Shooting Star 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 It starts next week and we STILL haven't started practice. And most of the big players that were announced are now pulling back. When U.S.A humiliates us with a score like 30 - 0 do you think that would ruin our reputation as the best players in the world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 USA has the best. Why else do all the good players in the world flock to USA to play ball? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Precious Roy 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 Y'all should have listened to Gary Sheffield... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brett Favre 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 USA has the best. Why else do all the good players in the world flock to USA to play ball? ..because of the money. Venezuela will have the best players in a few years. Most of their guys stay at Venezuela, but they're finally starting to come to the majors. The Dominican Republic ain't that far behind either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USC Wuz Robbed! 0 Report post Posted February 26, 2006 USA has the best. Why else do all the good players in the world flock to USA to play ball? ..because of the money. Venezuela will have the best players in a few years. Most of their guys stay at Venezuela, but they're finally starting to come to the majors. The Dominican Republic ain't that far behind either. Dude, shut the fuck up. You're seriously crimping my "America RULZ, EVERYONE ELSE SUX!" jingoistic bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 The Dominicans can't play the US team unless both make the finals. So if the Dominicans are humiliated, it won't be against the Americans. Just about every team has lost players. The Venezuelans lost Melvin Mora yesterday. The Dominicans have so much talent that they can't possibly drop in the first round, unless the ringers on the Italian pitching staff shut them down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob_barron 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 loose and lose are two different words. I feel like Czech Republic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 God, he just beat me to it, too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted February 27, 2006 I've had the "loose, lose" argument many times. Most Europeans say loose is acceptable over there. I don't understand why, and have given up on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Black Lushus 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 poor Shooting Star...Brazillian Tranny fetishes, now poor spelling...the kid just can't win! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 I'm just hoping Canada beats South Africa. I'd be ecstatic if we could find a way to beat Mexico. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted February 27, 2006 What are the rules on deciding what country you can play for? For example, 75% of the Italian team looks like Americans who are of Italian descent. That's quite silly. Same for the Netherlands... most of the players are from Curacao. Why not just have a Netherlands Antilles team then. They are a separate country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 I'm assuming it's based on eithe A)Last name or B)What shade skin you hvae. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 Same for the Netherlands... most of the players are from Curacao. Why not just have a Netherlands Antilles team then. They are a separate country. Officially aren't they still a part of the Netherlands? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted February 27, 2006 I guess so. They're like Hong Kong, who's still officially a part of China, but basically recognized as it's own country. Besides, Puerto Rico isn't a country, either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 27, 2006 They're an overseas dependency, so they can govern themselves, but still recognize Queen Beatrix as head of state. Is the only requirement for the Italian national team that your name has to end in a vowel? Seriously what a farce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted February 28, 2006 I think they should have cut this to 8-12 teams... The Italy and Netherlands farce alone makes me not take this seriously. It will be worse when teams like South Africa, Netherlands, etc... get destroyed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 If Italy could only use Italian citizens it'd be like 50-0 I bet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 I'm just hoping Canada beats South Africa. I'd be ecstatic if we could find a way to beat Mexico. Canada should beat South Africa easily. They've got a roster of MLB/AAA players. South Africa has a team with one player of AA quality. As for Canada/Mexico, I've run sims and it's the most even matchup of the first round. Especially considering that Canada will doubtless choose that game for their best pitching battery. What are the rules on deciding what country you can play for? For example, 75% of the Italian team looks like Americans who are of Italian descent. That's quite silly. Same for the Netherlands... most of the players are from Curacao. Why not just have a Netherlands Antilles team then. They are a separate country. From MLB.com... A: A player is eligible to participate on a World Baseball Classic team if: * The player is a citizen of the nation the team represents. (Additionally, if a player is qualified for citizenship or to hold a passport under the laws of a nation represented by a team, but has not been granted citizenship or been issued a passport, then the player may be made eligible by WBCI upon petition by the player or team.) * The player is a permanent legal resident of the nation or territory the team represents. * The player was born in the nation or territory the team represents. * The player has one parent who is, or if deceased was, a citizen of the nation the team represents. * The player has one parent who was born in the nation or territory the team represents. Note: In the event a player appropriately appears on more than one provisional roster, he may select the team for which he wishes to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Princess Leena Report post Posted February 28, 2006 I'm guessing "parent" was stretched to any prior relative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 True story, the A's Danny Haren was placed on the Netherlands provisional roster but there was one problem. They didn't check with him to see if he actually had any Dutch heritage. He didn't. Suffice to say he turned down the offer to play. It was about that time I heard that story that I really started to lose interest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shooting Star 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 loose and lose are two different words. I feel like Czech Republic What's the difference? isn't loose pronounced LU US and lose pronounced LOS? anyways....I don't live in U.S.A so I can make mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted February 28, 2006 lose is more like looz than los, I think, but I'm reading los as "loss" like before "Angeles." I need to learn IPA like my friend who knows it for singing in foreign languages. Anyway, if you're referring to the opposite of win, or if you misplaced an item, it's "lose," not "loose." Actually, if it's a verb, it's probably "lose." Dictionary says "loose" is legal as a verb for "set free" or "to untie a knot," but I would use "let loose" or "loosen" in those instances, myself. Anyway, Shooting Star gets a mulligan on this because English isn't his first language. High schoolers in the U.S., however, have no excuses, and they're crossing loose/lose at a perilous frequency. This is gonna be one of those things where we have to rewrite the rules of English to accommodate our ignorance, like "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less," or "literally" meaning "not literally." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 If 'could care less' now means 'couldn't care less', what do we do when we really do mean we could care less? I use it for things I've got merely a passing interest in, as opposed to no interest at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Precious Roy 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 This is gonna be one of those things where we have to rewrite the rules of English to accommodate our ignorance, like "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less," or "literally" meaning "not literally." You're missing the point with "I could care less." It's a sarcastic response that has become accepted slang in our lexicon. Literally is the same way, when I say, "man, I'm so hungry I could LITERALLY eat a horse" it's understood that it's a joking exageration I'm strongly in favor of colloquialisms, as long as we don't lose sight of the roots of these terms Oh yea, how about that Netherlands Nine! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 No, "could care less" doesn't make any fucking sense. It's couldn't. Am I the only person who still says couldn't? Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Precious Roy 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 I could care less about that one Washington St. website /SARCASM!!!! WHAT I REALLY MEAN IS, "THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT, IT WAS INFORMATIVE, BUT I CHOOSE TO BE A REPRESSED ASSHOLE WHO REFUSES TO EXPRESS APPROVAL." --------------------------------- Seriously, it works. Not so well on the internet, but think about the tone which it would be delivered with in actual conversation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Precious Roy 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 And to add to that... “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” Isn't sarcasm. It's douchebaggery. Nobody talks like that. If someone said that to you would you laugh? No, you'd think he/she was an excessively wordy douchebag. Sarcasm is supposed to be snappy, not longwinded. This isn't an Oscar Wilde text, our language has evolved... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 I could care less about that one Washington St. website /SARCASM!!!! WHAT I REALLY MEAN IS, "THANK YOU FOR POSTING THAT, IT WAS INFORMATIVE, BUT I CHOOSE TO BE A REPRESSED ASSHOLE WHO REFUSES TO EXPRESS APPROVAL." --------------------------------- Seriously, it works. Not so well on the internet, but think about the tone which it would be delivered with in actual conversation No, it doesn't. Even then, it's not blatant enough to be effective sarcasm, like "OH I REEEEALLY CARE ABOUT THAT SITE" might be. That's sarcasm. "Could" when you mean "couldn't" is just ignorance. You know, this is like the second time I've argued about could/couldn't, and I think it's been in Sports both times. Grammar debate should be a sport Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
