Jump to content

sammyjankis48

Released
  • Content Count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About sammyjankis48

  • Rank
    Released
  1. Again, I'll re-iterate, if someone is old enough to post on an internet message board, someone is old enough to read censored curse words. And I seriously doubt the "children" aspect is why curse words are being censored. It's just because the moderators don't want to hear them and want this board to have a sense of decorum. (Which it already does.) Which as I already stated is fine. Nevertheless, this leads into my point of moderators going against the very sense of decorum they are trying to protect. It just further drags out the issue. Case in point, Biff's reply. He could have easily PM'ed me, but he had to showcase his authority for all to see, just so all the vagabond cursors could know who's in charge.
  2. I concur. I don't see any real problem with cursing on this board. There seems to be a sense of decorum already in place. The censor that already places asterisks in curse words is enough of a censor. It still portrays the poster's emotion, yet the actual curse word is not there so for those who have hangups on cursing don't have to read it. What the problem is with the matter is the handling of the situation. I believe oblong realizes what I'm about to type but just couldn't help himself. If oblong would have done nothing and just let it be, the matter would have long sense been over and been moot. However, whenever a person has authority, albeit as small as being an anonymous moderator on an internet message board, that person can't help but need to throw that authority around, again, however meaningless it is. That's the problem with authority, it gives most people a superiority complex. If oblong would have done nothing, nothing would have happened. Case in point. I had already dropped it and moved on by making a curse-free sarcastic remark about signing Stairs. The issue was dropped. However, oblong felt like he had to throw his weight around, even when he did not. None of these remarks were remotely necessary. The issue was already moot. If oblong wants to send me a PM and say something along the lines of "Hey, I didn't really appreciate the language in your post. Try and be careful." Boom bazooka joe, the issue is settled. But to have to publicly make these remarks on the board so that everyone can see him be authoritative over another poster is what dragged out the issue and was quite childish, such as the other remarks from others not involved such as yoda, west-side, etc. And quite laughable. For those that try to link cursing with intellect just further proves there lack of intelluct by proving the lack of reading done by said interjecters. I'll name someone I'm sure you've at least heard of, Shakespeare. Shakespeare's works were littered with curse words. It contained some of the most vile, repugnant language used at the time. However, they are not curse words now. Does that make them okay? Would one say Shakespeare's works are not intellectual? And as for cursing in a job interview, that's just asinine. Why would someone curse in a job interview? That just came out of nowhere. You must have done that before to be able to come up with that analogy.
  3. Judging by the sentence, you must curse a lot.
  4. Nope, sorry, didn't need one. Nice try on the joke, though. But people that do swear know a lot of other words too. They're just words. And some are more fitting to accurately display your emotions. It's been my experience that those who call out curse words are the very people who don't know enough words to accurately explain why alternative words were needed. Judging by the blind starting of Neifi, I have a feeling that Stairs is going to get a lot of playing time, and I don't like it one bit.
  5. A) I didn't read the sticky. I don't really care. I saw the title, thought it to be persumptuous and pedantic, so I ignored it. B) I did type in the word without the stars. **** doesn't get censored. (It does now) - Oblong C) Oblong, see this is what happens when you superfluously censor speech: chaos and name-calling.
  6. Yeah, anytime you can get an over-the-hill, past his prime, steriod-free, free-swinging slugger who strikes out a lot and can't run nor defend, and is currently hitting 248/333/414/746, you gotta make that move.
  7. Oblong not only was my sentence neccessary, it's the only sane argument on this thread. If somebody's old enough to post on the internet, then somebody's old enough to read censored curse words. No need for adjunct censorship. (Edited for content) - Oblong
  8. I love the move too. What this team needs is another crappy player off the bench. The one thing this team was missing was a strike-out prone, swing-for-the-fences guy who's slower than dirt and can't defend. We only have 4 guys that can provide this. We need more. I heard we went after Matt Stairs only once Bob Hamelin and John Jaha turned us down. Does Dombrowski know that steriods are banned now? Guys like Matt Stairs are no longer any good. (Sentence removed due to unnecessary language) - Oblong
  9. Not for the Tigers, but who can forget the Fire Millen game against Cincinnati last year for the Lions, beginning with the Millen Man March.
  10. For those of you planning on going to the game next Thursday... Orioles mired in a full-blown identity crisis http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2587235
  11. This doesn't surprise me at all. It would take Neifi 13 seasons to reach the cycle.
  12. It's happened 40 times since 1892. 34 teams made the WS and 15 teams won the WS. [I]1994 - 2005: 2 Times; 1 WS Team[/I] 2002 NL West Division Team W L WL% GB Arizona ARI 98 64 .605 -- SanFranc SFG 95 66 .590 2.5* LosAngls LAD 92 70 .568 6.0 2002 AL West Division Team W L WL% GB Oakland OAK 103 59 .636 -- Anaheim ANA 99 63 .611 4.0 Seattle SEA 93 69 .574 10.0 [B]1994 -- Three Division Format[/B] [I]1970 - 1993: 8 Times; 4 WS Champs/6 WS Teams[/I] 1989 AL West Division Team W L WL% GB Oakland OAK 99 63 .611 --** KansasCy KCR 92 70 .568 7.0 Califrna CAL 91 71 .562 8.0 1987 NL East Division Team W L WL% GB St.Louis STL 95 67 .586 --* NewYorkM NYM 92 70 .568 3.0 Montreal MON 91 71 .562 4.0 1987 AL East Division Team W L WL% GB Detroit DET 98 64 .605 -- Toronto TOR 96 66 .593 2.0 Milwkee MIL 91 71 .562 7.0 1983 AL East Division Team W L WL% GB Bltmore BAL 98 64 .605 --** Detroit DET 92 70 .568 6.0 NewYorkY NYY 91 71 .562 7.0 1979 AL East Division Team W L WL% GB Bltmore BAL 102 57 .642 --* Milwkee MIL 95 66 .590 8.0 BostonRS BOS 91 69 .569 11.5 1978 AL East Division Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 100 63 .613 --** BostonRS BOS 99 64 .607 1.0 Milwkee MIL 93 69 .574 6.5 Bltmore BAL 90 71 .559 9.0 1977 AL East Division Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 100 62 .617 --** Bltmore BAL 97 64 .602 2.5 BostonRS BOS 97 64 .602 2.5 1977 AL West Division Team W L WL% GB KansasCy KCR 102 60 .630 -- Texas TEX 94 68 .580 8.0 ChicagoW CHW 90 72 .556 12.0 [B]1969 - Two Division Format[/B] [I]1961-1968: 9 Times; 3 WS Champs[/I] 1967 AL Team W L WL% GB BostonRS BOS 92 70 .568 --* Detroit DET 91 71 .562 1.0 Minnesta MIN 91 71 .562 1.0 1966 NL Team W L WL% GB LosAngls LAD 95 67 .586 --* SanFranc SFG 93 68 .578 1.5 Pittsbgh PIT 92 70 .568 3.0 1965 AL Team W L WL% GB Minnesta MIN 102 60 .630 --* ChicagoW CHW 95 67 .586 7.0 Bltmore BAL 94 68 .580 8.0 1965 NL Team W L WL% GB LosAngls LAD 97 65 .599 --** SanFranc SFG 95 67 .586 2.0 Pittsbgh PIT 90 72 .556 7.0 1964 AL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 99 63 .611 --* ChicagoW CHW 98 64 .605 1.0 Bltmore BAL 97 65 .599 2.0 1964 NL Team W L WL% GB St.Louis STL 93 69 .574 --** Phildlpa PHI 92 70 .568 1.0 Cincnnti CIN 92 70 .568 1.0 SanFranc SFG 90 72 .556 3.0 1963 AL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 104 57 .646 --* ChicagoW CHW 94 68 .580 10.5 Minnesta MIN 91 70 .565 13.0 1962 NL Team W L WL% GB SanFranc SFG 103 62 .624 --* LosAngls LAD 102 63 .618 1.0 Cincnnti CIN 98 64 .605 3.5 Pittsbgh PIT 93 68 .578 8.0 1961 AL NewYorkY NYY 109 53 .673 --** Detroit DET 101 61 .623 8.0 Bltmore BAL 95 67 .586 14.0 [B]1961 -- Schedule Changed to 162 Games[/B] [I]1901 - 1960: 18 Times; 8 WS Champs[/I] 1956 NL Team W L WL% GB Brooklyn BRO 93 61 .604 --* Milwkee MLN 92 62 .597 1.0 Cincnnti CIN 91 63 .591 2.0 1955 AL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 96 58 .623 --* Clvlnd CLE 93 61 .604 3.0 ChicagoW CHW 91 63 .591 5.0 1954 AL Team W L WL% GB Clvlnd CLE 111 43 .721 --* NewYorkY NYY 103 51 .669 8.0 ChicagoW CHW 94 60 .610 17.0 1950 AL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 98 56 .636 --* Detroit DET 95 59 .617 3.0 BostonRS BOS 94 60 .610 4.0 Clvlnd CLE 92 62 .597 6.0 1948 AL Team W L WL% GB Clvlnd CLE 97 58 .626 --** BostonRS BOS 96 59 .619 1.0 NewYorkY NYY 94 60 .610 2.5 1935 NL Team W L WL% GB ChicagoC CHC 100 54 .649 --* St.Louis STL 96 58 .623 4.0 NewYorkG NYG 91 62 .595 8.5 1932 AL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkY NYY 107 47 .695 --** Phildlpa PHA 94 60 .610 13.0 Washngtn WSH 93 61 .604 14.0 1931 AL Team W L WL% GB Phildlpa PHA 107 45 .704 --* NewYorkY NYY 94 59 .614 13.5 Washngtn WSH 92 62 .597 16.0 1928 NL Team W L WL% GB St.Louis STL 95 59 .617 --* NewYorkG NYG 93 61 .604 2.0 ChicagoC CHC 91 63 .591 4.0 1927 NL Team W L WL% GB Pittsbgh PIT 94 60 .610 --* St.Louis STL 92 61 .601 1.5 NewYorkG NYG 92 62 .597 2.0 1924 NL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkG NYG 93 60 .608 --* Brooklyn BRO 92 62 .597 1.5 Pittsbgh PIT 90 63 .588 3.0 1920 AL Team W L WL% GB Clvlnd CLE 98 56 .636 --** ChicagoW CHW 96 58 .623 2.0 NewYorkY NYY 95 59 .617 3.0 1915 AL Team W L WL% GB BostonRS BOS 101 50 .669 --** Detroit DET 100 54 .649 2.5 ChicagoW CHW 93 61 .604 9.5 1912 AL Team W L WL% GB BostonRS BOS 105 47 .691 --** Washngtn WSH 91 61 .599 14.0 Phildlpa PHA 90 62 .592 15.0 1909 NL Team W L WL% GB Pittsbgh PIT 110 42 .724 --** ChicagoC CHC 104 49 .680 6.5 NewYorkG NYG 92 61 .601 18.5 1908 NL Team W L WL% GB ChicagoC CHC 99 55 .643 --** Pittsbgh PIT 98 56 .636 1.0 NewYorkG NYG 98 56 .636 1.0 1906 NL Team W L WL% GB ChicagoC CHC 116 36 .763 --* NewYorkG NYG 96 56 .632 20.0 Pittsbgh PIT 93 60 .608 23.5 1905 NL Team W L WL% GB NewYorkG NYG 105 48 .686 --** Pittsbgh PIT 96 57 .627 9.0 ChicagoC CHC 92 61 .601 13.0 [B]1901 -- Two League Play[/B] 1899 NL Team W L WL% GB Brooklyn BRO 101 47 .682 -- BostonBr BSN 95 57 .625 8.0 Phildlpa PHI 94 58 .618 9.0 1898 NL Team W L WL% GB BostonBr BSN 102 47 .685 -- Bltmore BLN 96 53 .644 6.0 Cincnnti CIN 92 60 .605 11.5 1892 NL Team W L WL% GB BostonBr BSN 102 48 .680 -- Clvlnd CLV 93 56 .624 8.5 Brooklyn BRO 95 59 .617 9.0
  13. Thanks for the original thought. Any thing else you'd like to share without even knowing what you're talking about but is whatever popular opinion says? How sad that you continue to stay in a place that you can only describe as "sucks" and "sucks less." If I were living in a place that I felt sucked, I'd leave, instead of staying a good 20 minutes away telling people it sucks. The only thing that separates downtown Detroit from other downtown areas is there's not as much shopping. What do you think other downtown's offer? They basically offer buildings, apartments, theatres, sports, museums, landmarks, hotels, and stores. Really, the only thing missing in downtown Detroit is an abundance of stores. If there were more shopping districts, there'd be more people, and there'd be more spur-of-the-moment things to do, which I guess would make you think it doesn't suck.
  14. Yeah, except for those in the fast lane. They top out at about 5 over.
  15. I live downtown. And why do you go downtown so often if it sucks?
×
×
  • Create New...