Shelley's fielding
EGK
gotten a bad rap for his fielding. It was only one game but he showed a
really good arm in right and made a very nice scoop of a poor throw in the
dirt while at first. Given what he's shown so far, I don't see why he
shouldn't be in the mix next year for the regular first base job.
He certainly seems to have surprised the O's Patterson with that throw.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/08/16/2007-08-16_variety_show_for_shelley-2.html
Secret weapon, indeed. Patterson thought he had a decent jump, and, knowing
the book on Duncan, was surprised to be out by plenty.
"It was a good throw," Patterson said. "I knew in the minors he hit a bunch
of home runs, and it was hard for him to find a position. That's what I had
heard. No one really knew him."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - HIGH 5 (games out)!
malformed.
Vinnie S.
>After watching the game yesterday, I got to wondering if Shelley Duncan has
>gotten a bad rap for his fielding. It was only one game but he showed a
>really good arm in right and made a very nice scoop of a poor throw in the
>dirt while at first. Given what he's shown so far, I don't see why he
>shouldn't be in the mix next year for the regular first base job.
>
>He certainly seems to have surprised the O's Patterson with that throw.
>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/08/16/2007-08-16_variety_show_for_shelley-2.html
>
>Secret weapon, indeed. Patterson thought he had a decent jump, and, knowing
>the book on Duncan, was surprised to be out by plenty.
>
>"It was a good throw," Patterson said. "I knew in the minors he hit a bunch
>of home runs, and it was hard for him to find a position. That's what I had
>heard. No one really knew him."
Maybe it's a "run in the family" rap.
Vinnie S.
BadgerBC
> After watching the game yesterday, I got to wondering if Shelley Duncan has
> gotten a bad rap for his fielding. It was only one game but he showed a
> really good arm in right and made a very nice scoop of a poor throw in the
> dirt while at first. Given what he's shown so far, I don't see why he
> shouldn't be in the mix next year for the regular first base job.
>
>
> Secret weapon, indeed. Patterson thought he had a decent jump, and, knowing
> the book on Duncan, was surprised to be out by plenty.
>
> "It was a good throw," Patterson said. "I knew in the minors he hit a bunch
> of home runs, and it was hard for him to find a position. That's what I had
> heard. No one really knew him."
>
It's a very tough call. As you know the Yanks have been punting 1B
position for a few years now (when Giambi isn't healthy enough to play
there). They have to do something, but of course there isn't much out
there in the FA market this winter. The Yanks have the young pitching
(second tier) which is fungible commodity, but I personally don't like
to trade (or overpay) for corner position players. For me 2B-SS-C-CF
(or traditional strength-up-the-middle positions) are the ones you pay
the premium if there is a desperate need.
Coming into the season I think the Yanks were hoping Eric Duncan would
progress enough to make himself a viable candidate for next season.
(e.g., Cashman wouldn't budge on the contract length of Mientkiewicz)
At this point Eric probably isn't going to turn out to be a ML hitter
though he's still young. Juan Miranda (the Cuban exile) has shown
promise with his bat and he's now in Trenton. As Larry pointed out,
his split vs RH pitching is very good thus far. Betemit (assuming he
works on fielding this winter) of course is another who can possibly
platoon a bit at 1B. Andy Phillips has a very good split vs LH in the
minors (huge sample) but for some reason it's been opposite in his ML
career. So at this point I'm not even sure how to place him in this
platoon mix. Shelley also had a positive split vs LH pitching and to
me he actually looks comfortable vs LH pitchers. And Shelley can also
spot Abreu vs tough LH pitchers if Bobby continues to have some
trouble next year. And if I'm Cashman I'd ask Hideki to work on 1B
this winter. I don't know if he could do it, but you know he's
professional enough to try his best.
So I think I'd seriously consider letting Shelley split time with
Betemit, Hideki and maybe Jorge next year. There just aren't too many
options outside the organization that are appealing
Free Agents
Sean Casey DET
Tony Clark ARZ
Jeff Conine PHI
Julio Franco ATL
Kevin Millar * BAL (team option)
Olmedo Saenz LAD
Mark Sweeney SF
Mike Sweeney KC
Thermos
I agree. As much as it seemed a compelling need last winter, this
winter, I'd rather they spend their money elsewhere and split 1B
between Phillips (who has turned ice cold at the plate but should
bounce back), Duncan, Betemit and the occasional Giambi. If Miranda
keeps hitting, he should be up with the big club next year. Maybe
we'll get a manager who's open to the idea of platooning.
Pepe Papon
<neilricha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Yanks have the young pitching
>(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar,
I now return you to your regular Usenet discussion.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
BadgerBC
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
> same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
merely using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph
Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
power) to another form.
Throws like Mary
<oneilsprost...@aol.com> wrote:
> He may be the ugliest fucker on the team. Looks like his head is
> malformed.
Uglier than turtle?
Throws like Mary
In other words, he was using it wrong from a /bullshitting/
perspective (as usual).
Pepe Papon
Never heard it used that way.
BadgerBC
Now now, D-word. Just because you had to order something from a
diploma mill, don't begrudge someone else for actually having attained
higher education. It's the first concept a freshman in an accredited
instution learns in his IR survey course.
Throws like Mary
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC
>
>
>
> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> >> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> >> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> >> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> >> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
> >> same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> >Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
> >merely using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph
> >Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
> >power) to another form.
[...]
> Never heard it used that way.
>
Google this group and "fungible." Hilarious. Badger-san's favorite
word.
BadgerBC
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC
>
>
>
>
>
> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> >> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> >> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> >> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> >> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
> >> same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> >Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
> >merely using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph
> >Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
> >power) to another form.
>
> Never heard it used that way.
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, _Power and Interdependence_
David Baldwin, _Economic Statecraft_
Kenneth Waltz, "Response to Keohane" in Keohane, ed., _Neorealism and
Its Critics_
I mean the list goes on and on as it's the basis of understanding in
international relations theory (in the divide between realism and
institutionalism) In addition, they're using it the same way in
political sociology (cf. Dennis Wrong, Anthony Giddens, etc.)
Throws like Mary
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> error.
Popular usage in this newsgroup. Badger-san leads the charge, or
course.
"Relievers, except truly elite ones, are fungible." Jul 30 2006 by
BadgerBC
"He just needs to be a good major league pitcher for it to have been
worthwhile
not to deal him for the Fungible OF du jour." --Jul 26 2006 by Erasmus
\"The Mannequin\" Brown
2.4mil isn't too much for the Yanks to just eat or maybe even trade
Myers as
"LOOGY's are fungible commodity these days"--Feb 17 by kenny1111
"Catching prospects are fungible commodity."--Jul 20 2006 by
saxmaniac
"In fact I think the danger is what would happen this winter if they
fall completely out
of contention as they are loaded with fungible commodities (young
power pitching)."--Jun 27 by BadgerBC
"Villone has so exceeded my expectations (and he's got marquee value
considering
how many teams were after him midseason last year including the Yanks)
that if
Matt shows some consistency as a LOOGY I'd think about what is out
there in terms
of offers as LOOGY's like Villone are very fungible commodity during
the..."
Jun 4 2006 by BadgerBC
-----
This just in, LOOGY's [sic] are fungible commodities.
Throws like Mary
Let the Badger-san bullshit flow....lol. Priceless.
BadgerBC
Priceless is how desperate you are to prove to the world that you were
deprived of a decent liberal arts education. It's ok though as I'm
sure you're getting proper ROI from life choices. Trolling as a full
time occupation certainly must pay enough to get you out of your
parents' basement, eh?
Throws like Mary
Stick to the bullshit, it's much more amusing than your usual ad hom.
BadgerBC
Sorry D-word. No free education for your sorry ass. You should've
invested some resources to education instead of blowing it on
consumption. Ah what the heck, here's a tidbit to assuage my guilt
for laughing at you regularly. The term "liberal" in economics
doesn't share the same meaning in politics. I understand you have
trouble grasping simple things, but there you go.
Throws like Mary
> > I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> > newsgroup
>
> merely using it from political science POV
"Political science point of view"--like LOOGY's [sic]?
"LOOGY's [sic] like Villone are very fungible commodity
during the season."--BadgerBC, Jun 4 2006
Not only are those LOOGY's [sic] /fungible/, they are VERY fungible.
That's just good poly-sci usage. That's why I love this group,
talking about things like relief pitching from a "political science"
perspective, and all....
BadgerBC
And we talk about game theoretic applications (regarding pitch
selections as well as bunts) in this group as well. Just because you
are ignorant, don't assume the rest of us are.
Throws like Mary
Note to the EDUCATED Badger-san: There are not DEGREES of
fungibility. It either is, or isn't. Something can't be VERY
fungible. I guess they didn't teach you that, huh?
Also, when pluralizing a noun or acronym, don't use an apostrophe.
That is reserved to indicate a possessive inflection.
Throws like Mary
Oh good, more Googled BS. I love that. It's downright fungible.
VERY fungible.
BadgerBC
> On Aug 16, 10:13 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 9:08 pm, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
> > > merely using it from political science POV
>
> > "Political science point of view"--like LOOGY's [sic]?
>
> > "LOOGY's [sic] like Villone are very fungible commodity
> > during the season."--BadgerBC, Jun 4 2006
>
> > Not only are those LOOGY's [sic] /fungible/, they are VERY fungible.
> > That's just good poly-sci usage. That's why I love this group,
> > talking about things like relief pitching from a "political science"
> > perspective, and all....
>
> Note to the EDUCATED Badger-san: There are not DEGREES of
> fungibility. It either is, or isn't. Something can't be VERY
> fungible. I guess they didn't teach you that, huh?
>
LOL. Yeah tell that to generations of sociologists and political
scientists. You're so damn ignorant that you have no idea how you're
just handing me the rope. I guess economics wasn't your cup of tea
either, eh?
BadgerBC
But your IQ isn't very fungible because it's not measurable. LOL
BadgerBC
> hom. Give us something HIGHLY fungible. Give us degrees of
> absolutes. LOL.
Economists try to measure fungibility. One of sociologists main
inquiry these days is whether or not social capital is "fungible"
across different segments of society. Political scientists use the
term to denote convertibility (heck all you had to do was to just look
up fungible with political science). Even though the good book tells
me not to waste it on a swine, that is the end of your free lesson.
Throws like Mary
From a "political science POV" Loogy's [sic] are fungible. I love that
idiocy. You never fail to disappoint with your bullshit. (Your
education is obvious.)
BadgerBC
Oohhh. D-word is quite annoyed with himself for walking into another
easy shot. Zig zag my boy. Zig zag.
Throws like Mary
@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Economists try to measure fungibility. One of sociologists main
> inquiry these days is whether or not social capital is "fungible"
> across different segments of society.
Again with the poor usage. You even had to put it in quotes. Fungible
means interchangeable. Not transferable.
<snip>
> (heck all you had to do was to just look
> up fungible with political science).
That's your game. Google is your BS-estest friend.
I know what fungible means, and I understand the concept of a
superlative. ("Very" is deprecated stylistically, btw.)
The concept of interchangeability, like equivalence, lacks a superlative
inflection. Loogy's [sic] aren't being studied extensively by
sociologists, or political scientists, and they don't have much to do
with International Relations either. (The BS floweth from BC like no
other.)
BadgerBC
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:39:18 -0700, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3819
>
> @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Economists try to measure fungibility. One of sociologists main
> > inquiry these days is whether or not social capital is "fungible"
> > across different segments of society.
>
> Again with the poor usage. You even had to put it in quotes. Fungible
> means interchangeable. Not transferable.
One would think that someone who had been bashed over the top so many
times would learn to avoid further pain... As for your bullshit here,
I guess Robert Putnam's _Making Democracy Work_ didn't make your
monthly reading list after all that trolling. Here's a VERY basic
concept that a freshman survey of macrosociology would cover. You
interpreted fungible as "transferable" because you're ignorant.
Sociologists would use the term *interchangeable* with "convertible."
Got that?
>
> <snip>
>
> > (heck all you had to do was to just look
> > up fungible with political science).
>
> That's your game. Google is your BS-estest friend.
>
Stop projecting you moron.
> I know what fungible means, and I understand the concept of a
> superlative. ("Very" is deprecated stylistically, btw.)
>
> The concept of interchangeability, like equivalence, lacks a superlative
> inflection.
Which aspect of the term "convertible" did you have trouble grasping?
And yes, social scientists do try to measure it. And numbnuts,
economists (unlike you) have also heard someone say X is "very
inelastic" or "very elastic."
>Loogy's [sic] aren't being studied extensively by
> sociologists, or political scientists, and they don't have much to do
> with International Relations either. (The BS floweth from BC like no
> other.)
Such a pitiful mind. Twits like you once thought game theory didn't
have much to do with evolutionary biology either. That's ok though as
I'm sure you're blissful.
Throws like Mary
Fungible idiot. What a egotistical POS you are, Badger, and believe me,
I'm not the only one here that sees you for the intellectual FRAUD that
you are. And that's speaking strictly from a /Poly-Sci/ POV. Google up
a response, now little brain. LOL.
Fraud.
--
"LOOGY's [sic] like Villone are very fungible commodity during the
season."--BadgerBC
"Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
merely using it from political science POV..."--BadgerBC expounding on
relief pitching, from a Poly-Sci perspective.
BadgerBC
Yeah yeah and you're not least bit steamed. A funge like you ought to
know your place.
What a egotistical POS you are, Badger, and believe me,
> I'm not the only one here that sees you for the intellectual FRAUD that
> you are. And that's speaking strictly from a /Poly-Sci/ POV.
Poly-Sci? Is that what is written on your diploma? LOL.
>Google up
> a response, now little brain. LOL.
Why don't you google up Poly-Sci [sic] instead? You've been cheated,
clod.
Throws like Mary
@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >The Yanks have the young pitching
> > >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
> >
> > error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> > quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
> > same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
> power) to another form.
>
This is nice fresh dung. Still steamy and warm.
Word usage doesn't have a "point of view." Only the user of the word
can have such a bias. And you weren't talking from a "political science
perspective," you were talking about relief pitching, from a strictly
"baseball" POV.
Fraud.
BadgerBC
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3819
>
>
>
>
>
> @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> > > <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >The Yanks have the young pitching
> > > >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> > > I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> > > newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> > > error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> > > quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the
> > > same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> > Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
> > merely using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph
> > Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
> > power) to another form.
>
> This is nice fresh dung. Still steamy and warm.
>
> Word usage doesn't have a "point of view." Only the user of the word
> can have such a bias.
Indeed and if you haven't guessed what that bias might be, you are
really slow. Then again, maybe you thought my background was "Poly-
Sci" [sic]...LOL
> And you weren't talking from a "political science
> perspective," you were talking about relief pitching, from a strictly
> "baseball" POV.
>
Oh? What is "baseball" POV? Your undergraduate minor? (No doubt
trolling must've been your major. Or did the paper really say "Poly-
Sci"?) No you clod. Each of us brings his own perspective into
discussing the game. Some are physicists, economists, and even
political scientists. And you bring an ignorant troll's perspective
that serves as the fertilizer in our group (as in manure).
> Fraud.
Funge!
eric
> On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>>
>> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >The Yanks have the young pitching
>> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>>
>> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
>> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
>> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
>> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the same
>> commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was merely
> using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's
> usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or power) to
> another form.
The root Latin means 'performs in place of', i.e. something is fungible
with something else if it yields the same exact performance. This is why
the word is most often used referring to commodities - a ton of gold
performs the same as any other ton of gold.
The most common example in political science the argument is
whether soft power is fungible with hard power, i.e. whether or not the
two are really the same from a performance point of view. Keohane in fact
argues the two are not fungible.
In baseball I don't think you can argue that pitchers and position players
are fungible. They do not perform the same at all.
--
Quis corriget ipsos correctores?
Throws like Mary
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC, during a pipe dream babbled:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> >> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> >> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> >> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> >> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the same
> >> commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> > Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was merely
> > using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's
> > usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or power) to
> > another form.
>
> The root Latin means 'performs in place of', i.e. something is fungible
> with something else if it yields the same exact performance. This is why
> the word is most often used referring to commodities - a ton of gold
> performs the same as any other ton of gold.
>
> The most common example in political science the argument is
> whether soft power is fungible with hard power, i.e. whether or not the
> two are really the same from a performance point of view. Keohane in fact
> argues the two are not fungible.
[...]
> In baseball I don't think you can argue that pitchers and position players
> are fungible. They do not perform the same at all.
I'm forced to agree completely. (From a political science perspective
of course. Anything else would be silly.)
BadgerBC
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC, during a pipe dream babbled:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> >> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >The Yanks have the young pitching
> >> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
>
> >> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
> >> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this recurring
> >> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
> >> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of the same
> >> commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
>
> > Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was merely
> > using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye's
> > usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or power) to
> > another form.
>
> The root Latin means 'performs in place of', i.e. something is fungible
> with something else if it yields the same exact performance. This is why
> the word is most often used referring to commodities - a ton of gold
> performs the same as any other ton of gold.
>
> The most common example in political science the argument is
> whether soft power is fungible with hard power, i.e. whether or not the
> two are really the same from a performance point of view. Keohane in fact
> argues the two are not fungible.
Well, Keohane and Nye (and the rest of liberal institutionalists)
argue that point (although if you read his latest work on human rights
and intervention, I'm not quite sure if he is as firm about this as he
was in 1972). However, there are plenty of realists who would reject
that argument with plenty of good reasons. Even in the example of
1973 Oil Crisis and the ensuing petrodollar recycling (as well as
continued dollar seignorage) which is Keohane and Nye's important
counterexample, the United States implicitly threaten to seize the
oilfield when Kissinger made the deliberate point of "not ruling out"
the military option to resolve the crisis. The point is whether the
definition is one of "convertibility" or not.
Throws like Mary
> On Aug 17, 8:11 am, eric <e...@local.net> wrote:
>
> > The root Latin means 'performs in place of', i.e. something is fungible
> > with something else if it yields the same exact performance. This is why
> > the word is most often used referring to commodities - a ton of gold
> > performs the same as any other ton of gold.
>
> > The most common example in political science the argument is
> > whether soft power is fungible with hard power, i.e. whether or not the
> > two are really the same from a performance point of view. Keohane in fact
> > argues the two are not fungible.
[....]
> Well, Keohane and Nye (and the rest of liberal institutionalists)
> argue that point (although if you read his latest work on human rights
> and intervention, I'm not quite sure if he is as firm about this as he
> was in 1972). However, there are plenty of realists who would reject
> that argument with plenty of good reasons. Even in the example of
> 1973 Oil Crisis and the ensuing petrodollar recycling (as well as
> continued dollar seignorage) which is Keohane and Nye's important
> counterexample, the United States implicitly threaten to seize the
> oilfield when Kissinger made the deliberate point of "not ruling out"
> the military option to resolve the crisis. The point is whether the
> definition is one of "convertibility" or not.
Allow Badger to pour his usual bullshit all over that and try to bury
his mistake. LOL. So predictable. He also snipped your conclusion,
Eric:
"In baseball I don't think you can argue that pitchers and position
players
are fungible. They do not perform the same at all."
Why would he snip that? Does it make him look foolish? Or flat out
WRONG?
BadgerBC
> I'm forced to agree completely. (From a political science perspective
> of course. Anything else would be silly.)-
You mean Poly-Sci [sic] perspective.
BadgerBC
>He also snipped your conclusion,
> Eric:
>
> "In baseball I don't think you can argue that pitchers and position
> players
> are fungible. They do not perform the same at all."
>
> Why would he snip that? Does it make him look foolish? Or flat out
> WRONG?
I understand you're a funge, but do try to keep up. I disagree with
the definition and usage. It's not too terribly difficult for even a
twit like you to understand the implied conclusion here, but I guess
my expectations were too high.
Throws like Mary (BadgerBC=bullshit artist)
You lose, Badger. Exposed for what you are once again, by yours
truly. Spin that stink all you want. Spin it. It still smells
EXACTLY like shit.
I'm through "arguing" with you because it would be pointless. Now I'm
mocking you about it as long as you will allow yourself to continue to
be humiliated. Your continued spin of an indefensible position is
worth its weight in gold. (At least I am fair, and let you know what
is at stake: any SHRED of credibility you have left.)
BadgerBC
<yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 9:45 am, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 8:36 am, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >He also snipped your conclusion,
> > > Eric:
>
> > > "In baseball I don't think you can argue that pitchers and position
> > > players
> > > are fungible. They do not perform the same at all."
>
> > > Why would he snip that? Does it make him look foolish? Or flat out
> > > WRONG?
>
> > I understand you're a funge, but do try to keep up. I disagree with
> > the definition and usage. It's not too terribly difficult for even a
> > twit like you to understand the implied conclusion here, but I guess
> > my expectations were too high.
>
> You lose, Badger. Exposed for what you are once again, by yours
> truly. Spin that stink all you want. Spin it. It still smells
> EXACTLY like shit.
>
Are you autistic? If so I'll stop pounding you as I didn't realize
you had a tendency to repeat things over and over again.
> I'm through "arguing" with you because it would be pointless.
Don't make me laugh, dipshit. I was through arguing with you last
year. You're a troll who desperately needs a job (I guess that Poly-
Sci B.S. wasn't worth the money, eh?).
> Now I'm
> mocking you about it as long as you will allow yourself to continue to
> be humiliated.
Tsk, tsk. Projecting is one thing, but now delusions of grandeur as
well. I always suspected it as much.
>Your continued spin of an indefensible position is
> worth its weight in gold.
>(At least I am fair, and let you know what
> is at stake: any SHRED of credibility you have left.
On the contrary, my dimwitted troll, the mere fact that you've been
begging me to pound you is all one needs for credibility.
Pepe Papon
>The root Latin means 'performs in place of', i.e. something is fungible
>with something else if it yields the same exact performance. This is why
>the word is most often used referring to commodities - a ton of gold
>performs the same as any other ton of gold.
If one pound of mushrooms performed exactly the same as another, we
could then say they were fungible fungi.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
"BadgerBC" <neilricha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187322946.3...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 16, 8:42 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > On Aug 16, 9:33 pm, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > > On Aug 16, 8:25 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:08:41 -0700, BadgerBC
: >
: > > > <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > > >On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
: > > > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:31:46 -0700, BadgerBC
: >
: > > > >> <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > > > >> >The Yanks have the young pitching
: > > > >> >(second tier) which is fungible commodity,
: >
: > > > >> I've noticed the word "fungible" being frequently misused in this
: > > > >> newsgroup, so as a public service, I'm here to correct this
recurring
: > > > >> error. Fungible commodities are things of a nature such that one
: > > > >> quantity be easily exchanged and replaced an equal quantity of
the
: > > > >> same commodity, such as with wheat or sugar
: >
: > > > >Indeed you're right as it is the proper usage in economics. I was
: > > > >merely using it from political science POV (Robert Keohane and
Joseph
: > > > >Nye's usage). It focuses on convertibility of one type of good (or
: > > > >power) to another form.
: > > > Never heard it used that way.
: >
: > > Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, _Power and Interdependence_
: >
: > > David Baldwin, _Economic Statecraft_
: >
: > > Kenneth Waltz, "Response to Keohane" in Keohane, ed., _Neorealism and
: > > Its Critics_
: >
: > > I mean the list goes on and on as it's the basis of understanding in
: > > international relations theory (in the divide between realism and
: > > institutionalism) In addition, they're using it the same way in
: > > political sociology (cf. Dennis Wrong, Anthony Giddens, etc.)
: >
: > Let the Badger-san bullshit flow....lol. Priceless.-
:
: Priceless is how desperate you are to prove to the world that you were
: deprived of a decent liberal arts education. It's ok though as I'm
: sure you're getting proper ROI from life choices. Trolling as a full
: time occupation certainly must pay enough to get you out of your
: parents' basement, eh?
:
I don't get it. Does TLM actually dispute your statements, or is he simply
trolling?
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
<pseudo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1187325097.8...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 16, 10:28 pm, BadgerBC <neilrichardson3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Like I said, stick to the BS, I find it much more amusing than your ad
: hom. Give us something HIGHLY fungible. Give us degrees of
: absolutes. LOL.
Usenet stalking is surely a sign of enlightenment.
Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Badger did not snip his conclusion.
Pepe Papon
Both. Note his non-response to Badger's point.