Mike G…your original post’s title was “I’m didn’t write it to make friends”

I had to chuckle about that after reading this comment. Sorry if this causes more angst.

“been on” the site “for several years,” that doesn’t mean you have been contributing. With 64 comments and 0 posts since March 15th, and nearly half of those comments coming in the last month, I don’t see why you feel you have to right to insult someone who works so hard for the rest of us. Not that you have to have been on the site for a long time to share your ideas, I’ve read the blog for about a year and a half and only got an account this fall, but at least you could show some respect to those who have offered their time to make it better. Your pompous attitude is insulting.

As for Miles’s “intangibles”… What exactly do you think these are? Are they worth $2.5M a year? Remember, Brendan Ryan tries really hard all the time too, does that mean he has just as many “intangibles” as Miles?

but as far as I’m concerned a phrase like "between he and the team" does represent a failure to keep up basic standards of literacy, albeit, I grant you, a small one.

So it’s a “small” failure to keep up the basic standards of literacy? What does that even mean?

And here I thought basic standards of literacy basically meant something, I dunno, basic — i.e. coherence. I think you’d find that a lot of people get by without as advanced an understanding of the language’s grammatical intricacies as you. Perhaps you should reconsider what basic means. To say to someone that they fail to uphold the basic standards is basically saying that they completely fail to produce the English language. That’s pretty goddamn insulting, whether or not you’re “writing to make friends.” It’s also outrageously pompous.

However, once we start getting complacent about small errors, it becomes that much easier to perpetuate larger ones.

This is called the slippery slope fallacy, and isn’t a valid line of reasoning. Perhaps it should be said that you’re failing to uphold the basic standards of logic and rational thought.

Most writers I know value and gratefully accept criticism that results in improvement of their texts without complaints about the sanctimony of their critics.

Most writers enjoy constructive criticism because it is presented in a manner that isn’t haughty and self-important. Pointing out a writer’s mistake and explaining how and why it detracts from their piece is useful criticism. Pointing out their mistake and telling them that they fail to uphold even basic English is insulting and downright ruthless.

I know I do.

Are you sure? Because when you titled your reply “I’m didn’t write it to make friends,” you’ll notice nobody declared your writing abilities to be an abomination amounting to a clear ignorance of the language’s most elemental, basic, and simple rules. In fact, everyone pretty much ignored it. So are you ready to admit that you fail to uphold the languages most basic grammatical standards? Hmm?

Any doubt about the "linguistic abuse" to which I was referring would have been removed if you had bothered to notice the title of my first post of the day; you appear only to have read the one that was in response to the godfather’s criticism of a subsequent one.

The title of your first post of the day was a quote of chuckb’s grammatical error. You then followed that up by basically telling him he’s a complete simpleton. I don’t really see what the title of the post has to do with anything. Did he make a grammatical mistake? Yes, he did. Were you a complete asshole about the whole thing? Yeah, you were (and continue to be).

At any rate, I’m not surprised to learn that you are usually a careful editor of your own work. It shows, which is why the error about which I may have indeed made too much seemed so egregious.

Translation: Now that I have reasserted that I think you suck at writing (emphasis again on how you’re failing to accomplish basic tasks), I’ll go ahead and say you don’t suck at writing. That way I come off looking like the victim here instead of the jackass who freaked out over a simple grammatical mistake on a blog; we’re not talking about a publication, mind you, where there are editors and such…just a blog.

I can handle it, and I can handle criticism too. Can you?

Here’s an example of criticism as useful as that which you’ve doled out here today: “You’re a dickhead.” Want some more? “Your mom smells like fish.” And another? “You’re uglier than Michael Jackson!”

Telling someone that they fail to uphold basic standards of English is criticism, yes. But it’s not constructive criticism. It’s completely worthless, unnecessarily harsh, and downright mean-spirited. It helps in no way whatsoever.

This is one of the single most insulting things I think I’ve ever seen anyone on this site say to anyone else, given the persons involved. You say you don’t mean to be overtly insulting—if that’s true, then perhaps it’s you who needs a better understanding of how his words are working, not chuckb. Get a grip.

was to the rest of the bloggers here, not the Gang of Three. And hey, I’m not immune to speeling misteaks or tieping ones, either/.

Few of us on here take the time to proofread our comments. Even fewer are held to the standards of our 9th grade Grammar teacher on a daily basis. It is one thing if, as mojowo11 points out above, it is either difficult or impossible to understand the crux of the point of view of the post; but to correct one’s grammar on a technical issue is simply to act superior for the sake of it.

ISawGod’s response at least dealt with a possible confusion of the meaning that chuckb was trying to convey, though I doubt many of us had much issue understanding him. Mike G’s attack was simply for the sake of his own self-importance, and that was the reason I responded initially.

Furthermore, as I stated above, one must be careful to do everything right in one’s own posts if one is going to become the self-appointed judge on such topics. However, Mike G’s initial response was extremely unclear, as he eggregiously responded to the wrong post. In addition, it sounded petulant as he mixed his point by attacking chuckb’s grammar and his assertion on the contract of Aaron Miles. He also included in his attack assertions that were not stated explicitly by the author, but rather those that he projected upon him instead. He then followed that with a truly “basic” grammar mistake in the title of his response to my post. Of course it was an error that didn’t involve his understanding of the language, but simply an error made by responding too quickly and emotionally. Unfortunately, the reason no longer mattered once he decided that perfection was a requirement of being allowed to post in this forum.

.239/.266/.409 in 94 PA’s against the cards.

Chavez Ravine and Petco are both offensive holes, but apparently Busch III and Miller are to some extent also. Coors, AT&T, and Chase all seem to be pretty good for XBHs.

I forgot that Kennedy should be 9th; as we all know, the lineup will change 150 times

Last year he batted sixth 63 times and seventh 42 times (and fifth 9 times).
La Russa seems to prefer a speedier guy hitting in front of the pitcher, presumably because he’s easier to advance on the sac bunt.

Until Spicoli displays some power on a consistent basis I expect to see him batting seventh most of the time.

My guess as of now would be:
1. Schumaker/Rasmus
2. Glaus
3. Pujols
4. Ludwick
5. Ankiel
6. Molina
7. Greene
8. Sheets
9. Kennedy

I put Glaus second because otherwise there would be all right-handed hitters batting third through seventh, and it just doesn’t look right for a La Russa lineup.
Kennedy ninth doesn’t look very good (he only batted there 14 times last year) but I think Greene’s power potential keeps him seventh and leaves only the nine spot for Kennedy.

Also, I wonder who will lead off if Skip isn’t a regular starter (i.e. if Rasmus replaces him). Is Rasmus ready to lead off? Who do you put there against left-handed pitchers? Barton may be needed on this team for that reason alone, unless Miles’ replacement can get on base against LHP.