maybe I read it wrong too, I dunno all these rumours, difficult to keep up with

the train will be funded through future bond sales, cutting back on cops, etc. is happening now because of poor budget management and selfish fucks that don’t want to pay any taxes (possibly because they’re the idiots that bought houses they couldn’t afford).

I didn’t realize their budget management was that bad. 80% of the city’s budget to police and firefighters after all the post 9/11 feel-good nationalistic bullshit to pay cops more? Classic.

Way too much of the CA economy was based on the housing boom, and now that the housing market has crumbled, we’re starting to see the effects. Stockton, once the fringe suburb of the bay area for those who desperately wanted homes (but could not afford them), is becoming a ghost-town. Same thing with Vallejo. And there are plenty of empty housing development out in the central valley that are going to rot.

I believe this is what you refer to as a market correction.

It’s an interesting issue, given the state of the CA budget. Any time you issue bonds, you’re taking money out of the general fund, so that “no new taxes” line is a bunch of shit. I like the idea of high speed rail and it would create jobs, but at the same time, can CA afford it? I’ll probably vote yes, because unlike the Iraq war, this is something I’m comfortable having other people’s children and grandchildren pay for.

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:01:24 -0400
> From: [Sky]
> To: [larry]
> Subject: BtB
>
> Hey Larry, I just wanted to explain why I hid your comment in the
> Halloween thread. Namely, let’s keep the Keith Law discussion in the
> Keith Law thread. I’m also a little disappointed in the quality of
> discussion in THAT thread (and not just from you), but I’m going to
> keep that one going for now in hopes that we might have some sort of
> positive resolution.
>
> Like I mentioned in one comment, Beyond the Boxscore is a bit
> different from team-specific blogs in that the goal is intelligent
> baseball discussion and not just shared fandom of one team. We have
> less patience for disrespect, and don’t give people the benefit of the
> doubt that a comment was a joke instead of a personal attack, no
> matter how trivial it might seem. I’d like to think there’s still
> room for humor, but we shoot for productive conversation over banter
> for the sake of banter. If you’re cool with that, we’d love you to
> stick around and keep an eye on our group-think.
>
> Sky

It’s your site, Sky. If my commentary (and others) isn’t a fit for it that’s fine – no worries on my part. It does seem odd that a post basically asking for banter isn’t allowed to have my banter. I guess my costume idea wasn’t deemed quite as intelligent baseball discussion as the Pujols one – apparently your call. But I understand that you guys strive for a certain discourse and that’s great – important thing to have on the web. Perhaps, if I might suggest, you include that in the terms one agrees to when one signs up for the site so it isn’t a surprise when posts like mine are deleted. Also, you may consider not inviting bantering posts through such posts as the one in question, which asks for halloween costumes (Pujols as a deity doesn’t strike me as all that intelligent baseball discussion – but maybe that’s the problem, hmm?), or the other, which posts an apparent joke from a Keith Law chat. If you want serious, intelligent baseball discussion to predominate, you should stick to that. Otherwise, it starts to smack of selective decisions and hypocrisy when you start to say some stuff is okay, other stuff is not, that is intelligent, that is not. Like I said above, it’s your site – but if it’s not clear what the rules are and you’re ruling by whatever I think fiat, it makes it a site at which people don’t want to post.

like wiz famously said, what is this – china?

one of the primary reasons i’m posting this stuff is because i (and others) link to BTB frequently. so people may as well know what is expected of them if they decide to post over there.

but that’s semantics. we’re certainly on a similar page.