Former Sox players it's impossible for Sox fans to speak ill of !!!
DonFro...@webtv.net
career in a Yankee uniform but he was pretty much done by that time so I
doubt anyone would hold that agaiinst him.
Fisk might qualify except for the way he left.
Same goes for Rice with the many DPs he hit into late in his career
being the disqualifier.
Anyone else got any others?
Dewey maybe?
--
'I'm constantly amazed at your
ability to live.'
'Better than dying'
Paraphrased from
Alan Shore and
Denny Crane
by DONNIE VEE!!!
wayback1918
Rico....
Mike Andrews....
Steve Robbins
> About the only one I can think of off hand is Tiant. I know he ended his
> career in a Yankee uniform but he was pretty much done by that time so I
> doubt anyone would hold that agaiinst him.
>
> Fisk might qualify except for the way he left.
>
> Same goes for Rice with the many DPs he hit into late in his career
> being the disqualifier.
>
> Anyone else got any others?
> Dewey maybe?
>
to mind. The common element? They were before the media tended to
drag everyone through the mud.
These days it would be guys like Roberts who had a short stint and a big
impact. Lowell could fit that bill if he doesn't hang in there too
long. The effect of his injury on this year could have some talking bad
about him. We'll see how the year progresses.
--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - The One and Only
Dano
"Steve Robbins" <srobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gvponv$3dv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> DonFro...@webtv.net wrote:
> > About the only one I can think of off hand is Tiant. I know he ended his
> > career in a Yankee uniform but he was pretty much done by that time so I
> > doubt anyone would hold that agaiinst him.
> >
> > Fisk might qualify except for the way he left.
> >
> > Same goes for Rice with the many DPs he hit into late in his career
> > being the disqualifier.
> >
> > Anyone else got any others?
> > Dewey maybe?
> >
> I would think there are lots. Dewey, Lynn, Lee, Burleson easily come
> to mind. The common element? They were before the media tended to
> drag everyone through the mud.
>
Oh please. Who are you referring to...so we can judge for ourselves. Any
"fan" who can be led that easily by "The Media" (whatever you mean by
that...as if THEY are all to be lumped together like that) is an asshole
that should be smacked.
> These days it would be guys like Roberts who had a short stint and a big
> impact. Lowell could fit that bill if he doesn't hang in there too
> long. The effect of his injury on this year could have some talking bad
> about him. We'll see how the year progresses.
>
I'll give you an example. Manny got away with freaking murder in this town
by kiss ass "fans" who would forgive Jack the Ripper if he hit over .330
with over 100 ribbies. Spare me all the media bashing. It cuts both ways.
They also help to deify (not to mention enrich) these players as well, by
promoting them.
Christina
>About the only one I can think of off hand is Tiant. I know he ended his
>career in a Yankee uniform but he was pretty much done by that time so I
>doubt anyone would hold that agaiinst him.
>
>Fisk might qualify except for the way he left.
>
>Same goes for Rice with the many DPs he hit into late in his career
>being the disqualifier.
>
>Anyone else got any others?
>Dewey maybe?
Oh what a lovely idea Don! For me there are many, as you know I am
very senitmental with the Red Sox, my list would be longer than most
fan's! Over all for the majority I think you are right about Dewey
and Tiant, maybe Fisk, Rice had detracters though cause of the dp's
and also stat heads liked to argue against him for the hof. Do you
think Millar is on the list, I cant' imagine hating him. I know some
hate Damon for going to the yanks though I always love him. Oh how
about Trot, he seemed to be belove'd? REMY is high on the list too,
unfortunately some didn't like Pedro. Of old one's of course Pesky,
Doerr, Dimaggio, Tony C! Some don't like Yaz or Williams though, Mo
Vaugn also cause of the strip club and leaving.
wayback1918
I've never heard anyone ever say a bad thing about Bill Mueller
Ray Garraty
Curtis Leskanic
Dano
"Ray Garraty" <idaho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5fe9303-9ea3-4565...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 3:52 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net wrote:
> About the only one I can think of off hand is Tiant. I know he ended his
> career in a Yankee uniform but he was pretty much done by that time so I
> doubt anyone would hold that agaiinst him.
>
> Fisk might qualify except for the way he left.
>
> Same goes for Rice with the many DPs he hit into late in his career
> being the disqualifier.
>
> Anyone else got any others?
> Dewey maybe?
>
> --
Curtis Leskanic
============================
Question. Who are all these former Red Sox our fans have ill will towards?
And is it, or is it not justified?
Steve Robbins
> "Steve Robbins" <srobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gvponv$3dv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> to mind. The common element? They were before the media tended to
>> drag everyone through the mud.
>>
>
> Oh please. Who are you referring to...so we can judge for ourselves. Any
> "fan" who can be led that easily by "The Media" (whatever you mean by
> that...as if THEY are all to be lumped together like that) is an asshole
> that should be smacked.
Why "Oh please'? That is a pretty broad brush if you think everyone is
not influenced by the media. In fact I believe a large percentage of
people are influenced by the media. And yes, because of technology,
the media does have their nose into things more and report on these
things more than they did 30 years ago.
>> These days it would be guys like Roberts who had a short stint and a big
>> impact. Lowell could fit that bill if he doesn't hang in there too
>> long. The effect of his injury on this year could have some talking bad
>> about him. We'll see how the year progresses.
>>
>
> I'll give you an example. Manny got away with freaking murder in this town
> by kiss ass "fans" who would forgive Jack the Ripper if he hit over .330
> with over 100 ribbies. Spare me all the media bashing. It cuts both ways.
> They also help to deify (not to mention enrich) these players as well, by
> promoting them.
I agree. When you pay attention to the media, you have to have your
filters in place. Most people don't and it is obvious when you see the
media go for or against someone. The large percentage of people just
follow the lead.
taltos
"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - The One and Only" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote
in message
news:b61993e7-a18c-4a8d...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 5:48 pm, Steve Robbins <srobbin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Millar.
Dave Roberts.
>>>How about Gabe Kapler?
Dano
people I talk to...even the talk show chatter (can't GET a lower common
denominator IMO) I just don't see fans being led that easily. If anything
it's the exact reverse. Far more folks are down on "the Media" in general
(including on politics) than are "led" by them. Again...I don't see the
"Media" as this monolithic entity that many do. Seems to me that reporters
are held in slightly lower esteem than are used car salesmen, lawyers, and
politicians.
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Blah, blah, blah.......................
S/B 954RR
"Steve Robbins" <srobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gvq0j3$oi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dano wrote:
>> "Steve Robbins" <srobb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gvponv$3dv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I would think there are lots. Dewey, Lynn, Lee, Burleson easily come
>>> to mind. The common element? They were before the media tended to
>>> drag everyone through the mud.
>>>
>>
>> Oh please. Who are you referring to...so we can judge for ourselves.
>> Any
>> "fan" who can be led that easily by "The Media" (whatever you mean by
>> that...as if THEY are all to be lumped together like that) is an asshole
>> that should be smacked.
>
> Why "Oh please'? That is a pretty broad brush if you think everyone is
> not influenced by the media. In fact I believe a large percentage of
> people are influenced by the media. And yes, because of technology, the
> media does have their nose into things more and report on these things
> more than they did 30 years ago.
>
Watch it Steve, crazy guy might smack you!
Dano
"Dr. Winston O'Boogie" <quarry...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:JQ%Tl.48146$b9.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Blah, blah, blah.......................
>
>
One of your more intelligent contributions. Nicely done. Even got the
spelling right.
mario in victoria
<snip>
> Oh please. Who are you referring to...so we can judge for ourselves. Any
> "fan" who can be led that easily by "The Media" (whatever you mean by
> that...as if THEY are all to be lumped together like that) is an asshole
> that should be smacked.
<snip>
> I'll give you an example. Manny got away with freaking murder in this town
> by kiss ass "fans" who would forgive Jack the Ripper if he hit over .330
> with over 100 ribbies. Spare me all the media bashing. It cuts both ways.
> They also help to deify (not to mention enrich) these players as well, by
> promoting them.
Despite some of the shenanigans (spitting, refusal to tip his hat), I'd
find it difficult to diss Ted Williams.
I think he more than made up for the negative part of his image by his
charity/private work.
Although I'm not happy with some of his lackadaisical approach in the
field, to me he's god.
mario in victoria
--
much less respect for the knights of the keyboard
Dano
So god IS dead.
Frozen at least. His head that is...
McDuck
Nomar, Pedro, Yaz, Ted, Lynn, Tony C, Radatz (the Monster), and yes, I
agree with Dewey and Tiant, disagree with Andrews. Probably too early
to add Manny <g>. Of old timers, I'd add Pesky, Doerr and Dom. Of
fringe, I'd add Bob Montgomery, Bernie Carbo, and Dave Henderson.
wayback1918
>
Remarkably uninformed.
Certainly a very popular player off the '67 team, Mike Andrews has
been the Chairman of the Jimmy Fund in Boston for over 25 years.
Undeniably a member of "Former Sox players it's impossible for Sox
fans to speak ill of"
McDuck
<wayba...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On May 30, 8:30�am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT), wayback1918
>>
>> >Rico....
>>
>> >Mike Andrews....
>>
>> Nomar, Pedro, Yaz, Ted, Lynn, Tony C, Radatz (the Monster), and yes, I
>> agree with Dewey and Tiant, disagree with Andrews. Probably too early
>> to add Manny <g>. Of old timers, I'd add Pesky, Doerr and Dom. Of
>> fringe, I'd add Bob Montgomery, Bernie Carbo, and Dave Henderson.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Remarkably uninformed.
>
>Certainly a very popular player off the '67 team, Mike Andrews has
>been the Chairman of the Jimmy Fund in Boston for over 25 years.
>
> Undeniably a member of "Former Sox players it's impossible for Sox
>fans to speak ill of"
>
Andrews had a short, decent, but unimpressive RS career, hitting and
fielding. Every RS fan is aware of Andrews' charitable work, which may
or may not be commendable. For example, do not know whether or not he
is paid, and, if so, how much. JF does not give out such information,
although a quick search shows that its administrative expenses are
moderate (8-9% of revenue). Sounds like a neat job, by the way. In any
event, what Andrews did in his post-baseball career has nothing to do
with his status as a RS player.
I have trouble holding a torch for some guy who, as a player, had
trouble throwing to first. And I'm not sure Finley deserves ALL the
rap for what happened in the '73 WS. Andrews went along, after all.
I do not speak much about Andrews, good or bad (I have no particular
reason to dislike him). Minor figure, and I fail to see him as a RS
icon or even a momentary star or folk hero or whatever the criteria is
for Don's list.
I'd speak ill of some players I didn't like no matter what good works
they may do after baseball in their private life. I'd not say anything
negative about Pedro, but the fact that he did amazing charitable work
in the DR does not deter the Pedro haters from their diva talk, nor
should it. Fans shold judge ball players by what they do as ball
players, not on whether they are kind to their mother.
wayback1918
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wayback1918
>
>
>
>
>
> <wayback1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On May 30, 8:30 am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 May 2009 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT), wayback1918
>
> >> >Rico....
>
> >> >Mike Andrews....
>
> >> Nomar, Pedro, Yaz, Ted, Lynn, Tony C, Radatz (the Monster), and yes, I
> >> agree with Dewey and Tiant, disagree with Andrews. Probably too early
> >> to add Manny <g>. Of old timers, I'd add Pesky, Doerr and Dom. Of
> >> fringe, I'd add Bob Montgomery, Bernie Carbo, and Dave Henderson.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Remarkably uninformed.
>
> >Certainly a very popular player off the '67 team, Mike Andrews has
> >been the Chairman of the Jimmy Fund in Boston for over 25 years.
>
> > Undeniably a member of "Former Sox players it's impossible for Sox
> >fans to speak ill of"
>
> Andrews had a short, decent, but unimpressive RS career, hitting and
> fielding. Every RS fan is aware of Andrews' charitable work, which may
> or may not be commendable. For example, do not know whether or not he
> is paid, and, if so, how much. JF does not give out such information,
> although a quick search shows that its administrative expenses are
> moderate (8-9% of revenue). Sounds like a neat job, by the way. In any
> event, what Andrews did in his post-baseball career has nothing to do
> with his status as a RS player.
Incredibly insulting even for a clod like yourself.
>
> I have trouble holding a torch for some guy who, as a player, had
> trouble throwing to first. And I'm not sure Finley deserves ALL the
> rap for what happened in the '73 WS. Andrews went along, after all.
If his 25 year with the Jimmy Fund (and your comments on his
contribution is a disgrace) has no effect on "his status as a RS
player" then why would his time with Oakland matter. Not that he did
anything wrong there either. You should be consistant....or at least
hit by accident now once in while.
> I do not speak much about Andrews, good or bad (I have no particular
> reason to dislike him). Minor figure, and I fail to see him as a RS
> icon or even a momentary star or folk hero or whatever the criteria is
> for Don's list.
His trade was front page news.....but Don didn't say "icon or even a
momentary star or folk hero" he said "Former Sox players it's
impossible for Sox fans to speak ill of ". Andrews undeniably
qualifies. You just read things the way you want them to be don't
you?
> Fans shold judge ball players by what they do as ball players, not on whether they are kind to their mother
Even in the tenured ivy covered tower you exist in you must realize
what turd you sound like.
Red Sox Rule Yankees Suck
Dano
> Bill "Space Man" Lee
Oh, I've heard plenty of Sox fans speak ill of Space Man. I'm not among
them...but I'm sure there are some in this group.
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Why don't you just KEEP me in your damned kill file, jackass..
Christina
Yes Wayback I agree, Mueller was what they call a consomate
professional, he also had some BIG clutch hits especially off Rivera
LOL!
For the larger question, I took it to have the meaning of players that
Red Sox fans are unanimus about, that is why I didn't include one's
that I personnaly would never speak bad of like Pedro, for Mc Duck
that is why I disagree, there is a segment of the Red Sox Nation as it
is called that did not love Pedro for whatever reason, he is not
unanimus, same even for Yaz, there are some who say he didn't hustle,
he was an asshole at the card dealings, etc. So that is why I go
with the one's like Evans, Mueller, Tiant, Millar, Roberts, they are
players that it seems all the fans love!
Christina
Rule Yankees Suck) wrote:
>Bill "Space Man" Lee
Well REd Sox Rule again this is one I love but I think there are some
fans who think he is annoying, they don't like his anticks or out
spoken comments. I think he is one of the most popular Red Sox
players BUT not unanimusly loved.
McDuck
<wayba...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Fans shold judge ball players by what they do as ball players, not on whether they are kind to their mother
>
>Even in the tenured ivy covered tower you exist in you must realize
>what turd you sound like.
I think I sound pretty sensible, and you are what you are, no need to
elaborate.
McDuck
wrote:
Almost none are loved in any serious sense of that word. What fan
loves Bill Mueller, Mike Andrews, Bob Montgomery? These are guys who,
at best, have not excited passions enough that someone has a grudge
against them. Well, Mueller annoyed a few with his show of religion on
the field, which some (not me) thought inapppropriate. Etc. We can
always find a few who didn't like someone for some reason. We had a
small segment of RS fans who had lots of reasons not to like the major
stars --- you mentioned Yaz and Pedro. I agree. Same for Schilling,
which in some ways is odd.
So, I guess I'd say that there is no player who some fan could not say
a bad word about. For the discussion to be meaningful, we need some
guidance on the ground rules. I'd suggest a star player, like Tiant or
Dewey Evans, who is widely respected by the fans, played a significant
number of years with the club, and has no significant group that rags
on him.
I would have said Ortiz, but look what a little slump can do.
CapeCodBob
<wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Nomar, Pedro, Yaz, Ted, Lynn, Tony C, Radatz (the Monster), and yes, I
>agree with Dewey and Tiant, disagree with Andrews. Probably too early
>to add Manny <g>. Of old timers, I'd add Pesky, Doerr and Dom. Of
>fringe, I'd add Bob Montgomery, Bernie Carbo, and Dave Henderson.
I would take Nomar off that list. I will never get that picture of
his pouting in the dugout out of my mind.
I'd add Frank Malzone, Bill Monboquette, Frank Sullivan and their ace,
Mel Parnell, from the 50s.
------------
There are no atheists in foxholes
or in Fenway Park in an extra inning
game.
____
Cape Cod Bob
Delete the two "spam"s for email
Dano
Why don't YOU just go fuck yourself douche bag?
WTF is it with these assholes who insist on calling themselves Doctor?
Delusions of fucking grandeur or what? Very sad.
Just for that I WON'T killfile you this time shitheel. Happy now?
DonFro...@webtv.net
<<For the larger question, I took it to have the meaning of players that
Red Sox fans are unanimus about, that is why I didn't include one's that
I personnaly would never speak bad of like Pedro, for Mc Duck that is
why I disagree, there is a segment of the Red Sox Nation as it is called
that did not love Pedro for whatever reason, he is not unanimus, same
even for Yaz, there are some who say he didn't hustle, he was an asshole
at the card dealings, etc. So that is why I go with the one's like
Evans, Mueller, Tiant, Millar, Roberts, they are players that it seems
all the fans love! >>
Yes Christina, unanimity is what I was looking for. Which is why I
didn't include guys like Pedro and Yaz. Despite their historic
contributions to the team there are a few Sox fans who could and do
speak ill of them. I have no problem with the guys you added to Tiant
and Evens.
Monster Zero
Heres a few that I've never personally heard anyone speak ill of..
Denny Doyle
John Burkett
Jerry Remy
George Scott
Pat Rapp (LOL kidding of course) remember Phat Crapp?
Cecil Cooper
Tommy Harper
Rick Miller
John Tudor
Bruce Hurst
Marty Barrett
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Oooh, watch out, big bad Dano's on his high horse again.
Let the name calling begin.
LOL!!
wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
Darren Bragg
Dano
Remember who started this Booger breath.
Dano
Ridiculous thread. I still haven't seen this lonnnnggg list of Red Sox that
people have spoken ill of...at least after they're gone. Fans have always
seemed to whine more about active players in slumps or down years. When we
first got Mike Lowell forced on us, the negativity here was overwhelming.
All he had to do was play decently and he became a fan favorite and a hero.
Same thing with Tek for months. Overrated they all cried.
Bogus argument altogether. We cheer 'em when they perform well...we kill 'em
when they don't. The vast majority, that give it their all and don't say
stupid shit, are welcomed back and treated like long lost friends in the
end.
And precious little matters what a couple of scribes scribble to sell some
papers!
McDuck
<capec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 2009 08:30:24 -0400, McDuck
><wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Nomar, Pedro, Yaz, Ted, Lynn, Tony C, Radatz (the Monster), and yes, I
>>agree with Dewey and Tiant, disagree with Andrews. Probably too early
>>to add Manny <g>. Of old timers, I'd add Pesky, Doerr and Dom. Of
>>fringe, I'd add Bob Montgomery, Bernie Carbo, and Dave Henderson.
>
>I would take Nomar off that list. I will never get that picture of
>his pouting in the dugout out of my mind.
>
>I'd add Frank Malzone, Bill Monboquette, Frank Sullivan and their ace,
>Mel Parnell, from the 50s.
>
Good point on Nomar. Didn't bother me (I was a fan for too long and am
a bit forgiving of playing I like a lot), but I see how it could and
did bother a lot of poeple.
Yes, definitely, on Malzone. And I admit never having heard anything
bad about Parnell. For a long time, Mel's name came up whenever a
lefty pitched a good game at Fenway.
The other two were pretty marginal. I've not heard anything good or
bad about them since they left baseball. Sullivan was a really, really
terrible hitter. I sure had some bad words for Sullivan when he
played. Monbouquette did have a couple of v. good years for the RS in
the early 60's.
So, I guess it is a rule issue --- do we count guys who were so
forgotten that no one had any word to say about them, good or bad?
Christina
Well Mc Duck I agree with alot of what you say but there are many fans
who loved Mueller, Andrews and Montgomery, just cause they weren't
super stars doesn't mean they weren't loved. I never really heard any
one complain of Mueller's religious views but if it bothered some fans
than he is not on the list, Andrews though seemed to be well liked
when he played and very well respected after, the thing you mentioned
on Oakland was after he left Boston, if anything besides people blamed
Finley not Andrews for that, they thought it was mean for teh owner to
try to cut him, Montgomery was a long time player, sure a back up but
back ups can be popular, he was what they call a cult hero, later a
popular anouncer, it is not that he was obscured but he was known by
fans of that time, for young fans sure he is not known, he doesn't
have good records and doesn't announce any more, for many older fans
he is loved though. If the criterion is so much based on records then
we would just give a list of record holders, the top 10, however as
has been said many of the best Red Sox players had detracters.
Christina
Well Monster I don't know about some of them, Doyle was not that
popular after 1975, his play slipped, Burkett I think also some fans
were annoyed with cause he wasn't that good anymore. Remy definately,
Scott would be but he was often criticized in 1978 and 1979, he was
over weight and unproductive plus Cooper was doing well. Cooper I
think hasbecome popular AFTER leaving cause he did so well after
leaving, the trade was regretted, he wasn't super popular with Boston
I don't think. Harper maybe though, he was well liked as a player and
coach, Miller I don;t think alicitted that much passion to be honest,
Tudor I recall being viewed as some what disapointing with Boston.
Hurst was unpopular at first, alot of people forget but he strugled
alot his first few years, he did get popular later though I think also
some were mad that he left. Barrett maybe though, he was pretty
popular for his whole career with Boston, he is still spoken fondly of
today.
wayback1918
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 00:06:00 -0400, McDuck
>
>
>
>
>
> <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 30 May 2009 21:30:14 -0400, Christina <bi...@ix.netcom.com>
> >wrote:
>
Ridiculous. Should we disqualify Reggie Smith because some fans
thought he was a little "uppity"?
Any fan who disliked a player for his religous views needs to be the
one disqualified.
Christina
Yes Wayback actually we should disqualify Smith, the criterion by Don
was players who NO fans speak ill of, since some fans speak ill of
Pedro, Smith, Mueller, etc. then those players by the definition of
Don do not qualify, it may be stupid of the fans but they are intitled
to their opinions, the goal of Don was not to judge the fans but just
to see if any players have a unanimus approval rating as they say for
presidents.
wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok then....if Don was validating racial, ethnic and religous bigotry
in his post I guess thats his right.
Thank God no one mentioned Gabe Kapler......I mean he is one those
people, right?
If Don's intent was to allow racists to disqualify players for
consideration in this post then I would like to withdraw everything I
contributed to it. In fact I'm fairly sure the players mentioned
would probably prefer to withdrawn as well.
Red Sox Rule Yankees Suck
words about them. But that's me, how about the rest of red sox nation?
Steve Robbins
> words about them. But that's me, how about the rest of red sox nation?
>
I don't know. I always thought Judy Reed threw like a girl.
--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
McDuck
wrote:
Just to clarify, as I previously stated, there were some who objected
to Mueller's allegedly excessive show of religion on the field --- his
thanking the Good Lord in what some took to be an overly long speech
when he was interviewed on the field after a good performance. No
problem for me, but I did hear some complain, in the media and
elsewhere. I never heard anyone complain about his religious views ---
just the arguably inappropriate expression of them on the field.
Now, I've also "heard" (read) on this ng complaints about players
pointing to the sky after a HR. I have no problem at all with that
stuff, but some do (a small minority compared to those who were
concerned about Mueller's little speeches).
I suspect our resident bigot would get all huffy if some player
regularly expressed atheistic views or, worse, Liberal views, in
post-game interviews. Again, I'd have no problem --- free speech and
all. But no player does that stuff, for good reason, I suppose.
I was annoyed when Schilling took the occasion of a 2004 celebration
to endorse Goerge W. Bush. No problem with his endorsing that guy ---
free speech and all. But I thought it was inappropriate to take the RS
forum for that purpose. I'd have felt the same if he had endorsed a
more qualified candidate. But Schilling was man enough to admit his
mistake and apologize to his fans, and I was man enough to accept his
apology <g>. That event and others were enough to take Schilling off
the "universally loved" list.
The Gnorkmeister
I always thought only a non Red Sox fan or a big dimwit would refer to
John "Valentine". What the 'ell is wrong with you?
wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
As soon I as saw "Just to clarify" I said 'oh boy here comes the
BS'.....but I underestimated it this time.
McDuck has now twice disqualified Bill Mueller for no other reason
than he felt the need to thank God at the start of his interview.
For McDuck to label that as 'excessive' is really all you need to know
about how he really feels.
Anyone who is offended by a player pointing to the sky......or
thanking God really needs to to sit down and contemplate just how
tolerant they really are. The fault in this case is with the
'offended' party.
Also who believes his lame disclaimers is an idiot. Why even mention
it if it wasn't his real opinion? Is he afraid those other bigots
might have overlooked it? He is the only one who brought this into
the discussion. Politics is his religion and since fundamentalist
Christians aren't part of his voting bloc they are fair game.
It is a shame that McDuck chose to take an upbeat positive thread and
turn it into another political soapbox.....further still unfortunate
that Christina chose to validate not only anti-religious but racist
reasons for being able to disqualify someone.
I know Don is not a big religious guy but I do find it hard to believe
that this is what he intended. It is unfortunate that he has allowed
McDuck to define him.
Ron Johnson
> So that is why I go with the one's like Evans,
One of my faves, but a fair number of players believed he was
a management ... well spy is too strong, but I think you
know what I mean.
Also belongs to the 25 cabs era (25 players, 25 cabs)
John Vamp
I'm sure every player that's ever played for the Red Sox has somebody
out there somewhere that didn't like him, for whatever reason. Thus,
I think it's safe to say that if the criteria is that *NO* fan ever
could possibly speak ill of said player, then nobody qualifies.
John
John Vamp
> On May 29, 7:43 pm, "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - The One and Only"
>
> <oneilsprost...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Millar.
>
> > Dave Roberts.
>
> I've never heard anyone ever say a bad thing about Bill Mueller
I agree. Despite McDuck's statements that apparently a lot of people
complained about his religious expression, I, for one, never heard or
read a single person criticizing Mueller for anything like that. Of
course, I easily could have missed something somewhere, or maybe it
was just McDuck's liberal, lawyerly, elitist crowd that criticized
Mueller. I'm sure *somebody* out there criticized Mueller....I just
never read or heard anything like that.
John
ka...@notme.com
bi...@ix.netcom.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wayback just to be clear I don't condone antireligious or racist
reasons, I think they are wrong and unfortunate, also sadly far too
previlant. It was just that for making the definition of Don these
factors can make players not loved by everyone, I wish the reasons
were only for baseball or nuetral reasons! This was to gage the over
all views of the entire universe of Red Sox Nation, not just our own
opinions, as I have said I am VERY liberal of loving REd Sox players,
I still love for example Manny, the only one's I really hate are Fat
Billy Clemens, Stan Papi, Don Zimmer, Grady Little, etc., none are for
racism just that they annoyed me. For the religion honestly Wayback I
ddin't even know about it with Mueller, it never bothers me if they
thank Jesus or God, actually I like when they do that or even if they
point to the sky, I like it, I agree that some times there is bias
against religion, I think it should be celebrated as long as it is not
forced on people, I guess some say it is forcing but those things are
fine for me.
For the other question I don't know if anyone felt strongly about
O'Leary, he was just there I think, Valentin I LOVED but some didn't,
they said he whine'd too much, Reed I really liked, I don't know if
people loved him but he didn't seem to be disliked either.
nate
> On May 31, 10:51 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Just to clarify, as I previously stated, there were some who objected
> > to Mueller's allegedly excessive show of religion on the field --- his
> > thanking the Good Lord in what some took to be an overly long speech
> > when he was interviewed on the field after a good performance. No
> > problem for me, but I did hear some complain, in the media and
> > elsewhere. I never heard anyone complain about his religious views ---
> > just the arguably inappropriate expression of them on the field.
> McDuck has now twice disqualified Bill Mueller for no other reason
> than he felt the need to thank God at the start of his interview.
> For McDuck to label that as 'excessive' is really all you need to know
> about how he really feels.
you must have a reading problem, then.
McDuck didnt say he was speaking ill of Bill, just that there was
*someone* out there who was and that's all that's needed to get kicked
out of this list. the list has to be unanimous.
> Also who believes his lame disclaimers is an idiot. Why even mention
> it if it wasn't his real opinion?
that's your problem, not mine or his. i believe him.
what is lame is that the issue has to be carefully worded in order to
avoid offending the likes of you.
even in the above wording apparently you still found offense.
now consider this - i still have Bill in this list. because i dont
think the comments made about his postgame interview were "speaking
ill of Bill".
will i speak ill of Bill? no he is still on my list of no ill will.
- nate
"would you like some green eggs and ham?"
wayback1918
> On Jun 1, 6:27 am, wayback1918 <wayback1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 10:51 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just to clarify, as I previously stated, there were some who objected
> > > to Mueller's allegedly excessive show of religion on the field --- his
> > > thanking the Good Lord in what some took to be an overly long speech
> > > when he was interviewed on the field after a good performance. No
> > > problem for me, but I did hear some complain, in the media and
> > > elsewhere. I never heard anyone complain about his religious views ---
> > > just the arguably inappropriate expression of them on the field.
> > McDuck has now twice disqualified Bill Mueller for no other reason
> > than he felt the need to thank God at the start of his interview.
> > For McDuck to label that as 'excessive' is really all you need to know
> > about how he really feels.
>
> you must have a reading problem, then.
>
> McDuck didnt say he was speaking ill of Bill, just that there was
> *someone* out there who was and that's all that's needed to get kicked
> out of this list. the list has to be unanimous.
>
McDuck feel the need to plead their case?
No one else brought it up....not even the mysterious 'someones' and it
never shouldn't have been part of the discussion.
So even if McDuck didn't believe feel that way (absurd) his accepting
and even promoting religious intolerance as a valid reason to exclude
a player from this list is a disgrace.
.....as is your defense of his defense.
DonFro...@webtv.net
<<Ok then....if Don was validating racial, ethnic and religous bigotry
in his post I guess thats his right.
Thank God no one mentioned Gabe Kapler......I mean he is one those
people, right?
If Don's intent was to allow racists to disqualify players for
consideration in this post then I would like to withdraw everything I
contributed to it. In fact I'm fairly sure the players mentioned
would probably prefer to withdrawn as well.>>
WOW, you just gotta love a group where a totally innocent question
gets the asker accused of being a racist.
wayback1918
I'm not accusing you of anything Don. In fact just the opposite
I was just saying that racist reasons or religious intolerance should
not be used as a reason to keep a player off this list
If that was not your intention too then I was wrong.
Christina
>Tony C.
Yes Kate I think we have the winner!!!
Christina
Oh that is not good Ron, I guess it is some thing the fans didn't
know about cause we seemed to all like him, I guess technically he
still qualifys cause of that but it is disturbing none the less.
McDuck
>wayback 1918 says:
><<Ok then....if Don was validating racial, ethnic and religous bigotry
>in his post I guess thats his right.
>Thank God no one mentioned Gabe Kapler......I mean he is one those
>people, right?
>If Don's intent was to allow racists to disqualify players for
>consideration in this post then I would like to withdraw everything I
>contributed to it. � In fact I'm fairly sure the players mentioned
>would probably prefer to withdrawn as well.>>
>
>WOW, you just gotta love a group where a totally innocent question
>gets the asker accused of being a racist.
And all made up be the chief bigot himself. No one, except the
complainer, suggested that anyone be off your proposed list because of
objections by bigots. Only he raised the specter of racial bigots, in
an attempt to change the topic from a suggsted objection to religious
demonstrations on the field to an objection to religion. Oh well, your
intent, Don, was clear enough, so let it go.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Jun 1, 6:27 am, wayback1918 <wayback1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On May 31, 10:51 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Just to clarify, as I previously stated, there were some who objected
>> > to Mueller's allegedly excessive show of religion on the field --- his
>> > thanking the Good Lord in what some took to be an overly long speech
>> > when he was interviewed on the field after a good performance. No
>> > problem for me, but I did hear some complain, in the media and
>> > elsewhere. I never heard anyone complain about his religious views ---
>> > just the arguably inappropriate expression of them on the field.
>
>> McDuck has now twice disqualified Bill Mueller for no other reason
>> than he felt the need to thank God at the start of his interview.
>> For McDuck to label that as 'excessive' is really all you need to know
>> about how he really feels.
>
>you must have a reading problem, then.
>
>McDuck didnt say he was speaking ill of Bill, just that there was
>*someone* out there who was and that's all that's needed to get kicked
>out of this list. the list has to be unanimous.
>
>> Also who believes his lame disclaimers is an idiot. Why even mention
>> it if it wasn't his real opinion?
>
>that's your problem, not mine or his. i believe him.
Thank you.
But Wayback actually does not have a reading problem. His misstatement
of my position (and the position of others from time to time) is
intentional. One could explain his conduct as harmless error if it
occurred once or twice. But when it happens over and over again, it is
excessively indulgent to assume a lack of malice.
I still chuckle over his claim that I live in an "Ivy Tower".
DonFro...@webtv.net
<<Oh well, your intent, Don, was clear enough, so let it go. >>
I see my attempt at a relatively harmless discussion has turned sour and
led to to some of that personal animosity that our disfuntional little
"family" can be capable of. That was not and almost never is my
intention. I can only apologize. Can't promise it won't ever happen
again of course. Either accidentally or by design. <G>
John Vamp
> McDuck says in part:
> <<Oh well, your intent, Don, was clear enough, so let it go. >>
>
> I see my attempt at a relatively harmless discussion has turned sour and
> led to to some of that personal animosity that our disfuntional little
> "family" can be capable of.
It usually ends up that way around here, Don.
> That was not and almost never is my
> intention. I can only apologize. Can't promise it won't ever happen
> again of course. Either accidentally or by design. <G>
I'm certainly guilty of some instigation at times, no doubt. Other
times I ask an honest question and 9/10 of the responses are knee-jerk
reactions like, "idiot" and "right wingnut" and the like. Even when
I've said something in praise of Obama, I get those kinds of
reactions!
It's just how people are in this group.
John
DonFro...@webtv.net
<<It's just how people are in this group. >>
I suspect John that it's people in general John, don't you?
John Vamp
> John says:
> <<It's just how people are in this group. >>
>
> I suspect John that it's people in general John, don't you?
Could be, Don. Most people I talk to on a regular basis, though,
don't immediately get nasty whenever anything remotely controversial
comes up. I actually think it's a product of the internet.
For example, people say things to one another in this newsgroup,
calling people names and such that they'd most likely *never* say to
someone else's face. Most people act pretty tough on
usenet....everyone online is a 6'5", 220 pound black belt, right?
People use fake names and handles and are anonymous and act all tough
so they feel free to sling around some pretty awful words.
I also think that these kinds of discussions tend to bring out the
worst in people. I bet (I'm hoping, anyway) that if we actually met
one another, or were actual neighbors with one another, we'd realize
that we're all pretty good people that live pretty normal lives...we
love our spouses and kids (if we have them), we work hard, we care
about the things that really matter, we'd help each other out, etc.
But you don't really get the chance to see all that here...you just
get the edginess.
So we tend to see the worst in each other in this forum, because we
don't get to know the people, really. It's why people call me awful,
hateful things, and then when I explain that my life and vocation are
dedicated to helping people and working with kids, instead of stopping
and thinking, hey, maybe he's actually a good guy, they just go on and
say that I'm being holier-than-thou and sanctimonious.
John
bi...@ix.netcom.com
Oh John that is wonderful, it is great that you help kids, what kind
of work do you do?
John Vamp
I work in youth ministry...we have programs at the local middle
school, mentoring, tutoring, raising money for underprivileged
kids...that kind of thing. My main work is with college kids, but a
good-sized chunk is with middle schoolers. We launch a program this
fall for the high school in town.
John
DonFro...@webtv.net
<<So we tend to see the worst in each other in this forum, because we
don't get to know the people, really. It's why people call me awful,
hateful things, and then when I explain that my life and vocation are
dedicated to helping people and working with kids, instead of stopping
and thinking, hey, maybe he's actually a good guy, they just go on and
say that I'm being holier-than-thou and sanctimonious.>>
Plus never discount that no one in this forum has to worry about someone
they insulted punching their lights out. Not that I'm even remotely
suggesting such a thing of course. <G>
John Vamp
> John says:
> <<So we tend to see the worst in each other in this forum, because we
> don't get to know the people, really. It's why people call me awful,
> hateful things, and then when I explain that my life and vocation are
> dedicated to helping people and working with kids, instead of stopping
> and thinking, hey, maybe he's actually a good guy, they just go on and
> say that I'm being holier-than-thou and sanctimonious.>>
>
> Plus never discount that no one in this forum has to worry about someone
> they insulted punching their lights out. Not that I'm even remotely
> suggesting such a thing of course. <G>
Right...that's what I mean. People in real life just don't talk to
each other face-to-face in the same way that people in this newsgroup
do. Precisely because if they did, they'd end up with a broken nose.
John
bi...@ix.netcom.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh John that is FANTASTIC! It is so inspiring to read that, you are
making the world better, you deserve ALOT of respect for what you do!!!
John Vamp
> Oh John that is FANTASTIC! It is so inspiring to read that, you are
> making the world better, you deserve ALOT of respect for what you do!!!
Thanks. I think it's fair to say that most of the liberals here in
this group feel otherwise. But oh well...I don't do what I do to make
them happy.
John
bi...@ix.netcom.com
Well John I am a liberal but I respect you LOL! There is room enough
for Obama and you, I think it would be nice if people could work
together, there is for me too much of what they call on tv party
politics, we all have alot in common I think and we can work together,
some times the other side might be right and that is ok, we can admit
this and be thankful that it works, whatever makes the country or the
world better is good for ALL of us!
nate
damn its gettin so thick & syrupy around here i'm gonna hafta haul out
my gun & shoot somebody....
- gneight
Pearly Soames
> On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, bi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> damn its gettin so thick & syrupy around here i'm gonna hafta haul out
> my gun & shoot somebody....
>
Thanks.
--
"The players pretty much rallied around the situation," Maddon said.
"Everyone was supportive, almost to the point where it was getting
syrupy and disgusting."
Christina
<tom.ch...@charter.net> wrote:
>nate wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:52 pm, bi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>
>> damn its gettin so thick & syrupy around here i'm gonna hafta haul out
>> my gun & shoot somebody....
>>
>
>Thanks.
Well Nate and Pearly there is nothing wrong with syrup now and then,
it is good for there to be sweetness in the world I think, we can like
all diferent kinds of people and work together. I think what John
does is fantastic, it is great and I want to praise him for it, you
know there are probably many people who John helped be what they are
cause of the work he did to help them, this is to me the greatest
thing a person can do!
Steve Robbins
See what happens when you post political stuff? :-)
--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
John Vamp
> John Vamp wrote:
> > It's just how people are in this group.
>
> See what happens when you post political stuff? :-)
Heh. But this thread was about baseball and it still happened.
John