TRIVIA....When Aaron Judge hits his 61 HR's, 2 coincidences result . What are they ?

[RCMcKenzie]

All 3 played right field. That was the answer to the question. The OP was looking for the best answer, which was not provided.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

All 3 played right field. That was the answer to the question. The OP was looking for the best answer, which was not provided.

Go back and read the question again. I've already spelled out how the way it was asked and posed doesn't include Ruth. If it was intended to include Ruth, then the first part answer is wrong then. Otherwise, explain to me then what Ruth has to do with the coincidence of Maris and Judge having hit 61 home runs, 61 years apart. Because from where I'm sitting it has absolutely nothing to do with Ruth.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by BobC

Go back and read the question again. I've already spelled out how the way it was asked and posed doesn't include Ruth. If it was intended to include Ruth, then the first part answer is wrong then. Otherwise, explain to me then what Ruth has to do with the coincidence of Maris and Judge having hit 61 home runs, 61 years apart. Because from where I'm sitting it has absolutely nothing to do with Ruth.

Bob, I have to admit, I don't always read all of your posts, not because they are long, but because they are not double-spaced, and I'm in my mid 50's, and can't see as well as I used to. You and Ted are good posters in my book. I try not to get sideways with other folks on here, but I do anyway.

I guess my concern is...who are all these new advertisers that Leon has?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Bob, I have to admit, I don't always read all of your posts, not because they are long, but because they are not double-spaced, and I'm in my mid 50's, and can't see as well as I used to. You and Ted are good posters in my book. I try not to get sideways with other folks on here, but I do anyway.

I guess my concern is...who are all these new advertisers that Leon has?

LOL

Great question. I actually just got done PM'ing Leon to let him know about the porno site links being posted. I did a quick check and they had already started over 20 new threads. I would definitely not go clicking on any links in those threads as you don't know if those actually are porn site links, or links to some virus, malware, or who knows what. Be careful.

[cammb]

Since there was no money involved, why all the hoopla?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by cammb

Since there was no money involved, why all the hoopla?

Slow day on the boards

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Go back and read the question again. I've already spelled out how the way it was asked and posed doesn't include Ruth. If it was intended to include Ruth, then the first part answer is wrong then. Otherwise, explain to me then what Ruth has to do with the coincidence of Maris and Judge having hit 61 home runs, 61 years apart. Because from where I'm sitting it has absolutely nothing to do with Ruth.

Or you could be gracious and just let it go...

[mr2686]

Geez, and I thought it was rough over on the autograph side. LOL

[deucetwins]

All trivia questions will now need to be proofread by Leon before posting in order to prevent rant rage at 01:15 on the board. Frank is excluded from this clause.

[Fred]

If Judge hits it on October 1, then they both hit it on October 1 against the same team and exactly 61 years apart.

Edited to add, just caught up with the rest of the thread. I should have stopped reading after the fist page...

And now I just read Judge hit the HR today (Wednesday, 28SEP22) in another country. Sheesh... Apple pie, Chevrolet, eh hoser...

[ullmandds]

im glad he finally got that over with!!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Geez, and I thought it was rough over on the autograph side. LOL

Sorry Mike, didn't intend to put you in the middle of something. LOL But I thought you should get credit for the right answer. And you'll notice all the naysayers have accused me of being harsh or ungracious, but none of them have said anything to actually show or prove I was wrong in what I said. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by BobC

Sorry Mike, didn't intend to put you in the middle of something. LOL But I thought you should get credit for the right answer. And you'll notice all the naysayers have accused me of being harsh or ungracious, but none of them have said anything to actually show or prove I was wrong in what I said. Funny how that works, isn't it?

I'm just waiting for my 1st place prize...one week in Cleveland right? I hear 2nd prize is 2 weeks in Cleveland. LOL

[G1911]

Blocklists are great for people who flip out over trivia.

There will probably be some cool Maris/Judge combo cards next year if he hits 1 or more homers to commemorate the event.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or you could be gracious and just let it go...

Or the other party could man up and admit they may have been wrong........

I didn't start this, I was simply pointing out that there was an error made, and another poster got slighted. Tell me what is possibly wrong with doing that?

But then the response/defense from some on here, escalating what was a simple factual statement of fact, got in the way once again. And then when I do respond in my defense, I get chastised for daring to defend myself. Had the OP just said they missed the post with the right answer, or that maybe their question wasn't quite as clear as they thought, that would have been a super way to handle it. I never intended to make another post in this thread after that one. I had said my peace and had already let the subject go.........till others then started on me.

Now go look in a mirror and repeat to yourself exactly what you were saying to me in your quote above.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You did it in an unncessarily contentious way, like it was a courtroom -- anticipating his response and then repudiating it, etc. Then you doubled down. You easily could have made the same point in a light non confrontational way. It's just a trivia question, if Ted didn't frame it well, so what, once we saw his answer we knew what he meant.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You did it in an unncessarily contentious way, like it was a courtroom -- anticipating his response and then repudiating it, etc. Then you doubled down. You easily could have made the same point in a light non confrontational way. It's just a trivia question, if Ted didn't frame it well, so what, once we saw his answer we knew what he meant.

Peter.....Why are you wasting your time with this jerk, (Bob C) ?

Mike Richardson (post #19) only alluded to 2 right-fielders....not 3, which was the answer I was looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has HI-JACKED ! this thread with his persistent "broken-record bull-crap" ! !

He's the one who should apologize to all of us....as he mis-interpreted the 2nd part of this quiz.

A picture is worth "1000 words". And, I posted my THREE cards of of the BB players involved in this TRIVIA quiz. Perhaps, he is mathematically- challenged....and, only counts TWO.
Or, most likely he belongs to the "toxic -social-media" crowd, and thinks he can get away with his "toxicity" on Net54.

Hey man.....we are waiting for your APOLOGY.....or get the hell off my thread ! And NEVER again post your crap on any of my Net54 threads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




----


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Peter.....Why are you wasting your time with this jerk, (Bob C) ?

Mike Richardson (post #19) only alluded to 2 right-fielders....not 3, which was the answer I was looking for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has HI-JACKED ! this thread with his persistent "broken-record bull-crap" ! !

He's the one who should apologize to all of us....as he mis-interpreted the 2nd part of this quiz.

A picture is worth "1000 words". And, I posted my THREE cards of of the BB players involved in this TRIVIA quiz. Perhaps, he is mathematically- challenged....and, only counts TWO.
Or, most likely he belongs to the "toxic -social-media" crowd, and thinks he can get away with his "toxicity" on Net54.

Hey man.....we are waiting for your APOLOGY.....or get the hell off my thread ! And NEVER again post your crap on any of my Net54 threads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




----


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Actually, your wording was When Aaron Judge hits his 61 HR's, 2 coincidences result. The answer of Judge and Maris hitting 61 and being right fielders is correct. Since Ruth didn't hit 61, why would you include him unless you meant that they all hit over 60 and played right field...which means it wouldn't matter if Judge hit 61 or not. No big deal really, just not worded in the way you wanted the answer.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You did it in an unncessarily contentious way, like it was a courtroom -- anticipating his response and then repudiating it, etc. Then you doubled down. You easily could have made the same point in a light non confrontational way. It's just a trivia question, if Ted didn't frame it well, so what, once we saw his answer we knew what he meant.

Exactly what I'd expect from you, along with comments about how you seem to know exactly what people did or didn't mean. And quit trying to put words in my mouth or telling me what I was or wasn't trying to do. I didn't double-down on anything or try to be contentious. I merely stated what looked to me to have been a previously given correct answer by someone, given what the OP finally said the answer was.

And did it ever occur to you that I pointed out my reasoning for why I believed the OP's question was flawed so that I at least tried to support my position and opinion? Had I simply said mr2686 already gave the correct answer, and nothing else, I would likely have been shot down and chastised by the likes of you or others anyway for daring to say something you may have thought of as stupid, and with no logic, reason, or evidence to support it. If there's one thing I've learned from this forum, it's to state your reasoning, logic, and evidence up front so you can't be put down for not having any. But I guess that doesn't work or help either because even when you do state up front why you believe something, people, like yourself maybe, will then just take and twist that and try to find another way to blame you and make it look to others like you'reyy the one who was wrong.

But wait, that's right, you know more accurately what I'm thinking and what I mean than I ever could. Thank God you told me I was trying to be mean and confrontational with someone else, I thought I was just being honest and factual. I am so glad you can discern from my printed words exactly what my thoughts and intentions were. (And yes, that is pure sarcasm directed at you for having the audacity to tell me that I somehow didn't know what I meant or was thinking, but you do. How dare you!)

And in the meantime, like I've seen and encountered from so many contrarians and naysayers on this site before, when you ask them a direct question for which they apparently have no supporting evidence or logic to answer you with, they invariably seem to ignore your question and don't respond or answer, probably out of fear it would prove them wrong, and then they'd have to admit it. I'm still waiting for someone to respond to my question about how the OP's question regarding Judge and Maris hitting 61 homers really has anything to do with Ruth since he never hit 61 in a season, and then why anyone would logically and automatically assume that since the first part answer to his question specifically excluded Ruth, why would anyone then knowingly assume Ruth was included in the second part of the answer.

A few posters did seem to agree with my logic, but no one has proffered any info or evidence to really refute me. Oh, Peter did point to the OP including a card of Ruth in his initial post as evidence of the intention to include Ruth in the answer, but we all have seen threads where posted cards/images don't have anything to do with the actual topic of the thread. And if the OP's intention was to include Ruth in the question after all, then why wasn't Ruth included in the answer in part one of the question.

I am sorry to anyone reading this and wondering why I'm carrying on, but if there's one thing about me you should know, I am not going to back down from anyone's bullsh@t and bullying. And if you're going to try to accuse and/or start something with me, I am most definitely going to try and finish it.