

vivalaultra
Members-
Content count
2532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by vivalaultra
-
Hey, Slammin' Sammy Sosa's ready to make a comeback. Maybe the Nats'll sign him THIS year.
-
I have a Mastercard that I've never used. I signed up for it at an Astros' game to get a free coffee thermos. I only got it cuz I needed something to put my coffee in.
-
Gah, I was just kidding. But I am disheartened about Everett not getting the GG. I mean, dude batted .220 this past season. At least give him props for his defense so people in Houston'll stop bitching and saying we need to shitcan him.
-
Actually, in 2006, Jeter made 4 less errors than Tejada, but Tejada had a better range factor and more DP turned than Jeets, so I don't...really...see...any appreciable way that Jeter was THAT much better than Miguel Tejada in the field this year. If Jeter were any kind of captain or role model, he'd relinquish his Gold Glove and give it to Adam Everett. Everett got robbed.
-
Pfft. Jack Wilson...Ha! He's pretty good, but Everett's the best. The only reason Adam Everett doesn't get more attention is because he has such terrific range and awareness that the doesn't have to make diving stops or highlight reel catches. He's ALWAYS in the right spot all the time. And Jack Wilson looks like one of the Whos from the movie version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas".
-
Gold Gloves in the NL (I'm halfway to vomiting with rage, by the way): P Greg Maddux, 16th overall GG C Brad "Intagibles" Ausmus, 3rd overall GG 1B Albert Pujols, 1st GG 2B Orlando "O-Dawg" Hudson, 2nd GG SS Omar "Not Adam Everett because the voters are dumbass" Vizquel, 745th overall GG 3B Scott Rolen 3rd GG OF Carlos Beltran 1st GG OF Mike Cameron 3rd GG OF Andruw Jones 9th GG Adam Everett got robbed. Yadier Molina got robbed. Brad Ausmus? I'm an Astros' fan, and even I'm not crazy enough to say that Ausmus was the best defensive catcher in the NL. He wasn't even the best defensive catcher in the NL Central. He was only the best defensive catcher on the Astros because the backup catcher was Eric Munson...who hasn't caught since college. Yeah, but...I'm irked by Adam Everett not winning. If DJ deserved it in the AL, Adam Everett deserved it in the NL. Adam Everett's the best defensive shortstop in baseball. Adam Everett might be the best defensive player overall in the NL. If you say Adam Everett's name enough times in a row, I hear a ghostly vision of him appears before your eyes. Adam Everett. Adam Everett. Adam Everett. Edit: Albert only beat me posting these because I was busy ranting about Adam Everett. Adam Everett. Adam Everett.
-
So, anything interesting happening in the Winter Leagues? Apparently, Astros' #1 prospect and Astros' fans wet dream, Hunter Pence got arrested for DUI this past week. And he's also been kicked off the AFL team for it. I hope the disciplinary action that's being promised by the 'Stros front office isn't letting Pence rot in AAA while Jason Lane hits $1.98 in the majors again.
-
Economic Left/Rigth: -4.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79 I'm MODERATE Ghandi!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't DISLIKE him. I just remember that like...everyday for a week straight this past season, various closers came in in non-save situations and blew the game, and Jeff Brantley would always speak very condescendingly of the managers involved on BBTN...and he's got a manperm.
-
It's a good thing the Reds don't have a closer or else he'd constantly be talking about how they shouldn't bring him in in tie ballgames on the road...or at home...or in a non-save situation...because closers are programmed to only pitch in save situations. They're like robots. I heard a rumor earlier today while I was at work that said that Soriano had agreed to a deal with the Cards for 7yrs/$77million, but, apparently that's not true.
-
Yeah, and Pujols. I forgot Pujols. How can anybody forget Pujols?!?!?!?!?!!?!? Brad Lidge certainly can't. This is why I shouldn't try to do baseball trivia type posts. I forgot Jackie Robinson, too. I shall now amend my previous posts to make it look like I knew what I was talking about and wasn't distracted by an influx of trick-or-treaters.
-
Oh, I mistyped. I meant to say that Bagwell is one of 12 men in the National League to win ROY and MVP. Since I know the 12 in the NL offhand, here they are. Somebody else can fill in the AL. The 12 players to win ROY and MVP awards in the NL are: 1. Jackie Robinson-ROY 1947, MVP 1949 2. Don Newcombe-ROY 1949, MVP 1956 3. Willie Mays-ROY 1951, MVP 1954 4. Frank Robinson-ROY 1956, MVP 1961 5. Orlando Cepeda-ROY 1958, MVP 1967 6. Willie McCovey-ROY 1959, MVP 1969 7. Pete Rose-ROY 1963, MVP 1973 8. Johnny Bench-ROY 1968, MVP 1970 9. Andre Dawson-ROY 1977, MVP 1987 10. Jeff Bagwell-ROY 1991, MVP 1994 11. Larry 'Chipper' Jones-ROY 1995, MVP 1999 12. Albert Pujols-ROY 2001, MVP 2005 An impressive group, indeed. Edit: Strike Chipper from the list. Damn you, Jack Bauer, for giving me false memories!
-
I feel a twinge of sadness as Jeff Bagwell's career is officially over today. The Astros declined his 2007 option, opting to pay a $7 million buyout, instead. Arguably the best 1st-basemen of the 1990s, Bagwell was the ROY in 1991 and the NL MVP in 1994, and possibly should've gotten it in 1999. Only 8 other players besides Jeff Bagwell have won both the ROY and the NL MVP (a gold star sticker to the first person to name the other 8). Bagwell was a 2-time 40/30 man with 449 career homeruns and a career .297 BA. If there's any justice whatsoever, he'll be a first-ballot HOF in 2011, but I'm not holding my breath. Either way, it's going to be a Hell of an emotional jersey retirement cermony on Opening Day 2007.
-
Oh, I wasn't saying that juding by him referring to the Astros as 'we' or 'us' that meant he was coming back. I was just relaying what the article said. I'm sure that even if he pitches for the Yanks or the Sawx, he'll still refer to the Astros as 'we', as he has business interests in the minor league affiliates and he's got that 10-year personal services contract.
-
Jim Edmonds made the same announcement, which is odd for a center fielder. It took me a minute to get that, but once I did, I laughed for a good 17 seconds. Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte are filing for free agency, although neither are sure that they're returning. In fact, Pettitte sounds less likely that he'll return than Clemens. It's a shame, too, because Pettitte's still a relatively young man, only 34, and still in the upper echelon of lefty starters. However, I remain confident that both will return to Houston. I forsee Pettitte signing a one-year deal with an option and Roger doing his half-year thing. In the article I read, Clemens still refers to the Astros as "us" and "we" and "our team" and says that he'd like to see Andy come back and pitch for the hometown team. And the more that I think about it, I'm not sure if I wanna see Houston sign Carlos Lee. Sure, he's pretty consistent for 30+ homers a year and about 110 RBI, but he's getting up there in age, wants a five-year deal, and isn't that great defensively. I heard a suggestion that the Astros should look into Jose Guillen for a 'Preston Wilson-esque' deal which would provide an easy way out of it. I'd go for that, if Guillen is healthy (and assuming that if he sucks or his legs fall off, Hunter Pence would be brought up and live up to the hype), but I really get the feeling that this offseason Drayton McClane, he of the 1.2 billion dollar net worth, is gonna spend some money to get either Carlos Lee or less likely Alfonso Soriano. But I thought we'd spend money last year, too...and the year before, so with that said, Welcome to Houston Jose Guillen!
-
And you're the fifth best poster named Snuffbox that I've ever run across on the internet.
-
Dammit. I can't recall the amount of times I've mistyped Tom/Tim Robbins. At least one time, I've referred to both as Tony Robbins, he of the large teeth and self-motivation. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at the shit I caught. Still didn't change my mind, and I still would rather read something by Stephen King over aything by Thomas Pynchon any day, and I still stand by my statement that Stephen King is the finest American writer of the last half-century/decade. And I guess all involved will have to agree to disagree. Anyway, I've got to go begin my report on Ann Radcliffe's The Italian and it's place in Gothic Literature, so...it's been fun.
-
Well, ya know, I guess I should expect to catch shit, but I would've rathered that shit to be well-thought out and clever. Certainly, one of the knocks against Stephen King is his bloat, but I enjoy his bloat and his wonderful descriptive passages. That's the Romantic in me coming out, I guess. It's a good thing I had no cred to begin with or after this all of my cred would certainly be gone.
-
I wasn't a literature snob on Thursday. When was I a literature snob on Thursday? The only books I've recommended in this thread whatsoever were books by Garcia Marquez, Tim O'Brien, and Stephen King, and I mentioned in the thread in NHB that was titled after you that those three are my favorite authors and I don't really care for 'post-modern' fiction or Pynchon and the ilk. I don't have a problem by any stretch of the imagination with Thomas Pynchon, Barth, Joan Didion, Tim Robbins, Inc, Snuffy, uh....the Bulb, you, or anybody else. I only mentioned that I really enjoy Stephen King and think he's top-notch as far as American writers over the past half-century and then the whole 'jumping my case' thing started. Anything I said after the initial post was merely on a reactionary basis. Certainly, it's kind of sad that there's a vast majority of Literati that see Stephen King as nothing more than a genre author and, thus, think that nothing of any literary merit can come from his works. Just because King writes 'horror stories' (which is a terrible generalization since there's much more to his body of works than big spiders and rabid dogs and vampires and such) doesn't mean he's a hack. I don't get this distinction that people make between high-brow books and low-brow books. I prefer to judge books on a basis of well-written and poorly-written or good and bad, and I find Stephen King books to be in the former category, well-written and good. Some people don't judge him in that same light, either because they've decided already that because he's 'popular' or 'genre' that he's not something that like to read, or they've read his books and they just don't like his style or what he has to say. I don't care if anybody dislikes Stephen King or Stephen King's books, but, I do have a problem when I catch shit for referring to him as the best American author of the last half-century. And it wasn't even good shit. It wasn't even clever shit. It was trite, boring, cliched shit. And then I get told that I don't have good arguments. And the last point I'd like to make on this matter/subject, the 'horror story/psychological horror' genre that Stephen King is unquestionably the master of is a genre of literature that's been seen as a fringe genre for a very long time. However, look at authors like Edgar Allan Poe, Henry James, Mary Shelley, Ann Radcliffe, Lord Byron (not the Bulb), Samuel Coleridge...all of those authors made their bread and butter on stories that involved ghosts or monsters or horror, but the thing that seperated them and Stephen King from hacks and 'paint-by-numbers' authors is that Stephen King's books aren't about monsters. They're more psychological novels about people. Certainly, they have monsters in them, although there's quite a few that have no monsters or horrific elements, but the vast majority of Stephen King's work aren't just monster stories or ghost stories. And I still love Stephen King. And I'm still not ga-ga over Thomas Pynchon. And I'm not a literature snob, although sometimes I pretend to be. And I'm a good dancer.
-
Truly you are the cleverest person I have ever met. Geez, most of you people are nearly impossible. It's just not worth trying most of the time. And a bunch of intellectuals trying to filet me doesn't bother me. I am not a fish. The fact that I can enjoy a wide range of literature shouldn't be reason to criticize or mock me. The fact that I have a favorite author that's not 'in the club' of English major darlings also shouldn't be reason to mock or criticize me, but, alas, it is so I'm mocked and criticized. The circle of life and man's duplicity and all that. Oh well, I'm going to read my Stephen King books and enjoy them and I hope you all have a nice afternoon doing whatever it is that you people do.
-
No, see, that's the point of the whole thing. I wasn't trying to argue anything. The thread is called 'Book recommendations' so I recommended a book. The thread isn't called 'Try to defend your authors/principles'. It's neither my duty nor my interest to try to validate Stephen King or to make Stephen King look legitimate. Of course my argument's going to look shitty at best when: A.) I'm not trying to argue in the first place. B.) I'm presented nothing in the way of counter-argument besides a couple guys trying to make witty comments. In the first thread I posted on this affair, I said "I think Stephen King is the best American fiction writer of the last half-century (granted, I did originally mistype as half-decade)." I thought there would people who would disagree, but as far as a large group of faux-intellectual snobs trying to back me into a corner like a wounded rat, I didn't picture that. I apologize for not anticipating that occurence and preparing more salient points with which to argue. This whole thing is dumb.
-
Well, if large groups of people wouldn't come together to try to force me into a corner, I wouldn't act cornered.
-
They'd recognize him if he were driving his bulldozer. I wish I had me a bulldozer. I'd go plow things. I was going to say that I don't think that there are BB writers misguided enough to give Clemens any high votes for Cy Young, considering he only pitched a half season, but then I forgot that there are...and lots of them. O.k. If Roy doesn't win it, Hell's Bells all the way, man.
-
Ah, but you're missing the operative phrasing that I used. When I said what I said, I included the phrase "I think". That makes it an opinion personal to me. If I said "I think mint chocolate chip ice cream is the greatest ice cream in the universe.", you could disagree with me, but you couldn't tell me that I was wrong to claim that. It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. And I certainly don't think that Stephen King is paint-by-numbers writing. What Stephen King books have you read that led you to that conclusion? I haven't read anything by Dean Koontz and I've only seen movies and played video games based on Tom Clancy books so I'm not qualified to judge them. As far as paint-by-numbers writing, I'd give that title to Dan Brown, certainly, but I just don't see that in Stephen King. King has the ability to include literariness in books which will appeal to the masses. Sure, he's done his share of books just to make money, but, a great many of his novels, especially ones written in the last 10-15 years are alot more than 'paint-by-numbers', I think.
-
Oh, that was a joke. If you don't like TV on the Radio, that's fine. I like TV on the Radio, and I think they're a wonderful band, but if you don't like TV on the Radio, then oh well. Any time I make an elitist snob remark, it's purely in jest, I assure everyone. I guess when I make jokes I should use emoticons to indicate my jocular context.