Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 65 anonymousDetails for NorCal1B
Real name:
Location:
,
Division:
Messages posted by NorCal1B »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| June 13, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: Bats Discussion: Miken ultra 2 cbobski - I talked to him at Reno too and he told me he wouldn't have any more bats showing up at Reno, but never mentioned that they were done making them. I'd be really surprised if they stopped. |
| May 27, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Team Ratings I always get a bit of a chuckle when a problem issue gets raised by somebody that offers no potential solution. What do you suggest DMac? It'd be nice to have some ideas to consider. |
| April 29, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: Bats Discussion: New SSUSA Bat Policy stig52 - It seems your views are in the vast minority of the membership that chose to express an opinion here on this issue - That's fine, open expressions of opinion are healthy - The issue was 'out there', and the people here seem to have made a very strong case that the SSUSA people listened to, which is a RARE treat for the dues-paying members of most membership organizations - I'm curious, too, if you are an Engineer, since you seem fairly convinced (as opposed to having an opinion) that the U2 will not meet the 1.20 bpf test? - Or is it more likely that you are the proud owner of another brand of bat (as am I)? - NC1B |
| March 7, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: MAPS to the different tournaments Gary - I like your idea in theory, but maybe an asterisk (*) would be better so it won't be confused with the usual signature of the typical TD? [grin] ... NC1B |
| Feb. 25, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: Nationals Logjam-LVSSA-HWSG-SSUSA Hi Gumper. I looked at the schedules for each of the three groups and thought they did a pretty good job in not stepping on each other's toes with metal spikes. Last year LVSSA and SSUSA ran head-to-head in some age groups, which was a situation that didn't do either group the credit they deserve for putting on major tournaments with quality competition. This year looks a lot better! There are NO head-to-head conflicts in any of the age groups, so it seems a team can play in any or all of these toiurnaments if they have the time, the desire and the $$$ (as you put it). This year it's set up like this ... 50's - SS: 10/20-23 LV: 9/23-25 H: 10/10/14 55's - SS: 10/20-23 LV: 10/7-9 H: 10/10-14 60's - SS: 10/13-16 LV: 9/30-10/2 H: 10/3-7 65's - SS: 10/17-20 LV: 9/26-28 H: 10/3-7 70's - SS: 10/17-20 LV: 10/3-5 H: 10/10-14 75's - SS: 10/17-20 LV: 9/26-28 H: 10/10-14 80's - SS: 10/17-20 LV: 10/3-5 H: n/a It's my opinion that all three groups did a very sensible job in not preventing any team from playing when and where they want. |
| Jan. 16, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: NOONE HAS BEEN BANNED FROM THIS SITE Although I'm not in a position to know, I would be shocked if anyone had EVER been banned from this message board. The occasional 'post' or 'thread' of posts goes away for violations of any of the criteria the SSUSA Staff mentioned above, and that's certainly appropriate. I've seen a LOT of message boards over the years, on a variety of topics, and this one seems to be the most tolerant BY FAR in allowing a full and open discussion on issues that are controversial or may not be in line (even partially) with the SSUSA's official positions. I find it admirable that they are so tolerant, and am hopeful that such tolerance allows the SSUSA to be open to considering alternative points of view that are so well stated here by a lot of members that truly care about our sport. Walk, I don't consider your posts to be an 'attack' at all on anyone, and although we may not always agree on things, PLEASE keep posting your well reasoned analysis and continue to be open to those that may not agree with you, too. It's ALL GOOD that way! |
| Jan. 7, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: MESSAGE BOARD POLICY Doc - If you "...know what the reasons were for it being removed...", then why ignore those reasons (of libel and recruiting potential co-plaintiffs on the defendant's OWN web-site) and resort to playing the bogus "Freedom of Speech" card? And, for the record, I am in total agreement that the underlying issue is a worthy discussion topic and one that deserves full comment and consideration here and wherever the powers that be reside |
| Jan. 7, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: What happen to the Mike Kelly Post? T-REX - You appear to be another of the growing list of people that simply miss (or ignore) the point of why "The Message" was removed. It was removed because it contained (in the view of SSUSA) libelous statements AND it was using THIS message board to recruit co-plaintiffs to join in the threatened litigation against the owner of THIS web site. Removing the message was a no-brainer, and had nothing to do with censorship. The "Softball Issue" content of his message also went away when it was removed ... It appears to me that the folks who monitor this Board remove improper messages entirely rather than edit out the offensive content ... I'd like that approach if I were the offending party, since I'd prefer that others not decide what I think is important in my post. In any event, the purely "Softball related" content of the removed message has been well stated by others here (and has NOT been deleted), and regardless of an individual's position on the merits, there has been NO censorship. The topic is getting the full airing it deserves. Just my thoughts to set the record straight |
| Jan. 5, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: MESSAGE BOARD POLICY doc - I think you may be missing (or ignoring) the reason for the message you are replying to. I believe that the deleted message was removed because the person that wrote it included libelous (in the view of SSUSA) statements and was using THIS site to recruit co-plaintiffs for a threatened lawsuit against SSUSA, the owner of THIS message board. The decision made was wise in those circumstances. Freedom of speech is very much alive and well here, regardless of the occasional message that needs to be removed, regardless of the occasional comment that is critical of SSUSA (and remains here), and despite the occasional ill informed comments that get made, such as yours. This Board is one of the best I have seen at providing an outlet for Sr. Softball players to express their views on matters of interest to all of us, and as long as we stick to the softball issues, we can all benefit greatly. |
| Jan. 4, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: What happen to the Mike Kelly Post? Thanks, Bruce, for a well stated poibnt. The matter of player eligibility is certainly one that I am confident the SSUSA would welcome to be discussed in this forum. Mike simply stepped 'over the line' (at best) in trying to recruit co-plaintiffs here at the same time he was making his point. Hopefully, the future posts on this topic will focus solely on the Softball related issue instead of potential pre-litigation strategy. |
| Jan. 4, 2005 NorCal1B | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: What happen to the Mike Kelly Post? I had the chance to read Mike's post before it went away, and must say its removal doesn't come as a big surprise. Not being on a Major/Major+ team, and not really having a stake in whatever outcome Mike hopes to gain, I don't have an opinion on his issue. But his message included info. on how to reach him to become, in effect, a co-plaintiff in his threatened lawsuit. If it were our company's web site, recruiting co-plaintiffs to sue US, and using OUR OWN web site to do so, would be something we would remove at the first chance. Just my thoughts. |
