Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- From: tapere@xxxxxxxxx (Larry Morris)
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:06:28 -0400
Kenny1111 wrote:
<<
This does look better than before, but it is still not the "correct"
(i.e., standard) way of quoting. First, there is no attribution (e.g.,
"Kenny1111" wrote). Second, you aren't sticking a character ">" in front
of every line, but instead or breaking up my post using marks to mark
the beginning and end. I have never used WebTV, but you shouldn't have
to do any cut and paste. There should be an option for "in-line" replies
or for "quoting" previous messages. If you were cutting and pasting
beforehand, then you already were doing more work than you should need
to.
Maybe someone more familiar with WebTV can be of more help, I don't want
to be causing you trouble and taking your time if you don't immediately
know what to do.>>
I am familiar with WebTv. I've had it since 1997. WebTv has it's own
newsreader for discussion groups. There is no quote option, not if you
use their newsreader. You have to cut and paste to cite the text you
are responding to.
I'm familiar with the quote function because I've used it on message
boards.
In that case, no cut and paste is required.
I have accessed newsgroups using a computer and do see the difference in
how quoted text reads. On a computer, quoted text might have > at the
start of each line whereas with WebTv it reads as smallified text. With
the WebTv newsreader, I never see > at the start of a line.
As I said, there is a way for me to get it to read that way for you.
Basically, type > at the beginning of every line of text I quote and
then hit return, IIRC. Sorry, I don't intend to do all that just to
follow netiquette which varying people sometimes follow to varying
degrees.
For example, with my newsreader, I have periodically seen people quote
pretty much the way I do. I didn't say it was the norm, I said I'd seen
it done.
I've never found attribution particularly important because I can
usually tell easily enough having followed the thread. However, it is
common practice and it's not something that requires anymore effort than
thying a couple of words.
Thus, I did it here.
<<You can't hold it *against* ARod now that it was a short series. Yes,
I'm the first to point out how the stats have no predictive value
because of sample size issues. But if one is going to criticize him for
not being clutch, and it turns out that, whatever the predictive value,
he did have a fantastic series, you can't hold it against him that some
other people had better short series.>>
Nobody is holding anything "against" ARod. I simply feel that the
adjective Seth used was too strong. I don't feel it was superhuman. To
me, superhuman is extraordinary, something you very rarely see. I could
find many series that have equaled ARod's 2004 ALDS. At least, IMO.
When I think of the greatest single series post season performances I've
seen, that series doesn't even register. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it
wasn't an outstanding series by ARod. That doesn't change my opinion
that his game 2 double, up until that point, had been the biggest single
Yankee hit of that entire season. A hit the people who act like ARod
couldn't get a big hit if his life depended on it would do well to
remember.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- From: Kenny1111
- Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- References:
- Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- From: Kenny1111
- Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- Prev by Date: Re: 715
- Next by Date: Re: Texas newpaper article.....
- Previous by thread: Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- Next by thread: Re: A-Rod! Not clutch? Tell us about it!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
