CHARLES EBBETS Proposal for WS Play

[DODGER DEB]

On December 10, 1924, 82 years ago today, MLB agreed on a proposal made by OUR CHARLES EBBETS, for a permanent rotation of World Series play. He proposed that the first two games be played in the ballpark of one of the league champions, then the next three games in the ballpark of the other league champions. Then, if necessary, the remaining two games to be played back in the ballpark of the first two games. The World Series Opening Game would alternate between the National and American Leauges cities.

c.

[The Real McCoy]

And every one of the games was played in sunshine, as World Series baseball was meant to be, and played in the early days of October when there was no chance of a game being snowed out.

But nightime World Series games, in sub-freezing weather, even on weekends when there is no conceivable reason other than preempting innane prime time televison fare, is, "pale by comparison", egregious when one considers the current method of decreeing which World Series team gets "home field" advantage. This absollute absurdity is further compounded when you contemplate that this method was decreed by a slimy Australian media baron along with his network stooges and a failed baseball owner who stumbled into his present commissioner position only because his main opposition for the job was the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who the rest of the owners had the good judgement to spot as a hoople as far back as 1992.

[DODGER DEB]

And every one of the games was played in sunshine, as World Series baseball was meant to be, and played in the early days of October when there was no chance of a game being snowed out.

But nightime World Series games, in sub-freezing weather, even on weekends when there is no conceivable reason other than preempting innane prime time televison fare, is, "pale by comparison", egregious when one considers the current method of decreeing which World Series team gets "home field" advantage. This absollute absurdity is further compounded when you contemplate that this method was decreed by a slimy Australian media baron along with his network stooges and a failed baseball owner who stumbled into his present commissioner position only because his main opposition for the job was the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who the rest of the owners had the good judgement to spot as a hoople as far back as 1992.

You make excellent points, Judge. I agree 1000% with all of them

c.

[EbtsFldGuy]

[QUOTE= This absollute absurdity is further compounded when you contemplate that this method was decreed by a slimy Australian media baron along with his network stooges and a failed baseball owner who stumbled into his present commissioner position only because his main opposition for the job was the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who the rest of the owners had the good judgement to spot as a hoople as far back as 1992.[/QUOTE]


I thought the vigilant monitoress of this board banned political commentary.

While that's the rule she applies to the rest of us, not only does she not honor it, but she adds her own disdainful comment about the President of the United States.

The do as I say, not as I do illness reigns undistiurbed here, I guess.

Can anyone spell hypocrisy?????

[DODGER DEB]

I thought the vigilant monitoress of this board banned political commentary.

While that's the rule she applies to the rest of us, not only does she not honor it, but she adds her own disdainful comment about the President of the United States.

The do as I say, not as I do illness reigns undistiurbed here, I guess.

Can anyone spell hypocrisy?????

My, my, you just can wait, can you EFG! So, so sad!

The fact is it is a statement that most real baseball fans recognize as true, since the current 1600 occupant was once the part-owner of the Texas Rangers, which is certainly baseball related...and THAT is what I was commenting about. My comment had nothing to do with politics.

I strongly suggest you put your mind in the correct place for a change.

I would also very strongly suggest you also change your tone toward this Moderator, as you continue to come real close to going "over the line" with the personal attacks.

Can YOU spell SUSPENSION?????

c.

[Jason R. Maier]

You make excellent points, Judge. I agree 1000% with all of them

c.

And so do I

[EbtsFldGuy]

My, my, you just can wait, can you EFG! So, so sad!

The fact is it is a statement that most real baseball fans recognize as true, since the current 1600 occupant was once the part-owner of the Texas Rangers, which is certainly baseball related...and THAT is what I was commenting about. My comment had nothing to do with politics.

I strongly suggest you put your mind in the correct place for a change.

I would also very strongly suggest you also change your tone toward this Moderator, as you continue to come real close to going "over the line" with the personal attacks.

Can YOU spell SUSPENSION?????

c.

Having taken a few days to reflect on all of this, I say the following.

I STAND BY MY OBSERVATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. If this board is to be what it purports to be, i.e. a place where political comments have no place, then the statement calling the President of the United States a "hoople" does not belong here. (Of course, if that is not the rule here, we can engage in discussions of other recent Presidents).

2. The monitor of this board has no business endorsing such a slander, if the above rule applies. And that she did, saying she agrees with 100% of the post.

3. There is NO personal animosity toward the monitor in what I write. I have no idea who she is, know nothing about her other than her board name, do not know her personally, and have no desire to know any of the foregoing. So, drop the lame, inapplicable lament of personal attack. There is none. Rather, I protest her selective action (and inaction). Period.

4. If, on the basis of the above honest, factual protest, I'm to be suspended from this board, go right ahead and do that. Then we will know that the
"1984" Orwellian adage that "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs" has application here - and that it's fine to attack public officials of one philosophy, but not those who hold views favored by those in control here.

Now, let's get back to baseball and our Brooklyn Dodgers, shall we?

[The Real McCoy]

Since my missive was the genesis of the current contretemps, permit me a couple of, hopefully, salient points.

First and foremost, EFG is to be congratulated for the restraint he exhibited as he "reflected" on his current response. I envy such a contemplative nature and wish, over the years, that I had exhibited such reflection before precipitously responding to opinions that I perceived were contrary to my own views.

While I doubt EFG and I would find much common ground within the framework of a discourse on "other recent presidents", it might be an interesting way to pass some time. However, as has been pointed out, by our moderator, on a number of occasions, and EFG, this forum is boundaried against such political discussion, reasoned or otherwise.

To that end, I maintain that my aforementioned missive did not violate those boundaries. I will stipulate that I used the word "hoople" and made reference to the quest of George W. Bush, who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, for the position of baseball commissioner. However, I will, in the strongest of terms, point out that I never, at least in this particular epistle, directly called GWB a hoople. Rather, I noted that it was the baseball owners, in 1992, who, overwhelmingly rejected Mr. Bush for the job of baseball commissioner and, in his stead, elected Bud Selig. If being rejected for a position which eventually goes to a candidate such as Mr Selig, whose career continues, to this date, to strive for mediocrity, does not eminently qualify one for hoopledom, then I have been seriously misusing the phrase these many years, certainly, at least, since Major Hoople disappeared from the comic strips.

I sincerely hope and trust that EFG will long continue to adorn the forum with his views and that no faint scent of suspension wafts anywhere in the air. Finally, let me, wholeheartedly, endorse his final thought.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Good thoughts, The Real McCoy.

Let's leave it to others in different venues to debate whether one who was graduated from both Yale and Harvard (MBA) and who successfully completed the arduous training required for qualification as an Air Force fighter pilot properly falls within the embrace of the definition of "hoople."

Now, back to the Brooks, hopefully.