Friday, July 24, 2009 - Posts

Friday, July 24, 2009

a day in a life 2009.07.24

via @fractalnavel: in the last 24 hours:
  • 2009.07.24 14:52: @craigg75
    wow.. Chicago White Sox pitched a perfect game yesterday.. don't see pitching feats like that anymore
    you mean one particular pitcher, complete game ? not nearly as impressive if relievers were involved.
  • 2009.07.24 14:57: @craigg75
    one of the outfielders saved the perfect game with an over the fence catch
    whoa - that will make the all-time highlights
  • 2009.07.24 14:58: @craigg75
    yeah one pitcher went the distance 27 at bats, 27 outs
    so, um - why don't you mention the pitcher's name, instead of the team ? not a solo effort, sure - but still
  • 2009.07.24 15:02: why do people seem to - gush - so much in forums when they like something ? seems way over the top. yeah, it goes the other way as well.
  • 2009.07.24 15:04: the art of reasonable praise & critcism seems lost. and sometimes people's reactions fall short of what seems merited.
  • 2009.07.24 15:05: no, i know it's just me. there's always been an impedance mismatch between me & the universe.
  • 2009.07.24 15:08: reading http://bit.ly/VOmRg . the answer to your question is: who knows.
  • 2009.07.24 16:15: @craigg75
    any achievements in the late 90's and early 00's are suspicious due to steroids
    "steroids" - big can of worms topic there. suffice to say that i disagree with any simple conclusions offered in that area.
  • 2009.07.24 16:16: @craigg75
    it seems a fair number of perfect game pitchers are unknowns.. Sandy Koufax and Catfish Hunter are stars but the rest...http://bit.ly/ugcAY
    so i guess that really does highlight the team effort aspect of these achievements - combined with sheer dumb luck, of course.
  • 2009.07.24 16:17: @craigg75
    any achievements in the late 90's and early 00's are suspicious due to steroids
    ... which in turn makes any consideration of enhancements a moot issue. also occurs in both offense / defense.
  • 2009.07.24 16:19: @craigg75
    well when it comes to comparing stats, you need to exclude steroid results since it's comparing apples to oranges
    "... suffice to say ..."
  • 2009.07.24 16:21: @craigg75
    @fractalnavel
    @craigg75
    any achievements in the late 90's and early 00's are suspicious due to steroids
    ... which in turn makes any consideration of enhancements a moot issue. also occurs in both offense / defense.
    disagree. baseball is highlighted by individual efforts more so than in other "team" sports
    in reference to the number of "unknowns" v. stars in that stat? hey, i'm just going with the numbers and what they seem to suggest
  • 2009.07.24 16:22: @craigg75
    @fractalnavel
    @craigg75
    any achievements in the late 90's and early 00's are suspicious due to steroids
    ... which in turn makes any consideration of enhancements a moot issue. also occurs in both offense / defense.
    disagree. baseball is highlighted by individual efforts more so than in other "team" sports
    if it were possible to eliminate the effects of chance in historical sports records - it's mostly a wash, with a few exceptions
  • 2009.07.24 16:26: the validity of the concept of personal responsibility for individual achievement- whether judged laudable or criminal- "..suffice to say.."
  • 2009.07.24 16:27: rather than engage in any "cloud" debates, i'll just indicate the points of departure
  • 2009.07.24 16:30: the role of chance: applies to all human endeavors. focii / nexii are identifiable, but not causal. (independent comment here)
  • 2009.07.24 16:33: "don't believe everything you read - don't read only things you believe".
  • 2009.07.24 16:34: those things that seem most obvious or accepted deserve the most questioning.
  • 2009.07.24 16:35: the really ironic thing is that people will often accept that approach - but only when it comes from commonly acknowledged sources.
  • 2009.07.24 16:37: it's kind of the anti-religion as religion - you can only address your disbeliefs through the established temples of skepticism.
  • 2009.07.24 16:38: "you too can be a skeptic - but you have to follow these rules ..."
  • 2009.07.24 16:39: oh, sure - no guarantee of freedom from cracked-pottery. but when was there ever ?
  • 2009.07.24 16:41: the good thing about questioning - if you have a taste for that sort of thing - is that it strengthens truth as well as uncovers falsehood
  • 2009.07.24 16:42: "but can't you just go along to get along?" - no. i am constitutionally incapable of this. to everyone's regret / annoyance, mine included.
  • 2009.07.24 22:38: reading - next up: Apollo - Expeditions to the Moon [1975] http://u.nu/3c6n the spirit of those times was so unlike our own.
  • 2009.07.24 22:42: imagine if that attitude had access to today's technology - a sense of both astonishment and tragedy sets in
  • 2009.07.24 22:45: the second paragraph of the foreword is all that needs reading http://bit.ly/euJow
(pulled direct from twitter via custom job)
Posted by fractalnavel at 11:30 PM | with no comments