Agree.Originally Posted by Jack Flap
Agree.
Was your horse born before 2010? Who's his sire?
Priorities:
1. Yankees lose
2. Red Sox win
What the fuck are you talking about?
Priorities:
1. Yankees lose
2. Red Sox win
Thanks for the kind words. I like it over here. Good people, good baseball coversation and debates. All respectfully done. Think ill stick around a while
I have one question...
Why isnt my avitar that i selected visible? Do I have to reach a certain status or posts?
Maybe its just my ipad...no biggie.
Last edited by southpaw777; 05-09-2016 at 07:49 AM.
very good to see you lefty. always enjoy your posts.
i dont think you have to wait for certain status as i had an avatar up right away. if you are using one you have saved on your computer click browse and then select the avatar. then you should just have to click "save changes" on the bottom right.
other names i have posted under: none
Hey slash! Thanks bud!
Well, I Did that, but still nothing...lm thinking maybe my ipad is just being a little wonky. It was working when i first signed up here, but isnt ahowing up now for some reason...oh well...no big deal really.
when on forums i find it impossible to do anything but post simple text from my ipad. try loading your avatar from a old fashioned computer and see if that works.
other names i have posted under: none
Gonna unpack the laptop today and get it all set up...Ill try it on that. Good idea.
Thanks!!!
Figured maybe since i was just a single A scrub right now I may not have the privilege yet
I do most of my posting from an iphone and have been able to change all of my settings on there. I feel like sometimes it takes uploading it twice before it actually works. That may be due to a glitch, but more than likely just due to my impatience.
I can't get my avatar on either, but it appears to have too many pixels... so I'll have to change.
Please allow a contrarian view. I have no real knowledge of how many threads talksox can sustain, but offer the simple thought that, for the most part, more is better. Take a look at the threads below this one--
JBJ vs. Ellsbury. Fun when it started, but has now run its course. Nothing new to say, really.
A realistic View at 2016. Definitely not run its course because it relies on new insights and opinions about how the Sox are doing.
Red Sox Offense . . . thrilling as Good for maybe another day or two.
Who are David Price's friends? Interesting at first blush, but has definitely lost its bloom.
2016 Starting Rotation. Probably last all summer, but could easily be rolled into "A Realistic View at 2016"
The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread. Can always be added to.
The David Ortiz Appreciation Thread. Time to let it go.
Referendum on John Farrell. My thread. 307 responses. But right now it's a tired topic. Kill it and resuscitate only if the Sox spiral down.
Mookie? Kill it.
Pablo Sandoval. Kill it.
Clay Buchholz, keep it for awhile--still plenty to argue about.
Dead Money. Kill it.
Missing Iggy Pop? Fun at first, needs to die.
Those are just my opinions and I am certainly not qualified to decide what goes and stays. My point is simply there are plenty of new topics that should see the light of day, but this thread and your OP have encouraged us to avoid raising new topics because of the limited resources of the website. I think new topics, even dumb ones, are worth a quick look as long as you have a mechanism for pruning the ones that people aren't reading or especially not replying to.
No one is telling you not to make new posts. It's just a suggestion to avoid topics like "wow, last night's game was great" when there is already a thread for it or "Travis Shaw is a beast" if there is already a thread about 3b or Shaw still on the front page.
Also, if there are limited resources on this website, how could one reasonably expect there to be a mechanism for daily site purging?
We are used to fewer threads because it's easier to track which conversation belongs where. When there are 4 different threads about Buchholz, it just dilutes the conversation rather than adds to it. As the great UN? once said, "bigger isn't always better, it's the motion in the ocean."
If you have a great idea for a thread, make a new one.
I don't think 'limited resources' has anything to do with it, unless I missed something...it's more about keeping the forum tidy and easily readable, I think.
I like having one thread dedicated to specific Buchholz discussion, one for Sandoval, one for Farrell, etc...and most other random thoughts can go in a game thread or a larger catch-all thread like "2016 Starting Rotation" or "2016 Realistic View." I try not to start new threads as a rule of thumb unless there's something newsworthy (like a new signing or trade) or the topic legitimately doesn't fit into an existing thread...but that's just me.
Last edited by Jack Flap; 05-12-2016 at 11:41 AM.
Oh, I agree we don't need four threads on Buchholz and am fine with one for now. I also don't think we need four different threads on last night's game. However, I did have the temerity to start a thread on the rubber game win at the White Sox because I thought it was a defining game. We took 2 of 3 on the road from a good team. In the 3d game, we got 3 innings from our starter Owens, but won 7-3 while 7 different guys got an rbi. It lasted a day or two, but then was buried in the game thread, which of course is the kiss of death even though I thought it was a subject worth discussing on its own.
But here's my real point. Why not encourage new threads and then bury them after a day or two in something like Kimmi's beating a dead horse thread. The criteria for burying could as simple as the number of replies per 24 hours, which is very easy to check. In the fall/winter I blog on a college basketball site that has tons of new threads after every game. But within a day or two most of them slide down the front page and move to the second page where they pretty much go out of circulation. I would have been happy if my White Sox defining game thread had died after one or two days because few saw fit to reply. That makes sense.
I also like "A Realistic View at 2016" because a lot of different topics come up in there, plus it has moonslav and his stats, which are usually pretty good. That format works perfectly for talksox. So I'm flexible. But I still like a policy of encouraging new topics.
I also like to express contrarian views as you might have figured out by now.
Posting Permissions
