Guest JimH Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Because I enjoy this site so much, and the hard working good people who help run it, against my better judgement I wanted to point out a very strange and odd "web site", actually a blog, written by one of the posters here, CRector. He may actually be an administrator there, I don't know. If you need a couple of good laughs, go over to: http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com It's down a fair amount of time, but if it's up, you'll notice the author is quite fond of taking pot shots at lots of people ... moderators here at SoxTalk, editors, all sorts of people. Especially people who have commented negatively on his writing ability. Most humorous to me is where he suggests people should be accountable for their statements via the internet, then proceeds to trash anyone where he didn't "get his way". Don't try to make any comments there though ... the censorship police is in full effect. It's probably the same screener who takes Jay Mariotti's phone calls! In my book, criticism is ok, no one has to like everything about a web site. But to take pot shots and not allow comments on those pot shots is hiding in the shadows. Especially when he lurks here, grabs all his story info from here, and proceeds to s*** all over editors/writers and mods. As for the actual White Sox info on the site, well, judge that for yourself. Good luck with your journalism career, Rector. In my judgement, you'll need every bit of luck you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Because I enjoy this site so much, and the hard working good people who help run it, against my better judgement I wanted to point out a very strange and odd "web site", actually a blog, written by one of the posters here, CRector. He may actually be an administrator there, I don't know. If you need a couple of good laughs, go over to: http://whitesox.mostvaluablenetwork.com It's down a fair amount of time, but if it's up, you'll notice the author is quite fond of taking pot shots at lots of people ... moderators here at SoxTalk, editors, all sorts of people. Especially people who have commented negatively on his writing ability. Most humorous to me is where he suggests people should be accountable for their statements via the internet, then proceeds to trash anyone where he didn't "get his way". Don't try to make any comments there though ... the censorship police is in full effect. It's probably the same screener who takes Jay Mariotti's phone calls! In my book, criticism is ok, no one has to like everything about a web site. But to take pot shots and not allow comments on those pot shots is hiding in the shadows. Especially when he lurks here, grabs all his story info from here, and proceeds to s*** all over editors/writers and mods. As for the actual White Sox info on the site, well, judge that for yourself. Good luck with your journalism career, Rector. In my judgement, you'll need every bit of luck you can get. Jim I can't really say I disagree with him. I remember when I first joined here and started posting. SS2K4 did state that I was trolling and I had my own agenda. It seemed to me that I was unpopular with one or two of his buddies so instead of making it easier for me to post here he made it more difficult. Being an admin he should be trying to put out fires and not fueling them. He did not do that and to this day I can not respect him for his attitude towards me and others that he treated like me with no substance to back up his allegations. It seems like just because I didn't get along with a couple of his buddies he went out of his way to make these allegations. That is just my opinion and the way I feel on this thing. Charles seems to have the same opinion on this admin and I can't say I blame him. SS2K4 is not a good admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Jim I can't really say I disagree with him. I remember when I first joined here and started posting. SS2K4 did state that I was trolling and I had my own agenda. That is just my opinion and the way I feel on this thing. Charles seems to have the same opinion on this admin and I can't say I blame him. SS2K4 is not a good admin. Isn't this the defintion of "trolling"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 SS2K4 is not a good admin. Oh yes he is. Mike rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Oh yes he is. Mike rules. Agree, Mike is top notch. Irish, I think you missed the point of the whole post. It was about the hypocrisy issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 My main beef is with the statement that Ozzie has a better bullpen and starting rotation to work with than Manuel had. Huh??? I don't see how replacing Colon with Schoe makes the rotation better. Nor do I think that losing Gordon from the pen improves things. I think that is way off-base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 My main beef is with the statement that Ozzie has a better bullpen and starting rotation to work with than Manuel had. Huh??? I don't see how replacing Colon with Schoe makes the rotation better. Nor do I think that losing Gordon from the pen improves things. I think that is way off-base. Bob, the author of that statement 1). Hates Guillen, has called him a "buffoon" 2). Loves Jerry Manuel So, everything that happens has to fit into that equation ... regardless of whether it fits or not. He confuses "facts" with "factoids". Facts have empirical evidence to back them up, factoids are something stated as fact which are merely opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if it's stated as fact it's fair game for second guessing ... or criticism of their writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Isn't this the defintion of "trolling"? SO in your "opinion" cheat I have said something specifically to provoke a negative response from someone? I don't say anything specifically to provoke. I state my opinion, whether you want to agree with it or not is entirely up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 SO in your "opinion" cheat I have said something specifically to provoke a negative response from someone? I don't say anything specifically to provoke. I state my opinion, whether you want to agree with it or not is entirely up to you. That crap has been dealt with and long over.. there was no need to bring it back up. I believe that's the varaition of "trolling" in which this situation might apply..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Agree, Mike is top notch. Irish, I think you missed the point of the whole post. It was about the hypocrisy issue. I agree that Mike or SS2K4 or whatever you want to call him does have a hypocrisy issue. As I have stated in my last post, just because I didn't get along and was unpopular with a buddy or couple of buddies of his he decided to label me as a "troll". While his buddies were doing the same exact things as I was it was always my fault, or he would continue to gang up on my or ban me from posting as he did once to my knowledge. That to me is hypocrisy. That is what SS2K4 has shown me. Top notch my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 That crap has been dealt with and long over.. there was no need to bring it back up. I believe that's the varaition of "trolling" in which this situation might apply..? I didn't start this thread. I am just responding to it. Someone wanted to post how that person is up to no good while I think he actually has a point. It was never settled between he and I. The only thing that was settled was because some others got involved and helped me out. Nothing ever came directly from him, so no this was never "settled." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Oye ve... Jim getting mis-quoted :banghead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Oye ve... Jim getting mis-quoted :banghead Never quoted him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I didn't start this thread. I am just responding to it. Someone wanted to post how that person is up to no good while I think he actually has a point. It was never settled between he and I. The only thing that was settled was because some others got involved and helped me out. Nothing ever came directly from him, so no this was never "settled." Then you need to settle it or leave it. The board isn't the place. And now you are trolling. JMO, of course. And by the way.. you've misunderstood Jim twice now. He didn't call Mike a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Then you need to settle it or leave it. The board isn't the place. And now you are trolling. JMO, of course. And by the way.. you've misunderstood Jim twice now. He didn't call Mike a hypocrite. I think SS2K4 should have apologized to me a long time ago, but nothing ever came from him. It is not up to me to settle it and I dont need you to tell me what to do. There is no need for you to even be in this conversation to be honest with you. I am not trolling at all. I am not doing anyhting in that definition that the cheat was so kind to leave on the thread. JMO of course I didnt misunderstand him. I never said I agreed with Jim. I agreed with C Rector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Never quoted him. Mis-interpreted. :dips*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I didnt misunderstand him. I never said I agreed with Jim. I agreed with C Rector. Ahhh. I see. You post up a few is a bit misleading as you were responding to Jim and didn't mention Rector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Mis-interpreted. :dips*** Whatever fits your needs I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Whatever fits your needs I guess. OK.. I'll play. You want to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Ahhh. I see. You post up a few is a bit misleading as you were responding to Jim and didn't mention Rector's comments. Again whatever fits your needs. I guess it wasn't my intention to leave a comment for you to read it and try to figure out. Since I was quoting Jim then it was probably meant for him. Didn't know you would have to stick your nose into it and add your two cents. However, I should have known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 OK.. I'll play. You want to elaborate. play what? elaborate on what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I dont need you to tell me what to do. I told you what to do..? Where was that..? If you're going to start s*** get it right.. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Then you need to settle it or leave it. Right there. That is telling me what to do. Get it? Got it? Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Again whatever fits your needs. I guess it wasn't my intention to leave a comment for you to read it and try to figure out. Since I was quoting Jim then it was probably meant for him. Didn't know you would have to stick your nose into it and add your two cents. However, I should have known. When did you get named board cop..? You post in public forum you're going to get a reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 play what? elaborate on what? On what "whatever fits your needs" means..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts