RealityChuck

No one in football is was willing to take the job.

Ceetar wrote: it's not a copyright violation. I'm not stealing anything. I'm reading it in a forum. What if you printed it out and handed it to me? nope, not a violation.Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, you can't republish their work. Printing it out is not republishing it. What if was broadcast on my TV and I recorded it and showed it to all of you in my home? nope, not a violation.TV has a special dispensation; you are allowed to make a home recording for home use (but not for public performance). That doesn't apply to written text. My thoughts here are primarily about the news/beat type articles which are more amenable to fair use anyway.There's not clearcut rule, but fair use only allows you to use portions of a work, not its entirety. I have a hard time calling an Adam Rubin post about the '86 celebrations on Memorial Day with a few mentions about what they did in '06 as 'content' except in the strictest sense. There's not a lot of artistic work going on in a news report.Doesn't matter. It's protected by copyright. I understand that it gets murkier as it's further editorialized, but as all we're doing is furthering the discussion of a news item, with credit!, I find it hard to really worry about whether or not I clicked through to the original source or not. Technically this is a public site, and that's where the violation would come in, but it's really more of a small isolated group. It's not even crawled that well. Have there been any salient court cases differentiating a message board/forum from a more standard website/blog? I view this as much of a private discussion among like-minded individuals, like an email newsgroup or a Slack group or chat room. Any re-post is at least three clicks from a homepage. And it's like like we're setting up an RSS feed of a writer's work.Lots of rationalization here, but ultimately, the law is the creator holds the copyright and is the one who decides how the work can be reused. Not you. It's not the writer we're interested in, it's the content itself. we're discussing it. we're _transforming_ it into a discussion of the news item at hand. When I repost Rubin's 30th anniversary post and comment about how I really like the replica ring giveaway and it's much better than the lame video programming they did in 2006 that's fair use. This is news propagating and commenting and criticism and all those things governed by fair use. And there's nothing inherently special about using Rubin instead of say Maria Guardado's post on the same topic. Another example of fair use because the work itself isn't particularly creative. I suggest you actually look up fair use: § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Note #3. And #4 also comes into play, since the website is selling ads, and posting the article means fewer people see them -- which hurts them financially. I'd also like to point out that I'm pretty sure I've never copy and pasted an entire article here, I usually link and comment. I just happen to be interested in the evolving nature of media and content and how it's governed.As am I, but the difference is that I look at what the law actually says, instead of making pronouncements about how I want it to be. I think this is a great change, not only due to the law, but due to the fact that it's silly to copy an entire article to comment on it. If someone is too lazy to click on a link, that's too bad.

I saw it today (hence the topic) and loved it. I do disagree that Tarantino runs out of ideas, though. The plot is well constructed and little things that get introduced as digressions early on turn out to have importance in the final act. I didn't find it slow; the dialogue carries it in the early parts, and Tarantino is subtly building character and plot for the end. It reminded me in a way of H. P. Lovecraft's "The Rats in the Walls," a story that starts out with things that seem dull, but which end up making everything work. He's also a master storyteller, doing things with the form that no one else could carry off. I wouldn't call this his best (that's still Pulp Fiction, but he still hasn't made a bad movie.

Tarantino's latest: lots of fake blood and killer dialog about a bunch of people holed up in a store during a blizzard.

I find Scott to be wildly uneven, with a lot of crap and a few good movies. Thelma and Louise is his greatest film, but he did some good work on Blade Runner (though it's not as good as people think it is) and Matchstick Men deserved better. Gladiator is tedious nonsense and I'm surprised it's so well regarded. Cinema Sins covers it well: mF61wAxlDPY The Martian, however, is first class, maybe the second best film he's ever done. I think it worked pretty well at all levels.

It was pretty good. The difference between this and the original film is that Lucas ripped off a long list of films, where n this just ripped off Star Wars sometimes slavishly so. Entertaining, but not a great film.

Edgy MD wrote: Not sure how Johnny F. Monell gets a DFA and Kirk gets an instant waive, but these things are complicated and secretive.Not all that complicated. Both were DFAed (i.e., removed from the 40-man roster), but Kirk was claimed while Monell was not.

He fits in well, can eat up innings, and is fun to watch. What's not to like?

Fman99 wrote: Yeah, indifferent. Seems pricey to me for a guy who couldn't get/stay on the mound. That's rather shortsighted. Blevins was out because a line drive broke his friggen arm. It's not like it's a chronic condition, or that it's likely to recur.

Bartolo's contract may end up being more expensive than we think. Te Mets' one-year deal with Bartolo Colon includes a few incentives, per Jon Heyman, the highlight of which is undoubtedly a $50,000 bonus if the 42-year-old wins a Silver Slugger award.

Edgy MD wrote: Makes clear that they were inquiring on Walker before Zobrist went to Chicago. As was reported at the time.

Edgy MD wrote: I'll also suggest John McGraw's hatefulness was probably overdrawn. Note that McGraw was perfectly willing to use Black players, and tried a couple of schemes to get them onto his teams, but couldn't get them past the bigots. After he died, his widow found a list of Black players that he had wanted to sign.

MFS62 wrote: Now, what do we know about Cap Anson and whether or not it is true? He is also mentioned when talking about racism. http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-sports-heroes-then-now/2014/03/chicago-baseball-legend-cap-anson-should-not-be-in-the-hall-of-fame/ LaterOh, it's pretty clear that Anson refused to play against the Walker Brothers, thus starting the MLB color line. But I doubt his feelings about race were all that different from most of the players in that era. Heck, even abolitionists thought that Blacks were inferior (but that it was wrong to keep them as slaves). As for another example, Kenesaw Mountain Landis refused to break the color line while commissioner (not surprising for someone named for a Civil War battle). It wasn't until he died and Happy Chandler took over that it was allowed. Cobb had an abrasive public persona, so bad legends stuck to him.

I've always admired Cobb and read both of Stump's biographies. I also saw the movie (with writer/director Ron Shelton talking about it afterwards). Cobb was certainly racist, and coming from the South, it was far stronger than many northerners. Also, Cobb came out in favor of integration of baseball in the 50s, so he had a change of heart and came out in favor of integration and even named Roy Campanella and Willie Mays as some of the best he'd ever seen. As for making up things, I fact checked several items in the first biography and they matched exactly what Cobb said. And Stump was clearly a first-class writer -- his account of Cobb's trip down the mountain to Las Vegas was named to the Best Sports Writing of the Year anthology. Cobb denied sharpening spikes, saying a bunch of other Tigers put files to their spikes as another team walked by. He was condemned for spiking Home Run Baker, but pointed out that Baker didn't come out of the game and played the next few games, too (I confirmed this the old fashioned way -- by microfiche). He did attack the disabled guy in the stands, but he had no idea he was disabled, and his teammates supported him, saying he had been called something no southern man would ever stand for.* His team even went on strike to protest his suspension and only went back when Cobb told them not to endanger their careers. So it's pretty clear he was respected by his teammates. James' analysis is spot on. It was clear from the biography that Cobb was made to feel out of place from the start and fought to show that he belonged. It sounds like Leehrson is attacking a straw man -- taking the rumors that Cobb expressly denied in the first biography and implying that Stump had something to spread them, when the first book worked hard to debunk them. *It seems the epithet was "half-nigger," which especially infuriated Cobb because it implied his mother slept with a Black man.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think what he's saying is that the Mets don't want to go all in for 2016 at the expense of future seasons. Chuck isn't saying anything about "either/or".Thank you. That was my point. We don't want Sandy to be Omar Mayana -- spending now but then missing the playoffs for nine years. If he breaks the bank for a long term deal for Cespedis, in five years everyone who has posted in this thread will be complaining about how we had to let Syndergaard and Degrom and Wheeler go because we're still paying for a washed-up Cespedis.

The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that). The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

It's a concern. The options seem to be: 1. Johnny Monell, who played around 100 games at first in the minors (though his defensive numbers are shaky). 2. D'Arnaud or Pawlecki. They were talking already of having them try another position. 3. David Wright. There's been talk for years of moving him to first. Why not now? 4. Bartolo Colon. Because Bartolo can do anything. 5. Ike Davis. He's a free agent, so what the hell. 6. [crossout:39ks1tfc]John Mayberry, Jr.[/crossout:39ks1tfc]

With Cuddy gone, it would make sense to have either or both learn the position just in case.

Several sources indicate that if a player voluntarily retires, he's not paid for any of the outstanding contract. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html?_r=1&ref=sports https://www.quora.com/If-a-professional-athlete-retires-before-forefilling-his-contractual-obligations-does-he-still-receive-his-salary Cuddyer's gets paid through the end of this month, but gets no money after January 1, 2016, even though the contract was for two years.

[youtube:1oerxh5r]1RPovmMwef8[/youtube:1oerxh5r] http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2015/12/hair_we_go_again_mets_jacob_degrom_says_he_probabl.html

Montero was injured, though no one could nail down specifically what it was. That led to some frustration in the front office. But it looks like he's fully healthy now and I think he's been playing winter ball effectively. The injury is worrisome, so Verrett and Gilmartin are currently better choices, but if he's healthy, he's a viable option.

Mets make no pick and lose Matthew Bowman to the Cardinals. Becerra not taken. The lack of a move worked out.

I'd stick with what we have if Colon says no. Verrett seems to have shown fifth-starter ability; Gilmartin did a fine job as a long man, and Montero seems to have recovered from whatever was wrong with him.

The people who said is was Zobrist or nothing were just plain wrong. Before Zobrist turned them down, there were reports that the Mets were interested in Walker. December 7: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/12/7/9865356/mets-trade-rumors-neil-walker-pirates So the claim that there was no plan are just ignoring the evidence. The Mets most likely told the Pirates, "we'll trade Niese for Walker if we don't get Zobrist." The rapidity in which they made the deal shows they had laid the groundwork prior to Zobrist's decision. Oh, and Cabrera has the same agent as Zobrist. Wanna bet that signing wasn't discussed, too?

It shouldn't be hard to replace Niese in the rotation, with Gilmartin, Verrett, and Montero (remember when he was supposed to be better than deGrom?) all available even if Colon doesn't sign.