Author |
Topic: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comments (Read 5041 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #75 on: Jun 27th, 2007, 7:44am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 26th, 2007, 11:00pm, Philly wrote:Sorry to ruffle your feathers  , Steve, but Confucius is in your wheelhouse, not mine. I have almost no interest in reading/exploring philosophy or religious precepts. It wasn't meant as a slight to you and I'm not sure why you're taking it that way. We all have different interests... |
|
Because you made it a point to go out of your way and state your (negative) sentiments about my interests,... philosophy. I lay my heart out on my sleeve so as to let yous get to know me, and the thanks I get is... reminders that this stuff I am deeply invested (not just interested) in falls on deaf ears [while I am aware of the deeper subsistent, behind-the-scenes, under-the-surface reality at play here, namely, that you guys have come to love this place and I have developed it with very that philosophy, which so doesn't interest you guys, in heart, mind and spirit; it is part and parcel of why yous love the place to the degree yous do as well as hate it at times... whether you're (openly) (dis)interested or not]. Let's face it... I'm not stupid. I pretty much know that my "suggestion" above to read the Analects is, for all intents and purposes, rhetorical. No comment would have sufficed, or an innocuous or, maybe,... gasp,... deferential or, at least, kind-hearted response would have been pleasant. I guess that's not where we're at in America today. I know, as regards this kind of stuff, I don't do the same to people. Now, I may not have as much opportunity to, as you guys do me, because most people like to remain behind their highly-built walls. That's not my problem, though. Bottom line, if people we're more open about whence they were coming "interest"-wise/philosophically, I wouldn't make mere quips. Depending on what it is, I may be willing to counterposition myself, but then I'd do so rather thoroughly (as yous know all too well), and not just throw the jibe out there, and be willing to take it to the deeper levels necessary to show that I care both about the thing in question and the person's feelings about said thing. On the other hand, as is often the case, if I am not interested, I just pass it over. I surely don't make it a point to insert a disagreeable one(or so)-liner just for the hell of it that may make the guy feel bad (a dynamic made all the more poignant when said guy is the guy who runs the joint, moreover, in accordance with said philosophy that he takes very seriously).
In any event, what did you mean by the following?
Quote:| I have almost no interest in reading/exploring philosophy or religious precepts. |
|
The word "precepts" is what's throwing me. A sub-text goes here, but I'll hold it back for the time being (not that it's very incendiary, but very thought-through and pointed).
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2007, 7:48am by Stegfucius » |
 Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #78 on: Jun 27th, 2007, 4:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2007, 9:13am, Philly wrote:| ...there's no subtext there for me, conscious or otherwise. |
|
Annnnnd,...  let's commence 07's miscommunication festival (with readings in the worst possible light)!!! (Let's see if we can't head this off at the pass this year...) Granted, maybe this wasn't 100% clear, but here's what I wrote:
Quote:| The word "precepts" is what's throwing me. A sub-text goes here, but I'll hold it back for the time being (not that it's very incendiary, but very thought-through and pointed). |
|
I thought it was fairly clear I was talking about myself. I'm not pretentiously attributing any subtext to your writing. I'm not going to put words in your mouth. If I were talking about you, what I've put in bold in the quote above would be pretentious beyond the pale.
As regards the subtext behind what I'm writing,... let me throw this out there...
"...if reason were to be fully true to itself, then it must respect certain basic rules. The first of these is that reason must realize that human knowledge is a journey which allows no rest."
Any (quick) thoughts on that (Jeff)? Is it worth the while? Insightful? Inspirational? Pithy? Or, garbage? Bullshit? Stupid? Or, just nothing comes to mind,... next?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #80 on: Jun 28th, 2007, 5:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
"Decidedly different"... Huh?  I'm not so sure about that, but if that's what you think... 
To elaborate my subtext...
I know that the word "precept" can also mean something along the lines of a guide or teaching. But, when I hear it, I think rule, maxim, imperative, etc. In fact, that's how I would typically use it. The point being, in that latter sense of the word, and this is the point relevant here that I'm screaming out to the world,  Confucius is NOT about precepts (as in rules, maxims or imperatives), Pope John Paul II/Karol Wojtyla is NOT about precepts, His Holiness The Dalai Lama/Tenzen Gyatso is NOT about precepts, Laozi and Zhuangzi are NOT about precepts, it is needless to say that Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger, Sartre and that crew are NOT about precepts, but neither are Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and the later Stoics. Phenomenology, Existentialism, Personalism, Classical Chinese Thought, and Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy are NOT about precepts. This is a big part of my point. Now, that's not to say that they have absolutely no precepts. Everybody, at a point, does. It's just that, contrary to what one might think (especially about guys like JPII and HHDL), their philosophical (and, to a large degree, even religious) outlooks are not about precepts.
Now, if you are saying that you aren't into exploring precepts as in religious or philosophical "teachings", I'm at a loss because I don't know of any others... that matter... at the end of the day. Surely, when one lays one's head on the pillow at night or takes that hard look in the mirror, it should be neither the "teachings" nor maxims of, let's say, professional sports accounting that's running through his or her mind.
BUT,... I digress... That quote above that you too appreciate is a precept... in that narrower sense of rule, maxim, imperative. And, though I wouldn't call it a religious precept per se, the fact of the matter is that it does appear in Church doctrine, the encyclical Fides et Ratio by none other than POPE JPII. But, rhetorically speaking, how does one, nay, how do you reconcile your indubitably right-headed appreciation of that quote with your declaration of indifference towards philosophical and/or religious writings and sayings. Ask yourself, "can one be 'fully embarked on that journey'" while having "no interest in reading/exploring philosophy or religious precepts"???  I don't know. Maybe so. But, I would say don't (bother) answer(ing) me. Answer yourself. 
One last note, a reminder, "Philosophy" is never leaving this place. It is what I do, what I love, what pushes me to press on in ventures like this, what guides me in my running of and vision for this place, and, frankly speaking, it is what has given me the critical, creative and logical thinking skills to acquire the computer skills that allow this place to even exist, and incorporating my two loves of Fantasy Football and Philosophy is what makes this place worth the fight for me.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #82 on: Jun 28th, 2007, 11:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 28th, 2007, 9:29pm, Larsen89 wrote:| Reggie Brown was picked by me at #83 |
|
It's been removed... I say to get this thing to 100 or, preferably, as I stated above, 120, we go ahead and break the "wait for two guys to pick before picking again" rule and just get a move on here.  ...  Let's do it, boyz!!! 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
|
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #84 on: Jun 29th, 2007, 4:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The Master rankings list in the initial post has been updated through pick 102. As I had said, I'd like to get this thing to, at least, pick 120, fellas, as that equals 10 rounds for your run-of-the-mill 12-team league. Remember, at this point, you can go every other person.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #86 on: Jul 1st, 2007, 1:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 30th, 2007, 9:35pm, cwhams wrote:I guess I'm about the only person that likes kickers and defense? About time to draft a few kickers maybe? The top four defenses are gone. But unless I'm missing something Kaeding is the only kicker gone. Realistically, 114 picks in, I think most leagues would have probably at least three kickers to go along with the four D's.  |
|
D/ST's, yes... Place-kickers, no... We're in the tenth round of your run-of-the-mill 12-team draft. Of course, this is contingent on the roster size of the teams, but I don't see many, if any, kickers going in the first ten rounds. That said, Marques Tuiasosopo in the 15th round was a WAY worse pick than Neil Rackers in the 6th in last year's CBFL draft. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #91 on: Jul 1st, 2007, 6:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This is the negative side of announcing a pick limit beforehand...
on Jul 1st, 2007, 12:49pm, Larsen89 wrote:My #117, I had to show some  to my beloved  's .  |
|
Well, Larsman, we're going to have a disagreement again, I fear. If you wanted to make a token pick at this point and take one of your beloved Vikings, why not go with Troy Williamson? Besides having fun (I guess that was fun), I'm working my ass off to make this site a useful resource that will attract people. This (kind of) pick only serves to discredit our rankings list here that we put good effort into putting together to anybody looking in and sniffing around. Look,... don't get me wrong! This is not a huge deal. But, how a product is made GREAT is attention to detail. That is a concern of mine as owner and operator of the site. I don't know if I can call any rankings as of July 1st, 2007 "great" that has the, currently at best, #3 wideout on a team with somewhat of a mess at quarterback listed in the Top 120 when the #'s 1 and 2 wideouts didn't even make the list.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #93 on: Jul 2nd, 2007, 11:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Just to wrap this English lesson up...
on Jun 26th, 2007, 5:37pm, StegRock wrote:I'm almost certain you've got it, Philster!  The first is surely right. 
Dubs doesn't like that Peterson pick. -> I don't like that Peterson pick, too. =/or I too don't like the Peterson pick.
The latter two sentences are equivalent in meaning, viz., they express my (subsequent) agreement with Dubs. |
|
The "other" meaning, the one when the comma is elided, as I think Jeff was saying, would run something like this...
I don't like that Peterson pick. -> I don't like that LenDale White pick too. OR (to bring this around full-circle) I don't like that LenDale White pick either.
Here, instead of indicating agreement with another person, what is being conveyed is a list (of things in relation).
NOTICE there is NO comma there between "pick" and "too" (or "either"). That is because "too" (or "either") goes with "pick" [the (direct) object].
In the other case (I too don't like the Peterson pick./I don't like the Peterson pick, too./I don't like the Peterson pick, either.), "too" (or "either") goes with "I" (the subject). That is why a comma isn't required between "I" and "too", but IS required between "pick" and "too" (or "either").
Got it...??? 
Also, just to get the grammar straight here, "goes with" (which I use in my explanations above) is not grammatical terminology. "Modify" is. Strictly speaking, "too" is functioning as, in fact, basically exclusively functions as an adverb (of degree) (I cannot off the top of my head think of its having any other grammatical function). Adverbs don't modify nouns or pronouns (like "pick" or "I"). In the sentence "I don't like that LenDale White pick too.", strictly speaking, "too" is modifying the (object) verb phrase "don't like that LenDale White pick", whereas, in the sentence "I too don't like that Peterson pick." or "I don't like that Peterson pick, too.", "too" is modifying the (subject) verb phrase "I don't like". ... The same would stand if we plugged "either", which is also (almost exclusively used as) an adverb, in.
Incidentally, why "either" cannot immediately follow the subject, in the case above "I", is just a matter of vocabulary usage. I would guess that it relates to its other "conjunctive" usage (as in "either/or").
...
My dad always said, "Make sure to learn something new every day." 
...
I knew you guys weren't sleeping well at night not having this hammered  out...
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #95 on: Jul 3rd, 2007, 4:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That said, though language surely does evolve, a) the vast majority of things won't evolve during a lifetime or two, b) the "big" things don't change for 100's or even 1000's of years at a time, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, c) things grammatical, at any given moment, still make sense if thought through. To say that language evolves is not to say that the evolution of language is haphazard. (This is why "forced" grammatical moves/systems like Ebonics, with its demand to end verb conjugation, or languages like Esperanto don't go anywhere, at least not for a very long time and usually not ever.) If you think it through, like we have here with "too" and "either", there is a sense to it. It's not magic. Now, where there is disagreement in the reasoning about the grammar, no less reasoning that causes the "experts" to differ on what they think is correct or incorrect grammar, I get Nietzschean about it. I say go with the interpretation/argument that is the most well-reasoned. I mean... since the process of grammar is one of evolution, "rules" per se are not going to be the key characteristic feature of grammar. As such, it's best not to adopt grammatical "dogma", i.e. accept rules based on "authority" alone, without explanation. Mind you, that's not to say that it cannot be explained. Just try to do so yourself or find someone who can or, at least, can help you to. That's what I did (in the discussion) above. Whether or not you care about English grammar, this is your language, and this stuff is great brain exercise... that I think has a great payoff, namely keeping the mind sharp, especially as we all progress on into old age. Trivia knowledge, like that in crossword puzzles and on game shows, doesn't get the job done, doesn't get the synapses firing. (I actually have a theory about Alzeimer's and America, and it deals with academic laziness.) ... All this said as I get ready to head out to teach my first ESL/EFL class in almost five years. To bring "yous" (if "yous" haven't noticed, I'm pushing that modification of the second-person plural pronoun; hopefully it will catch on... 200 years from now ) up to date, the first job I've procured for myself here in the immediacy (of this tender, what is likely to be, long transitional period) is a General English class at Kaplan. Good bang for the buck, but I still need full-time work.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19639
Back to top
|
 |
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #98 on: Jul 4th, 2007, 6:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 4th, 2007, 10:05am, cwhams wrote:Language...grammar...speech...really it is all about commnication. Over thinking...over writing...over talking...in most cases does not convey good communication to the vast majority of society.
There is a place for deeper thought...writings...and speeches in the formulation of a philosophy. But to garner interest in that philosophy and perpetuate its existence a person must learn to communicate succinctly, perhaps even charismatically.
Whether you are a student of literature or a Christian, the Bible may be a good example of great communication. It is so simple a child can understand, yet so deep that a philosopher will grapple a life time to understand.  |
|
MC may like this. I'm not getting much out of it...
Vis-a-vis what I wrote here...
on Jun 28th, 2007, 5:17pm, StegRock wrote:| One last note, a reminder, "Philosophy" is never leaving this place. It is what I do, what I love, what pushes me to press on in ventures like this, what guides me in my running of and vision for this place, and, frankly speaking, it is what has given me the critical, creative and logical thinking skills to acquire the computer skills that allow this place to even exist, and incorporating my two loves of Fantasy Football and Philosophy is what makes this place worth the fight for me. |
|
...I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, man. But, I know what you have accomplished.  I know I'm not at all taking to it kindly, "it" being what I'm taking to be the insinuation, at least, that this is not the place for (my) expressions of deep philosophical thought and that I don't present things sufficiently succinctly or charismatically (mind you, there is nothing succinct or necessarily charistmatic about Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, and the list GOES ON; included in the list of modern-day succinct, charismatic communicators of their philosophies are Jim Jones, David Karesh, Charles Manson, and the list GOES ON). I have no interest in living my life, which includes very much so running this web site, based on (what is, at least, tantamount to) bumper-sticker slogans. This is all very consistent with my distaste for "one-liners" (one-line responses), especially in an environment of cyber communication. They cause these on-line message boards to turn into meaningless drivel, and they can easily get "'mis'taken" and be a cause of hurt feelings. Substantive, in-"depth" commentary (of all sorts) is what I thought you guys loved about this site, in any event.
on Jul 4th, 2007, 1:27pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:Here...Here ! I agree Ham  but......this thread has taken a turn towards belonging over on the Sidelines I think....Stegger??? |
|
You agree. With what is it that you are actually agreeing, MC? There's little to nothing there (of all too much value).
Anyway, NO, this thread is right where it belongs, MC. AS I HAVE ALWAYS STATED, threads take on a life of their own, and I'm not going to stop that. Assuming it's not a "pick" thread, where neatness of format and sticking to the point of the thread is necessary in terms of organization, as long as it was originally appropriately placed and done so forthrightly, it is free to naturally meander. I want people to truly get to know one another (which takes more than one-liners, and even paragraphs for that matter) and would never consider stifling a discussion that's going on. There may be cases where threads are best off moved (to "the Sidelines"), but discussions should not be forcibly "sidelined", and, at any rate, the need to move a thread in this kind of situation is going to be rather rare. This surely isn't one of them, all things considered (namely the "official" function this thread is serving). If your point is just to silence me (on my site),... well,... (smiley left out to spare you of my true feelings right now)
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 5th, 2007, 4:25pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
|
Re: 1st "Huddle" Rankings/Mock Draft of '07 - Comm
« Reply #99 on: Jul 4th, 2007, 6:59pm » |
Quote Modify
 Remove
|
on Jul 4th, 2007, 6:31pm, StegRock wrote:
You agree. With what is it that you are actually agreeing, MC? There's little to nothing there (of all too much value). |
|
Value is in the eyes of the beholder (How's that for a one-liner or a bumper sticker slogan?)
Quote:
Anyway, NO, this thread is right where it belongs, MC. AS I HAVE ALWAYS STATED, threads take on a life of their own, and I'm not going to stop that. Assuming it's not a "pick" thread, where neatness of format and sticking to the point of the thread is necessary in terms of organization, as long as it was originally appropriately placed and done so forthrightly, it is free to naturally meander. I want people to truly get to know one another (which takes more than one-liners, and even paragraphs for that matter) and would never consider stifling a discussion that's going on. There may be cases where threads are best off moved (to "the Sidelines"), but discussions should not be forcibly "sidelined, and, at any rate, the need to move a thread in this kind of situation is going to be rather rare. This surely isn't one of them, all things considered (namely the "official" function this thread is serving). |
|
Sounds good to me, I love the life that these threads take on...I'm not trying to railroad it, it just seems to me that this is the kind of conversation that normally is SEEN over on the Sidelines.
Quote:
If your point is just to silence me (on my site),... well,... (smiley left out to spare you of my true feelings right now) |
|
Silence you????? No ... never! Never, ever, ever, try to spare me your true feelings...I can (actually prefer) to take my lumps...or medicine...or hand-slap....or dogging....or whatever it is that's being dished out. There is no need to ever spare my feelings anywhere on this site...I just can't get my feelings hurt in this stuff!
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2007, 7:01pm by MordecaiCourage » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
I was hoping we'd make it to, at least, 120, which would equal 10 rounds for your run-of-the-mill 12-team league... 
Sorry about the Reggie pick...just missed it. 
Also, if it happened to be intentional, I appreciated you guys' leaving me the last pick. That was nice! The Master list in the initial post of this thread is complete. 
12 teams, 10 rounds, we got 'em there! I look forward to our second "Huddle" of 2007. 