PDA

View Full Version : Concerned About Our Sox? A Case Study Concering Teal


100 Year Itch
07-09-2006, 04:37 AM
Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

SpartanSoxFan
07-09-2006, 06:19 AM
:?: :dtroll:

CanBuehrleWait
07-09-2006, 06:24 AM
What? Mods must be sleeping :(:

digdagdug23
07-09-2006, 07:58 AM
Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

Does your mother know you are using her computer this early in the morning?

Dan H
07-09-2006, 08:15 AM
Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

It is one thing to be concerned. I am. But to suggest that the Sox trade these players is dumb. If you want to feel real desperation, be a Cub fan. Now there is a roster I would trade for just about anything.

SOXSINCE'70
07-09-2006, 08:57 AM
Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

Try this next time,you:dtroll: .

:tealtutor: :tealpolice:
"1 Adam-12,1 Adam-12,a violation.Please see the Mods".

itsnotrequired
07-09-2006, 09:05 AM
"time to cut bait"

Classic...

:rolleyes:

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 09:08 AM
I'm not sure if this guy is a moron or if he simply forgot to use teal. I think I'll leave this up here for the time being as a response to an earlier thread griping about the use of teal.

SoxandtheCityTee
07-09-2006, 09:09 AM
Surely the whole thing was meant to be in teal?

(I know, I know, don't call you "Shirley.")

FarWestChicago
07-09-2006, 09:09 AM
I'm not sure if this guy is a moron or if he simply forgot to use teal. I think I'll leave this up here for the time being as a response to an earlier thread griping about the use of teal.I think Lip has an alter ego. He doesn't use teal or quotes and it sure sounds like him. :redneck

Gavin
07-09-2006, 12:16 PM
omf! roadhouse1!

white sox bill
07-09-2006, 12:45 PM
Hal & Farwest,
I wasted 60 seconds of my precious day off reading this. Please put this out of its misery

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 12:48 PM
Hal & Farwest,
I wasted 60 seconds of my precious day off reading this. Please put this out of its misery

Actually you're making my point as to why it should be kept alive for awhile. Was it a moronic post, or was it something that needed teal? If it should have been in teal, it would have been at least somewhat funny and a lot less of a waste of time.

I'm keeping it around for awhile.

Jurr
07-09-2006, 12:49 PM
I'm with the sentiment of praising this thread based on the merits of the "cut bait" line. Beautiful...just needed teal.

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 12:54 PM
I'm with the sentiment of praising this thread based on the merits of the "cut bait" line. Beautiful...just needed teal.

And I'm sure you can see from the responses exactly why teal is important, something that was lost on a sizable group of posters just a couple of weeks ago.

white sox bill
07-09-2006, 12:55 PM
Actually you're making my point as to why it should be kept alive for awhile. Was it a moronic post, or was it something that needed teal? If it should have been in teal, it would have been at least somewhat funny and a lot less of a waste of time.

I'm keeping it around for awhile.

Does the orginal poster know what teal signifies?

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Does the orginal poster know what teal signifies?

If not, he should now.

lumpyspun
07-09-2006, 01:39 PM
Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?


I'm just wondering who he means when he says "et al." I would agree with his first group of names but I just want to know who else he has in mind...

CaptainBallz
07-09-2006, 02:15 PM
I utilize a three-step process when tackling "tough" posts like these.

1) Check the time of post--- I think its safe to assume that about 85-90% of all posts made after 2:00am are moderately to heavily influenced by alcohol, crack, or dementia, sometimes all three. As we can see, this particular post was submitted at 3:37am on Saturday night/ Sunday morning.
Verdict: Dementia mixed with alcohol.

2) Check the posters personal profile for age, gender, hints of dementia: While there has been no scientific research linking age/ gender to the overall quality of posts, there are studies that distinctly show that males approximately 13-35 years of age tend to talk out of their asses straighter, harder, and more often than females and males younger and older than that age bracket. While this is definitely not true in all cases, the frequency of such occurences make it viable step of the three step process.
Verdict: N/A--Dementia (default)

3) Check number of total posts by member: As with step 2, there is no scientific proof linking total posts with post quality, but there is much to be said about that poster's understanding of site protocol and the unwritten social contract between members. This contract emphasizes a rudimentary grasp of the English language, the frowning upon of l337-speak and all its dumbass variations, and the occasional use of teal when there is a strong possibility that one's sarcasm could be mistaken as serious. Seeing as the member's total post count is 39 and he has a basic understanding of the English language (even contributing to it with the coined phrase "Cut Bait"), it can safely be assumed that he/she was either ignorant of teal, decided to bypass the use of teal (aka, Being Down with the ATC), or was serious in his comments, rendering him a dumbass.
Verdict: Ignorant of teal protocol.

So, utilizing my 3 step method, I have come to the conclusion that this particular post is a drunken attempt at sarcasm that fell flat on it's silly head and should be promptly disregarded.

Simple, easy, and lots of fun....:thumbsup:

Jurr
07-09-2006, 02:22 PM
I utilize a three-step process when tackling "tough" posts like these.

1) Check the time of post--- I think its safe to assume that about 85-90% of all posts made after 2:00am are moderately to heavily influenced by alcohol, crack, or dementia, sometimes all three. As we can see, this particular post was submitted at 3:37am on Saturday night/ Sunday morning.
Verdict: Dementia mixed with alcohol.

2) Check the posters personal profile for age, gender, hints of dementia: While there has been no scientific research linking age/ gender to the overall quality of posts, there are studies that distinctly show that males approximately 13-35 years of age tend to talk out of their asses straighter, harder, and more often than females and males younger and older than that age bracket. While this is definitely not true in all cases, the frequency of such occurences make it viable step of the three step process.
Verdict: N/A--Dementia (default)

3) Check number of total posts by member: As with step 2, there is no scientific proof linking total posts with post quality, but there is much to be said about that poster's understanding of site protocol and the unwritten social contract between members. This contract emphasizes a rudimentary grasp of the English language, the frowning upon of l337-speak and all its dumbass variations, and the occasional use of teal when there is a strong possibility that one's sarcasm could be mistaken as serious. Seeing as the member's total post count is 39 and he has a basic understanding of the English language (even contributing to it with the coined phrase "Cut Bait"), it can safely be assumed that he/she was either ignorant of teal, decided to bypass the use of teal (aka, Being Down with the ATC), or was serious in his comments, rendering him a dumbass.
Verdict: Ignorant of teal protocol.

So, utilizing my 3 step method, I have come to the conclusion that this particular post is a drunken attempt at sarcasm that fell flat on it's silly head and should be promptly disregarded.

Simple, easy, and lots of fun....:thumbsup:
A stunning treatise brought to you by the scholar known only as Captain BALLZ.
Great stuff. Though this thread will never come the least bit close to the humor of KingXerxes, it's a great diversion to the walk/fister RBI 1st inning I just had to deal with.

MRM
07-09-2006, 02:54 PM
And I'm sure you can see from the responses exactly why teal is important, something that was lost on a sizable group of posters just a couple of weeks ago.

Guys, read the name of the thread, "Concerned about our Sox? A case study concerning teal" I'm pretty sure he's supporting the whole teal thing and was trying to get the responses he got to vindicate his view on the matter.

BTW, you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this post was anything other than tongue in cheek.

thomas35forever
07-09-2006, 03:01 PM
Unless you really are being sarcastic,:threadsucks
Don't think you're being funny because you're not.

IlliniSox4Life
07-09-2006, 04:13 PM
Guys, read the name of the thread, "Concerned about our Sox? A case study concerning teal" I'm pretty sure he's supporting the whole teal thing and was trying to get the responses he got to vindicate his view on the matter.

BTW, you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this post was anything other than tongue in cheek.

While I didn't read this earlier, I would put money on the title having been changed by the Mods.

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 06:41 PM
Guys, read the name of the thread, "Concerned about our Sox? A case study concerning teal" I'm pretty sure he's supporting the whole teal thing and was trying to get the responses he got to vindicate his view on the matter.

BTW, you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this post was anything other than tongue in cheek.
Um, no. I added "A Case Study Concerning Teal" when I read the post and the first couple of responses. Sure blows the hell out of that theory....

SOXintheBURGH
07-09-2006, 08:00 PM
:threadrules:

FarWestChicago
07-09-2006, 08:46 PM
I utilize a three-step process when tackling "tough" posts like these.

1) Check the time of post--- I think its safe to assume that about 85-90% of all posts made after 2:00am are moderately to heavily influenced by alcohol, crack, or dementia, sometimes all three. As we can see, this particular post was submitted at 3:37am on Saturday night/ Sunday morning.
Verdict: Dementia mixed with alcohol.

2) Check the posters personal profile for age, gender, hints of dementia: While there has been no scientific research linking age/ gender to the overall quality of posts, there are studies that distinctly show that males approximately 13-35 years of age tend to talk out of their asses straighter, harder, and more often than females and males younger and older than that age bracket. While this is definitely not true in all cases, the frequency of such occurences make it viable step of the three step process.
Verdict: N/A--Dementia (default)

3) Check number of total posts by member: As with step 2, there is no scientific proof linking total posts with post quality, but there is much to be said about that poster's understanding of site protocol and the unwritten social contract between members. This contract emphasizes a rudimentary grasp of the English language, the frowning upon of l337-speak and all its dumbass variations, and the occasional use of teal when there is a strong possibility that one's sarcasm could be mistaken as serious. Seeing as the member's total post count is 39 and he has a basic understanding of the English language (even contributing to it with the coined phrase "Cut Bait"), it can safely be assumed that he/she was either ignorant of teal, decided to bypass the use of teal (aka, Being Down with the ATC), or was serious in his comments, rendering him a dumbass.
Verdict: Ignorant of teal protocol.

So, utilizing my 3 step method, I have come to the conclusion that this particular post is a drunken attempt at sarcasm that fell flat on it's silly head and should be promptly disregarded.

Simple, easy, and lots of fun....:thumbsup:Excellent analysis! Very impressive. :cool:

gobears1987
07-09-2006, 08:50 PM
Actually you're making my point as to why it should be kept alive for awhile. Was it a moronic post, or was it something that needed teal? If it should have been in teal, it would have been at least somewhat funny and a lot less of a waste of time.

I'm keeping it around for awhile.This is why I hate the new anti-teal group here. Teal is very necessary.

BV2005
07-09-2006, 09:02 PM
Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

ok now i tried to look at this logically and although i do not agree with the idea because i tend to get behind players that have been here for a while, especially those on the 2005 team, i almost think this guy i serious because it makes a little bit of sense.

Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

trading Contreas and Iguchi puzzles me a bit but maybe he thinks a trade will land us 2 great younger pitchers and a solid 2nd baseman.

I definatly don't agree with it because we have the 2nd best record in baseball and I would want to ruin the team chemistry, it makes a little sense for the futer.

Soxgirl22
07-09-2006, 09:04 PM
ok now i tried to look at this logically and although i do not agree with the idea because i tend to get behind players that have been here for a while, especially those on the 2005 team, i almost think this guy i serious because it makes a little bit of sense.

Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

trading Contreas and Iguchi puzzles me a bit but maybe he thinks a trade will land us 2 great younger pitchers and a solid 2nd baseman.

I definatly don't agree with it because we have the 2nd best record in baseball and I would want to ruin the team chemistry, it makes a little sense for the futer.

First off, no way are we replacing Dye and Crede with two minor leaguers. That doesn't make any sense.

And Garland the weakest link? Are you kidding?

QCIASOXFAN
07-09-2006, 09:11 PM
ok now i tried to look at this logically and although i do not agree with the idea because i tend to get behind players that have been here for a while, especially those on the 2005 team, i almost think this guy i serious because it makes a little bit of sense.

Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

trading Contreas and Iguchi puzzles me a bit but maybe he thinks a trade will land us 2 great younger pitchers and a solid 2nd baseman.

I definatly don't agree with it because we have the 2nd best record in baseball and I would want to ruin the team chemistry, it makes a little sense for the futer. Dye has always been a great hitter even when he was with the Royals. This isn't the first time hes had a great year (maybe to not this extent) and surely wont be the last. As for Garland being weak, I got more faith in him then 2 or 3 starters on our staff at the moment.

lbtigerfan
07-09-2006, 09:20 PM
ok now i tried to look at this logically and although i do not agree with the idea because i tend to get behind players that have been here for a while, especially those on the 2005 team, i almost think this guy i serious because it makes a little bit of sense.

Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

trading Contreas and Iguchi puzzles me a bit but maybe he thinks a trade will land us 2 great younger pitchers and a solid 2nd baseman.

I definatly don't agree with it because we have the 2nd best record in baseball and I would want to ruin the team chemistry, it makes a little sense for the futer.

To the first part... you think this makes sense? Pffff.... dream on kid.

To the second part... you think this makes sense? Pffff... dream on kid.

To the third part... Wrong before, Wrong again.

Beer Can Chicken
07-09-2006, 09:22 PM
ok now i tried to look at this logically and although i do not agree with the idea because i tend to get behind players that have been here for a while, especially those on the 2005 team, i almost think this guy i serious because it makes a little bit of sense.

Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

trading Contreas and Iguchi puzzles me a bit but maybe he thinks a trade will land us 2 great younger pitchers and a solid 2nd baseman.

I definatly don't agree with it because we have the 2nd best record in baseball and I would want to ruin the team chemistry, it makes a little sense for the futer.

Dye may be having a Loaiza type season? I think I just threw up in my mouth.

100 Year Itch
07-09-2006, 09:32 PM
Sorry -- it was late, or was it early? Let me try that again:

---

Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

---

It was the first thing that came to mind after wading through maybe a hundred or so dark-cloud sentiments.

Second best record, time to give up, our guys could be traded for the World Series Ring... huh huh, get it? Looks like my career as a satirist ended before it ever began.

tebman
07-09-2006, 09:42 PM
It was the first thing that came to mind after wading through maybe a hundred or so dark-cloud sentiments.

Second best record, time to give up, our guys could be traded for the World Series Ring... huh huh, get it? Looks like my career as a satirist ended before it ever began.

"You need not expect to get your book right the first time. Go to work and revamp or rewrite it. God only exhibits his thunder and lightning at intervals, and so they always command attention. These are God's adjectives. You thunder and lightning too much; the reader ceases to get under the bed, by and by."
-- Mark Twain, 1878

TornLabrum
07-09-2006, 10:03 PM
Sorry -- it was late, or was it early? Let me try that again:

---

Twenty-five games over five-hundred and the second-best record in all of Major League Baseball?

Panic button? Meh. I say it's time to cut bait and focus on 2007.

Whad'dya all think we'd get in a trade if we offered Dye, Crede, Contreras, Garland, Iguchi, et al.?

The 2006 World Series Ring?

Phhhtt. Overrated.

---

It was the first thing that came to mind after wading through maybe a hundred or so dark-cloud sentiments.

Second best record, time to give up, our guys could be traded for the World Series Ring... huh huh, get it? Looks like my career as a satirist ended before it ever began.

That's why around here teal is oh, so important.

Tragg
07-09-2006, 10:09 PM
Dye - we have ryan sweeney who is ready for the big leagues and Dye may be having a Loaiza type of season.

Crede - bad back hisory, and we have Feilds tearing it up in the minors

Garland - the weakest link in our pitching staff, although i think he will turn it around and get back to his early 2005 form, but i've been wrong before

Dye may be having a Loiza type season in the sense that it's a career year....but Dye's non-career years are still solid and among the best for RFs and are still better than Loiza. I don't think Sweeney is ready, though, and he needs more power to play RF, imo.

It would be a very gutsy move to trade Crede and bring up Fields. I wouldn't do that for another year, until Anderson is solidified, which I think he will be.

It's extremely debatable whether Garland is the weakest link. I don't think he is and I think he'll return to form. McCarthy will be very good, although Ozzie doesn't seem to like him.

flo-B-flo
07-09-2006, 11:16 PM
It is one thing to be concerned. I am. But to suggest that the Sox trade these players is dumb. If you want to feel real desperation, be a Cub fan. Now there is a roster I would trade for just about anything. I think this IS a c-- fan

BV2005
07-10-2006, 07:53 AM
To the first part... you think this makes sense? Pffff.... dream on kid.

To the second part... you think this makes sense? Pffff... dream on kid.

To the third part... Wrong before, Wrong again.

how bout you try to explain why im wrong instead of using oxymorons. It is arguable who the weakest link on our staff is right now, but I think garland is the least proven. and if you say im wrong again doesn't that mean you don't think garland will bounce back.


Dye may be having a Loaiza type season? I think I just threw up in my mouth.

If Dye continues his pace he will have a career year like Loaiza. Was that really that out of line to say?

I think some people did not read my whole thread. I clearly stated I didn't agree with the idea, I was just trying to make sense of it!

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 03:55 PM
That's why around here teal is oh, so important.

I think it's pretty funny that the people who missed the satire are actually debating the merits of the trade suggestions. Even funnier than the angry reactions that proceeded them.

High comedy to those who can spot (obvious, in this case) satire. Chalk one up for the anti-teal crowd.

miker
07-10-2006, 03:56 PM
I'm not sure if this guy is a moron or if he simply forgot to use teal. I think I'll leave this up here for the time being as a response to an earlier thread griping about the use of teal.
I'm hedging toward moron, but giving him one "sympathy" point for having better grammar than most...Lord knows I've put up my share of unintelligible posts.

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 04:11 PM
I think it's pretty funny that the people who missed the satire are actually debating the merits of the trade suggestions. Even funnier than the angry reactions that proceeded them.

High comedy to those who can spot (obvious, in this case) satire. Chalk one up for the anti-teal crowd.

Obviously the satire wasn't so obvious since you yourself are mentioning those that couldn't spot the "obvious" satire. If it's obvious, it's obvious. If a substantial number of people miss it, as occurred here, it obviously isn't obvious, now is it?

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 04:24 PM
Obviously the satire wasn't so obvious since you yourself are mentioning those that couldn't spot the "obvious" satire. If it's obvious, it's obvious. If a substantial number of people miss it, as occurred here, it obviously isn't obvious, now is it?

I maintain that tone of the post was self-evident and the satire obvious. No one, not even the most intoxicated or least intelligent poster on this board, would sincerely suggest trading those players while 2 games back and leading the wild card. The failure of many posters to see the satire does not mean it was subtle. Rather, it is a reflection of the reading comprehension and common sense of those who took it seriously.

That being said, the satire itself was pretty stupid. The responses are what made it worthwhile.

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 04:26 PM
I maintain that tone of the post was self-evident and the satire obvious. No one, not even the most intoxicated or least intelligent poster on this board, would sincerely suggest trading those players while 2 games back and leading the wild card. The failure of many posters to see the satire does not mean it was subtle. Rather, it is a reflection of the reading comprehension and common sense of those who took it seriously.

That being said, the satire itself was pretty stupid. The responses are what made it worthwhile.
You obviously haven't been around here long enough to see some of more idiotic proposals made around here that were completely serious. Nothing is obvious satire around here because no matter what the satirist comes up with, somebody has probably seriously proposed something more stupid.

Which, btw, is why we have an icon that says, ":dumbass:"

MarySwiss
07-10-2006, 04:27 PM
how bout you try to explain why im wrong instead of using oxymorons. It is arguable who the weakest link on our staff is right now, but I think garland is the least proven. and if you say im wrong again doesn't that mean you don't think garland will bounce back.




If Dye continues his pace he will have a career year like Loaiza. Was that really that out of line to say?

I think some people did not read my whole thread. I clearly stated I didn't agree with the idea, I was just trying to make sense of it!

First things first, Ib_tigerfan didn't use any oxymorons. An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory words, e.g., jumbo shrimp, alone together, minor miracle, etc.

And she's expressing her opinion, just as you are. She can't explain why you're wrong anymore than you can explain why you're right.

Same thing with the other posters who disgree with you, of which I am one.

SouthSide_HitMen
07-10-2006, 04:32 PM
You obviously haven't been around here long enough to see some of more idiotic proposals made around here that were completely serious. Nothing is obvious satire around here because no matter what the satirist comes up with, somebody has probably seriously proposed something more stupid.

Smartass satire must be left to the professionals. :cool:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=70656

As for one liners, I defer to the king

http://www.comedy-zone.net/images/people/comedians/youngman-henry.jpg

Take Contreras, please.

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 04:32 PM
You obviously haven't been around here long enough to see some of more idiotic proposals made around here that were completely serious. Nothing is obvious satire around here because no matter what the satirist comes up with, somebody has probably seriously proposed something more stupid.

I know, I've seen some pretty stupid suggestions. But don't you think a post that suggests the world series ring was "overrated" is pretty much as obvious as it gets?

I guess it would get old if every thread with an ironic post devolved into arguments about: 1) the sincerity of the poster, and 2) the merits of the satiric suggestion. But I think the teal trains people to stop reading critically and to look for colored cues instead, which only makes things worse in the long run.

Baby Fisk
07-10-2006, 04:35 PM
You obviously haven't been around here long enough to see some of more idiotic proposals made around here that were completely serious. Nothing is obvious satire around here because no matter what the satirist comes up with, somebody has probably seriously proposed something more stupid.
Mr. Labrum speaks the righteous truth. Teal is essential on these message boards. Countless brawls have broken out here because someone's sarcasm was misconstrued. These are the most senseless type of brawls. Teal should be part of everyone's online diet.

Teal: the healthy choice. :thumbsup:

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 04:38 PM
Smartass satire must be left to the professionals. :cool:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=70656

Thanks - I missed that thread. So that's where all the smart satirists hang out!

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 04:42 PM
I know, I've seen some pretty stupid suggestions. But don't you think a post that suggests the world series ring was "overrated" is pretty much as obvious as it gets?

I guess it would get old if every thread with an ironic post devolved into arguments about: 1) the sincerity of the poster, and 2) the merits of the satiric suggestion. But I think the teal trains people to stop reading critically and to look for colored cues instead, which only makes things worse in the long run.

Actually it saves a lot of unnecessary arguing, not to mention the animosity that comes from misunderstandings.

I'm going to say it again, even though I'm probably beating a dead horse. Satire on a message board goes over like a lead balloon. This stuff is as close to conversation as you can get on the internet outside of a chatroom.

If this were a book or an essay, where one actually takes a little time to think an analyze, and in which the conversation is strictly one way, author to reader, one actually has a chance to pick up on the nuances.

However, if you take a look at the numbers of posts of a lot of the people here, and then compare that with their registration date, you'll find that a lot of people do a lot of responding to a lot of messages here. If you look at the forums in which the same people respond, you'll find they don't confine themselves to the Sox Clubhouse area. This means they're reading a lot of posts with a lot of different subjects and responding to them.

So what we have is a medium that requires instant interpretation, just like conversation. However, unlike conversation, we don't have things like verbal cues and body language to indicate that maybe we're not being onn hundred percent serious.

So we end up with threads like this in which that which seemed obvious to you wasn't very obvious to a considerable number of people who responded. And that is why we use teal. It doesn't mean we're lazy. It means we're letting people know right away that we're not being serious.

nasox
07-10-2006, 04:50 PM
I'm going to call this thread TornLabrum's pet thread.

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 04:59 PM
Actually it saves a lot of unnecessary arguing, not to mention the animosity that comes from misunderstandings.

I'm going to say it again, even though I'm probably beating a dead horse. Satire on a message board goes over like a lead balloon. This stuff is as close to conversation as you can get on the internet outside of a chatroom.

If this were a book or an essay, where one actually takes a little time to think an analyze, and in which the conversation is strictly one way, author to reader, one actually has a chance to pick up on the nuances.

However, if you take a look at the numbers of posts of a lot of the people here, and then compare that with their registration date, you'll find that a lot of people do a lot of responding to a lot of messages here. If you look at the forums in which the same people respond, you'll find they don't confine themselves to the Sox Clubhouse area. This means they're reading a lot of posts with a lot of different subjects and responding to them.

So what we have is a medium that requires instant interpretation, just like conversation. However, unlike conversation, we don't have things like verbal cues and body language to indicate that maybe we're not being onn hundred percent serious.

So we end up with threads like this in which that which seemed obvious to you wasn't very obvious to a considerable number of people who responded. And that is why we use teal. It doesn't mean we're lazy. It means we're letting people know right away that we're not being serious.

The thread cited above shows that satire can work without teal. It doesn't take particularly careful reading to spot satire, so I think the fact that many people miss non-teal satire is simply a product of their being trained to look for the color, not the meaning. Yes, people post a lot in short amounts of time. But if they are taking the time to resond to a post, they certainly have time to apply some common sense.
In the end, satire that announces itself is pointless. I find no joy in reading a satiric, ironic, or sarcastic comment that comes with a prefab "I'm joking" sign.

Baby Fisk
07-10-2006, 05:05 PM
I find no joy in reading a satiric, ironic, or sarcastic comment that comes with a prefab "I'm joking" sign.
The use of teal is not so much about depriving people of joy, as it is about preventing people without a keen sense of sarcasm from getting into pointless brawls. If we all had the exact same sense of humour, and the exact same wealth of historical and cultural references stored in our brains, AND the ability to spot sarcasm at a glance, teal would not be required. Alas...

Settembrini
07-10-2006, 05:14 PM
The use of teal is not so much about depriving people of joy, as it is about preventing people without a keen sense of sarcasm from getting into pointless brawls. If we all had the exact same sense of humour, and the exact same wealth of historical and cultural references stored in our brains, AND the ability to spot sarcasm at a glance, teal would not be required. Alas...

Which is why I'm not calling for an end to the practice, so much as voicing my opinion on a subject that's bothered me since I started lurking here years ago. I understand your points, and realize that's the view of the mods.

MarySwiss
07-10-2006, 05:51 PM
The use of teal is not so much about depriving people of joy, as it is about preventing people without a keen sense of sarcasm from getting into pointless brawls. If we all had the exact same sense of humour, and the exact same wealth of historical and cultural references stored in our brains, AND the ability to spot sarcasm at a glance, teal would not be required. Alas...

Exactly. I always like to point to a simple example, to wit, "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

I remember that quote showing up in a post without teal. Now I'm pretty sure that many--probably most--of the people who post here realize that this was a John Belushi quote from Animal House, but someone actually did pipe up and correct the initial poster, pointing out that, no, it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor.

This may seem innocuous, but what if the original poster had come back with something like, "I know that, you idiot!"?

And there we go. And for what?

MRM
07-10-2006, 06:54 PM
Reaction to threads is half the fun of posting. When a guy says "World series ring--over rated" he's OBVIOUSLY (and I mean to everyone with an IQ over 80) either a troll or he's being sarcastic. The reactions say much more about the reactionary than they do the original poster.

To me the whole teal thing is an attempt to keep the foolish from looking foolish. It's a politically correct thing and so ANTI-Ozzie that I can't, as a good Sox fan, support it. :D:

MRM
07-10-2006, 07:09 PM
Actually it saves a lot of unnecessary arguing, not to mention the animosity that comes from misunderstandings.

I'm going to say it again, even though I'm probably beating a dead horse. Satire on a message board goes over like a lead balloon.

I disagree 100%. I've been frequenting message boards since '82 and satire is THE best defense against trolls and fools. Always has been. It allows the fools to identify themself as a fool for all to see w/out resorting to ad hominens. Why CALL you an idiot when I can type something knowing your response will make that fact self-evident?

It also eliminates the need for a heavily moderated board (which I also despise because moderators, no matter how fair, are still hamstrung by their own opinions). Some moderation is neccessary on a board of this type, but not near as much as I've seen in the time I've been here.

This thread is pretty tame, but it's a good example of all of the above.

AJTrenkle
07-10-2006, 07:19 PM
Isn't he trying to tell us that all of our silly fears are just that?

MRM
07-10-2006, 07:32 PM
Isn't he trying to tell us that all of our silly fears are just that?

DING DING DING...we have a winner. He's making fun of all the naysaying going on over a team that has the SECOND BEST RECORD in all of baseball. Did a pretty good job of it, too.

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 08:05 PM
The thread cited above shows that satire can work without teal. It doesn't take particularly careful reading to spot satire, so I think the fact that many people miss non-teal satire is simply a product of their being trained to look for the color, not the meaning. Yes, people post a lot in short amounts of time. But if they are taking the time to resond to a post, they certainly have time to apply some common sense.
In the end, satire that announces itself is pointless. I find no joy in reading a satiric, ironic, or sarcastic comment that comes with a prefab "I'm joking" sign.

Thanks for citing one example. That kind of proves my point.

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 08:07 PM
Reaction to threads is half the fun of posting. When a guy says "World series ring--over rated" he's OBVIOUSLY (and I mean to everyone with an IQ over 80) either a troll or he's being sarcastic. The reactions say much more about the reactionary than they do the original poster.

To me the whole teal thing is an attempt to keep the foolish from looking foolish. It's a politically correct thing and so ANTI-Ozzie that I can't, as a good Sox fan, support it. :D:

So you're saying that the people who misinterpreted this have an IQ over 80?























I intentionally didn't use teal. Now tell me your initial reaction to what I just said.

TornLabrum
07-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Isn't he trying to tell us that all of our silly fears are just that?

Yup. You got it. But several people (who must have IQs of 80 or less) didn't.

OkStateSox
07-10-2006, 08:19 PM
What's funny is people argueing for the use of teal are starting almost as many fueds as no body using teal would have. And sarcasm is a bannable offense here I reckon, Teal denotes facetiousness.

Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
Facetiousness: Playfully jocular; humorous
WSI is against harming (innocent) ignorant people on purpose and rightfully so.

FarWestChicago
07-10-2006, 10:57 PM
What's funny is people argueing for the use of teal are starting almost as many fueds as no body using teal would have.You are completely wrong. Take a few days to think about it. I warned all you anti-teal RWAC's I would start whacking you. You asked for it, you got it.

MRM
07-11-2006, 02:14 AM
So you're saying that the people who misinterpreted this have an IQ over 80?























I intentionally didn't use teal. Now tell me your initial reaction to what I just said.

My initial reaction was "what the heck is he talking about?".

There is no "misinterpreting" obvious nonsense. I mean, I guess I'd have to have someone with an actual IQ of 80 to test my theory, and I suppose it's possible I give too much credit to people with IQ's between 81 and...say...120. If you are saying extreme ignorance occurs somewhere above an IQ of 80 I won't argue. It was a guestimate on my part.:D:

TornLabrum
07-11-2006, 09:11 AM
If there is "no misinterpreting obvious nonsense, then why the **** did the supposedly "obvious nonsense" at the start of this thread immediately get misinterpreted?

Baby Fisk
07-11-2006, 09:18 AM
Teal Martyrs: WSI's latest fad. :redneck

"As God Is My Witness, I'll Never Use Teal Again!"

TornLabrum
07-11-2006, 10:10 AM
Teal Martyrs: WSI's latest fad. :redneck

"As God Is My Witness, I'll Never Use Teal Again!"--Scarlett O'Teal

Baby Fisk
07-11-2006, 10:13 AM
--Scarlett O'Teal
Teal O'Hara? :D: