NSFW - MLB Manager/Ump Arguments

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

This video has made its rounds on the major sports websites today, but it has been removed for copyright claims by MLB from most of them. This will be taken down soon.

If MLB were smart, they would mic up every single umpire every game. They would then compile all of the arguments from managers, players, and umps for the entire season into a single video. This thing would break YouTube records:

 

[i am herdman]

They threw me out for the same thing when I was coaching 9-10 year olds.

 

[HerdFan76]

I've always thought networks could make major dollars by miking up certain coaches on a PPV basis. Mike Leach would be at the top of the list, Dabo would be a good one.

 

[Marine03]

I watched this earlier today, it’s awesome. MLB should figure out how to get this on TV daily, the ratings would double.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Saw this as well. It is phenomenal. Major props to the ump.

 

[GK4Herd]

They threw me out for the same thing when I was coaching 9-10 year olds.

My funnest year of coaching was the year I coached an 8u travel team. There just wasn’t as much of the parent ego stuff that developed when I coached the older kids. But there was a pretty memorable tournament where the parents of a Logan team and a Boone county team got into a fight during the game. This is 8u mind you. This was a losers bracket game in a double elimination tournament and the winner was going to play my team in the championship game. The umpire was a friend of mine that just happened to be a Barboursville city police. When we met at home plate for the pregame instruction stuff the umpire does, this guy pulls out his badge and says...”If your parents or coaches give me any sh** I’m hauling your ass to jail.”

Greatest thing I ever heard. I see him out a lot and I mention that story to him every time I do.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

funnest

.

Umm, teach', that's a pretty risky word to be using and be forced to defend as being grammatically correct.

 

[GK4Herd]

Umm, teach', that's a pretty risky word to be using and be forced to defend as being grammatically correct.

Um...I stand by my usage of the superlative form of fun. At least since I didn’t write it over 100 years ago. In fact so does Scott-Foresman who develops the reading/grammar texts adopted by my county. When using multi-syllable adjectives such as “beautiful”, you use “more” for the comparative and “most” for the superlative forms (more beautiful, most beautiful). But on one syllable words you use -er for the comparative and -est for the superlative (hot, hotter, hottest).

But let’s look elsewhere. This from The Grammarist website says...


“Some English traditionalists claim that the only correct comparative form of the adjectivefun is more fun, that the only superlative is most fun, and that funner and funnest are only appropriate in the most informal contexts. This rule might once have been justifiable, but today it is obsolete, and it lives on only because not enough people have dared break it. This is beginning to change, as the one-word forms have gained ground in recent decades and have even worked their way into edited writing, but there is still a long way to go.”


Even 100 years ago it would be perfectly acceptable in informal text. And I’m talking to herdman and you can’t get more informal than that. (Go ahead and challenge my starting a sentence with “and”.)


Let’s look at Grammarly....


“Fun, the Adjective
As early as the 1900s, people were using fun as an adjective in speech and informal writing. People use it to describe things or people relating to fun. Sometimes, it describes things that are whimsical. Many people, perhaps most people, strongly prefer more fun and most fun as the comparative and superlative forms of fun. Still, plenty of others label things funner and funnest. Many dictionaries acknowledge this use, but still label the adjective form as informal. Here are some examples of fun used as an adjective.



Morris is a fun guy.
Keith is more fun than Bjorn.
Keith is funner than Bjorn.
Gregory is the most fun man I ever met.
Gregory is the funnest man I ever met.


If you’re not sure which way to go, remember that more fun and most fun will raise fewer eyebrows than funnerand funnest.”


So...I stand by my usage. But God forbid (go ahead and challenge starting a sentence with “but” too) that this might be the first time you offer any concession. I await patiently for your wall of text that ignores the above because of your need to be always right.

You purist you.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Um...I stand by my usage of the superlative form of fun. At least since I didn’t write it over 100 years ago. In fact so does Scott-Foresman who develops the reading/grammar texts adopted by my county. When using multi-syllable adjectives such as “beautiful”, you use “more” for the comparative and “most” for the superlative forms (more beautiful, most beautiful). But on one syllable words you use -er for the comparative and -est for the superlative (hot, hotter, hottest).

But let’s look elsewhere. This from The Grammarist website says...


“Some English traditionalists claim that the only correct comparative form of the adjectivefun is more fun, that the only superlative is most fun, and that funner and funnest are only appropriate in the most informal contexts. This rule might once have been justifiable, but today it is obsolete, and it lives on only because not enough people have dared break it. This is beginning to change, as the one-word forms have gained ground in recent decades and have even worked their way into edited writing, but there is still a long way to go.”


Even 100 years ago it would be perfectly acceptable in informal text. And I’m talking to herdman and you can’t get more informal than that. (Go ahead and challenge my starting a sentence with “and”.)


Let’s look at Grammarly....


“Fun, the Adjective
As early as the 1900s, people were using fun as an adjective in speech and informal writing. People use it to describe things or people relating to fun. Sometimes, it describes things that are whimsical. Many people, perhaps most people, strongly prefer more fun and most fun as the comparative and superlative forms of fun. Still, plenty of others label things funner and funnest. Many dictionaries acknowledge this use, but still label the adjective form as informal. Here are some examples of fun used as an adjective.



Morris is a fun guy.
Keith is more fun than Bjorn.
Keith is funner than Bjorn.
Gregory is the most fun man I ever met.
Gregory is the funnest man I ever met.


If you’re not sure which way to go, remember that more fun and most fun will raise fewer eyebrows than funnerand funnest.”


So...I stand by my usage. But God forbid (go ahead and challenge starting a sentence with “but” too) that this might be the first time you offer any concession. I await patiently for your wall of text that ignores the above because of your need to be always right.

You purist you.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

So...I stand by my usage. But God forbid (go ahead and challenge starting a sentence with “but” too) that this might be the first time you offer any concession.

.

There is nothing to concede. Knowing that a very small number of pseudo-academics claim "funner" is correct, I knew it would be a hard argument for you to defend its use. The arguments that you presented prove that it was difficult to defend. That's why I referred to your use of it as "risky." Your own source even acknowledges that the majority of people consider it wrong. I'm not sure why you took such offense to me claiming that it is "risky" and tough to defend when your own source acknowledges that most grammar experts don't accept it.

But lets evaluate the arguments you presented for its use.

First, your source (grammarist) claims that the rule only still exists because not enough people have dared to break it. Well, isn't that something. Not enough people use it because it is considered incorrect. In other words, your source claims that grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them. That's bullshit. We had this discussion on here within the last few months. Raoul claimed that in some regions, certain grammatical errors are acceptable due to unique dialects. Again, that is bullshit. Just because a lot (or few) people use something doesn't make it right or wrong. Plenty of people in West Virginia use double-negatives. Are those acceptable since so many people use them in that region? Of course not.

Your next argument was that you were using it in an informal context which one source claims is acceptable. Fine. But you also claim to teach that to your school children since it is in a textbook. Again, that's bullshit.

I guess we now know why WV public education is one of the worst in the country.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Take your own source's word for it which you not so coincidentally failed to post:

"For now, the fact remains that 'funner' and 'funnest' are, erroneously or not, still considered unacceptable by many editors and other careful English users. So if you are writing, say, a school paper or a job application letter, you might play it safe by using more 'fun' and 'most fun'. The bias against 'funner' and 'funnest' runs deep, so we’re probably going to have to contend with it for another generation at least. Useless language proscriptions tend to long outstay their welcome."

In other words, you're teaching students to use words that your own source claims are not acceptable in the eyes of editors and "other careful English users," who I would also presume to mean college professors. Your own source even states that if writing a school paper, its a better idea to use "most fun" or "more fun" since "careful English users" don't accept your usage.

But, hey, they aren't my students who are being taught incorrectly. It's no wonder why I was shocked at how far behind West Virginia natives were in my classes at Marshall, and now I am getting some answers as to why.

Thanks, Scott Foresman!

 

[GK4Herd]

There is nothing to concede. Knowing that a very small number of pseudo-academics claim "funner" is correct, I knew it would be a hard argument for you to defend its use. The arguments that you presented prove that it was difficult to defend. That's why I referred to your use of it as "risky." Your own source even acknowledges that the majority of people consider it wrong. I'm not sure why you took such offense to me claiming that it is "risky" and tough to defend when your own source acknowledges that most grammar experts don't accept it.

But lets evaluate the arguments you presented for its use.

First, your source (grammarist) claims that the rule only still exists because not enough people have dared to break it. Well, isn't that something. Not enough people use it because it is considered incorrect. In other words, your source claims that grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them. That's bullshit. We had this discussion on here within the last few months. Raoul claimed that in some regions, certain grammatical errors are acceptable due to unique dialects. Again, that is bullshit. Just because a lot (or few) people use something doesn't make it right or wrong. Plenty of people in West Virginia use double-negatives. Are those acceptable since so many people use them in that region? Of course not.

Your next argument was that you were using it in an informal context which one source claims is acceptable. Fine. But you also claim to teach that to your school children since it is in a textbook. Again, that's bullshit.

I guess we now know why WV public education is one of the worst in the country.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Take your own source's word for it which you not so coincidentally failed to post:

"For now, the fact remains that 'funner' and 'funnest' are, erroneously or not, still considered unacceptable by many editors and other careful English users. So if you are writing, say, a school paper or a job application letter, you might play it safe by using more 'fun' and 'most fun'. The bias against 'funner' and 'funnest' runs deep, so we’re probably going to have to contend with it for another generation at least. Useless language proscriptions tend to long outstay their welcome."

In other words, you're teaching students to use words that your own source claims are not acceptable in the eyes of editors and "other careful English users," who I would also presume to mean college professors. Your own source even states that if writing a school paper, its a better idea to use "most fun" or "more fun" since "careful English users" don't accept your usage.

But, hey, they aren't my students who are being taught incorrectly. It's no wonder why I was shocked at how far behind West Virginia natives were in my classes at Marshall, and now I am getting some answers as to why.

Thanks, Scott Foresman!

K

 

[ThunderCat98]

There is nothing to concede. Knowing that a very small number of pseudo-academics claim "funner" is correct, I knew it would be a hard argument for you to defend its use. The arguments that you presented prove that it was difficult to defend. That's why I referred to your use of it as "risky." Your own source even acknowledges that the majority of people consider it wrong. I'm not sure why you took such offense to me claiming that it is "risky" and tough to defend when your own source acknowledges that most grammar experts don't accept it.

But lets evaluate the arguments you presented for its use.

First, your source (grammarist) claims that the rule only still exists because not enough people have dared to break it. Well, isn't that something. Not enough people use it because it is considered incorrect. In other words, your source claims that grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them. That's bullshit. We had this discussion on here within the last few months. Raoul claimed that in some regions, certain grammatical errors are acceptable due to unique dialects. Again, that is bullshit. Just because a lot (or few) people use something doesn't make it right or wrong. Plenty of people in West Virginia use double-negatives. Are those acceptable since so many people use them in that region? Of course not.

Your next argument was that you were using it in an informal context which one source claims is acceptable. Fine. But you also claim to teach that to your school children since it is in a textbook. Again, that's bullshit.

I guess we now know why WV public education is one of the worst in the country.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Take your own source's word for it which you not so coincidentally failed to post:

"For now, the fact remains that 'funner' and 'funnest' are, erroneously or not, still considered unacceptable by many editors and other careful English users. So if you are writing, say, a school paper or a job application letter, you might play it safe by using more 'fun' and 'most fun'. The bias against 'funner' and 'funnest' runs deep, so we’re probably going to have to contend with it for another generation at least. Useless language proscriptions tend to long outstay their welcome."

In other words, you're teaching students to use words that your own source claims are not acceptable in the eyes of editors and "other careful English users," who I would also presume to mean college professors. Your own source even states that if writing a school paper, its a better idea to use "most fun" or "more fun" since "careful English users" don't accept your usage.

But, hey, they aren't my students who are being taught incorrectly. It's no wonder why I was shocked at how far behind West Virginia natives were in my classes at Marshall, and now I am getting some answers as to why.

Thanks, Scott Foresman!

Economics, music/entertainment, politics, Constitutional law, sports, grammar, theology! F*ck it. Let's all just quit this message board thing because this m*ther f*cker here ^^^ knows it all! Don't believe me? Just ask him.

 

[i am herdman]

Umm, teach', that's a pretty risky word to be using and be forced to defend as being grammatically correct.

You ruined your own thread.

 

[GK4Herd]

First, your source (grammarist) claims that the rule only still exists because not enough people have dared to break it. Well, isn't that something. Not enough people use it because it is considered incorrect. In other words, your source claims that grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them.
I guess we now know why WV public education is one of the worst in the country.

My source claims no such thing. It says that traditionalists (the people you are siding with) say that the usage is "only appropriate in the most informal contexts." Since this was spoken in an informal setting, even the traditionalists agree that what I wrote was appropriate. It goes on further to say that this rule (the rule where it is used only in informal contexts) is obsolete today. In other words it's appropriate in formal AND informal contexts. In no interpretation of what was written does it say... "grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them."

Your misinterpretation of what the site says is indicative of what you take people to task for on this board all the time...poor reading comprehension skills.

I mean...read it again...


“Some English traditionalists claim that the only correct comparative form of the adjectivefun is more fun, that the only superlative is most fun, and that funner and funnest are only appropriate in the most informal contexts. This rule might once have been justifiable, but today it is obsolete, and it lives on only because not enough people have dared break it. This is beginning to change, as the one-word forms have gained ground in recent decades and have even worked their way into edited writing, but there is still a long way to go.”

And since you started it and chose to go low with the WV comments and called into question my teaching skills, I'm forced to defend myself. Part of my evaluation process is establishing a baseline reading level at the beginning of the school year using the Scholastic Reading Inventory. We give this test (which measures reading levels in lexiles so they can be compared to reading scores nationally) at several points during the school year. The purpose is to measure growth and compare scores to their peers nationally.

Now...the national average for growth during the course of one year is between 75-100 lexile points. You can verify that here...


https://in01000440.schoolwires.net/.../Scholastic SRI SMI parent presentation.pdf


My two classes of 56 students increased their scores from fall to spring by an average of 133 Lexile points. That blows away the national average. I had 24 of the 56 students increase their score between 150 to 350 lexile points. I had seven 4th grade students score over 1000 (1300 is desired 12th grade score) with two over 1200. All were under 1000 lexile to start the year.

So excuse me if my confidence in my teaching ability remains intact.

 

[i am herdman]

GK 35 Yagi 3

Yagi fired a opening salvo long bomb to the 20 yard line and then went 4 and out and hit the 37 yarder, just over the crossbar. GK, got pissed and went for 35 unanswered.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

"grammar rules are based on how many people adhere to them."

I said "in other words" preceding that. It wasn't a direct quote from your source, it was paraphrasing. And it is entirely accurate.

Look at what your source says:

"This rule might once have been justifiable, but today it is obsolete, and it lives on only because not enough people have dared break it."

It admits that the grammar rule "lives on" because not enough people have broken it. In other words, too many people adhere to it still, therefore, the grammar rule still lives on.

If enough people broke the rule and didn't adhere to it, the rule wouldn't be valid. In other words, grammar rules depend on how many people adhere to them according to your source.

And since you started it and chose to go low . . .
.

No, no, no. Don't turn this around on me. You were the one who went low and started the jabs. I made a light-hearted comment calling out your "risky" grammar usage. Your own source says it is a grammar hot-topic. You took offense to that comment, acted like a little bitch, and came back with jabs at me. I didn't start it or start going low. That was you.

Congratulations on the success of your students. Are you comfortable setting them up for failure on this issue? Your own source recommends not using "funner" on school papers or with "careful English users," which I am sure we both can agree would include college professors.

In knowing that, what makes you comfortable teaching them that it is correct to use "funner" knowing that it will impede their success in college?

GK 35 Yagi 3

Yagi fired a opening salvo long bomb to the 20 yard line and then went 4 and out and hit the 37 yarder, just over the crossbar. GK, got pissed and went for 35 unanswered.

You have a WV education. You can't even read the scoreboard.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Economics, music/entertainment, politics, Constitutional law, sports, grammar, theology! F*ck it. Let's all just quit this message board thing because this m*ther f*cker here ^^^ knows it all! Don't believe me? Just ask him.

I didn't claim being an economics expert. That doesn't prohibit me from calling out liarherdfan's bogus numbers, his switching statistics, and his lies regarding the topic.

And, yes, I am far more intelligent than you and far more well-rounded on subjects than you. Does that mean I am more intelligent on every subject? Of course not. But those things you mentioned? Yeah, you'd be right.

 

[GK4Herd]

I'll admit I had no clue rifle was being "light-hearted." After rereading it I can actually see how that might be the case. That being said, the exchange was fun. You can't take this stuff seriously. That's why I like herdman. Well...that and he has me winning the exchange 35-3. Sounds about right.

 

[ThunderCat98]

I didn't claim being an economics expert. That doesn't prohibit me from calling out liarherdfan's bogus numbers, his switching statistics, and his lies regarding the topic.

And, yes, I am far more intelligent than you and far more well-rounded on subjects than you. Does that mean I am more intelligent on every subject? Of course not. But those things you mentioned? Yeah, you'd be right.

Sure thing, chief.

 

[i am herdman]

You have a WV education. You can't even read the scoreboard
-------------------------------------------------------

We have something in common.