BOO! Houston, we have a problem....
 

Cecil must not read the papers...

Astros bat out of order against Brewers | MLB.com: News

The announcer actually knew that the correct batter should be out.

Even a blind squirrel... :D

Bat Again?
 

Why did Bourn bat again? Should not the next person after Bourne bat, the #3 hitter in the line up? Matsui is out, Bourn had batted and hit a single. I thought by rule you role to the next batter in the line up?:confused:

Any advance, run scored, by the improper batter after an appeal, is NULLIFIED, therefore, the next proper batter is Bourn, who gets to bat again. Did I answer my own question?

JPaco,

When a BOOT is properly appealed, the Proper batter is called out and the player who follows the proper batter (NOT the improper batter) in the lineup is the next proper batter.

JM

It's called BOO or BOOT, but it should be called BTSTBWIYT.

Being Too Stupid To Bat When It's Your Turn.

That makes the enfocement easy (or easier).

So, I've read the rule, read a few case plays and I have a headache after reading Abel, Baker, Casey, Duncan, etc...after the appeal of the BOO, why did the hitter who just hit a single, have to come back and hit again? Thanks guys.

OMFG.

Who was out? (The player who was too stupid to bat.)

Who bats after a player end his turn? (The next player in the lineup).

Who was the next player? (The player who batted out of turn)

Matsui is out for not batting in the right spot. Bourn (regardless of what he did while at the plate) is the batter who should follow matsui so he had to bat again.

I think the entire BOO rule needs a rewrite. Take out all the Abel, Baker, Casey crap and replace it with what Bob just wrote. Including "OMFG" as the caption.

To Bob Jenkins
 

In OMFG...does the G stand for God? Does the F stand for THE F word with an ING?

yes

I hope it stands for 'Gosh.' And 'Freakin.'

I am waiting for an answer before I give my opinion of it.

A bit drunk?

I posted it around noon. I was not drunk, nor had I been drinking. I am not canadian.

Oh snap! :D

To Bob Jenkins
 

Since you will not respond, I assume that OMFG meant what I thought it meant.

You do realize how remarkably obscene and offensive that is don't you? If you do not already realize that, you are stupid. Otherwise, you are a cretin.

Joe in Missouri

Lighten up, Francis.

Nope. Not on this. Public obscenity has gone way to far. I will not sit back silently when cretins use such filth, either.

There is no excuse for it.

I agree 100% If this was meant to represent God's name in vain, I too find it in very poor taste, and extremely offensive. Hopefully he used the official Internet shorthand, in which OMG stand for "Oh My Gosh."

can i lock my own thread?

OMFG. :rolleyes:

Anyone who knows Rich must have already known he is a cretin. He wanted the rest of us to be sure of it as, well.

How old are you Rich, nine? Well, that is unfair. There is not a nine year old on my son's team that does not have more respect and and civility than you.

Joe in Missouri

PS: cre·tin noun a stupid, vulgar person

No, but you most certainly can delete it if you choose.

I'm behind you 100% on this one, JW.

Perhaps the board is too full of cretins for the easily offended to continue frequenting it. :rolleyes:

Let us know when you defeat the windmill.

Sorry. I though I posted this this morning, but perhaps I forgot to hit the "submit" button.

It stands for "Orderly Mind, Friendly Gentleman." Meaning, you can often find a solution to a problem if you take it one step at a time. I then presented the steps to the question posed.

To Bob Jenkins
 

Bob,

Really?

Because THIS and THIS would lend credence to the opinion that you are less than truthful as well as a cretin.

Joe In Missouri

Easily offended? Is this where we have sunk? Someone uses F***ing and God together and if someone objects, he is easily offended?

Good grief.

Joe in Missouri

Funny. One of you says OMG is the "official Internet shorthand", thereby implying OMFG isn't, but the other gives a link that show OMFG seems to be somewhat official (if not, widely recognized).

I'd say that unless we're posting on a 700 Club forum, your sensitivity is a bit over the top.

Tim.

C'mon Tim, don't tell me that Obama's ridiculous appearance on the ND campus has turned you into a cretin too!:p:p:D

I do not allow GD or JC to be used as swear words on a ballfield, and I do find it offensive online as well. It is uncouth and uncalled for in any civilized conversation. I find it equally offensive when Tiger uses it into the TV mike to describe a bad shot. Great example for kids he sets there:rolleyes:.

Be not deceived. God is not mocked.

I asked if Bob was drunk because the acronym he used was over the top in my mind. He then threw a canadian diss in there as if nationality has anything to do with being drunk.

What's ridiculous is your tendency to turn threads into political insults.

Not everyone walks the same path, Steve. I have an appreciation for the way you feel, but for me, I'm not going to ask everyone to believe as I do. This isn't really a place to hold court for religious indictments.

Tim.

Well now...I didn't "turn" the thread into anything of the sort. And it wasn't a political insult, it was a character insult. It is also not a "tendency" on my part. I don't have any such tendency here. Most of my posts are strictly baseball related. I was joking with a friend of mine who is from South Bend. Other than that, what you said was accurate.

What's funny is the lame reason some of the posts on here hit the trash can, and then other posts which are much more offensive in nature are able to stay.

I was personally offended when I saw Bob's post & subsequent flippant denial of what he meant, and I'm considering taking some time away from this board because of it.

After thinking about this thread tonight I realized I'm compromising what I believe if I don't stand up for it & say what I think.
I appreciate JW & SD Steve for stating their convictions and opening themselves up for ridicule as well. Hang in there guys, we will defeat the windmill in the end.

I'm out. God bless.

And the victim complex continues...

OMFG, this is a private board. .

Yeah, of which I am a member, and if I don't appreciate something, I have every right to say something about it. People expressing their opinions about abusive language should not be subject to ridicule because of their preferences. Do you really think the private board card was well played? Think again.

What in the world are you talking about?:confused: Oh, because someone finds the Lord's name taken in vain to be offensive, you think that makes them believe they are victims? What it makes people are good, decent people who don't sit idly by and let people use their ears and eyes as trash recepticles.

If everyone has the right to use nasty, godless internet shorthand, then others have every right in the world to object to its use and speak out against it.

Then other others have every right in the world to object to your speaking out against it. Of which, I suppose, I'm one, mostly because we've now added 10-20 posts discussing the 'merits' of the issue.

And THEN, other other others would have every right in the world to object to MY speaking out over YOUR speaking out.

And other, other other others would have every right in the world to object to THEIR speaking out over MY speaking out over YOUR speaking out. And on it goes.

Sum total of opinions/positions changed == 0.

OMGoodness.

Isn't it interesting that using F***ing and God together and lying about it is less offensive than someone objecting to it?

We must be tolerant of everything! Except someone who finds vulgar comments offensive-THAT person is not to be tolerated!

Joe In Missouri

OMFG. Lock it up.

My issue is that it was said by a moderator who is supposed to conduct himself with more decency. It seemed like too much if any regular member said it, but very unprofessional considering the leadership position the poster is in.

Decency, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Do you see indecent things often?

Personally, I take little offense at words. I take much more offense at deeds.

Also, I figure God has a terrific and a little bit sick sense of humor. She'd have to.

I am amazed at some posters who decry "censorship" yet advocate censoring.

Maybe what they neeed is a site where they are in charge and can control others to their heart's content. Can you imagine that? OMFG!

Exactly. Those on "that" side of the issue preach tolerance, and are by far the least tolerant when it comes to people who profess faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Steve:

That is demonstrably false in this case. No one is asking any of the offended crowd not to post their offense. While, on the other hand those offended are asking for the offending post not to be posted.

So, who is being intolerant?

Not me. I don't give F if anyone posts OMFG or posts how they are offended by OMFG. Neither offends me.

Maybe it is false in this case, but very true in society in general. Just an observation.

More BS.

Tolerance does not involve forcing your beliefs on others, which is precisely what the religious right attempts to do and does on a daily basis. You tell me where the religious right has beliefs forced upon it.

That should just about do it. I think I hear the jingling and jangling of keys.

Try in England, where radical Islam is calling on the beheading of anyone who speaks against Islam. Speak out against Islam, or claim you are a Christian, and watch heads roll...literally.

There is a reason it's called "The Right." I don't see anyone shoving any beliefs down anyone's throat here. We just object to people using the Lord's name in vain.

By the way, the Bible instructs us to share the Gospel (good news of Jesus Christ) with everyone (that includes you), and to take it to every nation on Earth. That has now been accomplished for the first time in history, which is a clear sign of the last days. Believe, don't believe, whatever. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it untrue.

Again, though, that is the religious right--it's not Christian right-wing extremism, but religious right-wing extremism all the same.

Ah, yes...the fallacy of equivocation.

It's not using the Lord's name in vain. The concept of the Lord's name being taken in vain refers to the utterings of false prophets.

There have been "clear signs of the last days" since the destruction of the Temple.

Or, just because you believe something doesn't make it true. FWIW, you don't know what I believe and don't believe.

Oh, I have a pretty good idea you don't believe what I believe, so just leave it at that.

There were many prophecies that were not fulfilled in 70 A.D. They have only been recently fulfilled in our lifetime. Read the Book.

I have, maybe more than you. The prophecies are not able to be recognizably fulfillable.

wwid
 

End of story.

I've been staying away from this thread for a couple of days, just to see where it went.

Let me say this:

1) My "Orderly Mind, Friendly Gentleman" meaning for OMFG was meant as a joke. I thought it was obvious enough not to need a smiley.

2) It's okay that some are offended by some of the meanings (and perhaps the most common meaning) of OMFG. I, too, am offended by that, depending on the social norms. (I wouldn't say it, or expect to hear it, at church, for example.) (And, to be clear, my use of the word "church" is not meant to be offensive to those who attentd attend any other type of building (e.g., temple) for religious ceremonies, or those who do not attend, or those who attend sometimes, or those who attend, but not in a building.) The social norms here are, I think, less-restrictive on cussing and the specific applicability of the third commandment.

3) Truthfully, I didn't ascribe any particular meaning to the acronym other than the general, non-literal meaning, "I don't see how this can be so confusing." Heck, had I posted that, some would complain that I was being demeaning to whoever asked the question. Maybe that "attitude" is why I'm not a teacher. So, choose it to mean whatever you want to be non-offfensive (or to be offensive, it that's your pleasure)

4) I don't like to have the last word and then close a thread, so I'll leave this open a while more. But, if the posts continue in the current vein, it will be closed.

I'm done. I was really just stating my opinion and taking the usual umbrage.:) Harumph, harumph.:D

I also don't wish to turn this into a holy war of words, as I could write volumes on the subject of my faith, but this is a baseball umpire forum, so I decline to continue.

That might be the dumbest thing ever posted on the internet.

The "religious right"...do you have no real definition for what it might be? Forcing their beliefs? Does that mean that they say what they believe? I have been charged with "forcing my beliefs" on people many times because I had the audacity to try and influence public policy. I think that is what politics is all about, isn't it?

As for this religious person(I am a Christian) I can list many ways that other's beliefs are forced upon me.

1) Many levels of government fund baby killing.
2) Many levels of government fund sitting on one's buttocks playing XBOX instead of working for a living.
3) Many levels of government regressively punish success by punitive taxes.
4) It is difficult to go to any store with my children without manure pouring out of the speakers encouraging them to have sex.

I have heard it said many times that you cannot legislate morality...Of course, you can ONLY legislate morality. I prefer it not to be the morality of Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Che Obama.

Joe In Missouri
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

OMFG. Lock it up before someone posts the list of the Republican sex scandals of the past ten years.

You'd prefer it to be the morality of a President who invades two countries on indefensible rationale, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people ?
WWJD ? Probably not these actions.
And yes, I am a Christian, and no, I'm not a Democrat.

Well, My Goodness Gracious and Land Sakes Alive!

Joe,

Love the irony.

Still not clear though. Whom do you think should have come to bat after the BOOT was properly appealed?

Because I think Bob freakin' nailed it.

JM

Which will only be overshadowed by the many Democratic sex scandals! What's your point???


To quote Glenn Beck: "The Democrats suck. But not any more than the Republicans suck."