NotThatGuy

http://www.carolinebrealey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dream-big-up.jpg

The low Canadian dollar would not make this a good time to invest in infrastructure - it would either make it a bad time, or not really change things. Obviously, if you have to import anything, it'll cost more. If you don't have to import anything, either the price won't be affected by the Canadian dollar (it could be affected by other factors, of course), or, depending on the severity and speed of the reaction, prices will increase through inflationary factors.

Also uncalled for.

Uncalled for.

What? Isn't that what this is? A silly thread for yucks to see how much you can press the issue of liking men (i.e. playing chicken with other posters regarding homosexuality)? I didn't think pointing that out would be offensive, given the nature of the thread. Or is there something else going on here? A secret inside joke related to how good looking or ugly players are?

So, now that games of homochicken appear to be the board hobby, are disputes going to be settled by meeting at whatever that street corner was, not for fights, but for a threatened make-out sesh ?

Yes. Yes she was.

Nailed it!

Best Poster Who Loves To Be Anal, But Misfires And Tries To Put It In The Meatus, And It Fits Or BPWLTBABMATTPIITMAIF, for short

Uh, wut? Not only does this have nothing to do with what I'm saying now, it is pretty much the opposite of how I have acted in the past.

See? "Projections totally aren't perfect, but if you rely on anything else to supplement, or even replace it, in part of in whole, or even mention those things, you are Ruben Amaro." Ruben Amaro being to baseball discussion and brains as Hitler is to political discussions and evilness.

"Someone didn't love you enough when you were little, did they?" "That's a good call." It's just cheering on a baseball team. You're not playing.

It's a losing battle, not worth fighting. And what you'll see, is that they'll all say "of course they're not perfect, you dumb-dumb, no one ever said they were" ... and then the next time you disagree about a particular player's expected performance, they'll whip out their 1-inch projection, and call you a dumb-dumb for not believing it, and for believing in your own assessment. It's kinda like people sitting around guessing that 2+2=999, and then someone says 2+2 usually equals, on average, 998 and ... boom ... that guy is smarter! Let's listen to him! He was closest! No, he's still a big stupidhead ... let's not listen to him.

Is that what the wikipedia synopsis told you, because you're not old enough to watch that movie yet.

This thread certainly doesn't have the staying power of a cat dressed as a pirate.

I done gots to get my learn on, and figure out how a "quick search" of over 5,000+ of your posts reveals that only 10 of them were responses to anyone.

So, let's get this straight ... it's cool to mock and be openly hostile toward an entire fanbase or, at least, an entire board. It's cool to want to go over there and troll the f*** out of them, just for shits and giggles. It's cool, when that board shuts you down, to participate in a baiting thread on your own board where the belittling and name-calling continues, as you try to troll them to your board, where you can attack them further. But if a fellow fan corrects you and challenges you when you say stupid s***, and perhaps doesn't have an attitude that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside (i.e. "he's such a meanie!"), then he's a mega-troll that needs to be banned? This isn't directed at Boxcar, because he's not being a hypocritical little biatch - he sticks by his views (whether you appreciate them or not) ... but to a number of you who take great pleasure in antagonizing the Orioles Hangout, and other boards, yet act like injured lil birdies on this board. Don't make me take back your participation trophies.

1. Contrary to in other sports where game outcomes translate into points, if a team is behind another team in wins, they don't have a "game in hand," even if they've played less games (or, at least, played fewer games than the number of wins they trail by). So, if the Jays were 69-55, and the Yanks were 68-54, then the Yanks would have "games in hand," because they could conceivably play those two games, win both, and then be ahead of the Jays at 70-54, having played the same amount of games. But if the Jays are 69-55, and the Yanks are 66-56, the Yanks wouldn't have 2 games in hand, because even if they won both, they'd still be trailing the Jays, at 68-56. "Game in hand" indicates a potential advantage, in sole control of that team. 2. No, the Jays wouldn't still be in first place due to head to head records. Since the adoption of the 2nd wildcard, tiebreakers for division titles and 2nd wildcard teams are play-in games. The Yanks and Jays would have to face each other on the diamond to see who advances to the playoffs. If the Jays had the better head to head record, they'd get home field advantage in that game, however. And if the loser would otherwise be a wildcard team, they still make the playoffs as a wildcard (as would be the case right now).

Eh, bikers are pussies ... especially that guy.

http://fsa.zedge.net/content/1/3/2/3/2-606706-1323.jpg Oh, bannable, not bananable.

This may have been discussed before, but the Dodgers are rocking a $300M payroll, and are 2.5 games away from not making the playoffs at all. And they're on a pace to have 4 less wins than last year. Where be the Friedman Effect at, yo? Apparently he went from running a club according to the bible of Fiscal Responsibility and Advanced Player Contribution Value Analysis, and burned it in favor of BOATS AND HOES!

Compare: I developed irregular heartbeats (felt like my heart was stopping, and then going to burst through my chest; or it was going so fast I thought was going to pass out) many years ago in college, that got more frequent and intense during law school. Saw a doctor a bunch of times about it. Couldn't find anything on an EKG during the visit, so they sent me on my way. As they got worse, with new doctors (different location), I'd end up taking trips to the ER. Often the irregular rhythm would have resolved itself before reaching the ER, and I was monitored and sent on my way. Regular follow-up visits had more EKGs with nothing found. So I was sent on my way. Eventually, they said "hey, if this is really getting in your way, maybe you have anxiety, and should see a psychiatrist." OK, so I did. We talked and I said "yes, I have anxiety every time this happens ... der ... but otherwise I'm quite chill." He prescribed me Ativan. So, now I feel completely sluggish and out of it AND I'm still getting the irregular heart beats. So this is fun. Finally I try another doctor. Shockingly, he suggests I wear a halter monitor for 24 hours. If I feel any episodes coming on, I just click a button, it records the event, and I then playback the event over the phone. I do that. I get 2 events during the 24 hours ... I record them, play them back, and I get a return phone call saying "you need to come in tomorrow, we're going to do an EP study, and possibly an ablation." I go in, they put me under, they do the study, find the causes (WPW and AFib - over 200 BPM), zap the holes in my heart shut, and I'm out and about the very next day. Take some beta blockers as a precaution for a couple months, ween myself off them, and I've been fine ever since. The moral? The halter monitor? That's a very basic thing to recommend when someone is having these symptoms. Years of doctor's (multiple doctors) visits and ER trips could have been avoided just by getting this one test done in a timely fashion. Yet, instead, they went to meds before doing this simple step. The only "anxiety" I actually felt during this whole thing was the feeling when I was having an episode ... AND when I had to ween myself off the Ativan - now THAT created actual anxiety (and, after that, I was sure I hadn't been suffering from anxiety before, because ... well, that was not a good feeling, at all). Yes, sometimes it's better to be cautious by overprescribing meds ... but other times it might be indicative of not investigating possibilities fully, and getting to the source of the problem (even if that source may end up being treated by medications). And this can be especially true when you're dealing with something as unsettled/uncertain as treating the noggin.

Yeah, it's kind of like mocking Donaldson by reminding him how he's awesome at "the baseball." And it's cheats "with" his wife. Although, it's not cheating at all if it's purely sex, and all parties potentially affected are present, informed, consenting and participating.

What? Again you're making up nonsense. Are you trying to say that because I'm not convinced you were fired because your firm wanted to commit SERIOUS, SERIOUS securities fraud, among other company and life-crippling crimes, that I believe "the biomed industry is pristine"? Is that really your tragically flawed leap in logic? And, I'd like to point out another flaw ... I tossed out possible explanations of what might be causing the increased incidences of diagnoses and utilization of drugs as treatment, but didn't say which was actually to blame, nor to what extent they might share blame. Nor did I ever draw a connection that if meds were being overprescribed that it was driven by a conspiracy between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. THAT is entirely your own paranoia. Don't ascribe that thinking to others. You write like a crazy person (rambling, horrible spelling and grammar, leaps in logic, off-topic comments and attributions that just don't follow from anything), and then you also tend to put forward "conspiracy" viewpoints. Do you really think it's trolling to question your sanity?

An initial encounter occurred when I defended Wilner's writing style, but criticized his substance, whilst defending JFaS's substance, but criticizing his writing style (this was in a thread which was just an excuse for all to bash the hell out of Wilner for any and no reason at all - under the cover of a discussion of the Dickey Effect). Down the rabbit hole we went ... although a lot of my posts were deleted when I was banned, I can tell/remember that within the thread GeorgiaPeach disparaged the casual fan (as in, completely attacked them in a ridiculous manner), I simply said they were necessary, and the source of eventual diehard fandom which all keeps the MLB motor running, and we should support casual fans, and educate them, as necessary. He wanted nothing to do with them, and I pointed out his past history of denying the Holocaust, wanting to gas the mentally retarded and other fun stuff he's said through the years, as evidence that maybe he's not the best judge of what we should and should not be doing/thinking. He responded by saying I care too much about the "weak and unfortunate." To help him see the errors of his crazy ways, I created a scenario where, as a security guard, he'd perhaps be considered "weak and unfortunate" in comparison to someone like me (a lawyer, an investments exec, etc.), and that I would care about him, as well, even though he was "weak and unfortunate." I was giving him context. Essentially, I was being the good guy, defending others ... and trying to convince a not so nice guy to change his views. At that point Olerud stepped in and took my commentary re security guard and attorney/exec as an opportunity to make a stand about not liking "suits." He completely missed the point of what I was doing, and drove the discussion on yet another crazy tangent. He was rightfully mocked for bashing me, and suits, based off him not understanding what was happening, nor understanding an Anchorman reference (and thinking I was actually making a claim I wasn't making). Eventually, in one of his rambling hypothetical conversations for which he's infamous, he stated that I was making sexual comments to a young girl (about her mom). When I called him on that, because that's simply not acceptable to me ... I got banned. No s***. That really happened. I stood up to a Holocaust-denier who belittled those who didn't think like him (e.g. a casual fan) and wanted to see the mentally-challenged being gassed, and was vilified for it. Then, a completely wrong-minded guy stepped in to fight (and he never even stopped after realizing he completely misunderstood what was going on), and I got banned for taking him to task for stating that I would make sexual comments to a little girl. And everyone rejoiced. THAT was the start of my and Olerud's relationship. See, Olerud brings up the fact that I took him to task over getting canned ... but that's not the whole story. I would never just go after someone for being fired, simply because they were fired. I don't remember the issue there, but he was using that claim (that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment), to support another dubious claim. I corrected him, and when he wouldn't relent, I used it for effect, but for a greater purpose. Not at all dissimilar for when I "mocked" GeorgiaPeach for his profession - not because I'm actually mocking his profession, but because I'm using that to provide context for that gentleman to understand a point - that being a small-minded, bigoted ahole isn't cool. So, when Olerud wonders why someone like me could be so cold-hearted as to continually bring up this personal stuff, he needs to consider that it's almost always to make a larger point (like when he's in the middle of one of his rambling hypotheticals wherein he lies and exaggerates to support a dubious claim, and I want him to understand that we don't believe him), and that, perhaps, maybe it's also spurred on by the fact that in one of those rambling hypotheticals, he (inadvertently or not), painted me as someone who would make sexual comments about their mom to a little girl, and he never owned up to it, nor apologized ... but has continued, for quite some time, rambling on about his paranoid delusions about "suits," instead ... typically interjecting these things as a dig on me, and often when he's not even invited to the conversation (he's simply an interloper, looking for a cheap dig). Olerud, unfortunately, it was YOU who got very personal with me. And when called on it, you actually are now playing the victim.