Can you guys get to the bottom other fresh Houston pro football controversies like what happened to Jeff Alm?
At least if they move to the AL, I can physically see them a few times a year without having to drive to Milwaukee or Chicago. I think we are going to be able to see them play in St. Louis on 07/25 so I am looking forward to that. Meanwhile, I will go see my first game at Target field Saturday. I'd root for the Padres but I don't want to be beaten up my drunk Twins' fans.
Jeez, msn - fear of the unknown/change is so very common and has absolutely nothing to do, especially in this case, with being afraid in the way you're portraying it. You're used to something, 50-years used to it. You know the teams and the strategies and the cities and the players and the histories... there is absolutely, positively not a thing wrong with being apprehensive about having to start fresh with all of that. If you're not (and 3,400 posts later suggest maybe you are), fine - but condescending? Arrogant? This is how I originally addressed it: “I think maybe fear of change and moving on is making a few too many of you misty-eyed and nostalgic about a history that doesn't really exist.” I purposefully left plenty of room for someone to counter what was an inoffensive, specifically non-presumptive assertion – and you still thought it was presumptive? Worse - condescending? Arrogant? Really?
Hohoho. You know, Major, these flaccid “gotcha!” posts you’ve been dropping on me recently are not only tiresome but wholly ineffective. You should consider a new approach. Because unlike msn, I don’t have any issue with fearing change, and I would specifically confirm several of these *years*-old assertions you’ve listed (Carr? Seriously? That was *five* years ago) as absolutely being at least a small component of that. So… as I often wind up asking you: What’s your point? Further (and rather ironically since you’ve done it again here), the last time you tried this was when you randomly trotted out the “Ric didn’t want Bill Cowher!!” post recently, which was emphatically rebuked and proven every bit as false as your posting strategy is weak. So let’s at least drop that one from the next “gotcha!” post as I’m growing bored making you look silly for bringing it up over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again. The really funny thing is that I couldn’t tell you your opinion on any issue you’ve ever argued here. It doesn’t resonate with me at all and I certainly don’t memorize them so, five years later, I can spring a “gotcha!” post on you. Kind of pathetic, dontcha think?
My point is you rail on other people "fearing" change when you constantly do it - and in those cases, you defend it as a wonderful, solid reason to oppose said change. The number of times you used "it could be worse" as your defense to opposing change is laughable. Nonsense - you came around when you discovered that everyone else was right about Kubiak in 2010, but when Cowher came up in 2009, you were staunchly opposed because of a fear of starting over with a 3-4 defense. That's probably because I'm not nearly as obnoxious as you when making my points. Your points above are memorable because they (1) turned out so terribly, horribly wrong and (2) you were incredibly obnoxious in telling people how stupid they were when you made them. When you do that, expect to be reminded of it the next time you do something similar. I will happily continue to bring it up everytime you act superior to others.
I railed? That’s railing? Really? “I think maybe…” is railing? I’m not railing on anyone for fearing change. I think it’s very common and understandable and in no way considered a bad thing in and of itself. I’m offering only that that fear might be obscuring their perspective. If they don’t fear change, cool. I don’t think anyone was being railed for it, though. If you’d like to post examples where I railed people for fearing change, I’d be curious to see what you come up with. As stated before, and hopefully for the final time: 2009 was prior to the defense turning in one of the all-time worst season-long performances in the entire history of this league. To hold anyone accountable for opinions made prior to that revelation is silly. But that’s beyond the point: I don’t have any issue admitting change can be a bad thing and that it has absolutely played a part in forming my opinions. So when I mention others might be experiencing the same and that it might be coloring their perspective, it’s not a rail, Major – it’s empathy. I *know* it can be a factor. So, again, what's your point? Never mind. Let's distract everyone instead! Hey, what did I have to say about Kareem Jackson when he was drafted? I’m sure you have it logged in your giant “Ric’s Opinions” spreadsheet and man! Wouldn't it make for a giant, irrelevant, vindictive little “gotcha!” right about now? Fair enough. I certainly don’t mean to be obnoxious or act superior – but if that’s the overwhelming perception held by the majority of posters (and they’ve empowered you to share this opinion), I can certainly work toward creating a persona more reflective of how I act in the “real world.” But it still doesn’t obscure the fact that you spend far too much of your time in this forum crouched behind a cyber bush flaccidly waiting to pounce on me with years-old opinions that have no relevance to the current discussion and are often wrong or taken wildly out of context. It makes you look petty and silly.
They're synonymous, even if you pretend they aren't. That's just it; there's no apprehension, but you assumed there was. Why not just take someone's words at face value? Why come in with some overgeneralized assumption about what's going on inside? No apprehension or "fear" in the least, Ric. Just a preference, and a vehement distaste for the AL style of play. Yup. Presuming to know what someone else is feeling, especially in that tone, is exactly that. And it's a common tone for you, as Major points out. Just the other day you attacked another guy's post with, "Am I the only guy who has to clean this up around here?" That post, too, was arrogant. Based on your history, yup. Oh, and I got it right: looky here: Did you post that as good-natured ribbing, or hoping I would respond in kind with a personal insult? Yup. Really. I wonder if you'll catch the incredible irony here.
Whoa… whoa... When I did I not take your word at face value, msn? I offered “maybe” it was a factor. And when you… overreacted to it (IM MY OPINION - I’m merely trying to frame my perspective), I tried to clarify what I meant as it seemed we were on different pages. I just couldn’t for the life of me fathom someone getting upset at someone else for wondering if a fear of change (a very common human component) was playing a factor in shaping their opinion. It wasn’t meant to be an insult, condescending, arrogant or any other degree of criticism. Here’s the chronology: Me: I think maybe fear of change and moving on is making a few too many of you misty-eyed and nostalgic about a history that doesn't really exist. You: Wait I minute, I thought you "respect where I'm coming from?" This "fear of change" bullcrap is as condescending as it is inaccurate. Just because you don't agree or don't see it the same way, don't start assuming others suffer from sort of emotional or intellectual lack. If it’s not an issue, OK, cool. But offering it as a possibility is arrogant and condescending right out of the shoot? Really? And deserved you jumping down my throat immediately? There’s no room for dialogue? Common ground? Deeper understanding? And speaking of… I know you don’t know me from Adam – but this is the… 3rd? 4th post in which I’ve emphatically stated that I meant nothing by it … and you’re still roasting me for it? So is *my* word not worth face value, msn? That was a joke, msn. And the only “tone” here is the one we each individually supply. I would let this drop but I’m at a loss that what I would characterize as (and most certainly intended to be) nothing more than an innocent, “Could it be…?” is generating this kind of vitriol. But, cool – I guess at the very least we’ve established a playbook moving forward: your word is good; mine isn’t and I should prepare for everything I post to be read with pre-determined anger and rancor and will be responded to in kind. Plus, Major has a file on me so I should double-check every post for fear he’ll randomly bring a contradictory opinion up from as far back as 2002. Got it. I hope that changes but, you know – I fear change and all so it’s kind of confusing…. Oh, geez… I meant that I didn’t have an issue with someone suggesting that I might fear change, as Major cowardly attempted to suggest, thus leveling his flimsy little “gotcha!” post. It was, like the original mention of fear of change, a completely innocuous statement!! Go back through the thread, msn, and read it in the tone I’m telling you it was written; I find it hard to believe you’ll see arrogance and condescension and superiority, et al. It’s really and truly innocent giving way to surprise. Further, I don’t think I’ve explicitly said anything insulting to you (given that we can agree I meant nothing by the “fear of change” comment). Can you say the same for your responses?........ Does it have something to do with Spec Richardson? (Can I add a smilie face here? Or is that insulting too?)
"Fear of change" is a condescending thing to say. If you didn't intend in that manner, and were clueless that it could come across that way, then tact would be a good thing to study up on. Yes. I have commented on your actions, not on your character. I have not, for example, stated that you have a fear of change. I have pointed out that your posts come across as arrogant. If that offends you, I'm sorry. But you may consider that *multiple* posters catch that vibe from you. Are they all wrong? And you're right? nope. Emoticons aren't insulting. Thanks for your feigned concern, though.
I'd really love the Rangers and Astros to end up in the same division, but I hate the DH and would prefer the Astros stay in the NL. I always like the lonestar series, and am making the trip to see it this year. It'd be real nice to see them compete for division standings rather than the Silver Boot, and I'd love to see a real rivalry grow out of this.
Let me ask you a genuine question: why is my perception irrelevant? I get that *you* find it condescending (and maybe everyone universally agrees with you) - but I don't. Sincerely. Case in point: I moved last week. I, in part, feared many of the changes - longer commute; less time with my child and wife; new, bigger responsibilities with a larger house/yard/mortgage payment. I never, in all my life, would have thought admitting that was anything close to a character detriment of any kind. I feared change. I often do. Lots of others do, too. It seems like a very natural, human reaction to the status quo being disrupted. Sorry. I'm not prolonging this to try and dance out of it. If it offended you, I apologize because it never even, like, hyper-remotely entered into my train of thought that it might be perceived as insulting. I'm genuinely perplexed and flabbergasted. But there's the crux: If I'm genuinely surprised by your reaction - doesn't that speak volumes of my intent? That I meant nothing by it other than as a possible discussion point? But notice - every time I express that point of view, that opinion - its condescending this, arrogant that, you're clueless.... Why do you think that is? Hold up... so 889 pages into a thread in which you've persistently railed against a *change*, you're suggesting that my "fear of change" comment - again, waist-deep into a discussion in which you've adamantly opposed the change at every turn - is an attack on your character and not on the voluminous # of your singularly-focused posts? But ganging up with other posters to not-so-subtly suggest that I should consider changing my *behavior* is all cool and good? Am I on target with this? Is that where you're choosing to land? I've repeatedly admitted to ignorance of the perception, and backed off any idea that I was trying to be insulting. And you've repeatedly responded by lobbing attacks on my reputation, msn. I'm condescending, I'm arrogant, I'm clueless. Oh, you can hide behind it being about my "actions" or my posts but I think we both know what a load of ape scat that is. I've never tangled with you previously in the forum - I'm at a loss where the vitriol is coming from but it is very obviously there and it is very obviously casting a shadow over this entire discussion... I thought we were cool. I guess not. Good to know. Oh, I don't know, msn - you tell me.
It's quite a bit different to be wary of change when you uproot your life and your family's life than to not want a baseball team to change leagues because you like the National League history of the franchise and don't like the brand of American League baseball. Think of these two statements: 1 am afraid of change because I have moved myself and my family. I am taking on more responsibility and bigger debt. I am afraid of adapting to watching the Astros play in the American League. Of course the first one is a normal reaction. The second is just silly.
All right. I'm sorry I completely misread your intent. No, I haven't. I pointed out how some people respond to your posts. I won't mention it again, though. Not once did I say any of those things. There's no "hiding" here. I don't know you from Adam, Ric. I commented on your posts, which come across as arrogant at times--even if you don't intend them to be. I've never once called you arrogant and will not do so. The only shadow, regardless of any past discussions, was our very different perception of the concept of "fear of change." That's it; that's all. Got no beef with you personally, Ric. I enjoy a lot of your analysis and commentary on our local teams. I enjoy most of the discussions. I probably went too far pointing out to you how many people take issue with your posts at times, and I will refrain.
Just a quick point/question - is it the word "fear"? Is that the problem? Thinking back, I sense that's where msn went, too, based on his initial responses (I believe he used the term, "afraid" too), and it's why I immediately backtracked from using that particular phrase. *Fear* of change, at least from my perspective, does not equal being afraid. It's simply a conscise way to articulate an aversion to something changing that you've grown accostumed to. That's it.
That was precisely it. I appreciated your earlier explanation, although it still to me seems like temerity--but again I'll concede I was wrong about your intent. At least for me, there isn't even apprehension. No temerity, apprehension, concern, worry, fear, etc. I just think it would be the wrong thing to do for Houston--a NL town, and I don't prefer AL ball. And on a personal note I missed earlier, congrats and best of luck on the new job.
Ahhhhhh well there ya go. Yeah, I've never equated "fear" used in that context with being afraid. Cool. Sorry about the dust-up.
I don't see why evening things out at 15 is so critical. And an interleague series going on all season long just makes MLB that much more like the other leagues. Not that what MLB does is better, but it's nice that each major sports league has its own distinct way of handling conferences and divisions. I don't see a "good reason", and by that I mean a reason that is nearly compelling enough to me, for MLB to emulate the NFL or (God forbid) the NBA. That said, here is my unapologetically biased opinion on the order of NL teams that should go, from "should go if a team must" to "fold the NL first." :grin: Brewers Rockies Diamondbacks Marlins Nationals Padres Mets Pirates Cardinals Braves Phillies Reds Cubs Giants Dodgers Astros
Ken Rosenthal from earlier today: This would probably be my biggest(albeit maybe small to others) gripe about moving WHY ASTROS DON’T WANT TO GO One of the problems with moving the Astros to the AL or NL West is the dramatic increase in games that the team would play in the Pacific Time Zone. Four of the six teams in the NL Central, including the Astros, play in CT; the other two play in ET. If the Astros slid to the AL West, the Rangers would be their only division opponent in the same time zone. If the Astros went to the NL West and the D-backs to the AL West, none of the Astros’ division opponents would be in CT. The Rangers, of course, already face a similar problem, where all of their opponents in the AL West play in PT. The later start times of such games make it more difficult for many fans in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to follow the team on TV and radio. Should such an obstacle prevent realignment from occurring? No. But from the Astros’ perspective, a move to either western division would be less than ideal.
