Another Opinion
in [Baseball Chat]
|
From: Will in New Haven on 13 Dec 2009 10:13 On Dec 13, 6:07 am, E.F. Hokie <efho...(a)nah.nope> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:38:53 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote... > > E.F. Hokie <efho...(a)nah.nope> trolled: > > > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:41:08 +0000, Lew Pitcher wrote... > > > >> In any case, Pete Rose remains the game's greatest hitter, by > > >> definition and without qualification. > > > > False. > > > This would be almost interesting if you could at least try to > > demonstrate the falsity. > > It's been done repeatedly. You're a serial liar. Run along, now. > I would say that it is true, in a sense, but it is meaningless the way he uses it. It is the answer to the trivia question "who has the most Hits." In itself, it does not make Rose a more useful player offensively than Mickey Rivers (though he was) let alone Mickey Mantle. Obviously, he was not close to being the offensive player or all-around player Mantle was. Admitting that he was "the greatest hitter because he had the most Hits" doesn't change that. His definition of "hitting," by his own definition, is that it is _part_ of getting on base consistently. Obviously, it is also part of hitting the ball hard. So his definition of hitting is that it is a fraction of a player's value at the plate. He goes on to deny that you can TELL who is a better batter and wants to render that discussion meaningless. Which, of course, would make Rose look a lot better because he would be very far down any such list. Well, you CAN tell. At worst, you can make an approximation of the top thirty or so batters in history and Rose isn't there. He had the most HIts; you have to give him that. He was a very good player for a very long time and he certainly meets the requirements for admission to the Hall of Fame. He would not be on the first or second team if an all- time all-start team were put together. Give him the title of "greatest hitter" but make sure the reader knows you are talking about the answer to a trivia question, not an evaluation of Rose as an all-time great. -- Will in New Haven Pete Rose, defined as baseball's greatest hitter, but only because he got the most Hits, is not going to get into the Hall of Fame while he is alive.
From: Lew Pitcher on 13 Dec 2009 22:51 Rowena Magdalena <pew(a)licker.com> trolled: > You are one seriously boring troll, Manyard. Who? > Repeating your lies over and over and over again doesn't make them > true, yet you persist and have done so for many years now. And calling us names doesn't in any way refute what we proclaim. > Ah well, at least keeping you here on Usenet protects those around > you in the outside world from having to deal with you. Those > people ought to be paying a quality of life subsidy to the members > of RSB. The folks in the real world know better than to call us names. cordially, as always, Lew Pitcher
From: Richard R. Hershberger on 14 Dec 2009 13:37 On Dec 12, 7:14 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...(a)taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster," > is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. . Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English mixes British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre" honestly. But in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling. Do you favor "centre fielder" too? Richard R. Hershberger
From: Will in New Haven on 14 Dec 2009 13:43 On Dec 14, 1:37 pm, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...(a)acme.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 7:14 pm, Will in New Haven > > <bill.re...(a)taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster," > > is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. . > > Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English mixes > British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre" honestly. But > in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling. Do > you favor "centre fielder" too? No and I resent all the extra letters, usually U, that the Brits try to sneak into our words. However, I am quite Jeffersonian about spelling. When he was a young man people spelled words the way they heard them and there was no such subject as spelling. This is how it works in Spanish today, with very few problems. However, in English everyone seems to hear the same words differently and along came the dictionary-makers and they created correct spelling. Jefferson didn't like this and neither do I. Luster (if you will) is not a word I would use very often and I really think the alternative spelling looks better. -- Will in New Haven
From: Gerry Myerson on 14 Dec 2009 17:14
In article <64482139-0192-4458-b1f5-438a3c03c61b(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhersh(a)acme.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 7:14�pm, Will in New Haven > <bill.re...(a)taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > > > He is right about one thing. My spell-checker, which prefers "luster," > > is nuts. "Lustre" is correct, as far as I am concerned. . > > Seriously? As I recall, Maynard is Canadian. Canadian English mixes > British and American forms, so he may come by "lustre" honestly. But > in American English "luster" is the rock-solid standard spelling. Do > you favor "centre fielder" too? Centre Fieldre, actually. > Richard R. Hershberger Shouldn't that be Hreshbregre? -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |