, someone who puts forward substantive non-leftist arguments will be subjected to ad hominem attacks by those here who can’t deal with the substance. Doesn’t bother me in the least, but shows what weak sauce some here are spouting.
   263. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 18, 2021 at 08:23 PM (#6014193)
On the other hand, someone who puts forward substantive non-leftist arguments will be subjected to ad hominem attacks by those here who can’t deal with the substance.
Check out YC, thinking he's put forward something substantive.
   264. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 18, 2021 at 09:08 PM (#6014196)
On the other hand, someone who puts forward substantive non-leftist arguments will be subjected to ad hominem attacks by those here who can’t deal with the substance.
i don't often get to see ytc's musings anymore, but [229], [235], and [248] seem to pretty clearly "deal with the substance" of what i assume was said.

now, i'm not sure how tcby responded to each of those substantive points, but based on what was quoted in [250], i'm reasonably confident i haven't missed out on much substance.
   265. Lassus Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:43 AM (#6014226)
Those attempting to defend the nonsense Lassus excerpted have been unable to do so
because it didn't have the intellectual and statistically scientific rigor of posting Volokh's SAT scores.
   266. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 19, 2021 at 12:56 PM (#6014254)
It’s never stated that police life is more important than public life, but in practice what officers learn is that I actually can’t keep anybody safe if I’m dead. Ergo, keeping myself alive is the most important thing that I can do in order for me to do my job.
...
The idea is that the public is the sheep, and there are the wolves that would do them harm. And we as police officers must learn to use violence in a way that defends the defenseless. And in order for us to be able to do that, we have to make sure that we are safe
Police do a shocking amount of things that they’re actually very poorly equipped to do. They deal with mental illness, they deal with homelessness, they deal with substance abuse, they deal with runaways. They deal with these petty disputes over fence lines. There’s no reasonable reason for them to do all of these things, unless you operate in an environment where you can with a straight face, say, “Well, we need to have armed agents go do this because at any one of these interactions, there could be guns.” ...And so we continue to send police to more and more and more and more things because there are still more and more and more and more guns.

I hear from new officers that they understand that there are problems. There are chiefs that are changing their tune. There’s a growing recognition that unions are a problem, that our laws and our policies are set up in a way that this is going to continue to happen
   267. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 01:10 PM (#6014258)
Is that your only take-away from the excerpt, Lassus? No shame or embarrassment for your ignorant attempt to call Professor Volokh “dishonest”, based on a phony claim that including Washington, DC in a database along with the states was improper? Typical.
   268. Lassus Posted: April 19, 2021 at 03:02 PM (#6014272)
 No shame or embarrassment for your ignorant attempt to call Professor Volokh “dishonest”
I did what, now?  Where are you coming up with that quote while referring to something I wrote?  Anyhow.

based on a phony claim that including Washington, DC in a database along with the states was improper?
Again, this is what is wrong with the data as presented by Volokh, explained by Donald Richards, a doctoral statistician of some high regard among, you know, scientists, statisticians, and mathematicians:
You wrote a paper last year giving examples where distance correlation improves on Pearson’s method. Talk about the case of homicide rates and state guns laws.
This was prompted by an opinion piece in The Washington Post in 2015, by Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA. The title of the article is “Zero Correlation Between State Homicide Rate and State Gun Laws.” What he did was — you know, my eyes bugged out; I couldn’t believe it — he found some data on the states’ Brady scores, which are ratings based on the toughness of their gun laws, and he plotted the Brady scores on an x-y plot against the homicide rates in each of these states. And if you look at the plot, it looks like there’s no pattern. He used Excel or something to fit a straight line to this data set, and he calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient for this data set, and it came out to be nearly zero. And he said, “Aha, zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws.”

That’s not kosher?
I was horrified. There are so many things wrong with this analysis. The first thing you notice in the scatter plot is that there’s one dot which is way, way out from the others, with both a high Brady score and high homicide rate. That turns out to be the District of Columbia, which is not a state; it’s really a city, so if you include it in the analysis, because it’s so far away from everybody else, it’s going to have a major effect on the slope of the regression line. That’s the first complaint; he should have removed that data point — you learn that in Stat 100. If you remove it and refit the linear regression line, the Pearson correlation is not zero, actually.

But should you even fit a linear regression line to this data set? If you look at the rest of the data, you don’t see any linearity to the relationship, and it’s easy to understand why: There are bunches of points that correspond to geographic and culturally similar regions. If you break up the states by region, then you see reasonably linear relationships starting to show up in the scatter plots. And then in each case, you find that the higher the Brady score, the lower the homicide rate.
Richards briefly explains in this quote why this is an incorrect use of statistics and data.  (He specifically gets into scatter plots on an entirely different topic earlier in the article.)

So you have called this reasoning above from Richards a "phony claim", ACTUALLY saying someone is dishonest.  OK, sure. Can I ask why the entirety - both parts - of this statistical critique is phony?  I mean, I didn't call Volokh phony, I quoted an explanation from someone in the field to show why Volokh's conclusion was mistaken or at best very poor.


Finally, going through what I've written, I think I get why you said I called Volokh dishonest, and even with quotes:
When you count on Libertarian lawyers for science, or Clapper for anything approaching honest commentary:
I have called Volokh a bad scientist/statistician (or at least quoted commentary supporting this assertion).  I have called YOU dishonest, for reasons that are quite clear.  For me to have called Volokh dishonest, the sentence would have read:
"When you count on Libertarian lawyers or Clapper for science or anything approaching honest commentary"
Of course, that isn't in fact what I wrote.  Either your reading was simply mistaken, or you intentionally misrepresented what I wrote in order to make up something I said.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the former.
   269. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 19, 2021 at 03:03 PM (#6014274)
Is that your only take-away from the excerpt, Lassus? No shame or embarrassment for your ignorant attempt to call Professor Volokh “dishonest”, based on a phony claim that including Washington, DC in a database along with the states was improper? Typical.
Why would anyone think comparing the city of Washington D.C. to the entire state of, say, Alabama, be statistically relevant to anything? A state has wildly varying populations and contexts compared to cities. Saying the two are comparable is like saying Indieball homers are the same as MLB homers because context doesn't matter.

See, I'm writing this out because I don't think YC is merely dishonest. I think he's also stupid.
   270. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 03:58 PM (#6014283)
No shame or embarrassment for your ignorant attempt to call Professor Volokh “dishonest”
I did what, now? Where are you coming up with that quote while referring to something I wrote?
In #235, you went to the trouble of inserting a nasty title for your link, saying you couldn’t count on Volokh, or any libertarian lawyer on ‘science’ despite his background being far stronger than yours in the area in dispute, and you continue to defend, without explanation, Richards’ absurd claim that including the District of Columbia was improper:
Richards briefly explains in this quote why this is an incorrect use of statistics and data.
No, Richards offers no explanation for his assertion that including the District of Columbia is improper, other than noting it is ‘a city’. It’s a separate jurisdiction with defined borders, its own local government, and its own locally-enacted gun control laws that have long been among the most restrictive in the country, but notably ineffective in reducing homicides. Richards stance is at odds with the widespread practice of including Washington, DC along with the States in databases of all kinds, without a murmur of dissent from statisticians of all stripes. There’s no rationale for his claim, and it’s not a statistical issue, just an attempt to remove data unfavorable to his desired outcome. Other than this one instance, I don’t think you can find any instance of a statistician contending that including Washington, DC in databases with the States is improper or that it distorts the findings. There’s certainly no consensus among statisticians supporting Richards. It’s an absurd claim.

You & Richards also ignore all the other jurisdictions that support the claim that gun control laws don’t correlate with homicide rates.
   271. Biscuit_pants Posted: April 19, 2021 at 04:23 PM (#6014286)
One study or rebuttal, flawed or perfectly set up is a start of a discussion not a definitive thing in the least. The biggest issue here is that the CDC is not allowed to conduct independent studies at all on the topic. If guns save lives study it, if they are way more dangerous than helpful, study it. I am way more suspicious of people not wanting studies to be conducted than I am of anything else.
   272. SoSH U at work Posted: April 19, 2021 at 04:53 PM (#6014287)
In #235, you went to the trouble of inserting a nasty title for your link, saying you couldn’t count on Volokh, or any libertarian lawyer on ‘science’ despite his background being far stronger than yours in the area in dispute, and you continue to defend, without explanation, Richards’ absurd claim that including the District of Columbia was improper:


That's a strange way of saying, "You were right. You didn't call him dishonest. My bad."
   273. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 05:32 PM (#6014298)
The biggest issue here is that the CDC is not allowed to conduct independent studies at all on the topic.
The Center for Disease Control & Prevention, formerly known as the Center for Disease Control, has no expertise in firearms law, and firearms injuries & fatalities are not a disease, and thus well-outside the CDC’s area of responsibility. There is no reason the the government should fund those who want to impose back door gun control under the guise of public health. If the CDC spent more time on its core mission, rather than advancing political causes, it might have done a better job during the pandemic.
   274. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 19, 2021 at 07:55 PM (#6014320)
See, I'm writing this out because I don't think YC is merely dishonest. I think he's also stupid.


Quite possibly, but I really doubt that thought goes into anything he posts.
   275. Lassus Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:09 PM (#6014322)
and you continue to defend, without explanation, Richards’ absurd claim that including the District of Columbia was improper:
Adding to your continued dishonesty, I've explained several times that as Richards knows more about statistics and data than you, me, or Volokh, I trust him on the facts of what works and what doesn't in conclusions from statistics and data.

When I trust Richards on free speech and 1A more than Volokh, your assertion of the absurdity of my defense of appeal to authority will carry some actual weight. Which it currently does not.

   276. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:15 PM (#6014324)
Quite possibly, but I really doubt that thought goes into anything he posts.


Most people are like "This is what I believe, The Republicans believe the same things. Therefore I am a Republican."

Clapper is "I am a Republican. The Republican's believe these things. Therefore I believe the same things."
   277. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:27 PM (#6014325)
Adding to your continued dishonesty, I've explained several times that as Richards knows more about statistics and data than you, me, or Volokh, I trust him on the facts of what works and what doesn't in conclusions from statistics and data.
Richards gives no reason for his assertion, and neither do you (or anyone else here), while you ignore that contrary to Richards assertion, including the District of Columbia along with states in databases is extremely commonplace. For reasons that escape me, you think anyone that disagrees with you, especially those who make you look silly, are ‘dishonest’. It’s weak sauce.
   278. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:39 PM (#6014326)
Richards gives no reason for his assertion, and neither do you (or anyone else here)
Someone else explain to YC the differences between cities and states.
   279. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:45 PM (#6014327)
because it’s so far away from everybody else, it’s going to have a major effect on the slope of the regression line.
This is a mathematical statement about the regression function that Richards assumed was used. The statement is that one data point that is an outlier on the x-axis (by being far away from the others) will be signifincantly overweighted by the function, potentially screwing up the results.
   280. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 19, 2021 at 08:45 PM (#6014328)
We all have. It's useless.

He is not interested in information. he is interested in scoring points in an internet debate.
   281. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 09:08 PM (#6014333)
Someone else explain to YC the differences between cities and states.
You’re being quite dense. Some want to make the District of Columbia a state, will that magically make including it in databases with the 50 states ‘proper’ in your eyes. The District has a local government that enacted many highly restrictive gun control laws. Why can’t we consider the correlation between those laws & the DC homicide rate? How it is any different than a state that enacts restrictive gun control laws? Neither Richards nor anyone here provides an answer, because he is flat-out wrong. There is no statistical reason one can’t apply the same methodology to the District as the States. In fact, it’s done all the time.


   282. Shohei Brotani (formerly LA Hombre) Posted: April 19, 2021 at 09:45 PM (#6014338)
Why can’t we consider the correlation between those laws & the DC homicide rate? How it is any different than a state that enacts restrictive gun control laws?
Again, Someone else explain to YC the differences between cities and states. Of course, if you only want the answer you want, then by all means, disregard those differences. Also, homers in AAA are the same as in the MLB, because context doesn't matter.
   283. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 19, 2021 at 10:25 PM (#6014354)
Again, Someone else explain to YC the differences between cities and states.


We all have. It's useless.

He is not interested in information. He's not interested in learning what works and what doesn't. He is only interested in scoring points in an internet debate.
   284. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 10:34 PM (#6014357)
You clowns have yet to identify any difference between cites & states that is at all relevant to whether their gun control laws correlate to homicide rates. To give ‘credit’ where credit is due, Misirlou attempted to do so, but failed miserably. See posts #248 & 249.
   285. "bothsidesism" word 57i66135 Posted: April 19, 2021 at 10:47 PM (#6014358)
from tcby's article:
The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero.



now, could this have been an honest mistake? maybe. but given that his argument was published under the tag "The Volokh Conspiracy", i'm gonna go ahead and say it was a deliberate attempt to seed misinformation into the general public. let's dispel with the notion that eugenio volokh didn't know what he was doing; eugenics voltaire knew exactly what he was doing.

why stop at "51 jurisdictions"?
american samoa exists.
puerto rico exists.
the virgin islands exist.


or alternatively, if DC is so important to the calculatory tabulations, why not include their numbers in virginia's tally, given that a plurality of the guns that flow into DC are sourced from virginia?

according to statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, about 41 percent of guns recovered from crimes in the District in 2018 have been traced to Virginia. In 2018, law enforcement agencies recovered a total of 2,095 guns, and ATF traced 599 that were purchased in Virginia, according to ATF statistics the mayor cited in her letter.
...
Law enforcement officials throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Interstate 95 corridor, especially in New York City, have long cited Virginia as a source state for firearms used in illegal activity in their jurisdictions.

   286. AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale Posted: April 19, 2021 at 10:49 PM (#6014359)
in this case, a city (unsurprisingly) seems to have, according to Brady, far harsher (edit: about as harsh as the harshest states, not far harsher) gun laws than any state does. And also (again, unsurprisingly), the city has more homicides than the country as a whole. That the city's homicide rates are off the chart on the x-axis gives the data point outsized weight in the regression, which screws up the results.

I think everyone here gets this but you.

edit: corrected for accuracy.
   287. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 19, 2021 at 11:07 PM (#6014362)
Again, all you folks are saying is that the District of Columbia laws are quite ineffective at reducing the homicide rate, on which we agree, but you offer no reason why we should disregard the data just because DC isn’t a state. Of course, even without looking at DC, there are plenty of other jurisdictions where restrictive gun laws don’t correlate with a lower homicide rate, as well as many jurisdictions with few if any restrictions on guns, but low homicide rates.
   288. Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Posted: April 19, 2021 at 11:13 PM (#6014363)
I think everyone here gets this but you.


Clapper is not interested in data for educational sake. He's interested in data which scores him internet debate points.

Republicans believe this. I am a Republican. Therefore I believe this.
   289. Cleveland TBD fan Posted: April 20, 2021 at 12:52 AM (#6014372)
Again, all you folks are saying is that the District of Columbia laws are quite ineffective at reducing the homicide rate, on which we agree, but you offer no reason why we should disregard the data just because DC isn’t a state. Of course, even without looking at DC, there are plenty of other jurisdictions where restrictive gun laws don’t correlate with a lower homicide rate, as well as many jurisdictions with few if any restrictions on guns, but low homicide rates.


This is probably useless, but I'll explain in boring detail why using Washington the way it was done is wrong. BTW, I had a 770 math SAT score, so clearly that means that you must listen to me.

Including Washington DC in the table with its raw numbers is fine. The analysis of the raw numbers is the problem. Gun violence has potentially lots of causality factors including population density, community racial make-up, community economic make-up, gun laws, gun laws in adjoining areas where he population can conceivable acquire guns, medical facilities (including mental health services) etc. When you want to look at one factor such as gun laws, you need to hold all the other variables constant in order to get useable data.

For example, pretend that this is a very simple case and that there are only two factors to gun violence, gun laws, and economic make-up. If you do the analysis without looking at the economic make-up and find that gun laws are highly correlated to gun violence, what conclusion can you draw? None because you have no way of knowing what if any impact the economic make-up had on your conclusion. It might have had no impact or it could have been the overwhelming factor. You simply don't know.

How do statisticians handle this problem. Through a technique called multivariate analysis. Here is a link describing the technique, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivariate_statistics#Multivariate_analysis. So the problem with the initial analysis was that it was a simple mapping of gun violence to gun laws. Given that we know that things like population density are correlated to gun violence and Washington DC is an extreme outlier in this area, you can't isolate the effect of gun laws with this simple technique. So even if you remove DC, the approach in the original article didn't make statistical sense (as was pointed out in the rejoinder) because it didn't try to isolate the individual correlations.

Bottom line, if you want to determine how much gun laws influence gun violence, only accept a well done multivariate analysis (which can be extremely tricky if there are a lot of potential factors). Anything else is a political document without the necessary statistical foundation.
   290. baxter Posted: April 20, 2021 at 01:35 AM (#6014373)
289 Thank you for the explanation.

Association is not causation (which Volokh states in his piece).

The Volokh analysis just seemed too simplistic (then again, simple answers are often the best).

I would think there would be other factors, such as the number of middle aged white males (high suicide rate; think the Volokh article excludes suicides); the number of firearms per capita (more firearms more chances for an accident); the age of the population (younger people take more risks); more children per household with more firearms per household perhaps leads to greater chance of accidents.

Ultimately, though, what are you left with?

Law enforcement justification for what are called pretext stops is that we are looking for guns and drugs. If one legalizes the possession of each type of item, does that remove the need for the police to make those traffic stops?

266 makes a good point about what we as society ask law enforcement to do.
   291. Mayor Blomberg Posted: April 20, 2021 at 02:09 AM (#6014375)
Law enforcement justification for what are called pretext stops is that we are looking for guns and drugs. If one legalizes the possession of each type of item, does that remove the need for the police to make those traffic stops?

Or does it then lead to new justifications for the same stops.
And are we ready to try the social experiment that results from letting everyone who wants a gun have a gun and everyone who wants opioids have opioids? Cuz once you say not everyone you say hello pretexutal stops. I'd prefer that we hold that experiment for a couple years until I'm in another country.
   292. Lassus Posted: April 20, 2021 at 06:22 AM (#6014379)
You clowns
Cry about ad hominems some more.
   293. Ron J Posted: April 20, 2021 at 07:13 AM (#6014381)
Further to #289, an example from baseball on the weakness of simple regressions.

Doubles have a much higher correlation with team runs scored than triples. Doesn't mean that doubles are more important than triples. And a multiple regression correctly establishes their relative weight.

EDIT: Better example. Last time I checked grounding into double plays had a positive correlation with team runs scored. Fairly obvious as to why and again a multiple regression will come up with the correct )negative) value for GIDP.
   294. Biscuit_pants Posted: April 20, 2021 at 07:59 AM (#6014382)
The Center for Disease Control & Prevention, formerly known as the Center for Disease Control, has no expertise in firearms law, and firearms injuries & fatalities are not a disease, and thus well-outside the CDC’s area of responsibility. There is no reason the the government should fund those who want to impose back door gun control under the guise of public health. If the CDC spent more time on its core mission, rather than advancing political causes, it might have done a better job during the pandemic.


Why assume the CDC studies would advance a political cause? I did not say they should advance anything political but to study guns effects on safety.

The CDC, despite disease being in its name does more than diseases. Their site lists their rolls as:
* Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
* Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
* Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
* Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
* Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
* Taking the health pulse of our nation

They don't need to touch on gun laws or safety, just study the effects of guns in the home. They could come back and say what you believe that they save lives, or what what every other country in the world believes that they don't

If you don't like the CDC doing the study then fine, replace with NIH.
   295. Lassus Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:22 AM (#6014387)
Why assume the CDC studies would advance a political cause?

Unimaginative partisan hackery.
   296. Ron J Posted: April 20, 2021 at 08:46 AM (#6014389)
#294 The issue isn't really the study. It's the absence of good data. You don't need the CDC or NIH to do this kind of a study.
   297. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: April 20, 2021 at 02:50 PM (#6014451)
The Center for Disease Control & Prevention, formerly known as the Center for Disease Control, has


Point of order -- Centers.
   298. gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile Posted: April 20, 2021 at 02:53 PM (#6014453)
See, I'm writing this out because I don't think YC is merely dishonest. I think he's also stupid.


Oh, I dunno. He apparently knows how to spell.

Then again, pretty much all he's doing is cutting & pasting Republikkklan talking points, which presumably even a moderately dexterous monkey could manage after sufficient repetition.
   299. rr: cosmopolitan elite Posted: April 20, 2021 at 03:36 PM (#6014469)
289 is a good post. Thanks for that.
   300. SoSH U at work Posted: April 20, 2021 at 03:46 PM (#6014472)

289 is a good post. Thanks for that.


Especially for a clown.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDave Roberts baffled by Angels' blowout bunt attempt, but play helps Dodgers snap losing skid in wild game
(4 - 12:51am, May 10)
Last: Tin Angel

NewsblogWhere Did the Homers Go?
(5 - 12:30am, May 10)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(3080 - 10:39pm, May 09)
Last: "bothsidesism" word 57i66135

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the weekend of May 8-9, 2021
(87 - 9:42pm, May 09)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogBlue Jays moving back to Buffalo’s Sahlen Field for June 1
(1 - 9:27pm, May 09)
Last: Brian

NewsblogMets' Jacob deGrom scratched from start with right lat inflammation, avoids injured list
(14 - 8:55pm, May 09)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogNationals broadcaster F.P. Santangelo accused of sexual assault, pulled from games
(3 - 8:03pm, May 09)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Spring is in the Air
(399 - 7:43pm, May 09)
Last: The_Ex

NewsblogFormer manager, coach Ray Miller dies at 76
(3 - 6:42pm, May 09)
Last: Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight

Hall of Merit2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(146 - 4:34pm, May 09)
Last: cookiedabookie

NewsblogLos Angeles Angels designate slugger Albert Pujols for assignment
(146 - 2:50pm, May 09)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFrancisco Lindor’s ‘rat’ tale unnecessary drama for Mets
(24 - 1:18pm, May 09)
Last: Dag Nabbit at ExactlyAsOld.com

Sox TherapyTap the Brakes
(5 - 1:02pm, May 09)
Last: Bad Fish

NewsblogMLB teams can’t play games under protest anymore
(29 - 9:05am, May 09)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogCubs deal Sox can’t refuse: Bryant would be MVP move
(17 - 10:22pm, May 08)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.7342 seconds
48 querie(s) executed