Rodney Parker wrote: > > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting > > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the > > turnaround.
> Great post, David.
> See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
> Bucholtz
Look at the back of his jersey sometime, Randy Porker. It's B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z.
I know plenty of other Astros fans are disappointed in the bullpen, but Miller's ERA for 2006 (3.97) is below his career ERA (4.61). Qualls' (4.03) is a little higher than his career (3.55), but he was a rookie last season. Wheeler is right at his career ERA (4.01 in 2006, 4.16 career). And Lidge is a fucking basket case -- I don't think he's ever going to get, much less keep, it together.
> The bats came out of hiding.
Houston's offense is still the weak link. We're 10th in the NL in OBP, and only the Padres and Cubs trail is in SLG. I told y'all Lane and Ensberg weren't the studs y'all thought they were; I told you two-three years ago Ensberg didn't just need more regular play, and he should be riding the bench so Bruntlett and Lamb get more time. Lane and Ensberg had a lot more value to the Astros as "top prospect" trade bait before other teams could see how inconsistent they are at MLB level play; unfortunately, Purpura is too loyal to the players he developed when he headed minor league development, so they're going to be in Astros uniforms for a while longer.
As for pitching, we're third in the NL in WHIP and eighth in ERA. Give the starters and relievers some room to work with and we'll win more games. (IOW, offense wins games, not decent pitching.)
> As you say, hopefully it's the start of something.
The only good news with the Astros sucking again is that the whole division stinks and this ghastly exercise of interleague play is finally over after tonight. It's bad enough we had to play the KC Royals during the course of a season; it tells you how much work the Astros have ahead of them that they lost that series AT HOME.
>> > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting >> > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the >> > turnaround.
>> Great post, David.
>> See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted when > the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the team > loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A THING OR > TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
You've obviously been away for awhile. I gave David a hard time last week after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying the same thing. He was on a "bullpen sucks" rant. This post was actually intended as a compliment, not a sarcastic slap at him. I hope he takes it that way. If not, then I'll apologize to him for not making it clear enough.
OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team > isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they > were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect a > complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the dialogue between David and I.
>> Bucholtz
> Look at the back of his jersey sometime, Randy Porker. It's > B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z.
Thanks, Miss. I'll study harder for my next spelling quiz.
>> was marvelous, as were Qualls and Miller.
> I know plenty of other Astros fans are disappointed in the bullpen, but > Miller's ERA for 2006 (3.97) is below his career ERA (4.61). Qualls' > (4.03) is a little higher than his career (3.55), but he was a rookie last > season. Wheeler is right at his career ERA (4.01 in 2006, 4.16 career). > And Lidge is a fucking basket case -- I don't think he's ever going to > get, much less keep, it together.
Once again, I agree with you...but it's not relevant to this dialogue, which was referring ONLY to the bupplen's performance yesterday.
>> The bats came out of hiding.
> Houston's offense is still the weak link. We're 10th in the NL in OBP, and > only the Padres and Cubs trail is in SLG. I told y'all Lane and Ensberg > weren't the studs y'all thought they were; I told you two-three years ago > Ensberg didn't just need more regular play, and he should be riding the > bench so Bruntlett and Lamb get more time. Lane and Ensberg had a lot more > value to the Astros as "top prospect" trade bait before other teams could > see how inconsistent they are at MLB level play; unfortunately, Purpura is > too loyal to the players he developed when he headed minor league > development, so they're going to be in Astros uniforms for a while longer.
Stop me if you've heard this before, but once again, I agree with you...but it's not relevant to this dialogue, which was referring ONLY to the yesterday's offensive performance.
> As for pitching, we're third in the NL in WHIP and eighth in ERA. Give the > starters and relievers some room to work with and we'll win more games. > (IOW, offense wins games, not decent pitching.)
Ya think?
>> As you say, hopefully it's the start of something.
> The only good news with the Astros sucking again is that the whole > division stinks and this ghastly exercise of interleague play is finally > over after tonight. It's bad enough we had to play the KC Royals during > the course of a season; it tells you how much work the Astros have ahead > of them that they lost that series AT HOME.
Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David, we see things pretty much the same way.
Rodney Parker wrote: >>> > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting >>> > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the >>> > turnaround.
>>> Great post, David.
>>> See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
>> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted >> when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the >> team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A >> THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
> You've obviously been away for awhile.
You obviously don't pay attention to headers, dumbass. Maybe this post will set your tiny wheels in motion.
> I gave David a hard time last week > after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying the > same thing.
And I read your shitty posts, which ironically also all said the same thing: that David only writes to see his name. What's your excuse, dipshit?
> He was on a "bullpen sucks" rant. This post was actually intended > as a compliment, not a sarcastic slap at him. I hope he takes it that > way. If not, then I'll apologize to him for not making it clear enough.
There's plenty more for which you should apologize, Randy.
> OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own > ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
Discussions are two-way, moron. All you did was repeat, "David just likes to see his own name." You both repeated yourselves ad nauseum; at least his posts were on topic.
>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team >> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they >> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect >> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
> I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the dialogue > between David and I.
Objective case: "between us" or "between David and me." I wasn't commenting on your diatribe about how much David might or might not enjoy seeing his name on usenet. I suppose we might find him posting in numerous other newsgroups if that were the case, especially since this group isn't exactly the most active group on usenet. Have you tested your hypothesis, Einstein?
>>> Bucholtz
>> Look at the back of his jersey sometime, Randy Porker. It's >> B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z.
>> I know plenty of other Astros fans are disappointed in the bullpen, but >> Miller's ERA for 2006 (3.97) is below his career ERA (4.61). Qualls' >> (4.03) is a little higher than his career (3.55), but he was a rookie >> last season. Wheeler is right at his career ERA (4.01 in 2006, 4.16 >> career). And Lidge is a fucking basket case -- I don't think he's ever >> going to get, much less keep, it together.
> Once again, I agree with you...but it's not relevant to this dialogue, > which was referring ONLY to the bupplen's performance yesterday.
Bullpen, Randy, bullpen. I realize multisyllabic words can be difficult for people like you, but that one should be pretty easy.
>>> The bats came out of hiding.
>> Houston's offense is still the weak link. We're 10th in the NL in OBP, >> and only the Padres and Cubs trail is in SLG. I told y'all Lane and >> Ensberg weren't the studs y'all thought they were; I told you two-three >> years ago Ensberg didn't just need more regular play, and he should be >> riding the bench so Bruntlett and Lamb get more time. Lane and Ensberg >> had a lot more value to the Astros as "top prospect" trade bait before >> other teams could see how inconsistent they are at MLB level play; >> unfortunately, Purpura is too loyal to the players he developed when he >> headed minor league development, so they're going to be in Astros >> uniforms for a while longer.
> Stop me if you've heard this before,
Do you lack self-control in addition to being a poor speller and marginally literate?
<...>
> Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David,
I read your posts, which I would hardly call a dialogue, when you posted them to the group. I also replied to posts written by David and Marv (MTV) using the nym. Perhaps you should pull your own head out of your own ass before you suggest others are oblivious to your own repetitive whining about David being "the kind of guy who only likes to see his name" because he was repeating himself. What was your excuse, Randy?
> > > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting > > > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the > > > turnaround.
> > Great post, David.
> > See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
The NL has pretty much sucked the last week. RELATIVE TO THE OTHER NL TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF HUNT, the Astros weren't doing that poorly.
> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
Again, look at the other teams in the NL. The Astros record doesn't exist in a vacuum.
>> > > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting >> > > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the >> > > turnaround.
>> > Great post, David.
>> > See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
>> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted >> when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the >> team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A >> THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
> The NL has pretty much sucked the last week.
The Astros have sucked since about the start of May. We finished April 16-9. We finished May at .500. We're three games under since June 1st.
> RELATIVE TO THE OTHER NL > TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF HUNT, the Astros weren't doing that poorly.
Relative to their start in April, the Astros are doing poorly. Relative to the rest of the NL, the Astros are a middling team. See below.
>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team >> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they >> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect >> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
> Again, look at the other teams in the NL. The Astros record doesn't > exist in a vacuum.
WTF are you prating about? We're 11th of the 16 NL teams, and that wouldn't change significantly even correcting for interleague play.
Our record by division: NL East: 9-6 NL Central: 16-12 NL West: 8-13 Interleague: 6-11
> >> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted > >> when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when the > >> team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A > >> THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
> > The NL has pretty much sucked the last week.
> The Astros have sucked since about the start of May. We finished April 16-9. > We finished May at .500. We're three games under since June 1st.
"We"? I didn't know you played for the Astros.
> > RELATIVE TO THE OTHER NL > > TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF HUNT, the Astros weren't doing that poorly.
> Relative to their start in April, the Astros are doing poorly. Relative to > the rest of the NL, the Astros are a middling team. See below.
And how is "are a middling team" different' from "weren't doing that poorly"?
> >> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team > >> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as they > >> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect > >> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
> > Again, look at the other teams in the NL. The Astros record doesn't > > exist in a vacuum.
> WTF are you prating about? We're 11th of the 16 NL teams, and that wouldn't > change significantly even correcting for interleague play.
As I check the standings right now, the Astros are 5.5 games behind the Cards for the division and 3.5 games behind the Reds for the Wild Card. No other team in the WC race is more than 2.5 games ahead of the Astros. Given that the NL West will be beating up on itself most of the rest of the season, the Astros main concerns are the Cards, Reds and Brewers.
>>>> > Great pitching by Bucholtz and the bullpen as well as a good hitting >>>> > performance by Lamb and others. Hopefully, this will start the >>>> > turnaround.
>>>> Great post, David.
>>>> See, it's cool to post when something good happens, too.
>>> Contrary to your stupid-assed assertions, David has frequently posted >>> when the Astros are winning. It may seem like he's bitching more when >>> the >>> team loses, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ASTROS ARE UNDER .500 MIGHT HAVE A >>> THING OR TWO TO DO WITH THAT.
>> You've obviously been away for awhile.
> You obviously don't pay attention to headers, dumbass. Maybe this post > will > set your tiny wheels in motion.
As it has done for yours?
>> I gave David a hard time last week >> after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying the >> same thing.
> And I read your shitty posts, which ironically also all said the same > thing: > that David only writes to see his name. What's your excuse, dipshit?
You mean all TWO or THREE posts that I made to and/or regarding David? If you wish to back it up with something more substantive, be my guest. In the meantime, don't compund your own lack of credibility by stretching the facts.
>> He was on a "bullpen sucks" rant. This post was actually intended >> as a compliment, not a sarcastic slap at him. I hope he takes it that >> way. If not, then I'll apologize to him for not making it clear enough.
> There's plenty more for which you should apologize, Randy.
Such as? Here's your chance to back up your claims with substance. Good luck.
>> OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own >> ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
> Discussions are two-way, moron. All you did was repeat, "David just likes > to > see his own name." You both repeated yourselves ad nauseum; at least his > posts were on topic.
Two or three times is "ad nauseum"? Next time you'll be using the handle "Stretch Armstrong".
>>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team >>> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as >>> they >>> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect >>> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
>> I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the dialogue >> between David and I.
> Objective case: "between us" or "between David and me." I wasn't > commenting > on your diatribe about how much David might or might not enjoy seeing his > name on usenet. I suppose we might find him posting in numerous other > newsgroups if that were the case, especially since this group isn't > exactly > the most active group on usenet. Have you tested your hypothesis, > Einstein?
So? And I was complimenting him...in "public" (if you can call this forum such), just as I criticized him. That was the limit of my involvement in the discussion. Therefore, everything else you posted was irrelevant to my post.
>>>> Bucholtz
>>> Look at the back of his jersey sometime, Randy Porker. It's >>> B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z.
>>> I know plenty of other Astros fans are disappointed in the bullpen, but >>> Miller's ERA for 2006 (3.97) is below his career ERA (4.61). Qualls' >>> (4.03) is a little higher than his career (3.55), but he was a rookie >>> last season. Wheeler is right at his career ERA (4.01 in 2006, 4.16 >>> career). And Lidge is a fucking basket case -- I don't think he's ever >>> going to get, much less keep, it together.
>> Once again, I agree with you...but it's not relevant to this dialogue, >> which was referring ONLY to the bupplen's performance yesterday.
> Bullpen, Randy, bullpen. I realize multisyllabic words can be difficult > for > people like you, but that one should be pretty easy.
Lol. I missed that one. Sometimes I get in a hurry. I guess that's quite an indictment you have on me there. I'll try harder, Ma'am.
>>> Houston's offense is still the weak link. We're 10th in the NL in OBP, >>> and only the Padres and Cubs trail is in SLG. I told y'all Lane and >>> Ensberg weren't the studs y'all thought they were; I told you two-three >>> years ago Ensberg didn't just need more regular play, and he should be >>> riding the bench so Bruntlett and Lamb get more time. Lane and Ensberg >>> had a lot more value to the Astros as "top prospect" trade bait before >>> other teams could see how inconsistent they are at MLB level play; >>> unfortunately, Purpura is too loyal to the players he developed when he >>> headed minor league development, so they're going to be in Astros >>> uniforms for a while longer.
>> Stop me if you've heard this before,
> Do you lack self-control in addition to being a poor speller and > marginally > literate?
Don't compare yourself to me, Ma'am. OTOH, I'd gladly compare my SAT and GRE scores with yours.
>> Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David,
> I read your posts, which I would hardly call a dialogue, when you posted > them to the group. I also replied to posts written by David and Marv (MTV) > using the nym. Perhaps you should pull your own head out of your own ass > before you suggest others are oblivious to your own repetitive whining > about David being "the kind of guy who only likes to see his name" because > he was repeating himself. What was your excuse, Randy?
> >> I gave David a hard time last week > >> after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying the > >> same thing.
> > And I read your shitty posts, which ironically also all said the same > > thing: > > that David only writes to see his name. What's your excuse, dipshit?
> You mean all TWO or THREE posts that I made to and/or regarding David?
28 Jun 06 19:30 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens... 28 Jun 06 19:29 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks 27 Jun 06 23:07 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks 27 Jun 06 23:06 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks 27 Jun 06 23:05 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens...
Five timess in less than 24 hours.
> If you wish to back it up with something more substantive, be my guest.
Done.
> In the meantime,
Kiss my ass, Randy. I didn't stretch any facts.
<...>
> >> OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own > >> ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
> > Discussions are two-way, moron. All you did was repeat, "David just likes > > to > > see his own name." You both repeated yourselves ad nauseum; at least his > > posts were on topic.
> >>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This team > >>> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as > >>> they > >>> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't expect > >>> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
> >> I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the dialogue > >> between David and I.
> > Objective case: "between us" or "between David and me." I wasn't > > commenting > > on your diatribe about how much David might or might not enjoy seeing his > > name on usenet. I suppose we might find him posting in numerous other > > newsgroups if that were the case, especially since this group isn't > > exactly > > the most active group on usenet. Have you tested your hypothesis, > > Einstein?
> So?
Did you test your hypothesis? I tested it for you. The following link is to Google's groups for "author:david233":
> > Do you lack self-control in addition to being a poor speller and > > marginally > > literate?
> Don't compare yourself to me
Tell me where I even *hinted* at any comparison in that statement. Twit.
> OTOH, I'd gladly compare my SAT and > GRE scores with yours.
Anyone can inflate his standardized test scores, especially with the recent dumbing-down of the SAT in particular, through a variety of means -- including multiple re-tests. I would question whether your claimed 1300 was on your first SAT or your third or fourth. At the end of the day, you're still a shit and I'm not.
> >> Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David,
> > I read your posts, which I would hardly call a dialogue, when you posted > > them to the group. I also replied to posts written by David and Marv (MTV) > > using the nym. Perhaps you should pull your own head out of your own ass > > before you suggest others are oblivious to your own repetitive whining > > about David being "the kind of guy who only likes to see his name" because > > he was repeating himself. What was your excuse, Randy?
> Two or three times is very repetitive, I guess.
Try five times within 24 hours. Did they let you count on your fingers during the GRE?
> > > RELATIVE TO THE OTHER NL > > > TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF HUNT, the Astros weren't doing that poorly.
> > Relative to their start in April, the Astros are doing poorly. Relative to > > the rest of the NL, the Astros are a middling team. See below.
> And how is "are a middling team" different' from "weren't doing that > poorly"?
Guess it depends how comfortable one can be in mediocrity. For you, maybe it's a step up in life. I just don't settle for middling, mediocre, average, etc. I didn't think Drayton McLane did, either, but that's what he has now.
<...>
> > WTF are you prating about? We're 11th of the 16 NL teams, and that wouldn't > > change significantly even correcting for interleague play.
> As I check the standings right now, the Astros are 5.5 games behind the > Cards for the division and 3.5 games behind the Reds for the Wild Card. > No other team in the WC race is more than 2.5 games ahead of the > Astros. Given that the NL West will be beating up on itself most of the > rest of the season,
I don't consider that a given. I don't think the West will be won by a ~.500 team again this season; I think one or two teams in the West will pull ahead of the pack. FWIW, the West has only one team (Colorado) with a losing record against NL Central teams this season; last season, only the Dodgers had a winning record against the Central (20-19). The NL West are 19 games OVER .500 against teams from the Central so far this season and they were 19 games UNDER .500 in 2005. When we get to the end of the season and everyone is hoping the Astros can just win five or six in a row to clinch the Wild Card again, remember their record against the West -- 8-13 -- is why they're so fucking desperate for those late season wins.
> the Astros main concerns are the Cards, Reds and > Brewers.
> <...> >> >> I gave David a hard time last week >> >> after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying the >> >> same thing.
>> > And I read your shitty posts, which ironically also all said the same >> > thing: >> > that David only writes to see his name. What's your excuse, dipshit?
>> You mean all TWO or THREE posts that I made to and/or regarding David?
> 28 Jun 06 19:30 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens...
Post was on topic, differing with David's assertion that the astros had squandered "numerous" opportunities, and suggesting he give credit to Nate Robertson. The Astros aren't the only team the Tiger LH has shut down this year. OTOH, I did say that SOME PEOPLE post only to see their own name, so I guess you can claim that one as evidence.
> 28 Jun 06 19:29 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks > 27 Jun 06 23:07 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks > 27 Jun 06 23:06 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks
Yes, I made three posts under this thread. Two of which were in response yo another poster, and not David. Two were completely on-topic, and one did not mention David at all. Two contained the "see their own name" comment, so I guess you can now bump your "evidence" up to three posts. Which, of course, was what I said I had done...but claim your victory anyway, Stretch.
> 27 Jun 06 23:05 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens...
Nowhere in this post dis I claim David posts to see his own name. So the count, both yours and mine, remians at three...like I said.
> Five timess in less than 24 hours.
See above. Your definition of "ad nauseum" is three times or more. And one of those three was on topic, but you can count it anyway if it makes you feel better, Stretch.
>> If you wish to back it up with something more substantive, be my guest.
> Done.
Yes...you backed up what I said all along. Three times.
>> In the meantime,
> Kiss my ass, Randy. I didn't stretch any facts.
Sure you don't. First of all, 3 was "ad nauseum". Now 3=5. Be careful, Stretch, before you pull something.
>> >> OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own >> >> ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
>> > Discussions are two-way, moron. All you did was repeat, "David just >> > likes >> > to >> > see his own name." You both repeated yourselves ad nauseum; at least >> > his >> > posts were on topic.
>> >>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This >> >>> team >> >>> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as >> >>> they >> >>> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't >> >>> expect >> >>> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
>> >> I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the >> >> dialogue >> >> between David and I.
>> > Objective case: "between us" or "between David and me." I wasn't >> > commenting >> > on your diatribe about how much David might or might not enjoy seeing >> > his >> > name on usenet. I suppose we might find him posting in numerous other >> > newsgroups if that were the case, especially since this group isn't >> > exactly >> > the most active group on usenet. Have you tested your hypothesis, >> > Einstein?
>> So?
> Did you test your hypothesis? I tested it for you. The following link is > to Google's groups for "author:david233":
Thanks for the validation. As I said in a post to another, every post he makes says "Bullpen sucks", "Offense sucks", or "Garner sucks". Of course, you didn't go back any farther than the last ten days. If had, you'd have noticed that I'm not the only one who's questioned David on his "Chicken Little" act going back to last fall.
>> >> Stop me if you've heard this before,
>> > Do you lack self-control in addition to being a poor speller and >> > marginally >> > literate?
>> Don't compare yourself to me
> Tell me where I even *hinted* at any comparison in that statement. Twit.
I would have sworn that your comment about me "lacking self control" is a direct comparision. I mean, anyone who can stretch three into five, and cherry-pick posts to bolster his argument doesn't have a lot of it. You're what Dr. Phil calls a "right fighter", and will go to any length to do so, even if it stretches all logic. Take 3=5, for instance.
As for my spelling, you need to understand that there are bad spellers and those who get careless when they type in a hurry. Consider me among the latter.
>> OTOH, I'd gladly compare my SAT and >> GRE scores with yours.
> Anyone can inflate his standardized test scores, especially with the > recent dumbing-down of the SAT in particular, through a variety of > means -- including multiple re-tests. I would question whether your > claimed 1300 was on your first SAT or your third or fourth. At the end of > the day, you're still a shit and I'm not.
Well, any recent "dumbing down" of the SAT wouldn't affect me, as I took it back in 1976. Only took it once, but scored well above the 1300 you sarcastically give me credit for. I take it that since you didn't say anything about the GRE, you've never taken it? Let me know if you need a tutor.
>> >> Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David,
>> > I read your posts, which I would hardly call a dialogue, when you >> > posted >> > them to the group. I also replied to posts written by David and Marv >> > (MTV) >> > using the nym. Perhaps you should pull your own head out of your own >> > ass >> > before you suggest others are oblivious to your own repetitive whining >> > about David being "the kind of guy who only likes to see his name" >> > because >> > he was repeating himself. What was your excuse, Randy?
>> Two or three times is very repetitive, I guess.
> Try five times within 24 hours. Did they let you count on your fingers > during the GRE?
You'd know the answer to that had you taken it. You aren't gonna do very well as long as you hang on the thought that 3=5, however.
Now, if you've got something substantive to add, just fire on back. So far, however, you're batting as well as Brad Ausmus has done the past week ( a big 0-fer). Do your "research" quickly, though, as I leave for Maui in the morning. You know, vacation...just like when you and mommy and daddy go to Schlitterbahn every summer.
>> <...> >>> >> I gave David a hard time last week >>> >> after he made a half-dozen posts over a two-day period, all saying >>> >> the >>> >> same thing.
>>> > And I read your shitty posts, which ironically also all said the same >>> > thing: >>> > that David only writes to see his name. What's your excuse, dipshit?
>>> You mean all TWO or THREE posts that I made to and/or regarding David?
>> 28 Jun 06 19:30 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens...
> Post was on topic, differing with David's assertion that the astros had > squandered "numerous" opportunities, and suggesting he give credit to Nate > Robertson. The Astros aren't the only team the Tiger LH has shut down > this year. OTOH, I did say that SOME PEOPLE post only to see their own > name, so I guess you can claim that one as evidence.
>> 28 Jun 06 19:29 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks >> 27 Jun 06 23:07 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks >> 27 Jun 06 23:06 - Re: Astros Bullpen Sucks
> Yes, I made three posts under this thread. Two of which were in response > yo another poster, and not David. Two were completely on-topic, and one > did not mention David at all. Two contained the "see their own name" > comment, so I guess you can now bump your "evidence" up to three posts. > Which, of course, was what I said I had done...but claim your victory > anyway, Stretch.
>> 27 Jun 06 23:05 - Re: Typical Astros When Clemens...
> Nowhere in this post dis I claim David posts to see his own name. So the > count, both yours and mine, remians at three...like I said.
>> Five timess in less than 24 hours.
> See above. Your definition of "ad nauseum" is three times or more. And > one of those three was on topic, but you can count it anyway if it makes > you feel better, Stretch.
>>> If you wish to back it up with something more substantive, be my guest.
>> Done.
> Yes...you backed up what I said all along. Three times.
>>> In the meantime,
>> Kiss my ass, Randy. I didn't stretch any facts.
> Sure you don't. First of all, 3 was "ad nauseum". Now 3=5. Be careful, > Stretch, before you pull something.
>>> >> OTOH, your post comes off as far more stupid-ass, due to your own >>> >> ignorance of the discussion David and I had last week.
>>> > Discussions are two-way, moron. All you did was repeat, "David just >>> > likes >>> > to >>> > see his own name." You both repeated yourselves ad nauseum; at least >>> > his >>> > posts were on topic.
>>> Two or three times is "ad nauseum"?
>> Five times in one 24 hour period is.
> Especially when it's three.
>>> >>> Face it, there's not a lot to be optimistic about right now. This >>> >>> team >>> >>> isn't setting the league on fire. They may not be as in bad shape as >>> >>> they >>> >>> were at the start of 2005, but this isn't 2005 anymore -- I don't >>> >>> expect >>> >>> a complete reversal like that to occur again any time soon.
>>> >> I agree with you, although it not the least bit relevant to the >>> >> dialogue >>> >> between David and I.
>>> > Objective case: "between us" or "between David and me." I wasn't >>> > commenting >>> > on your diatribe about how much David might or might not enjoy seeing >>> > his >>> > name on usenet. I suppose we might find him posting in numerous other >>> > newsgroups if that were the case, especially since this group isn't >>> > exactly >>> > the most active group on usenet. Have you tested your hypothesis, >>> > Einstein?
>>> So?
>> Did you test your hypothesis? I tested it for you. The following link is >> to Google's groups for "author:david233":
> Thanks for the validation. As I said in a post to another, every post he > makes says "Bullpen sucks", "Offense sucks", or "Garner sucks". Of > course, you didn't go back any farther than the last ten days. If had, > you'd have noticed that I'm not the only one who's questioned David on his > "Chicken Little" act going back to last fall.
>>> >> Stop me if you've heard this before,
>>> > Do you lack self-control in addition to being a poor speller and >>> > marginally >>> > literate?
>>> Don't compare yourself to me
>> Tell me where I even *hinted* at any comparison in that statement. Twit.
> I would have sworn that your comment about me "lacking self control" is a > direct comparision. I mean, anyone who can stretch three into five, and > cherry-pick posts to bolster his argument doesn't have a lot of it. > You're what Dr. Phil calls a "right fighter", and will go to any length to > do so, even if it stretches all logic. Take 3=5, for instance.
> As for my spelling, you need to understand that there are bad spellers and > those who get careless when they type in a hurry. Consider me among the > latter.
>>> OTOH, I'd gladly compare my SAT and >>> GRE scores with yours.
>> Anyone can inflate his standardized test scores, especially with the >> recent dumbing-down of the SAT in particular, through a variety of >> means -- including multiple re-tests. I would question whether your >> claimed 1300 was on your first SAT or your third or fourth. At the end of >> the day, you're still a shit and I'm not.
> Well, any recent "dumbing down" of the SAT wouldn't affect me, as I took > it back in 1976. Only took it once, but scored well above the 1300 you > sarcastically give me credit for. I take it that since you didn't say > anything about the GRE, you've never taken it? Let me know if you need a > tutor.
>>> >> Aside from your cluelessness about my dialogue with David,
>>> > I read your posts, which I would hardly call a dialogue, when you >>> > posted >>> > them to the group. I also replied to posts written by David and Marv >>> > (MTV) >>> > using the nym. Perhaps you should pull your own head out of your own >>> > ass >>> > before you suggest others are oblivious to your own repetitive whining >>> > about David being "the kind of guy who only likes to see his name" >>> > because >>> > he was repeating himself. What was your excuse, Randy?
>>> Two or three times is very repetitive, I guess.
>> Try five times within 24 hours. Did they let you count on your fingers >> during the GRE?
> You'd know the answer to that had you taken it. You aren't gonna do very > well as long as you hang on the thought that 3=5, however.
> Now, if you've got something substantive to add, just fire on back. So > far, however, you're batting as well as Brad Ausmus has done the past week > ( a big 0-fer). Do your "research" quickly, though, as I leave for Maui > in the morning. You know, vacation...just like when you and mommy and > daddy go to Schlitterbahn every summer.
> Rod
Hell I thought the astros were coming on ...and this is all you have to write about...LOL You ought to root for the Reds like I do Now thats a bullpen that sucks....and I dont need no high SAT score to understand that!
> <...> > > > > RELATIVE TO THE OTHER NL > > > > TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF HUNT, the Astros weren't doing that poorly.
> > > Relative to their start in April, the Astros are doing poorly. Relative to > > > the rest of the NL, the Astros are a middling team. See below.
> > And how is "are a middling team" different' from "weren't doing that > > poorly"?
> Guess it depends how comfortable one can be in mediocrity. For you, maybe it's a step up in life. I just don't settle for middling, mediocre, average, etc. I didn't think Drayton McLane did, either, but that's what he has now.
If mediocre is enough to get into the playoffs, then it's good enough.
> > > WTF are you prating about? We're 11th of the 16 NL teams, and that wouldn't > > > change significantly even correcting for interleague play.
> > As I check the standings right now, the Astros are 5.5 games behind the > > Cards for the division and 3.5 games behind the Reds for the Wild Card. > > No other team in the WC race is more than 2.5 games ahead of the > > Astros. Given that the NL West will be beating up on itself most of the > > rest of the season,
> I don't consider that a given.
Looking at the records of the NL West teams against each other, I think it is highly likely.
> When we get to the end of the season and everyone is hoping the Astros can just win five or six in a row to clinch the Wild Card again, remember their record against the West -- 8-13 -- is why they're so fucking desperate for those late season wins.
It's not like the Reds or Cards are tearing up the West.
> > the Astros main concerns are the Cards, Reds and > > Brewers.
