User Profile

Forum Activity by Infinitus Corsair

wirthlingThe first couple paragraphs of a blog post by Trump on his now-defunct Trump University website following the death of Jett Travolta...

[font=Times New Roman]I have always respected people who were loyal and faithful--which brings to mind Kelly Preston. A long time ago, before I was married, I met Kelly Preston at a club and worked like hell to try and pick her up. She was beautiful, personable, and definitely had allure. At the time I had no idea she was married to John Travolta.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]In any event, my track record on this subject has always been outstanding, but Kelly wouldn?t give me the time of day. She was very nice, very elegant, but I didn't have a chance with her, and that was that.[/font]

That's amazing.
Oct 26, 2016 11:56 PM
Let's rawdog this chat.
Oct 26, 2016 3:57 AM
Facebook UserAnother way of looking at the point I'm making is a starting pitcher, especially an ace, should throw 33-35 games in a regular season. Kershaw threw 21 (I think). His current WAR is 5.6/6.5 but it doesn't reflect his injury and the problem it caused for the Dodgers. What you should do, and if I wasn't hungover I would do it myself, is assign 12 games of replacement-level work to Kershaw than run calculations for WAR and see him drop by a ~1-1.5 games. In essence, his value is inflated because WAR doesn't take DL time into account, through it totally should.

This is the problem with value metrics that replacement-level metrics were literally created to address. Keith Woolner, as far as I know, developed the first replacement-basis valuation metric (VORP). Here is his essay about why we need VORP (which is just a rudimentary version of WAR not scaled to wins). He literally describes the very "problem" you ascribe to WAR and explains why the replacement-level baseline addresses this problem.
The English language lacks any word for how stupid you are, Kelly.
Oct 23, 2016 10:05 PM
Also, as Antetokuonmpo's RT fantasy GM, I name myself an honorary Bucks fan for purposes of this season and discussion.
Oct 21, 2016 3:33 AM
Unless you think you can win the title in 2017, it's exceedingly reasonable to trade the age 32 to 35 seasons of just about anyone for the age 22 to 25 seasons of a guy with a Scottie Pippen ceiling. Also, Lamar Odom was a hell of a good player who could have made the Hall of Fame if he'd had his mental shit together. If you assume that Antetokuonmpo is more level-headed--most people and players are--that's not much of a denigration.?
Oct 21, 2016 3:32 AM
Mr. Demiurge
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
Default
Esoteric Allusion
DefaultHave you seen it? Have you seen it? I didn't talk to my running mate about it, but have you seen it!?

It's so obviously a BS'ers reflexive response. It's similar to his "I don't know anything about X" line that is also so transparent. People are going to write about him as this highly skilled con-man at some point, but it's painful how obvious it is.

I get this feeling that he thinks that the rest of us are as dumb as the people he's fooled into voting for him because we don't have as much money as he does. Like he actually believes that the average person can't see through him.

I mean, so does the 4th-grader BS'ing his way through a report on a book he didn't read. Dumb people don't know they're dumb and don't how smart smart people are.

Isn't there a name for this? Kleinman-Kruger effect or something?
Anyway, I'm not sure that's Trump. He's just a narcissist who wants to win, and happens to have a lifetime of bullshitting and lying successfully on his side.

But he's not good at lying or bullshitting. I'm a lawyer, I would know. His money has allowed him to get by without developing those skills. He's transparently shallow and dumb and if we ever thought was just a shrewd act that he went with because it was working in the Republican primary, everything that's happened since May ought to disabuse you of that.

I've heard some historians of World War II argue that Erwin Rommel has a massively inflated reputation as a general because it was in the interests of the British to portray him as a genius rather than acknowledge their own generals were incompetent.

In the same vein, I think the real news here isn't that Trump is a master of bullshit and con artistry, because he really really isn't, but rather that so many Americans seem to be so astonishingly gullible and unable to see through such a brazenly transparent bullshitter and con artist.

Nothing I said suggested otherwise. My initial statement was that Trump believes people can't see through him not because he thinks people are dumb but because he's dumb and doesn't know how transparent he is to smart people. Right? Follow? That says nothing about whether he can snow the dumbs. I know he can snow the dumbs because I can read poll results.

I was drawing a distinction between Trump thinking voters are dumbs that he can fool and Trump being a dumb himself who doesn't realize just how many people can see through him.
Oct 20, 2016 3:55 AM
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
Default
Esoteric Allusion
DefaultHave you seen it? Have you seen it? I didn't talk to my running mate about it, but have you seen it!?

It's so obviously a BS'ers reflexive response. It's similar to his "I don't know anything about X" line that is also so transparent. People are going to write about him as this highly skilled con-man at some point, but it's painful how obvious it is.

I get this feeling that he thinks that the rest of us are as dumb as the people he's fooled into voting for him because we don't have as much money as he does. Like he actually believes that the average person can't see through him.

I mean, so does the 4th-grader BS'ing his way through a report on a book he didn't read. Dumb people don't know they're dumb and don't how smart smart people are.

Isn't there a name for this? Kleinman-Kruger effect or something?
Anyway, I'm not sure that's Trump. He's just a narcissist who wants to win, and happens to have a lifetime of bullshitting and lying successfully on his side.

But he's not good at lying or bullshitting. I'm a lawyer, I would know. His money has allowed him to get by without developing those skills. He's transparently shallow and dumb and if we ever thought was just a shrewd act that he went with because it was working in the Republican primary, everything that's happened since May ought to disabuse you of that.
Oct 20, 2016 3:37 AM
Det. Come here, I want you.
Oct 20, 2016 3:32 AM
Thread would have done well a month ago. I'd see if you can get Little Irish interested. As the Brexit gets closer she's bound to get antsy.
Oct 20, 2016 3:31 AM
Default
Esoteric Allusion
DefaultHave you seen it? Have you seen it? I didn't talk to my running mate about it, but have you seen it!?

It's so obviously a BS'ers reflexive response. It's similar to his "I don't know anything about X" line that is also so transparent. People are going to write about him as this highly skilled con-man at some point, but it's painful how obvious it is.

I get this feeling that he thinks that the rest of us are as dumb as the people he's fooled into voting for him because we don't have as much money as he does. Like he actually believes that the average person can't see through him.

I mean, so does the 4th-grader BS'ing his way through a report on a book he didn't read. Dumb people don't know they're dumb and don't how smart smart people are.
Oct 20, 2016 3:24 AM
Paquitosegway

"Spell it like it sounds," Puhkeeto sed too himself.
Oct 20, 2016 3:20 AM
whathaveicreated
Infinitus Corsair
whathaveicreated
Infinitus Corsair
whathaveicreatedThe Witch was fantastic. Extremely creepy, well acted, and thematically dense horror. I know I'm late to the party, but if you haven't seen it, give it a watch.

Thanks, Moses.


I don't get this post.

Moses never goes to the movie theater either and all of the movies he sees have been out for 1-3 years.


Oh. I have kids.

Yes and when you're dying surrounded by people who love you, it will have to be with the knowledge that I saw The Witch in a movie theater in February by myself.
Oct 17, 2016 3:45 AM
whathaveicreated
Infinitus Corsair
whathaveicreatedThe Witch was fantastic. Extremely creepy, well acted, and thematically dense horror. I know I'm late to the party, but if you haven't seen it, give it a watch.

Thanks, Moses.


I don't get this post.

Moses never goes to the movie theater either and all of the movies he sees have been out for 1-3 years.
Oct 17, 2016 3:37 AM
whathaveicreatedThe Witch was fantastic. Extremely creepy, well acted, and thematically dense horror. I know I'm late to the party, but if you haven't seen it, give it a watch.

Thanks, Moses.
Oct 17, 2016 3:15 AM
BigwigWhat about other forms of entertainment? Because I like a lot of Polanski films.

I struggle with that too. I don't like spending money on Roman Polanski movies. I didn't go see Birth of a Nation and I didn't pay money for either of this year's DC movies.
Oct 17, 2016 2:46 AM
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigBTW, obviously Champman's a dick and he's not invited to my Thanksgiving weekend cocktail party.

But what is with the moralizing in sports where we determine that somebody who commits an act of domestic violence doesn't deserve to be employed? Like playing sports is more noble than being a custodian at a hospital. I mean, it ain't. It's entertainment, and while I value entertainment more than a spotless and sterile floor, I don't assign nobility to the profession.

Should Chapman never be allowed to work again?

I struggle with this on a case-by-case basis but, to take the devil's advocate side, I don't think it has anything to do with whether you perceive the sport as noble or entertainment or whatever. It's that it comes with fame and fortune. If I'm employing menial workers for minimum wage, I'm not giving them anything other than subsistence. So if I'm employing an ex-con who's paid his debt to society, I'm just giving him a chance to buy ramen noodles. If I'm running a business where success results in immense wealth, I don't think it's unreasonable to pause before granting that opportunity to someone of questionable character.

But isn't that balanced out by scarcity? I mean, these guys are the top 1% of the top 1%. I don't completely disagree with your devil's advocate position, I just wonder what Chapman's alternative is. This isn't soccer. There aren't other leagues to make a fortune.

I don't think Major League Baseball should necessarily ban him or those in similar situations, but I think it's reasonable for the Cubs to think about what kind of people to whom they're willing to present an opportunity at fame and fortune.

Does this affect your fandom, though? Because I just root for uniforms. Like I think it's nice that Andrew McCutchen is considered an all-world person, but I don't really care all that much. Just get some hits and shit.

I said I struggle with it. If the Giants had traded for Chapman--and god knows they needed him--I'd have cheered for them. And I don't fault Cubs for doing the same. But there is some conflict when it's a guy like this and not just a dick like Bonds or Bumgarner.
Oct 17, 2016 2:40 AM
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigBTW, obviously Champman's a dick and he's not invited to my Thanksgiving weekend cocktail party.

But what is with the moralizing in sports where we determine that somebody who commits an act of domestic violence doesn't deserve to be employed? Like playing sports is more noble than being a custodian at a hospital. I mean, it ain't. It's entertainment, and while I value entertainment more than a spotless and sterile floor, I don't assign nobility to the profession.

Should Chapman never be allowed to work again?

I struggle with this on a case-by-case basis but, to take the devil's advocate side, I don't think it has anything to do with whether you perceive the sport as noble or entertainment or whatever. It's that it comes with fame and fortune. If I'm employing menial workers for minimum wage, I'm not giving them anything other than subsistence. So if I'm employing an ex-con who's paid his debt to society, I'm just giving him a chance to buy ramen noodles. If I'm running a business where success results in immense wealth, I don't think it's unreasonable to pause before granting that opportunity to someone of questionable character.

But isn't that balanced out by scarcity? I mean, these guys are the top 1% of the top 1%. I don't completely disagree with your devil's advocate position, I just wonder what Chapman's alternative is. This isn't soccer. There aren't other leagues to make a fortune.

I don't think Major League Baseball should necessarily ban him or those in similar situations, but I think it's reasonable for the Cubs to think about what kind of people to whom they're willing to present an opportunity at fame and fortune.
Oct 17, 2016 2:19 AM
BigwigBTW, obviously Champman's a dick and he's not invited to my Thanksgiving weekend cocktail party.

But what is with the moralizing in sports where we determine that somebody who commits an act of domestic violence doesn't deserve to be employed? Like playing sports is more noble than being a custodian at a hospital. I mean, it ain't. It's entertainment, and while I value entertainment more than a spotless and sterile floor, I don't assign nobility to the profession.

Should Chapman never be allowed to work again?

I struggle with this on a case-by-case basis but, to take the devil's advocate side, I don't think it has anything to do with whether you perceive the sport as noble or entertainment or whatever. It's that it comes with fame and fortune. If I'm employing menial workers for minimum wage, I'm not giving them anything other than subsistence. So if I'm employing an ex-con who's paid his debt to society, I'm just giving him a chance to buy ramen noodles. If I'm running a business where success results in immense wealth, I don't think it's unreasonable to pause before granting that opportunity to someone of questionable character.
Oct 17, 2016 2:03 AM
Bigwig
Esoteric Allusion
Bigwig
Infinitus Corsair
BigwigWhy is Pennsylvania still considered a "swing state?" It last went red in 1988, when Dukakis only won like eight states. To give you an idea of how long ago that was, West Virginia was one of the blue states.

I mean, Pennsylvania has been blue more often than California for fifty fucking years.

Because it's only slightly more Dem-leaning than the nation, on average. Democrats have won the popular vote in every one of the elections since 1988 and the exception (2004) was very close, so it's not surprising that even a state that leans only slightly left in presidential elections would go blue every time. So in a close election, Pennsylvania is likely in play. It's safe only when the Democrat is cruising.

Except the Democrat wins. Every time.

Pennsylvania is close to being a swing state in a neutral election. Kerry beat bush by about 2 points. So, if a Republican were ever winning comfortably, Pennsylvania should be on the red side. Trump appeals to demographics that are more concentrated in Pennsylvania than a place like Virginia. As a result his campaign wanted to make that a swing state battleground since it is close to being one naturally. The problem is that if Trump is going to win, he's going to do it very, very narrowly so he has to concentrate on even stronger swing state possibilities like Ohio and Iowa.

Look, I get that part. It's just that the term "swing state" suggests that it votes both ways. Like Ohio and Florida. Except PA doesn't. It's blue. And the only times it has been red in the last 50 years are when EVERYTHING was red. I suppose we could call it a battleground state, because it certainly isn't overwhelmingly blue, but it ain't swingin.

This is like not adjusting for park effects.
Oct 17, 2016 1:18 AM