http://news.yahoo.com/cubs-deal-feldman-orioles-marmol-dodgers-194423507.html

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"Yes, your questions make interesting follow-up questions, but, no, the comments of mine that you were questioning did not require answers to your follow-up questions to be valid points."

I don't think anyone ever said that was the case, but when you pose a question and someone answers it and follows up with a next question, your refusal (at times) to answer becomes frustrating or almost insulting.  It's as if you're saying your question was the only one of the two that was valid and therefore worthy of an answer.  That may not be your intent, but it's certainly how it comes off--at least to me.

not to jump in here but that is exactly what i will do and direct this to max.  For example when i asked how we should respect the minority opinion you side stepped that question.  You went back and noted that your qoute didnt inculde the word opinion.  You claimed it ment different things somehow.  what is annoy about that is that you cant even have a discussion with you.  You act like ur trying to win an arguement on a technicality.  Or trying to advoid the question on a technicality.  In fact i asked you several questions and they only got answered because i brought it back up.  you want to act like people dont understand you but in reality you try to be misunderstood or hard to understand.  When someone ask for clarification on a topic you side step the question and try to say that isnt exactly what you stated.  then you act offended when things get testy.  Same song and dance everytime.  It has lead to you leaving the board at least once.  I just dont get it.   
 

Well AP, we have shared many good times and I don't want that you should be disappointed in me, but as you know I have other things to do than answer questions.  Sometimes when you hit me with three or four questions at a time when Fors appears to be trying to start a pissing contest I have to make some decisions about how to proceed: first, s

Not sure which came first, you thinking my responses to your questions are insulting, or me thinking you're trying to start pissing contests:

Max wrote:

The only question is whether you cannot get your mind around this one issue, or whether you have a pattern of doing this for fun.  If you cannot get your mind around this one issue, I will try to help you, on the condition that you drop the swaggering, bullying, and namecalling.  On the other hand, if you do it for fun, then of course there's no point in going forward because I do not enjoy it. 

forsberg_us wrote:

Whether you enjoy it or not is of little concern to me. You're looking for something to bitch about because--as you yourself admitted--the team's success under Dewitt and Mozeliak bothers you. If your concern was legitimate, you'd answer the question. . . . You refuse to answer because to do so makes it possible you could be proven wrong in the future and you can't possibly allow that to happen. 

So, you don't like the discussion, man up and answer the question.

forsberg_us wrote:

The only thing I've realized is that your unwilling to answer a simple question about a topic you first raise because to answer it leaves you subject to being proven wrong. It's your M.O., and certainly not the first time. You did the same thing when you bitched and moaned about the team not increasing payroll in 2010. You were asked on multiple occasions who/where you would have added, but just like now took the coward's way out and refused to answer.

Still waiting to hear who you're concerned about.

forsberg_us wrote:

Do I enjoy this? Damn right I do. When you try to stir up shit because of your own little dissatisfactions, I'm going to call you on it every time.

forsberg_us wrote:

That's fine Max, but here's the thing. 

It flows as a natural follow up question, but it is not requisite to go there from my premise. It's like saying, "Wow, there's this girl at my office who likes me.  Do you think I should go out with her?"  and your question is, "well, would you marry her?"  Yes it flows, but I could say, "Marry her?  I am not going to answer that.  I am just trying to decide if I want to date her."

1. "Where would you spend the money?" My answer was that it's Mozeliak's job to answer that question IF he has permission from DeWitt to raise payroll.  It is my memory that the argument was about whether DeWitt even had the option to raise payroll.  It is an interesting question to ask, "Well, OK, hypothetically, suppose the money is there and suppose DeWitt said that Mozeliak could spend it, where would you spend it?"  We can play that game another offseason, if you like.

2. "Which pitcher suffered?".  In case you have not noticed, office politics and ethics are very interesting and important to me.  I truly was interested in the office politics of it, and how it might be made into an issue by bloggers and journalists, and therefore, how the FO might seek to innoculate themselves against such charges.  I really am interested in how these issues play out in society.  You asked "who suffered" and Artie answered "Wacha".  Fine.  I don't get enough chance to watch games to have any worthwhile opinion on "who suffered".  I made the line about Artie and I thinking alike, because he and I do think alike on many things--from Monty Python quoting to gun control.  I did not mean to imply that I agreed Wacha had suffered, though I can see how that might have been inferred.  But I have NEVER seen Wacha throw a single pitch and have no basis upon which to claim that he, or any of the other rookies suffered.  I was interested in the office politics.  And, thus while it is an interesting follow up question to ask

Yes, we disagree on the discussion.  My recollection was that it began as "can payroll rise" and that went way back to about 2006/07, I think, and was in full swng by 2008, when the financial crisis hit and everyone was playing conservatively with their money.

The second debate we agree on completely: many people who had supported the "DeWitt is cheapskate" argument changed their stripes when the Cards signed Holliday, even though payroll stayed flat.  I thought that was ridiculous, then and now.  I get your argument, you get mine.  We disagree.  

The third debate, "where would we have spent the money?" I didn't answer because I hold it does not follow from my contention "payroll can rise".  Perhaps by that time we were already arguing diffferent things.  I agree with your contention that money should not be spent simpy to spend money, but that was not the argument we were having, to my way of thinking.  

Finally, one thing I have been wrong about over and over again has been my doomsday predictions for the Cardinals.  Searching my hard drive I found a draft of my first doomsday precition, from just after the 2003 season.  Prior to 2004 both Windy and I were concerned the team would suck, and Matt Morris would wind up pitching for the Yankees by August.  I am glad that I have been wrong on all of those occassions, and I hope that I am wrong about DeWitt being a megalomaniac who chased away everyone who could compete with the argument that the Cardinals success during his tenure as owner is a result of none other than Bill DeWitt, Jr. My allegiance is to the Cardinals, and "the Cardinals" belongs no more to Bill DeWitt, Jr. than it does to anyone else . . . well, it belongs to him a little bit more than most others.  But Gibson, Sutter, Smith, Herzog, La Russa, Duncan, and even Pujols are all stakeholders.  

Now, with that, I hope that you and I can end this circular argument and bury the hatchet in something other than each other's head.

Just for f

forsberg_us wrote:

You thought payroll should have been closer to $110 and that the team wasn't really "all in" because payroll had actually gone down from the previous year.

I am understanding  when you mischaracterize my argument because of poor memory, but why on Earth did you mischaracterize my argument when the clear proof that is NOT what I said is in the post just above?!?

Max wrote:

i forget the specifics, if there were any, but i believe my argument was along the lines that we needed make modest bumps from our previous high water mark of about $100-103, planning to get up to the $110-120 million range within 3-5 years.

and for the umpteenth time . . . this is exactly what happened.

FWIW, by Fall 2010, at least three years after the "DeWitt is a cheapskate argument" had been started, and AFTER he had ponied up to sign Holliday, these are some of our comments on payroll.

forsberg_us wrote:

Colby ain't going nowhere.

Anticipates an incremental increase in payroll (whatever that means)

Hopes for an early answer from TLR regarding next season

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100916&content_id=14743330&notebook_id=14745936&vkey=notebook_stl&c_id=stl&partnerId=rss_stl

APIAD wrote:

95-105 range means about what it is now or was a few years ago..

tkihshbt wrote:

*Payroll may increase (laughable).

I wish we could go back further, because even back almost three years ago this same issue was being discussed in increasingly nasty tones.  

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

I don't see any realistic way they field a 90-94 win team without making a huge increase in payroll.

pardon me for yet another , "puh-huh?", but isn't this what you were ridiculing me for suggesting last offseason?

i forget the specifics, if there were any, but i believe my argument was along the lines that we needed make modest bumps from our previous high water mark of about $100-103, planning to get up to the $110-120 million range within 3-5 years.

tkihshbt wrote:

Your argument was that the Cardinals couldn't overtake anyone in the playoffs without adding a new bullpen, two All-Star starting pitchers and more All-Stars on the infield. I think the cost of your dream team would've put the payroll right around a totally realistic $300 million.

forsberg_us wrote:

But I'll play along. When the discussion along these lines begins among the fringe journos/bloggers, which rookie pitcher(s) do you think they'll be discussing?

I don't know.  My point all along was that I suspect it could be made into an issue, that's what journalists and bloggers do.  They need something to talk about.  

Thank you for finally following the line of reasoning in my comment.  
 

APIAD wrote:

What is your opinion on company xmass parties or companies putting up xmass trees?  Xmass bonus or gift?  
 

And Christmas holiday, and the school Christmas pageant, etc.

I confess to being divided here, and I am not sure where the bright line gives way to common sense.  

For example, in Singapore, it's about 65% Chinese (mostly Christian), about 25% Malay (mostly Muslim), and about 10% Indian (mostly . . . not sure, Hindu, I think, becuase they make a big deal out of Deepavali).  Officially there is religious and ethnic tolerance, and they crack down hard on anything that might stoke tensions.  For example, one Chinese college student posted on his facebook how there were some Indians on the train and they stank (there is a stereotype of strong body odor among Indians in Singapore).  He got in serious trouble for that.  On the other hand, the authorities are wise enough to know that the majority should not feel overly imposed upon in the need to respect minorities.  So, they are able to bypass a lot of the hand-wringing that we go through in our society.

Personally, I would like to see a way that public school celebrations of religious holidays could return.    I remember my 4th grade class rehearsing "Bring a Torch Jeanette Isabella" for the Christmas pageant, and though it is kind of a lame song, I still enjoy the memory and wish that kids today could experience that, too. 

And, for what it's worth, in Indonesia it is common to receive a bonus equal to an entire month's salary at the end of Ramadan, and I gladly pocketed that . . . and gladly (or sometimes begrudgingly) went to religious celebrations.  In Indonesia, it has been the tradition for people of one religion to politely attend a celebration or two of their neighbor's religion.  But with the Saudi-funded infiltration of Wahabbism and the growth of political Islam, it is becoming less acceptable to do so . . . unless it is a minority religion attending the festivitie

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

This is probably going to come off as way too glib for this discussion, but I don't think I necessarily have to respect everyone's opinion. I have to acknowledge their beliefs, but I also reserve the right to think they're full of shit - i.e. if somone who believes in Allah thinks he's going to hang out with 72 virgins if he takes out a bunch of infidels with a suicide bomb, I think I have the right to deem that line of thinking utter nonsense.
And it's not just Mulslims who register on the bullshit meters. Every religion has implausible ideas that if proferred as new in today's society would likely get the proferrer committed to a psych ward.
 

Indeed.  As I posted before to AP's question, in a democracy it is the minority that must respect the opinions/decisions of the majority . . . in theory anyway.  And obviously there are lots of crazy opinions out that there that need not be respected.  So, the question as it was first phrased was not an accurate reflection of the point I was making.  
 

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

Cardinals are now 2 games out of first.

  

this is the end.  I am for real.  This team needs help.  A really short stop.  A number 3 starter.  

Who's their #2?

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

that doesnt change the question.  How?  
 

Which question?  

"how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority opinion?"

or

how exactly should the majority go about "respecting" the minority?

how about you try answering both or at least one.  Hell you pick.  
 

Well, I have already said I disagree with the first one, and I was not sure why you seemed to be bringing it back up.  

The second one is a big field. I have a degree in a related field, but am not an expert in it.  I think they often use things like role playing in "sensitivity training".  I have never done anything like that, but I lived a minority for about 10 years, so I have a bit of experience.  My big #1 tip would be to learn about the minority, learn the triggers that piss them off about being a minority.