Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I can actually multi-task. You know, watch the game, kick Softlaw's can and chew gum. Then I watch the replay later, cutting out the BS.

    You certainly can multi-task. Pick up your welfare check, watch the game, post hysterical blather, and rant about some old poster named "Softlaw".  Having seen your idiocy manifest, you coudn't wipe your own can, much less kick one. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    harness is on welfare?  lol
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Burrito, the old coot is a classic loser bottom feeder who is a direct reflection of the mentality of a welfare ward. Pretends to be an authority on everything, but is an idiot on everything. The best way to deal with old Board bullies is to call them the idiots they are.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Isn't it funny how sensitive GM is when Softlaw is mentioned.
    Could it be the jerk in GM type is trying not to tell us something?

    The only welfare that concerns me is the welfare of this board when the mods allow him to post. Sad to see this clown make pitches for cyberspace woman - using a silver-spoon and a bunch of age-related lies.

    I guess the southern wifey finally got wise. She must be a saint.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Call came from BaseballGM to make the switch. Same guy who wants Wake out of here and no place for him on Sox staff. Like most intelligent RS fans already know Wake still has something left in the tank and will help RS this year, just can't do it every 5th day anymore for 162 games.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Curt Schilling likely has something "left in the tank," so what is your point?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Softy said I was on welfare as well, when I haven't collected one cent from the government in any way shape or form, in fact about half my taxes have gone towards sending other people's kids to school. (I have no children.) Almost the whole other half has gone towards killing the wrong people overseas.

    Having no children, knowing how to balance a budget, and investing wisely has allowed me to retire early. (softy assumes all retirees re "old coots".) When I finally get to an age where I can collect Social Security, half has been taken away by laws that restrict my earned dollars because I have paid into a state's teacher pension plan. I haven't started collecting that yet either.

    His lies and jealousy are clear.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Curt Schilling likely has something "left in the tank," so what is your point?
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Schilling is a video games entrepreneur.
    Wake is out-pitching reigning CY Young winners.
    That's the difference.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamaicaPlain67. Show JamaicaPlain67's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Softlaw is a despicable person. Oregon should be ashamed of him.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Another angle: take away the breat recent start by Wake and look at these numbers...

    Wake's last 8 relief games of 2010:
    IP  14.1
    ER  2
    H   13
    BB   2

    Wake's 7 games in relief this year:
    IP   11.1
    ER    7
    H      9
    BB    2

    Last 15 games in relief:
    IP   25.2
    ER     9
    H     22
    BB     4

    ERA     3.15
    WHIP  1.013
     
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Softy said I was on welfare as well, when i haven't collected one cent from the government in any way shape or form, in fact about half my taxes have gone towards sending other people's kids to school. (I have no children.) Almost the whole other half has gone towards killing the wrong people overseas. Having no children, knowing how to balance a budget, andinvesting wisely has allowed me to retire early. When I finally get to an ag where I can collect Social Security, half has been taken away by laws that restrict my earned dollars becaus I have paid into a teacher's pension plan. I haven't started collecting that yet either. His lies and jealousy are clear.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty much semi-retired. What I do in the winter is a lot of work, but it's something I love. It's an immense challenge.

    I can't comment on welfare because I don't a have a clue as to how it works.
    Softy reminds me of a guy I used to pass on the streets of Boston when I worked there as a kid. The guy was just angry. He'd be on a corner - looked like he hadn't bathed in months. He was way over-dressed with a dingy over-coat and 2nd-hand attire. He may of been homeless.

    But if ya stopped and stared or gave him any attention, he'd verbally attack you with slurs and profanity. The best thing to do was just ignore him.

    I'm not saying Softy is this far gone, but placating him may be a better way alternative to feeding the monster. I know it's easier said than done. It's hard to be willing to understand how he communicates with the members of this board.
    He brings out the worst in people because it allows him to deal with his own issues if they are resourced differently.

    As a result, he sees himself as a martyr on this island of truth. Those who attack him are the lost flock. It's also easy to be taken in by him. But I'm realizing now that his creation of another identity, albeit quite transparent to us, was done for other reasons beyond getting by the mods.

    When a person creates this kind of separation - and is in this much denial - the need to do so must be immense. I know how you feel about posters spreading lies. I have my own fetish with liars. But the cycle we are inducing with him is detracting from the purpose of the board. I don't think others appreciate it.

    Nor do I think anything you or I post regarding factual data means anything to him.
    It's just a waste of time. I'm gonna try a different approach from now on. Nothing good can come out of these attacks. It can only lead to hurting people. I just don't like being dragged down to this level. It's a poor reflection on me, and I can imagine how others see it. I've been there before with others. I see it on a daily basis when board communication breaks down.

    I can't do anything about that. But I can affect my own course. Here's to hoping it'll make a small difference.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Another angle: take away the breat recent start by Wake and look at these numbers... Wake's last 8 relief games of 2010: IP  14.1 ER  2 H   13 BB   2 Wake's 7 games in relief this year: IP   11.1 ER    7 H      9 BB    2 Last 15 games in relief: IP   25.2 ER     9 H     22 BB     4 ERA     3.15 WHIP  1.013  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I can't help but wonder what affect being used so erratically has on Wake's effectiveness. If he pitches as often as Jenks or Bard, I gotta believe his feel for the pitch would be enhanced.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    ...As a result, he sees himself as a martyr on this island of truth. Those who attack him are the lost flock...

    Your whole post was well thought out, but I really relate to this.

    I have tried to ignore him in the past, but the lies and misrepresentaions just become too overwhelming.

    His denial that he not softlaw, softlaw1, softlaw1A, etc... is proof enough that he is either a pathological liar or tragic and absurd trolling clown.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Moon: The person using the GM identity has never denied or admitted his Softlaw identity. He's simply saying GM is not Softlaw. And he won't go any further.
    This separation of identity goes beyond finding safe haven from the mods.

    It's the same thing when he posts his Wake disdain countless times.
    He has to be aware of the fact we all know how he feels about Wake, so the redundancy is not for our purpose. It's for his. Wakefield represents an object of disgust and dissatisfaction. Hence the "bald, fat, pushing 50" comments.

    This isn't just about a fan who thinks a player should retire. This is really personal with him. The Wake bashing is pathological. Wake isn't hurting this club. But Wake represents a presence to him that he finds extremely distasteful.

    That means we have to be confronted with misrepresentation. And neither of us will let it stand without a rebuttal.
    My point is, no matter what we say, it will never change the image of what Wakefield represents to him. It only escalates a dialog that goes nowhere.

    Try to getting him to see this is like throwing a dingy to a man caught up in the turbulence of a wild river. It only feeds the waves of animosity.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    That was deep.

    You're right.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Alright, time to end the forum make-out session between harness and moonie:

    The question: should Wake have been brought in tonight?  I believe not.  I won't say that Wakefield did a poor job (getting out of that jam with 1 run is in fact an ok job).  But I thought that the more proper choice in that situation definitely would have been Papelbon or Bard.  Wakefield's not a strikeout guy, or a ground-ball guy.  Gotta go with the K guy in that spot.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?





    ROFL!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In extra frames, anything goes. I think Tito was initially trying to save Bard/paps.
    Once he committed to Wake, he should have stuck with him. Otherwise, Yeah, Bard/Paps would be logical.

    Is Jenks on sabbatical? Or has his role changed?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Stick aroung Burrito.
    I'm sure "GM" will be keeping you company in the wee hours.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I might stick around but likely will not stick aroung.

    I cannot help it if GM knows his stuff, if you'd stop arguing his every statement you might see the light.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I don' think Wakefield should be a reliever but in games like this I might have put him in and let him pitch as long as the game lasted (win or loose).  I can't say Dice-K should have been put in the position of relieving lest it was the last hope. 




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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Alright, time to end the forum make-out session between harness and moonie:

    The question: should Wake have been brought in tonight?  I believe not.
     

    Two old gossiping coots of irrelevance not withstanding, you would be correct. Wakefield remains a complete waste of a pen roster spot. Talking about how spot starting makes him useful is completely absurd. Either he's rehabbing in AAA or he needs to go. That doesn't happen to Red Sox good ole boys.

    Lousy baserunning and completely idiotic decison about using Bard for 2 in extras but not bringing him in after Oki tired (pitching in 3 separate frames and did decent but comeo on, guy on 3rd and Tito brings in Wakefield?)

    Had to be one of Tito's biggest bald headed brain cramp in his tenure.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wake would be best used starting innings in relief.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    long relief
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from billsrul. Show billsrul's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    [QUOTE]Wake would be best used starting innings in relief.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]


    Exactly.  one out 1st and 3rd is a really bad spot for Wakefield.  I could see maybe bringing him in to face the young Bourjos (since he's not going to GIDP anyways).  But I would've used Papelbon there, or maybe Bard.  That's a K spot, pure and simple.  Wake's not a K guy...
     

Share