From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Yutzboy Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:20:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Y-Bron, Inc. (Thornley Division)

Ron "Slinky" Graham writes:

>>Ah.  We're responsible for other posters, now, just by our existence.
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact, you are.  The folks that are considered more
>"prominent," as Mr. Bose put it in his FAQ, are going to be imitated by
>others who would like to be accepted in the group.  If you deny this you
>are simply being naive.

Ron, I really don't think that's fair.  Is Jodie Foster responsible
for the shooting of Jim Brady?

>He might be less rude if rudeness were not accepted as the norm around here.
>My point is that many people here say things in front of thousands of people
>around the world on Usenet that they would *never* say to a colleague down
>the hall from their own offices.

In my particular case, that's untrue.  I also don't remember starting
any name-calling, actually.  I'm sure I've done it at some point, but
I usually remember saying things like, "That's not right, period."
"You're wrong."  or, the ever popular "You MUST be joking."  Unless
you count the middle names I tack on, which are usually completely
random.

>>>>In short, I don't feel as if anyone HERE has the right to call me, or
>>>>any other SDCN here 'arrogant' about baseball.  On the contrary, I
>>>>feel the burden of arrogance is upon those who refuse to open their
>>>>minds, certain that THEIR method of analysis is superior to that of
>>>>others.  
>
>>Well?  What does this have to do with "relationships with others?" We're
>>here to talk baseball, not to go out on dates; and if someone I don't even 
>>know comes up to me and tells me "I know what I'm talking about and I'm
>>right and here's a pile of utterly nonsensical evidence to prove it and I
>>won't listen to what you have to say about it and I insist on expressing
>>my opinion again and again without being challenged," 
>
>Did you notice that you were arguing with Mr. Huckabay here, and not me?
>I bet that would have made a difference.

How is Roger arguing with me here?  I don't mention 'relationships
with others' at any point, nor does his statement seemed to be
relevant to my text.  He may have been referring to some earlier text.

>Look, people will measure performance based on RBI.  Get used to it.
>People will want Cecil Fielder to be the MVP every year.  Get used to it.

And I will correct them.  Every year.  Get used to it.  Why?  Because
I feel I have something to offer them in terms of enjoying baseball.
I feel that if they understand the game better (yes, BETTER, not just
DIFFERENTLY), they will enjoy the game more.  

>If you see your name, I am naming you.  If you see the names of Mr. Huckabay,
>Dr. Tate, Ms. Nichols, and Valentine - as you should have seen above, 
>although I wonder now if you weren't too pissed off to pay attention -
>then I am naming them.  In either case, I do name the people against whom
>I make the claim.  This business about naming names is old and tired when
>it is valid, and here it isn't even valid.

Unless you name the accused, how can they defend themselves?

>It's a bleedin' flame forum is what it is.  That's my point.  Thank you
>very much for backing up my point.

I don't see it as such at all, but then again, I have no baseline.
This is the only newsgroup I regularly read, aside from the occasional
jaunt into rec.audio.high-end.jadis.bucks.bucks.bucks.

And of course, the ever popular
rec.sport.espn.full.contact.sumo.billiards.


-- 
*    Gary Huckabay     * "You see, I can prove to you that Lance Blankenship  *
*  "Rhymes with see."  *  is a superior ballplayer to Ryne Sandberg."  "How?" *
* "May not be suitable * "Lance has more rings.  Ryno's never been there. He  *
*  for all audiences." *  just chokes every year, and disappoints the Cubs."  *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball