-Caveat Lector- OOOPs Know i just read it back I know nothing about baseball sorry The Mermaid xx ----- Original Message ----- From: Mermaid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: [CTRL] For all you base ball players!
> -Caveat Lector- > > For all you Americans on this list who are interested in base ball ( Post > Below) I of course no nothing about it, being english but i did see a game > in the states and i did enjoy it and the film Field of Dreams . I Love > American Ice Hockey lots of action and gore too.I Know I kid you guys about > your testosterone but it makes for good sport both on the field and off so > to speak.What would the world do without men I wonder We may not have as > many wars but who would be there to give us women a cuddle when we needed > it. > In Praise of men I would like to say Keep your women happy in and out of the > sheets and you cant go far wrong. > Perhaps that is what is Wrong with the world today maybe the women are > producing too much testosterone and not enough estrogen and they think > they can take on the role of men.Lets keep it equal spiritually(not God) and > accept that we are different when it comes to world affairs(I said different > not exclusive just in case there is a feminist on this list) > The Mermaid xxx > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 10:46 AM > Subject: Konformist: PLAY BALL!!! > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Sell a Home with Ease! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/zgSolB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > Please send as far and wide as possible. > > Thanks, > > Robert Sterling > Editor, The Konformist > http://www.konformist.com > > > Strike 4 > The baseball deal will either make the game worse for fans or it'll > be a sham that won't hold salaries down. The owners came close to > wrecking the season for this? > - - - - - - - - - - - - > By Allen Barra > > Aug. 30, 2002 | Let's start with the short form. The crisis was > phony, the issues were a crock and the deal is a sham. Well, it's > about 50-50 that it will turn out to be a sham. No matter what anyone > says, it has yet to be proven that the basic agreement worked out > between the baseball owners and the Major League Baseball Players > Association will ultimately hold salaries down. That was the whole > purpose of commissioner Bud Selig's campaign from the outset, and the > truth is we don't know if it will work until some big-name free > agents' contracts are up for negotiation. > > Meanwhile, what we can say unequivocally is that the rest of the deal > is a sham and that both the short- and long-term results of it are > going to make baseball less popular. It will, however, have the short- > term effect of making the owners bigger profits. > > Let's jump right into it: The luxury tax that the two sides agreed to > will either keep salaries down or it won't. If it does, then there > will be less spending by the richer owners and therefore less money > to throw into the pool for the less-richer owners. If the tax doesn't > succeed in retarding spending, then we're all right back where we > started from, because the revenue-sharing mechanism is entirely > meaningless if the owners aren't stimulated to spend. And what good > Republican really thinks that raising taxes ever stimulated spending? > > Not Bud Selig, that's for sure. So in all likelihood there will be > less money for the less-rich teams over the next four years than > there was for the previous six (which amounted to, by the way, $674 > million). And guess what? After all this talk of "competitive > balance," there isn't a word in the basic agreement about compelling > the small-market owners to spend a dime on salaries. > > Let's stop for a moment and talk about competitive balance. At > today's press conference, Bud Selig reiterated that this was "all > about restoring competitive balance." To say "restoring" competitive > balance implies that there was a time when baseball had competitive > balance. Now when would that time have been? From early in the 20th > century to early in the 1920s when the New York Giants dominated? > >From early in the 1920s to early in the 1960s when the Yankees > dominated? Exactly which era of "competitive balance" are we trying > to restore? Could he possibly mean the era of competitive balance > that was ushered in when players earned the right to become free > agents? In point of fact, this has been the greatest era of > competitive balance in the game's history. > > Baseball's financial situation is often contrasted negatively with > that of the National Football League's and, in some cases, with the > National Basketball Association's. "There is a greater chance for a > team to make the playoffs," the refrain generally goes. Well, of > course there is, at least in theory. But it has nothing to do with > the level of competition and everything to do with the illusion of > competitive balance created by the greater number of playoff spots > available. The NFL offers 12 playoff slots to baseball's eight, and > the NBA offers a ridiculous 16. (In other words, nearly 60 percent of > NBA teams are destined to make the playoffs, no matter how crappy > their seasonal performance.) > > But how does it all wind up when it comes time to play for the > championship? Since 1981, five years after free agency had a chance > to kick in in baseball, 20 different teams have played in the World > Series, while in the supposedly competitively balanced NFL, only 18 > different teams have played in the Super Bowl. (The NBA has seen just > 15 different teams play in its finals.) Remember, baseball didn't > have a World Series in 1994. > > Baseball suffers in this comparison with other sports because of a > period when the Yankees happened to win a few World Series. (Wasn't > it about time for that to happen anyway?) Still, since 1996, when the > Yankees won their first World Series in 18 seasons, there have been 7 > different teams in the World Series and 8 different teams in the > Super Bowl. What exactly is there in the NFL structure that made it > necessary to risk the entire baseball season to emulate? And speaking > of this baseball season, as we go to press, three of the six > divisions in baseball are currently being led by small-market teams > (Oakland, Minnesota and St. Louis) while one, Arizona, was an > expansion team just four years ago. Arizona, by the way, was the > second expansion team (the Florida Marlins were the first) to win the > World Series. No expansion franchise has ever won the Super Bowl or > the NBA finals. > > If Selig's plan works out, though, there will be one way in which > baseball will emulate the NFL that will be entirely unexpected and > unwanted: Do you remember a few years ago what the struggle between > players and owners was supposed to be about? Does anyone now remember > that it was supposed to be about players not switching teams so > often? That the main evil of free agency was that it encouraged > players to change teams all the time and thus undermine the fans' > identification and loyalty? (Studies later proved that players didn't > switch teams any more under free agency than before, but let that > pass for now.) Well, has anyone noticed that the NFL salary cap is > currently having that effect? That the fans in Baltimore and across > the entire nation scarcely had a chance to learn the names of the > world champion Baltimore Ravens before spending restrictions > scattered the greatest defense in NFL history all over the league? > > Perhaps it doesn't matter that much in football, where most players, > particularly the usually anonymous linemen, aren't all known or > recognized by the average fan. But you can damn well bet that a > similar effect is going to be noticed in baseball, where real fans > can tell who's sitting in the bullpen by the way he crosses his legs. > Get used to it: If this luxury tax accomplishes what Bud Selig wants > it to accomplish, then from now on the primary engine for moving > players from team to team won't be free agency or voluntary trades, > but deals on teams by spending restrictions. You who supported the > owners during the labor negotiations: Is this what you wanted? > > And then, on the other hand, there's always the chance that once > again the luxury tax will not retard spending, which means that when > the time comes to go through this mess again -- and make no mistake > about it, contrary to all the phony good will that was oozing between > player reps and owners on the podium -- Bud Selig will have forced > just enough rope from the players with which to hang himself. > - - - - - - - - - - - - > About the writer > Allen Barra's sports column appears weekly. For more columns by > Barra, visit his column archive. Order a copy of Barra's acclaimed > new book, "Clearing the Bases: The Greatest Baseball Debates of the > Last Century," with a foreword by Bob Costas. > > ***** > > And proving that baseball owners just don't get it... > > > Baseball Cracks Down on Web Sites > Sun Sep 1, 1:26 PM ET > By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer > > NEW YORK (AP) - Back in 1996, 14-year-old Bryan Hoch launched a Web > site devoted to his beloved New York Mets. Four years later, New York > Yankees fan Jim Frasch did the same for the Bronx Bombers. > > This summer, with baseball seemingly consumed by the just-resolved > labor dispute, the two superfans were stunned when Major League > Baseball tried to bench their sites and those of at least two other > fans. > > Bob Andelman, creator of a Tampa Bay Devil Rays site, responded to > the cease and desist letter he received with a disclaimer: > > "As you might guess, this Web site is not endorsed, enlightened or > encouraged by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, its owners, management, > players, or even Mac, the dancing groundskeeper." > > Hoch, on the other hand, became the Patrick Henry of cyberspace fan > sites, opting for the death of his site rather than surrender his > perceived liberty of content. > > It's business, not personal, baseball officials said. They moved > against the four Web sites over the alleged use of team logos or > trademarks to draw site traffic or turn a profit. > > "We encourage fans to speak about baseball and to produce Web sites," > said Ethan Orlinsky, senior vice president and general counsel for > Major League Baseball Properties. "We're simply asking they do it > within the confines of the law." > > The recipients of the letters sent in July and August take a > different view: It was like Roger Clemens firing fastballs at kids > from the Harlem Little League. > > Ray Kerby of http://www.Astrosdaily.com said Major League Baseball > Properties was upset by a display of vintage Astros logos he had in a > history section on the site. He was going to fold his site, but a > flood of supportive phone calls changed his mind. > > "At a time when major league baseball needs to be reaching out to > their fans, they don't even know what their attorneys are doing to > undermine that," Kerby said. > > Andelman was admonished because his Devil Rays site, > http://www.emailtherays.com, did not fulfill its tongue-in-cheek > promise to forward fans' e-mails to the team. > > Major League Baseball Properties says it's simply protecting itself > from exploitation, but some fans think it went too far. > > Frasch sells advertising on his site, http://www.bronx-bombers.com, > but said it's not even enough to cover costs. And Hoch said he sold > all of $16 worth of merchandise at his site - including $12 spent by > his girlfriend. > > Both miss the point, Orlinsky said. > > "The defense of `our site did not turn a profit' does not address the > issue of commercialization," he said. "We're not sending letters out > willy-nilly." > > The NFL takes a less aggressive approach. > > "To the extent that it's purely a noncommercial site devoted to > commentary about the team, we're supportive and happy that fans are > excited about our sport," says Paula Guibault, NFL senior > counsel. "It's not an issue for us." > > ***** > > Op/Ed - USA TODAY > Say it, sports fans: We're not going to take it any more > Wed Sep 4 > Bob Katz > > Sports fans may have dodged a bullet this time, but the whiff of > humiliation remains. As millionaire ballplayers and multi-millionaire > franchise owners wrangled over fortunes, helpless fans were left > hoping, praying, begging, pleading for a reprieve. We were spared, > but to say our weakness was exposed does not begin to tell the whole > sorry story. > > It is no secret that sports fans are the single most abused consumer > group in North America, perennially enduring such indignities as > skyrocketing ticket prices, hideous hucksterism, listless athletes > and outrageous demands for stadium subsidies that can only be called > shakedown schemes. > > What makes this so pathetic is that the fans are mostly guys. You > know: tough, fierce, unyielding, all-American action figures, the > sort who don't take no guff. Except, of course, when their precious > games and telecasts are concerned. > > How did this happen? How have so many men, schooled since boyhood in > the gritty lore of guts and glory that constitutes the running > subtheme of sports culture, become such utter wimps about standing up > for their rights? > > Perhaps it's because the only rights sports fans can imagine are the > rights to: > > * Turn off the television and go read a book (yeah, sure). > > * Turn off the television and go out and play (you try it, buddy, > with a beer in your hand after an exhausting day). > > * Switch allegiances to so-called amateur sports, such as the Little > League World Series. > > As a fan of sports but an even bigger fan of the human race, I found > the mass of pouty, dejected grandstand dudes whining as the strike > deadline neared about who done 'em wrong to be tremendously > depressing. We depend on a vigorous male population (female sports > nuts can be effectively classified as guys) unbowed by feelings of > inadequacy; yet being a fan has become essentially a primer in > impotence. > > What can be done? Let's go to the videotape. > > One method that has had excellent results during the past 226 years > is participatory democracy. Giving Americans a meaningful role in > deciding their own fate has proved a marvelous device for > invigorating attitude and performance. Why not include fans in the > ownership and governing structure of pro sports? > > I know. Pro franchises are private property, and you can't just hand > them over to the suckers who keep the system afloat. But pro teams > are already supported by many forms of public funding and de facto > subsidies. Fans should own a chunk at least commensurate with their > stake. > > A form of fan ownership already exists in Green Bay, Wis., where a > non-profit corporation controlled by more than 100,000 > shareholders/fans has influence over Packer management. This > structure ensures that the team, despite inhabiting the single worst > media market in all of pro sports, won't ever bolt for greener > pastures. Even at their most disgruntled, Packer fans can stand up > and be proud. > > Not so with the rest of us. The burning question last week -- apart > from the terms of a new union agreement -- was why baseball's fans > were so irrelevant to a process that seemingly mattered so dearly to > them. > > Yes, there's a Catch-22. Part of being a fan means wanting to stay on > the sideline, to leisurely kick back and relax, to spectate, not > participate. But part of being a man (or woman) with dignity is > standing up to defend your interests when they're threatened. > > One can, of course, maintain that none of this matters, that all > sports are ultimately just entertainment. But the high-volume > frustration and resentment pouring from fans last week suggests that > they do care -- a lot. > > Sports fans have choice names for athletes who profess to want > victory but only go through the motions. The names often imply a > question of manhood. It will be interesting to see whether those fans > now have what it takes to step up to the plate. > > Bob Katz is a freelance writer in Lexington, Mass. > > > The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at > Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to > help The Konformist through the following email address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If you are interested in a free subscription to The > Konformist Newswire, please visit: > > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist > > Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the > subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" > > (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool > catch phrase.) > > Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: > > http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/klubkonformist > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html > <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of > [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
