Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    I've admitted to exposing posters who are 99% negative, pessimistic, cynical, skeptical, and wet blankets 24/7. I point them out. If you wish to label that as "policing" then go with it.

    We also have a fraternity here that ferrets out optimists, homers, pollyannas, and Red Sox fanatics. Are they also policing? To me someone who complains 99% of the time can't be considered to be a real fan.

    • "Real fan" or not, who are you to judge?  How are you so sure?  Why are you so certain you are considered a "real fan"? 
    • Who are among us are the "fraternity here that ferrets out optimists, homers, pollyannas, and Red Sox fanatics"? Name names!    Name names!!
    • I would argue that the pessimists among us have been hit harder than the optimists.  I admit I have been among the hitters....and decided, and wrote, a few weeks ago that I would stop doing that - and I have.  If the pessimism of ABC or Alejandro annoys me, then surely my optimism offends them.  Who the F am I to relentlessly criticise them for that?   Optimism vs pessimism isn't a value judgement, it's just behavioural/perspective related.

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     

    * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

     

    I've admitted to exposing posters who are 99% negative, pessimistic, cynical, skeptical, and wet blankets 24/7. I point them out. If you wish to label that as "policing" then go with it.

    We also have a fraternity here that ferrets out optimists, homers, pollyannas, and Red Sox fanatics. Are they also policing? To me someone who complains 99% of the time can't be considered to be a real fan.

     

     

    • "Real fan" or not, who are you to judge?  How are you so sure?  Why are you so certain you are considered a "real fan"? 
    • Who are among us are the "fraternity here that ferrets out optimists, homers, pollyannas, and Red Sox fanatics"? Name names!    Name names!!
    • I would argue that the pessimists among us have been hit harder than the optimists.  I admit I have been among the hitters....and decided, and wrote, a few weeks ago that I would stop doing that - and I have.  If the pessimism of ABC or Alejandro annoys me, then surely my optimism offends them.  Who the F am I to relentlessly criticise them for that?   Optimism vs pessimism isn't a value judgement, it's just behavioural/perspective related.

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     

    * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 



    I'm pretty sure he means me, among others. Which is actually kind of laughable considering how hard I was getting into it with ike, geo and ADG a month ago. :-)

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 


    I'm pretty sure he means me, among others. Which is actually kind of laughable considering how hard I was getting into it with ike, geo and ADG a month ago. :-)




    You?  I can't see it...and really want Pike to give examples.  If I were to suggest a few names from each perspective (optimist/pessimist) I'd suggest:

    Pessimists:  ADG, Alibiike, LeftyMcRighty

    Optimists:    Space, you, me, mef

    I'd say the pessimists get a MUCH harder time here than the optimists....it's laughable to suggest that the optimists are being run out of town on a virtual rail.  It's just bossy freaks like Pike and their paranoia that think the opposite.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    In response to Triumph-'s comment:

     

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

     

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

     

    Should every poster take Georom and Softlaw seriously? Most don't. What is the beef?

     



    The beef is you telling us how to think.

     

     




     

    Well then ( as Ronald Reagan would say) from now on I'll advise / suggest that you don't take Georom, Softlaw, and other actors seriously?  Most posters, present and past, never took them seriously. Do you come here daily to:

    Read the Soflaw and Georom act and believe what he says or;

    Enjoy how all of the fools, newbies, and enablers respond to him.

    Can't you be watching fake wrestling matches instead?

     




     

     

     

     

    More great baseball talk from Pike.

     



    Talk baseball, Mr. Triumph-.

     



    More craaaaaazy

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    More great baseball talk from Pike.

     
    Talk baseball, Mr. Triumph-.

     
    More craaaaaazy



    C'mon, Space, Pike knows you are sitting in Haight Ashbury smoking your Mary Janes and listening to Psychedelic Rock....

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

     

    More great baseball talk from Pike.

     
    Talk baseball, Mr. Triumph-.

     
    More craaaaaazy

     



    C'mon, Space, Pike knows you are sitting in Haight Ashbury smoking your Mary Janes and listening to Psychedelic Rock....

     



    Hey, is that Freeedom Rock?!?  Turn it up maaan!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    This thread got sidetracked when I advised Spaceman not to take Georom seriously. Most reasonable posters, current and departed, never do / did. I also advise that Softlaw should not be taken seriously. This is not policing, it is just a favor to you that you stop wasting your time and effort on pretenders. By now most are also aware of posters like Babe who will also bait you and laugh at your responses. At least I hope so.

    Threads that were started by me in recent weeks about Red Sox prospects, the Francona book, and those that provided links to information ( not conflict) got ignored or else attacked. Why a forum member can turn a thread about Brentz into a pizzing contest is beyond me? Can anyone provide me with an explanation?



    And why exactly do we need your advice?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    Pike has hijacked a decent thread...

    i didnt realize (maybe Im trying not to think about it) how weak our STARTING infield is for 2013....drew, napoli, wmd and pedey....so many question marks - especially at shortstop which is the key position there...

     

    outfield...Ells, Shane and Gomes?

    why is this lineup not doing it for me?

    i really think we need the starters to be outstanding to contend...if not .500 will be a struggle


    and prior to this year, i have never predicted a sox team to win less than 90 games since the title years

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    This thread got sidetracked when I advised Spaceman not to take Georom seriously. Most reasonable posters, current and departed, never do / did. I also advise that Softlaw should not be taken seriously. This is not policing, it is just a favor to you that you stop wasting your time and effort on pretenders. By now most are also aware of posters like Babe who will also bait you and laugh at your responses. At least I hope so.

    Threads that were started by me in recent weeks about Red Sox prospects, the Francona book, and those that provided links to information ( not conflict) got ignored or else attacked. Why a forum member can turn a thread about Brentz into a pizzing contest is beyond me? Can anyone provide me with an explanation?

    Easily:

    1)  The most generous interpretation of your terrible behaviour here is that you are a patronising See You Next Tuesday.  You referenced Space....most/all people here consider him to be a bright, funny, cool guy....yet you lecture him about his ignorance and stupidity for falling into trolls' traps.  Absurd!

    2)  Do you really expect that after years of your trolling, abusive, repetetive BS you can show up with a new monicker and expect people to forget what you've done for the past x years?  I and others have recently responded to a few of your baseball posts with baseball responses.....but you always regress back to your sad, horrible, lonely abuse.

    I feel sorry for you.  What does your wife/girlfriend/partner think of you?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

     

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 


    I'm pretty sure he means me, among others. Which is actually kind of laughable considering how hard I was getting into it with ike, geo and ADG a month ago. :-)

     




    You?  I can't see it...and really want Pike to give examples.  If I were to suggest a few names from each perspective (optimist/pessimist) I'd suggest:

     

    Pessimists:  ADG, Alibiike, LeftyMcRighty

    Optimists:    Space, you, me, mef

    I'd say the pessimists get a MUCH harder time here than the optimists....it's laughable to suggest that the optimists are being run out of town on a virtual rail.  It's just bossy freaks like Pike and their paranoia that think the opposite.




    Where would I fall?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 


    I'm pretty sure he means me, among others. Which is actually kind of laughable considering how hard I was getting into it with ike, geo and ADG a month ago. :-)

     
    You?  I can't see it...and really want Pike to give examples.  If I were to suggest a few names from each perspective (optimist/pessimist) I'd suggest:

     

    Pessimists:  ADG, Alibiike, LeftyMcRighty

    Optimists:    Space, you, me, mef

    I'd say the pessimists get a MUCH harder time here than the optimists....it's laughable to suggest that the optimists are being run out of town on a virtual rail.  It's just bossy freaks like Pike and their paranoia that think the opposite.


    Where would I fall?



    In my personal opinion, FWIW?    I'd say on the practical side of optimism.   

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to carnie's comment:

     

    So, name names, who are the posters attacking the optimists around here*?

     * - I have been "attacked" here occasionally, though not often, not badly, not hurtfully, and I believe has nothing to do with my optimism but only due to my behaviour that has obviously offended someone at some point. 


    I'm pretty sure he means me, among others. Which is actually kind of laughable considering how hard I was getting into it with ike, geo and ADG a month ago. :-)

     
    You?  I can't see it...and really want Pike to give examples.  If I were to suggest a few names from each perspective (optimist/pessimist) I'd suggest:

     

    Pessimists:  ADG, Alibiike, LeftyMcRighty

    Optimists:    Space, you, me, mef

    I'd say the pessimists get a MUCH harder time here than the optimists....it's laughable to suggest that the optimists are being run out of town on a virtual rail.  It's just bossy freaks like Pike and their paranoia that think the opposite.


    Where would I fall?

     



    In my personal opinion, FWIW?    I'd say on the practical side of optimism.   

     



    That's a nice phrase.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    Yes, Spaceman is basically an optimist, loyal, and polite, but he also enables the obvious trolls ( Georom, Babe, Softlaw, etc.). He doesn't deny that since he likes to debate such trolls for the fun of it. To him it is an outlet, fun, challenging, and rewarding.  I am different, I think that he is wasting his time and effort. Spaceman is not setting a good example. He is putting these pretenders on the front stage of the forum. This forum should not be about pure entertainnment. Is it entertaining for six trolls to come here and bash everything Red Sox and have all of their posts responded to as if they are sincere, honest people? Sooner or later, this charade will get boring and tiring to most of you. Perhaps someday, this Red Sox forum will be more optimistic, informative,  joyful, and without conflict, pizzing contests, and constant negativity.

    Probably won't happen though. Turn on the news, bad news sells, all bad and sad stories, debate, government that doesn't function, partisan politics, and division.  No more joy in this world. The forum is just one more extension of it. Come here to bash your team or your rival team, question every player, coach, executive, or owner.  What a relief it is for many of you. You need someone to blame.  Find an optimistic or reasonable fan after a tough loss and bash him for being a fan ( like you). Unreal.



    "To him it is an outlet, fun, challenging, and rewarding. I am different, I think that he is wasting his time and effort."

    So what, exactly, Sir Wankalot, should the meek and mild Spaceman, esq. spend his time on?  Be specific!!

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

    This thread got sidetracked when I advised Spaceman not to take Georom seriously. Most reasonable posters, current and departed, never do / did. I also advise that Softlaw should not be taken seriously. This is not policing, it is just a favor to you that you stop wasting your time and effort on pretenders. By now most are also aware of posters like Babe who will also bait you and laugh at your responses. At least I hope so.

    Threads that were started by me in recent weeks about Red Sox prospects, the Francona book, and those that provided links to information ( not conflict) got ignored or else attacked. Why a forum member can turn a thread about Brentz into a pizzing contest is beyond me? Can anyone provide me with an explanation?



    Maybe because you ruin almost every thread you psot on, people avoid yours or try to return your methodology back "atcha".

    Sounds like you are more jealous that posters you despise get better responses than your cut and pasties.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    In response to LR3683paw's comment:

     

    Go back and track the thread Moonslav and get back to me. You are a logical and reasonable man. Where did I ruin the thread? I do have a right to defend myself. Why have you suddenly become a forum pessimist, everyone wants to know?

     



    A better question might be why was I so optimistic the last 5 years (projecting 93-95+ wins every year) despite me saying we needed a top starting pitcher all along?

     

    I'm a realist not a pessimist.

    I don't need to go back and track anything. You have been ruining threads for weeks, and maybe longer, if you are the guy many here say you have been under different names.

    You rarely talk baseball. You try to run off knowlegeable non Sox fan posters who make valuable contributions to baseball debate and offer a valauble alternate view of our Sox.

    Your major contribution here is mostly cut and paste threads.

    I have asked you to try and post 10 straight baseball only posts. I'm not sure you made it past 1 or 2. You bash others for being trolls, Sox haters, foils, or worse, but you offer nothing of substance. 

    You bash posters for enabling posters like softy, but can't you see that all you do is bash posters for bashing posters or for agreeing with other posters you despise. How is that any better than what you criticize?

    Hypocracy is very annoying, and maybe that is why nearly every poster wants you out of here.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Red Sox have lack of depth in the infield..

    forget the reserve infielders...i'm terrified of our starting crew...anyone who says Pedroia has had isolated/meaningless/unlucky injuries is simply in denial..he plays hard like Larry Bird and like Bird I predict he will be a shell of his great self by 33...WM? Total Wild Card..as is Napoli...Drew I have no hope for (maybe he can surprise me like Aviles/Scutaro) our Outfielders? Ellsbury I love but he has been as delicate throughout his career as JD (worse even)  Shane im hoping relives some glory days and Gomes???? Salty I like best as a player/person but only because he plays hard and is totally likeable...

     

    Is this the team ben thinks will compete with Toronto, the Yanks, Baltimore, and TB?

    Holy Shith!

     

    Then again with such low expectations, there is no need to stress over a bad season...but man that looks bleak..

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share