Moogs, you're a fool, and you would have never even thought twice about if Darren Baker hadn't run out there. But since he did, they'll keep a closer on on the kids from now on.
Having the kids in the dugout serves a greater purpose, as I mentioned, and you ignored. It puts the Giants in a better light, in my opinion. Safety isn't an issue here. Guess what, a girl got killed by a hockey puck last year...WHERE WAS SHE? SHE WAS IN THE STANDS. Guess where balls lined foul go all the time? In the stands. Don't be a fool.
As long as precautions are taken, there's no problem with having kids in the dugout. They are pacifiers.
I never said they should be in the stands because of safety concerns. I said they *belong* in the stands. The dugout is for three kinds of people: players, coaches and trainers. If you're not one of those three and not part of the organization, you don't belong in the dugout - period. Not unless the series in question is over and it's time to celebrate.
I don't even know why anyone would try to argue otherwise. Talk about a no-brainer. What's next, Lil Bow-wow on the courtside chairs with Shaq (where will Jack Nicholson sit??)? Football players letting their kids roam the sidelines (because hey, there's plenty of room back there)??
Have people gotten so soft that they don't see why little kids don't belong on the bench areas of professional sports teams?? I'm not outraged Groverat (despite the all caps), but I am baffled - I'll tell you that much.
And what's more Eugene, I don't care about any touchy-feely interviews or weak-ass excuses about keeping the potty mouths in check. If you need your kid sitting next to you to inspire you or prevent you from saying something you'll be ashamed of, that's pretty sad. The accomplishment of team goals and hoisting that trophy should be all the inspiration you need to conduct yourself with class. Or is that just too much to fathom?
<strong>I don't care about any touchy-feely interviews or weak-ass excuses about keeping the potty mouths in check.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't, but you're not a normal person. You didn't even care to think before you posted your unmerited rant. You may not care about family or community, but some people do. And some people DO benefit from touchy-feely stuff. And if it helps them do their jobs better, so be it. You don't think parents gain strength from the presence of their children?
Of course this is no big deal. I don't know about you, but I'll take the family oriented team over the bandwagon mobs that feel the need to destroy stuff when they win.
Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to attack one group for having family values, you're going to have to attack a lot of other groups too.
Of course you don't, but you're not a normal person.<hr></blockquote>
Based on the the typical "normal" American I see every day on TV or out in public, I'll take that as a major compliment. Thanks!
[quote]You didn't even care to think before you posted your unmerited rant.<hr></blockquote>
My rant is not without merit just because you disagree with it. There are plenty of people (albeit not from the younger "kids can do no wrong, you should never punish them it could hurt their psyche" crowd) who agree with me. All the 30 and 40-somethings I've spoke with about it think it was a ridiculous display at best, media play at worst.
[quote]You may not care about family or community, but some people do. And some people DO benefit from touchy-feely stuff. And if it helps them do their jobs better, so be it. You don't think parents gain strength from the presence of their children?<hr></blockquote>
You just aren't getting it, are you? Where do you make the leap of "logic" that says if you think kids belong in the stands, you must not care about family or community?? Did you not read what I said earlier - that I have no problem with kids hugging their Dad's on the field of play *after the game / series is over* Clearly I must hate family life to say something like that....
Again you missed my point. I am not an Angels fan. Did you miss the part about me saying I couldn't have cared less who won before the events took place? Rooting against SF is not the same as rooting for or being a fan of Anaheim.
[quote]Of course this is no big deal. I don't know about you, but I'll take the family oriented team over the bandwagon mobs that feel the need to destroy stuff when they win.<hr></blockquote>
LOLOL. A couple guys bring kids into the dugout and suddenly its a "family-oriented team"?? You have no idea how most of those guys treat their family behind closed doors. Talk about being foolish.
[quote]Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to attack one group for having family values, you're going to have to attack a lot of other groups too.<hr></blockquote>
When did I attack someone for having family values?? Quit attributing ideas to me that I never espoused, all right?! I said the kids belong in the stands - that doesn't mean I don't respect people with family values. Get over yourself and your team already. They're not as saintly as you apparently think. Just waiting for the "Bonds took Roids" headlines...any day now.
[quote]Based on the the typical "normal" American I see every day on TV or out in public, I'll take that as a major compliment. Thanks!<hr></blockquote>
I don't remember suggesting such a thing. Normal American? Normal person? Obviously those are the same thing!
[quote]You just aren't getting it, are you? Where do you make the leap of "logic" that says if you think kids belong in the stands, you must not care about family or community?? Did you not read what I said earlier - that I have no problem with kids hugging their Dad's on the field of play *after the game / series is over* Clearly I must hate family life to say something like that...<hr></blockquote>
What's the freaking difference between game-time and post-game? The only issue is safety, which you denied as the reasoning behind your complaint.
[quote]Again you missed my point. I am not an Angels fan. Did you miss the part about me saying I couldn't have cared less who won before the events took place? Rooting against SF is not the same as rooting for or being a fan of Anaheim.<hr></blockquote>
Of course it is. It's relative. You'd rather cheer against a team which places kids in the dugout than a team with destructive fans. You missed the point.
[quote]LOLOL. A couple guys bring kids into the dugout and suddenly its a "family-oriented team"?? You have no idea how most of those guys treat their family behind closed doors. Talk about being foolish.<hr></blockquote>
What you see is what you get. It's equally foolish to assume the ball players are wife-beaters and child-abusers or anything else. The fact is they embrace their kids on the field and in the dugout. They take pride in having their children there to watch them. If I were a father with children, I would love a job where the presence of my children was both tolerated and beneficial.
[quote]When did I attack someone for having family values?? Quit attributing ideas to me that I never espoused, all right?! I said the kids belong in the stands - that doesn't mean I don't respect people with family values. Get over yourself and your team already. They're not as saintly as you apparently think. Just waiting for the "Bonds took Roids" headlines...any day now.<hr></blockquote>
You've obviously got something against Bonds and the Giants. I'm defending them while you're attacking them. You espoused assumptions about how the Giants are exploiting their children for media attention...or being selfish in whichever way suits your argument at any given time. Prove it. You've implied that these kids are spoiled and that their parents don't know how to raise them. Prove it.
<strong>Based on the the typical "normal" American I see every day on TV or out in public, I'll take that as a major compliment. Thanks!</strong><hr></blockquote>
But... Hey... however... um...
Well, that sucks. I totally agree, which in turn insults me. Especially when it comes to driving. :eek:
Damnit! I have conflicting emotions now. Thanks Moogs!
It is a good thing they do not draft players based on their attitude towards the media. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Whether you like him or not Bonds is the best offensive player in the history of the game. He would be the best over all player ever were it not for Ruth's pitching exploits early in his career.
Bonds is doing everything he is doing while getting about a hundred or more fewer at bats than most of his counter-parts and on a good team. Guys like A Rod and Sosa are putting up smaller or similar numbers on crap teams.
He may be a jerk but you cannot argue with the numbers, and the success. If he is not a bigger threat than A Rod or Sammy or even Mays and Williams then why don't they have 200 walks in a season?
Why is he a jerk? Because he doesn't answer questions about his previous postseason numbers, or whether not having a World Series ring weighs heavily on his mind every single day?
Is he a jerk for defending David Bell against Jeff Kent after Kent went off on Bell for making an error on a play?
Or is he a jerk for staying in San Francisco even though a few other teams made him nice offers last year?
Or is he a jerk when he just ignoreds Dodger fans in left field that throw batteries, small bottles, etc. at him?
Does his $15M a year salary make him a jerk?
I'd love to see you list the reasons why he's a jerk.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
1) Most of his teamates don't like him. They don't say why but, I'd have to have somegood resons not to like a guy who hit 70 homeruns for me.
2) Seting at a press conference and asking the Gaints pitching staff to through at the opposing team. That is a part of baseball, but an unspoken one.
3) That damn body armor he wears to bad. Most player woudn't get away with that or the way he hogs the plate. And didn't hit that many HR's before he started doing that.
1) Most of his teamates don't like him. They don't say why but, I'd have to have somegood resons not to like a guy who hit 70 homeruns for me.
2) Seting at a press conference and asking the Gaints pitching staff to through at the opposing team. That is a part of baseball, but an unspoken one.
3) That damn body armor he wears to bad. Most player woudn't get away with that or the way he hogs the plate. And didn't hit that many HR's before he started doing that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) If all of the other players were named Jeff Kent, that might be true. Jeff Kent is actually less appreciated than Bonds. That scuffle between them happened because Kent criticized David Bell and Bonds came to his defense! As for Aurilia, Santiago, Dunston, Bell and others...they've had plenty of chances to voice anything. Every time they're interviewed, they have warm words for Barry. I have a tape of the game where barry hit #71. At the end, Dunston and Aurilia spoke a few words to the crowd. Would you like to see what they had to say?
2) When did he say this? And since when is it an unspoken one? Remember Clemens vs. Piazza --> Estes vs Clemens? And what about Clemens vs Bonds, where he basically said "I'm going to throw right at his elbow."
3) The elbow guard makes him a jerk? Shinjo and Aurilia wear elbow guards too. JT wears a shin guard. Many players in baseball wear some kind of protection. Wouldn't it be a shame if a player got a shattered elbow? What's next outlawing helmets? If the MLB moves to bar extra protection, then so be it. Barry's not a jerk for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. Players have to protect their assets.
3) The elbow guard makes him a jerk? Shinjo and Aurilia wear elbow guards too. JT wears a shin guard. Many players in baseball wear some kind of protection. Wouldn't it be a shame if a player got a shattered elbow? What's next outlawing helmets? If the MLB moves to bar extra protection, then so be it. Barry's not a jerk for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. Players have to protect their assets.
certainly not... but it does take away from his impressive numbers... a helmet should be it... this armor on the whole pitcher facing side thing is ridiculous and I don't think in the case of someone like Clemens throwing at him because of it is out of line.... if you want to go up there with your whole side protected and hunch over the plate you SHOULD be thrown at.
Baseball needs to get rid of that armor crap... but they like offense...
but you're right... can't diss him for it since its allowed... just can't respect him as much
Pitsburg Bonds -> one of the better baseball players.
San Fransico Bons -> Aromor + seriods + hoging the plate = homerun king.
It just dosn't seem right. You get a free base base getting hit by a baseball hurts and risks ingury. I think that if you want to wear an arm sheild and a pitch hit you there it should be a ball, not a free pass. A shin gaurd on the other hand is for foul tips.
<strong>Yeah, applenut... throwing at somebody's the right thing to do.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh... what would you do? a pitcher's best weapon is his fast ball.... in the past there were things called brush back pitches.... you can't do that anymore... batters don't have to fear em and get out of the way... they just sit in there and either get hit or pitchers don't throw inside.... this is one of the biggest reasons for guys like Bonds hitting so many damn homeruns a year.... they are in control.... not pitchers...
roll your eyes all you want.... but there's nothing else a pitcher can do..... the outside corner is now what use to be the middle of the plate... it's ridiculous.... and you know it.
Pitsburg Bonds -> one of the better baseball players.
San Fransico Bons -> Aromor + seriods + hoging the plate = homerun king.
It just dosn't seem right. You get a free base base getting hit by a baseball hurts and risks ingury. I think that if you want to wear an arm sheild and a pitch hit you there it should be a ball, not a free pass. A shin gaurd on the other hand is for foul tips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Armor: permissible
Crowding the plate: permissible
Steroids: Bonds has been vocal about his pro-stance on steroid testing.
Comments
ebby...nice quote...g
<strong>Irony.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's what I excel at.
Kisses.
Having the kids in the dugout serves a greater purpose, as I mentioned, and you ignored. It puts the Giants in a better light, in my opinion. Safety isn't an issue here. Guess what, a girl got killed by a hockey puck last year...WHERE WAS SHE? SHE WAS IN THE STANDS. Guess where balls lined foul go all the time? In the stands. Don't be a fool.
As long as precautions are taken, there's no problem with having kids in the dugout. They are pacifiers.
I don't even know why anyone would try to argue otherwise. Talk about a no-brainer. What's next, Lil Bow-wow on the courtside chairs with Shaq (where will Jack Nicholson sit??)? Football players letting their kids roam the sidelines (because hey, there's plenty of room back there)??
Have people gotten so soft that they don't see why little kids don't belong on the bench areas of professional sports teams?? I'm not outraged Groverat (despite the all caps), but I am baffled - I'll tell you that much.
And what's more Eugene, I don't care about any touchy-feely interviews or weak-ass excuses about keeping the potty mouths in check. If you need your kid sitting next to you to inspire you or prevent you from saying something you'll be ashamed of, that's pretty sad. The accomplishment of team goals and hoisting that trophy should be all the inspiration you need to conduct yourself with class. Or is that just too much to fathom?
<strong>I don't care about any touchy-feely interviews or weak-ass excuses about keeping the potty mouths in check.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't, but you're not a normal person. You didn't even care to think before you posted your unmerited rant. You may not care about family or community, but some people do. And some people DO benefit from touchy-feely stuff. And if it helps them do their jobs better, so be it. You don't think parents gain strength from the presence of their children?
And before you go rooting for the Angels, why don't you look at <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/sfgate/object.old.cgi?object=/news/pictures/2002/10/28/celebrate5.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=dip.DTL&direct ory=/gate/archive/2002/10/28&format=dip" target="_blank">this?</a>
Of course this is no big deal. I don't know about you, but I'll take the family oriented team over the bandwagon mobs that feel the need to destroy stuff when they win.
Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to attack one group for having family values, you're going to have to attack a lot of other groups too.
Of course you don't, but you're not a normal person.<hr></blockquote>
Based on the the typical "normal" American I see every day on TV or out in public, I'll take that as a major compliment. Thanks!
[quote]You didn't even care to think before you posted your unmerited rant.<hr></blockquote>
My rant is not without merit just because you disagree with it. There are plenty of people (albeit not from the younger "kids can do no wrong, you should never punish them it could hurt their psyche" crowd) who agree with me. All the 30 and 40-somethings I've spoke with about it think it was a ridiculous display at best, media play at worst.
[quote]You may not care about family or community, but some people do. And some people DO benefit from touchy-feely stuff. And if it helps them do their jobs better, so be it. You don't think parents gain strength from the presence of their children?<hr></blockquote>
You just aren't getting it, are you? Where do you make the leap of "logic" that says if you think kids belong in the stands, you must not care about family or community?? Did you not read what I said earlier - that I have no problem with kids hugging their Dad's on the field of play *after the game / series is over* Clearly I must hate family life to say something like that....
[quote]And before you go rooting for the Angels, why don't you look at <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/sfgate/object.old.cgi?object=/news/pictures/2002/10/28/celebrate5.jpg&paper=chronicle&file=dip.DTL&direct ory=/gate/archive/2002/10/28&format=dip" target="_blank">this?</a><hr></blockquote>
Again you missed my point. I am not an Angels fan. Did you miss the part about me saying I couldn't have cared less who won before the events took place? Rooting against SF is not the same as rooting for or being a fan of Anaheim.
[quote]Of course this is no big deal. I don't know about you, but I'll take the family oriented team over the bandwagon mobs that feel the need to destroy stuff when they win.<hr></blockquote>
LOLOL. A couple guys bring kids into the dugout and suddenly its a "family-oriented team"?? You have no idea how most of those guys treat their family behind closed doors. Talk about being foolish.
[quote]Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to attack one group for having family values, you're going to have to attack a lot of other groups too.<hr></blockquote>
When did I attack someone for having family values?? Quit attributing ideas to me that I never espoused, all right?! I said the kids belong in the stands - that doesn't mean I don't respect people with family values. Get over yourself and your team already. They're not as saintly as you apparently think. Just waiting for the "Bonds took Roids" headlines...any day now.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I don't remember suggesting such a thing. Normal American? Normal person? Obviously those are the same thing!
[quote]You just aren't getting it, are you? Where do you make the leap of "logic" that says if you think kids belong in the stands, you must not care about family or community?? Did you not read what I said earlier - that I have no problem with kids hugging their Dad's on the field of play *after the game / series is over* Clearly I must hate family life to say something like that...<hr></blockquote>
What's the freaking difference between game-time and post-game? The only issue is safety, which you denied as the reasoning behind your complaint.
[quote]Again you missed my point. I am not an Angels fan. Did you miss the part about me saying I couldn't have cared less who won before the events took place? Rooting against SF is not the same as rooting for or being a fan of Anaheim.<hr></blockquote>
Of course it is. It's relative. You'd rather cheer against a team which places kids in the dugout than a team with destructive fans. You missed the point.
[quote]LOLOL. A couple guys bring kids into the dugout and suddenly its a "family-oriented team"?? You have no idea how most of those guys treat their family behind closed doors. Talk about being foolish.<hr></blockquote>
What you see is what you get. It's equally foolish to assume the ball players are wife-beaters and child-abusers or anything else. The fact is they embrace their kids on the field and in the dugout. They take pride in having their children there to watch them. If I were a father with children, I would love a job where the presence of my children was both tolerated and beneficial.
[quote]When did I attack someone for having family values?? Quit attributing ideas to me that I never espoused, all right?! I said the kids belong in the stands - that doesn't mean I don't respect people with family values. Get over yourself and your team already. They're not as saintly as you apparently think. Just waiting for the "Bonds took Roids" headlines...any day now.<hr></blockquote>
You've obviously got something against Bonds and the Giants. I'm defending them while you're attacking them. You espoused assumptions about how the Giants are exploiting their children for media attention...or being selfish in whichever way suits your argument at any given time. Prove it. You've implied that these kids are spoiled and that their parents don't know how to raise them. Prove it.
<strong>Based on the the typical "normal" American I see every day on TV or out in public, I'll take that as a major compliment. Thanks!</strong><hr></blockquote>
But... Hey... however... um...
Well, that sucks. I totally agree, which in turn insults me. Especially when it comes to driving. :eek:
Damnit! I have conflicting emotions now. Thanks Moogs!
Whether you like him or not Bonds is the best offensive player in the history of the game. He would be the best over all player ever were it not for Ruth's pitching exploits early in his career.
Bonds is doing everything he is doing while getting about a hundred or more fewer at bats than most of his counter-parts and on a good team. Guys like A Rod and Sosa are putting up smaller or similar numbers on crap teams.
He may be a jerk but you cannot argue with the numbers, and the success. If he is not a bigger threat than A Rod or Sammy or even Mays and Williams then why don't they have 200 walks in a season?
* He's quick to assume the reasoning behind having kids in the dugout, but when I suggest the polar opposite, I'm being naive! Obviously!
* Apparently the Giants are kid spoiling, deadbeat parents that deserve to be boo'd and berated by innocent angels like Moogs.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
[QB]
Why is he a jerk? Because he doesn't answer questions about his previous postseason numbers, or whether not having a World Series ring weighs heavily on his mind every single day?
Is he a jerk for defending David Bell against Jeff Kent after Kent went off on Bell for making an error on a play?
Or is he a jerk for staying in San Francisco even though a few other teams made him nice offers last year?
Or is he a jerk when he just ignoreds Dodger fans in left field that throw batteries, small bottles, etc. at him?
Does his $15M a year salary make him a jerk?
I'd love to see you list the reasons why he's a jerk.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
1) Most of his teamates don't like him. They don't say why but, I'd have to have somegood resons not to like a guy who hit 70 homeruns for me.
2) Seting at a press conference and asking the Gaints pitching staff to through at the opposing team. That is a part of baseball, but an unspoken one.
3) That damn body armor he wears to bad. Most player woudn't get away with that or the way he hogs the plate. And didn't hit that many HR's before he started doing that.
<strong>
1) Most of his teamates don't like him. They don't say why but, I'd have to have somegood resons not to like a guy who hit 70 homeruns for me.
2) Seting at a press conference and asking the Gaints pitching staff to through at the opposing team. That is a part of baseball, but an unspoken one.
3) That damn body armor he wears to bad. Most player woudn't get away with that or the way he hogs the plate. And didn't hit that many HR's before he started doing that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) If all of the other players were named Jeff Kent, that might be true. Jeff Kent is actually less appreciated than Bonds. That scuffle between them happened because Kent criticized David Bell and Bonds came to his defense! As for Aurilia, Santiago, Dunston, Bell and others...they've had plenty of chances to voice anything. Every time they're interviewed, they have warm words for Barry. I have a tape of the game where barry hit #71. At the end, Dunston and Aurilia spoke a few words to the crowd. Would you like to see what they had to say?
2) When did he say this? And since when is it an unspoken one? Remember Clemens vs. Piazza --> Estes vs Clemens? And what about Clemens vs Bonds, where he basically said "I'm going to throw right at his elbow."
3) The elbow guard makes him a jerk? Shinjo and Aurilia wear elbow guards too. JT wears a shin guard. Many players in baseball wear some kind of protection. Wouldn't it be a shame if a player got a shattered elbow? What's next outlawing helmets? If the MLB moves to bar extra protection, then so be it. Barry's not a jerk for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. Players have to protect their assets.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
<strong>
3) The elbow guard makes him a jerk? Shinjo and Aurilia wear elbow guards too. JT wears a shin guard. Many players in baseball wear some kind of protection. Wouldn't it be a shame if a player got a shattered elbow? What's next outlawing helmets? If the MLB moves to bar extra protection, then so be it. Barry's not a jerk for breaking a rule that doesn't exist. Players have to protect their assets.
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]
[ 10-31-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
certainly not... but it does take away from his impressive numbers... a helmet should be it... this armor on the whole pitcher facing side thing is ridiculous and I don't think in the case of someone like Clemens throwing at him because of it is out of line.... if you want to go up there with your whole side protected and hunch over the plate you SHOULD be thrown at.
Baseball needs to get rid of that armor crap... but they like offense...
but you're right... can't diss him for it since its allowed... just can't respect him as much
Pitsburg Bonds -> one of the better baseball players.
San Fransico Bons -> Aromor + seriods + hoging the plate = homerun king.
It just dosn't seem right. You get a free base base getting hit by a baseball hurts and risks ingury. I think that if you want to wear an arm sheild and a pitch hit you there it should be a ball, not a free pass. A shin gaurd on the other hand is for foul tips.
<strong>Yeah, applenut... throwing at somebody's the right thing to do.
uh... what would you do? a pitcher's best weapon is his fast ball.... in the past there were things called brush back pitches.... you can't do that anymore... batters don't have to fear em and get out of the way... they just sit in there and either get hit or pitchers don't throw inside.... this is one of the biggest reasons for guys like Bonds hitting so many damn homeruns a year.... they are in control.... not pitchers...
roll your eyes all you want.... but there's nothing else a pitcher can do..... the outside corner is now what use to be the middle of the plate... it's ridiculous.... and you know it.
<strong>All I'm saying is...
Pitsburg Bonds -> one of the better baseball players.
San Fransico Bons -> Aromor + seriods + hoging the plate = homerun king.
It just dosn't seem right. You get a free base base getting hit by a baseball hurts and risks ingury. I think that if you want to wear an arm sheild and a pitch hit you there it should be a ball, not a free pass. A shin gaurd on the other hand is for foul tips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Armor: permissible
Crowding the plate: permissible
Steroids: Bonds has been vocal about his pro-stance on steroid testing.
[ 11-01-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</p>