Weird Times at HH High

But as far as I'm concerned, Sweden/Norway is like tomayto/tomawto. (;

As to Friedman and his sticking up for corporate interests, he doesn't...at least not directly.  In fact he rails against corporations that try and rig the "rules of the game" [let's be clear, he's not a big fan of every rule in "the game" either] by currying favor from lawmakers just as any other special (self) interest groups do.  No, Friedman's point about free markets is that in order to be free, people must have property rights...and when they have property rights they are free to exchange their property with others in exchange for the property of their trading partner - even if that partner is a corporation.  And if they decide to engage in this exchange they'll come to an agreement on the terms of the exchange, free of coercion, and the parties will each value what they are about to gain.  Is their some portion of that philosophy of Friedman's that is particularly offensive more so than say "domestic dictators"?  Or maybe it's Friedman's principled stance on freedom that you find so odious.  

• I do not believe that any of those politicians that you mention are dictators, for they garnered the most votes (electoral processes excluded) in a free and fair election by the people: that cannot be dictatorship.  Now, if you had used the term "central planner", I could find pols of both stripes to place on the example list.  And that list could grow quite long.
• I wasn't the first in our discussion break out the "critical thinking" phrasology from today's euphamistic and ideological lexicon; assuming that's what affect you were going for.  I did, however, use it (and I believe properly) as two ordinary words used together in a sentence that gave meaning to a thought process that had anayzed information before forming an opinion.
• I agree with you regarding environmental degradation but I have also read where markets -- and conferring as many private property rights as possible to air and water resources -- have reduced degradation.  Extolling markets is not the same as condoning corporate abuses to the environment or condoning questionable marketing practices to people (children) that are not rational/educated enough to participate in trade.  Fortunately, many children are not in positions to trade, because they typically have nothing of pecuniary value to offer in the market place.  That does not stop children from pestering their parents, though, for stuff that they have seen on television or in other advertisements.  My kids have to give me something of value (completion of chores that I'd have to do if not for them) before I give them cash -- and I pay them a flat fee per the job.  If they want stuff that they've seen, they're buying it.  And you know what, typically they wont do the chores at the price I'm offering -- I want to raise the rates in order to get them to do more but their mom argues that what we're offering is a fair wage; and she's supposedly, at least in her eyes, the more compassionate one.  No matter, after hearing the words "If you want it, then do some work and purchase it yourself", my children have not been coerced by the marketing schemes of evil corporate bullies any longer because they now know what needs to be done in order to get the maliciously peddled trinkets....well, maybe it does happen every once in a blue moon when a birthday or Christmas is coming around.

In some ways, his foaming at the mouth has attracted some trolls who want to poke him with a stick, but he's set that precedent by writing the stuff he does.  Then again, writing the stuff he does has attracted a fairly large Angel audience.  I'm really suggest that A's fans just stay away.  It may be fun to poke a wild dog, but you're a bigger person if you stay away.

I didn't go over the HH to start a fight, I went over there to learn more about the Angels. I wanted to know what die-hard Angel fans thought about their roster, who they thought was for real and who was hype.

As for me getting banned, it was a chickenshit move on Rev's part and the funny thing is only one poster agreed with his action. But to ban someone just because you can is an abuse of power and my over-riding question is this: Does SB Nation want to associate with a blogmaster who has the impulse control of a 6 year old?

I think such an association would be bad for business. I know such an association is bad for developing a community of sports blogs.

HH?  I don't even bother having an account.  Can't imagine ever wanting to say anything there.  Whatever.  Their loss.

I didn't realize the intent of SB Nation was some kind of Seperate but Equal community of sports blogs. I like to talk about trade ideas, that's my thing when I post a diary. I use the SB links to go talk to people who follow other teams so I can try and get a feel for how valuable a player is to his home team before I target him in a trade suggestion.

That's the type of community I thought SB Nation was trying to build. I'm sorry to hear that I was wrong.

But I'm also a fan of baseball. I have accounts on 7 or 8 other sbnation sites, and I go there regularly not just to read, but also discuss things with them. If I want to know more about Billy Butler I'll go to Royals Review and ask them, and have a nice discussion. If I want to find out how Ben Sheets was coming along in his rehab earlier this season, and if people who know think he'll be the same pitcher he was before, I'll fo to the Brewers site. I've exchanged comments and emails with Jeff from LL, who has been as good a blogmaster as you can ask for.

Being an A's fan does not preclude me from being interested in other teams, in the sense that I enjoy watching baseball. If I wanted to talk about the Angels development of players from the Dominican, I'd go to HH. Of course, I won't since Rev is there. I go other places for that kind of discussion.

to be honest, as a member of AN and other sites, I'm bothered by your methods of running SB nation sometimes. If all that matters is "attracting an audience", and the way someone behaves is unimportant, that bothers me. Is it really worth the extra few dollars to have an embarassment like Rev represent your company in a market like LA? I'm certain that given a better blogmaster, there would be an initail dropoff of some Angels fans leaving HH, but the resulting boom from having a good leader would more than make up for it.

I don't go to HH anymore because I don't want to be driven nuts and I have no interest in talking to Angels fans. I just don't care, no interest in the blog because it sucks and I don't want to give the Rev hits... I'm just praying like hell that he doesn't get a cut of any of the money that comes from the hits and advertising on more kickass SBN sites.

However, I am a regular reader of LL and MCC, and it just strikes me as funny that SBN is purported to be a community, yet we shouldn't be there because "that's not why they're there".

I love the A's, but I'm also a fan of the game -- seems like a lot of us here are. Baseball, more than ever, isn't in a vacuum. It's FUN to follow ex-A's and cheer on their successes with their new fans. It's FUN to discuss trades and find out scouting reports from the fans who saw the new players every day. It's FUN to read about minor leaguers from other teams and what other teams are up to.

Maybe that's how you see the community, as being completely segregated, but it seems short-sighted to assume everyone enjoys the game like that. Plus, some of the bloggers you got are friggin' HILARIOUS, how are we supposed to NOT read them and appreciate them?

Unless there's gonna be a goddamn loyalty oath when I sign up for an SN, dictating which team I will love, I think it's extremely silly to try and tell us which SB sites we're "supposed" to go to.