Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Sweet action for kids 'n' cretins. Marjoram and capers.
ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
Man, you would have been fun to piss on Ted Williams...
? What's that mean? You're going to piss me on Ted Williams? Is that like a Boys of Summer Fantastic Voyage?

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:
Dr. Medulla wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:
revbob wrote: Emphasis on "seems" because the facts back it up:

AB R H RBI
N. Markakis 4 2 2 2
N. Markakis 3 2 3 3
N. Markakis 3 0 0 0
N. Markakis 4 0 0 0
N. Markakis 5 2 3 1
N. Markakis 3 0 1 0
N. Markakis 4 0 0 0
N. Markakis 4 0 0 0
N. Markakis 5 1 3 1
N. Markakis 4 1 1 1
N. Markakis 4 1 3 1
N. Markakis 4 1 1 2

total 47 10 17 11

His avg over a twelve game span .361 considerably higher than his season average of .300 which has already been pointed out as being quite respectable.
.361 still ain't close to, as you wrote, "always," captain.
Really? You're going to interpret revbob's statement that he meant that Markakis bats 1.000 against the Yankees?
No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
So, when you watch a game and the announcer says that a batter "owns" a pitcher, do you get upset, thinking the the 13th Amendment has been violated?
No.

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
I'm going to interpret "always" to mean that you're "always" an obnoxious antisocial hippie more interested in contrarian bloviating than actually conversing with other people in a reasonable, respectful manner. It certainly fits the evidence.
No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by Flex »

ChicoHarris wrote:No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
It's incredibly cute that you think you "called" anyone on anything.

And, yes, Joe's hippie-ism (such as it was) was fucking idiotic.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

Flex wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
It's incredibly cute that you think you "called" anyone on anything.

And, yes, Joe's hippie-ism (such as it was) was fucking idiotic.
Well, okie-dokey. He or she used the word wrongly, (or maybe there's a special definition of the word...even being American, i'll stick to English) I suspect by feeling hatred about the Yankees (read; jealousy), the frustration caused the trip-up for he or she..
You're wrong about the hippie in Joe being "fucking idiotic." The hippie in Joe did things for people that you know nothing about. The hippie in Joe was a goodness that certainly was not idiotic.

Flex
User avatar
Mechano-Man of the Future
Posts: 35799
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
Location: The Information Superhighway!

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by Flex »

EDIT: Never mind, don't fuel the idiots.

Image
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead

Pex Lives!

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by eumaas »

ChicoHarris wrote:Well, okie-dokey. He or she used the word wrongly, (or maybe there's a special definition of the word...even being American, i'll stick to English) I suspect by feeling hatred about the Yankees (read; jealousy), the frustration caused the trip-up for he or she..
It wasn't used wrongly.

The use of "always" in this case was wholly consistent with its typical use in that particular language-game. "Always" in such a context is synonymous with "habitually"—for example, we say

—Inder always jogs at 7:30 in the morning.

yet we understand that he might typically jog starting in a range of times from 7:20 to 7:40, and he might not jog when he's sick, or injured, or whatnot. Yet to use the word "always" here is not wrong, because in the context of this language-game, "always" has a meaning synonymous with "habitually," whereas in another language-game, such as

—Two added to two always equals four.

we mean quite something else by "always" from its use in the other language-game. Let's look at the utterance in question.

—It seems he's always getting hits against them.

First of all, how does its context differ from the proposition that "two added to two always equals four"? Well, the latter is concerned with a matter of definition. It's a tautology—the concepts of "two" and "addition" are such that two added to two cannot be anything but four. On the other hand, revbob's utterance is concerned with repeated behavior over time—i.e. playing a game of baseball. What would that suggest? Well, habit of course. Secondly, revbob's qualifier "seems" is also a clue that we're dealing with something contingent such that "always" probably doesn't have the same use as it does in the mathematical proposition that "two added to two always equals four"—combine these insights together and you have a context for understanding the uses of the words in revbob's utterance, and if you know the uses, you know the meaning.

To interpret "always" as its use in the mathematical language-game rather than its use in the language-game of repeated behavior over time is to abstract it from its proper context—that is to say, to make nonsense of the word. That strikes me as uncharitable. Dr.Medulla's question ("So, when you watch a game and the announcer says that a batter "owns" a pitcher, do you get upset, thinking the the 13th Amendment has been violated?") to which Chico responded negatively, points to the fact that in order to operate in language at all we have an understanding of the contextual uses of words. Selectively ignoring context is dishonest.
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

revbob
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 25326
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 12:31pm
Location: The Frozen Tundra

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by revbob »

ChicoHarris wrote:
eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
I'm going to interpret "always" to mean that you're "always" an obnoxious antisocial hippie more interested in contrarian bloviating than actually conversing with other people in a reasonable, respectful manner. It certainly fits the evidence.
No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?

If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.

matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 25797
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by matedog »

eumaas wrote:
Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
Didn't see your post.

Anyway, I generally like it when a newbie sticks around and lets us get to know him before choking up the board with contrarian stuff. It lays the groundwork for trust and mutual respect so that when differences of opinion are debated, it doesn't end up overly combative.
I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

eumaas
User avatar
Klezmer Shogun
Posts: 23579
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 8:10pm
Location: deep in your Id

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by eumaas »

matedog wrote:
eumaas wrote:
Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
Didn't see your post.

Anyway, I generally like it when a newbie sticks around and lets us get to know him before choking up the board with contrarian stuff. It lays the groundwork for trust and mutual respect so that when differences of opinion are debated, it doesn't end up overly combative.
I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?
Shouldn't you be shining my boots, maggot?
I feel that there is a fascistic element, for example, in the Rolling Stones . . .
— Morton Feldman

I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:Well, okie-dokey. He or she used the word wrongly, (or maybe there's a special definition of the word...even being American, i'll stick to English) I suspect by feeling hatred about the Yankees (read; jealousy), the frustration caused the trip-up for he or she..
It wasn't used wrongly.

The use of "always" in this case was wholly consistent with its typical use in that particular language-game. "Always" in such a context is synonymous with "habitually"—for example, we say

—Inder always jogs at 7:30 in the morning.

yet we understand that he might typically jog starting in a range of times from 7:20 to 7:40, and he might not jog when he's sick, or injured, or whatnot. Yet to use the word "always" here is not wrong, because in the context of this language-game, "always" has a meaning synonymous with "habitually," whereas in another language-game, such as

—Two added to two always equals four.

we mean quite something else by "always" from its use in the other language-game. Let's look at the utterance in question.

—It seems he's always getting hits against them.

First of all, how does its context differ from the proposition that "two added to two always equals four"? Well, the latter is concerned with a matter of definition. It's a tautology—the concepts of "two" and "addition" are such that two added to two cannot be anything but four. On the other hand, revbob's utterance is concerned with repeated behavior over time—i.e. playing a game of baseball. What would that suggest? Well, habit of course. Secondly, revbob's qualifier "seems" is also a clue that we're dealing with something contingent such that "always" probably doesn't have the same use as it does in the mathematical proposition that "two added to two always equals four"—combine these insights together and you have a context for understanding the uses of the words in revbob's utterance, and if you know the uses, you know the meaning.

To interpret "always" as its use in the mathematical language-game rather than its use in the language-game of repeated behavior over time is to abstract it from its proper context—that is to say, to make nonsense of the word. That strikes me as uncharitable. Dr.Medulla's question ("So, when you watch a game and the announcer says that a batter "owns" a pitcher, do you get upset, thinking the the 13th Amendment has been violated?") to which Chico responded negatively, points to the fact that in order to operate in language at all we have an understanding of the contextual uses of words. Selectively ignoring context is dishonest.
No, you're wrong. Always means always. I feel like I should be paying you.
What a commercial announcer calls players while soothing the masses has nothing to do with me, whoever it was's Yankees envy does.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115978
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by Dr. Medulla »

revbob wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:
eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
I'm going to interpret "always" to mean that you're "always" an obnoxious antisocial hippie more interested in contrarian bloviating than actually conversing with other people in a reasonable, respectful manner. It certainly fits the evidence.
No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?

If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
That's the beautiful culmination of Chico's idiocy—he targets one of the board's Yankee fans as a Yankee-hater, and does so in such an asinine way as to bring the Yankee fans temporarily into the camp of the Yankee haters. Kudos, dumbass, kudos.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

revbob wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:
eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
I'm going to interpret "always" to mean that you're "always" an obnoxious antisocial hippie more interested in contrarian bloviating than actually conversing with other people in a reasonable, respectful manner. It certainly fits the evidence.
No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?

If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
I should have written "Yankees hater," not "Yankee hater."
I should not have written that you hated the Yankees when I don't know the state of your emotions concerning the 26-time world champions. My doing so was akin to seeing someone with a Confederate (or 'rebel") flag and labeling that person as racist.
By "overextended," I referred to your use of English in writing that Markakis seems to ALWAYS gets a hit against the Yankees. He doesn't, not even close to half the time, resulting in my writing in reference to you "emphasis on 'seems.'"
I did not write that you are not using your real name, I wrote that you are PROBABLY not. I did so because of the odd practice people have of not using their real name on message boards. Why would anyone expect to be taken seriously when using a fake name for non-fiction writing?
If revbob is indeed your real name, surely it has a backstory worthy of sharing with us, no?

ChicoHarris
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 1179
Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by ChicoHarris »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
revbob wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:
eumaas wrote:
ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
I'm going to interpret "always" to mean that you're "always" an obnoxious antisocial hippie more interested in contrarian bloviating than actually conversing with other people in a reasonable, respectful manner. It certainly fits the evidence.
No, a Yankee hater got overextended and I called it. He or she probably is not even using their real name. Is that reasonable and respectful?
As for calling names like "hippie" in a way that I assume is meant to be an insult, you'll have to get up a lot earlier than that to bother me. Joe was a hippie. Is that bad thing? To bother me, you'ed have to insist George W. Bush was a fighter pilot in Vietnam or that Jimmy Carter was anti-military.
And I understand about hating the Yankees. One is either on the inside or outside.
Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?

If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
That's the beautiful culmination of Chico's idiocy—he targets one of the board's Yankee fans as a Yankee-hater, and does so in such an asinine way as to bring the Yankee fans temporarily into the camp of the Yankee haters. Kudos, dumbass, kudos.
I've no idea who isn't or is a Yankees fan, but am so used to folks hating the Yankees I figured whoever you're referencing was just another baseball fan on the outside looking in. I try to be liberal about Republicans but they always turn out the way they do...

Mimi
User avatar
Goddess of the Underworld
Posts: 8754
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:36pm
Location: Down in the pit

Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?

Post by Mimi »

And men say women with PMS are bad. Sheesh. Can't we all just get along? :twitch:

Post Reply