? What's that mean? You're going to piss me on Ted Williams? Is that like a Boys of Summer Fantastic Voyage?Dr. Medulla wrote:
Man, you would have been fun to piss on Ted Williams...
Does Nick Markakis really exist?
-
ChicoHarris
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
-
ChicoHarris
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
No.Dr. Medulla wrote: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?ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."Dr. Medulla wrote:Really? You're going to interpret revbob's statement that he meant that Markakis bats 1.000 against the Yankees?ChicoHarris wrote:.361 still ain't close to, as you wrote, "always," captain.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.
-
ChicoHarris
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 1179
- Joined: 30 May 2009, 11:31am
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
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?eumaas wrote: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.ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
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
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35956
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
It's incredibly cute that you think you "called" anyone on anything.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.
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!
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?
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..Flex wrote:It's incredibly cute that you think you "called" anyone on anything.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.
And, yes, Joe's hippie-ism (such as it was) was fucking idiotic.
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
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35956
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
EDIT: Never mind, don't fuel the idiots.
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!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
It wasn't used wrongly.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..
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
— Morton Feldman
I've studied the phenomenon of neo-provincialism in self-isolating online communities but this place takes the fucking cake.
— Clashy
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?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?eumaas wrote: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.ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
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.
If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?eumaas wrote:Didn't see your post.Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
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.
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.
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
Shouldn't you be shining my boots, maggot?matedog wrote:I was a newbie once. Where is my trust and "mutual respect"?eumaas wrote:Didn't see your post.Inder wrote:*** THOUGHT POLICE GANGBANG PILE-ON ACTIVATE! ****
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 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
— 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?
No, you're wrong. Always means always. I feel like I should be paying you.eumaas wrote:It wasn't used wrongly.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..
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.
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
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 116615
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
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.revbob wrote:Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?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?eumaas wrote: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.ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
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.
If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - 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?
I should have written "Yankees hater," not "Yankee hater."revbob wrote:Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?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?eumaas wrote: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.ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
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.
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 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?
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...Dr. Medulla wrote: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.revbob wrote:Am I the overextended "Yankee hater" not even using my "real name"?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?eumaas wrote: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.ChicoHarris wrote:No, I'm going to interpret that word he used,"'always," as meaning "always." Batting 1.000 would mean "always."
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.
If so you are wrong on both counts, and my credit scores would seem to indicate that I am in fact not overextended.
Re: Does Nick Markakis really exist?
And men say women with PMS are bad. Sheesh. Can't we all just get along?