Fire Bloom .

[Old Red]

Here I was thinking they took pride in bashing Bloom and being called Bloom bashers.

 

My bad.

 

And this from the Bush Man. I think it’s downright embarrassing to be in last place. I worked with an O’s fan for many years, and he took lots of crap, and now it’s the other way around. I wish there wasn’t anything to bash Bloom about. As bad as you think it is on here it’s a lot worse out on the airwaves.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Old Red

[Elktonnick]

You've certainly shown what floats yours.

I do not own a boat. My neighbors all have boats. My youngest daughter has a boat as does my sister. I know what floats theirs.

 

.

[moonslav59]

Now Old Red, maybe you're misremembering the times you said "Bloom Jock Supporters"...

 

It's funny how calling whiners "whiners", crybabies "crybabies" and those who bash, no stop "bashers" is called whining.

 

Is calling me a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

The doublespeak here is entertaining.

 

Is whining someone who constantly complains about everything, or not?

 

Is being a crybaby, someone who cries about every single breath Bloom takes, or not?

 

Is someone who bashes Bloom 99-100% of the time someone who bashes, or not?

 

Now, the flip side is, these guys pretend there are posters (or one poster who other follow) who support nearly everything Bloom has done. They conflate explaining why he might have done some things or mentioning the possibilities that the prospects included in the deal "might" change the grade of the trade later as thinking we love or fully support the move or choice being discussed.

 

Nobody, here, is even close to being a supporter of Bloom anywhere near the amount of times, some here bash him. It's laughable to think otherwise.

 

They won't name the name, because it will be so easy to find evidence to show anyone they name has been critical of Bloom many times and many more times that some posters here have even come close to praising Bloom, in terms of percentage of posts being supportive or not. This also does not to mention all the neutral posts made by many who support Bloom vs those the bashers make.

 

[Elktonnick]

It's funny how calling whiners "whiners", crybabies "crybabies" and those who bash, no stop "bashers" is called whining.

 

Is calling me a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

The doublespeak here is entertaining.

 

Is whining someone who constantly complains about everything, or not?

 

Is being a crybaby, someone who cries about every single breath Bloom takes, or not?

 

Is someone who bashes Bloom 99-100% of the time someone who bashes, or not?

 

Now, the flip side is, these guys pretend there are posters (or one poster who other follow) who support nearly everything Bloom has done. They conflate explaining why he might have done some things or mentioning the possibilities that the prospects included in the deal "might" change the grade of the trade later as thinking we love or fully support the move or choice being discussed.

 

Nobody, here, is even close to being a supporter of Bloom anywhere near the amount of times, some here bash him. It's laughable to think otherwise.

 

They won't name the name, because it will be so easy to find evidence to show anyone they name has been critical of Bloom many times and many more times that some posters here have even come close to praising Bloom, in terms of percentage of posts being supportive or not. This also does not to mention all the neutral posts made by many who support Bloom vs those the bashers make.

 

Too long. Quite frankly I did not read a word of it. Like I said elsewhere there is a quote attributed to Cicero Pascal and Mark Twain, "I am sorry about the length of this letter I did not have time to write a shorter one." I suggest you follow their advice. If you do I might pay attention to your posts.

[Old Red]

It's funny how calling whiners "whiners", crybabies "crybabies" and those who bash, no stop "bashers" is called whining.

 

Is calling me a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

The doublespeak here is entertaining.

 

Is whining someone who constantly complains about everything, or not?

 

Is being a crybaby, someone who cries about every single breath Bloom takes, or not?

 

Is someone who bashes Bloom 99-100% of the time someone who bashes, or not?

 

Now, the flip side is, these guys pretend there are posters (or one poster who other follow) who support nearly everything Bloom has done. They conflate explaining why he might have done some things or mentioning the possibilities that the prospects included in the deal "might" change the grade of the trade later as thinking we love or fully support the move or choice being discussed.

 

Nobody, here, is even close to being a supporter of Bloom anywhere near the amount of times, some here bash him. It's laughable to think otherwise.

 

They won't name the name, because it will be so easy to find evidence to show anyone they name has been critical of Bloom many times and many more times that some posters here have even come close to praising Bloom, in terms of percentage of posts being supportive or not. This also does not to mention all the neutral posts made by many who support Bloom vs those the bashers make.

 

[/quote

 

Once again coming out from hiding in the bushes to make comments on comments from someone on ignore. What a classy lassie. As always there is not enough cheese in the world for your whine.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Old Red

[moonslav59]

Too long. Quite frankly I did not read a word of it. Like I said elsewhere there is a quote attributed to Cicero Pascal and Mark Twain, "I am sorry about the length of this letter I did not have time to write a shorter one." I suggest you follow their advice. If you do I might pay attention to your posts.

 

Here's a short one:

 

Who is the strawman?

[Old Red]

Too long. Quite frankly I did not read a word of it. Like I said elsewhere there is a quote attributed to Cicero Pascal and Mark Twain, "I am sorry about the length of this letter I did not have time to write a shorter one." I suggest you follow their advice. If you do I might pay attention to your posts.

 

He likes lots of word salads, because some don’t buy what he is cooking, and he thinks the more he makes the better it is. Wrong as always

Mr Wrong, Mr. Wrong they keep playing his song.

[Elktonnick]

Here's a short one:

 

Who is the strawman?

Ray Bolger

[Old Red]

Ray Bolger

 

How about Buddy Ebsen turning down the Tin Man.

[Elktonnick]

How about Buddy Ebsen turning down the Tin Man.

Allergies

[moonslav59]

Ray Bolger

 

Nice try. He was the Scarecrow.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's funny how calling whiners "whiners", crybabies "crybabies" and those who bash, no stop "bashers" is called whining.

 

Is calling me a "name-caller" name-calling?

 

The doublespeak here is entertaining.

 

Is whining someone who constantly complains about everything, or not?

 

Is being a crybaby, someone who cries about every single breath Bloom takes, or not?

 

Is someone who bashes Bloom 99-100% of the time someone who bashes, or not?

 

Now, the flip side is, these guys pretend there are posters (or one poster who other follow) who support nearly everything Bloom has done. They conflate explaining why he might have done some things or mentioning the possibilities that the prospects included in the deal "might" change the grade of the trade later as thinking we love or fully support the move or choice being discussed.

 

Nobody, here, is even close to being a supporter of Bloom anywhere near the amount of times, some here bash him. It's laughable to think otherwise.

 

They won't name the name, because it will be so easy to find evidence to show anyone they name has been critical of Bloom many times and many more times that some posters here have even come close to praising Bloom, in terms of percentage of posts being supportive or not. This also does not to mention all the neutral posts made by many who support Bloom vs those the bashers make.

 

 

Is it fair to say a lot of us are indirectly frustrated with Henry for hiring Bloom in the first place, specifically to trade the best player developed by Boston in our lifetimes (whether Mookie wanted to stay or leave). And some of us are not convinced Henry will ever resume spending again like his old days, when the Sox were desperate to finally beat the Yankees (forum word police: spare us the payroll ranking that still includes dead money pre-Bloom).

 

Just because ownership once spent big -- or even reset before reopening the coffers -- doesn't guarantee it will happen again. Those earlier lulls didn't include dealing or not re-signing their top homegrown players...

 

Some fans may not loathe Bloom as much as what he represents: Henry's dream GM, the type he's coveted since Billy Beane changed his mind a decade ago... (for evidence, re-read or re-watch Moneyball; the John Henry scene really is what this is all about).

[Elktonnick]

Nice try. He was the Scarecrow.

 

What is a scarecrow made of? Straw!!

The farmers could always laugh at the city folks. They did not know the difference between hay and straw.

[Old Red]

Is it fair to say a lot of us are indirectly frustrated with Henry for hiring Bloom in the first place, specifically to trade the best player developed by Boston in our lifetimes (whether Mookie wanted to stay or leave). And some of us are not convinced Henry will ever resume spending again like his old days, when the Sox were desperate to finally beat the Yankees (forum word police: spare us the payroll ranking that still includes dead money pre-Bloom).

 

Just because ownership once spent big -- or even reset before reopening the coffers -- doesn't guarantee it will happen again. Those earlier lulls didn't include dealing or not re-signing their top homegrown players...

 

Some fans may not loathe Bloom as much as what he represents: Henry's dream GM, the type he's coveted since Billy Beane changed his mind a decade ago... (for evidence, re-read or re-watch Moneyball; the John Henry scene really is what this is all about).

Good post, and some on here just can’t accept that fact the JH is not the same guy as when he first showed up in Boston, and think they can still guess what he will do from past ways, and seasons.

[Old Red]

Allergies

 

Correct. Couldn’t handle the makeup.

[Elktonnick]

Correct. Couldn’t handle the makeup.

He originally was in line for the scarecrow because the costume consisted of old clothes and STRAW.

[moonslav59]

Is it fair to say a lot of us are indirectly frustrated with Henry for hiring Bloom in the first place, specifically to trade the best player developed by Boston in our lifetimes (whether Mookie wanted to stay or leave). And some of us are not convinced Henry will ever resume spending again like his old days, when the Sox were desperate to finally beat the Yankees (forum word police: spare us the payroll ranking that still includes dead money pre-Bloom).

 

Just because ownership once spent big -- or even reset before reopening the coffers -- doesn't guarantee it will happen again. Those earlier lulls didn't include dealing or not re-signing their top homegrown players...

 

Some fans may not loathe Bloom as much as what he represents: Henry's dream GM, the type he's coveted since Billy Beane changed his mind a decade ago... (for evidence, re-read or re-watch Moneyball; the John Henry scene really is what this is all about).

 

I guess some of us don't see Bloom having much choice in trading Betts, but we don't want to bash Henry for not allowing him to spend, because JH has helped bring us 4 rings.

 

Whether Henry ever spends big again is an unknown, and I guess we're talking about new spending, and not covering the costs of past deals. Some of those big deals come off the books, this winter, so we may know an answer in a few months.

 

I was wondering about big spending happening again or not up until March of 2022, when seemingly out of nowhere, the Story signing occurred. I wonder, if it was a late Henry decision, or Bloom waiting out the market to snatch who he felt was more of a bargain. I am glad he signed Story over Seager or my guy, Baez, but I do wonder about the timing of the checkbook opening.

 

I think the Story signing is a hint Henry will spend big again, but I think he is laying back, until he thinks we have some young and cost controlled players in place, before deciding to pounce on a couple big names. It's just my opinion, but I don't think he views the young core of Sox players like he did the 2015-2017 foundation handed to DD. I could easily be wrong, but I think he chose Bloom to be the guy to rebuild the foundation, over time, by improving the farm and 40 man roster depth to try and reach a point where the foundation is sound enough where it looks like a couple big splurges can make us top contenders.

 

Is that this winter? I was hoping it might be before 2022 began, but now I'm not so sure.

 

I think JH wanted the team to remain competitive during the rebuild, and that actually makes rebuilding harder, as we saw at the deadline, when Bloom chickened out on a hard rebuild. It seemed that Bloom worked wonder in 2022, or we got lucky, but 2022 was either bad luck or simply rotten roster construction with a decent winter spending budget.

 

Personally, I only really disliked 2 moves, and the Diekman signing was just $4M x 2. The JBJ deal looked horrific from day one, to me. Does that equate to "rotten roster construction?" Not to me, but it seems like many don't think Wacha, Hill, Strahm, Schreiber and Refsnyder come close to outweighing the JBJ-Renfroe deal and maybe the residuals from the Beni deal. (I just can't count the Betts loss as being on Bloom, but I can see how many do.)

 

I think we are better than we were in 2020. Our farm looks stronger. Our budget has less dead money. I'm hopeful we are nearing the day when JH opens the wallet wide, again.

[moonslav59]

The farmers could always laugh at the city folks. They did not know the difference between hay and straw.

 

True, but some country folks don't know the difference between allergies and aluminum (face paint) poisoning.

[Elktonnick]

True, but some country folks don't know the difference between allergies and aluminum (face paint) poisoning.

 

The Dark Side You Never Knew About The Wizard of Oz

Jun 27, 2022 | Jessie Atkin

"After two weeks in the hospital it still took six more weeks of rest at home for the actor to recover. It turned out that Ebsen was actually allergic to the aluminum dust, and was recast by Jack Haley, who did not have the same allergy."

[JDavis76]

The Dark Side You Never Knew About The Wizard of Oz

Jun 27, 2022 | Jessie Atkin

"After two weeks in the hospital it still took six more weeks of rest at home for the actor to recover. It turned out that Ebsen was actually allergic to the aluminum dust, and was recast by Jack Haley, who did not have the same allergy."

 

Nearly all of the makeup and costume designs used in The Wizard of Oz went through numerous revisions and changes before and during filming, and Morgan’s outfits were no exception. Since the portions of the film in which Morgan appeared (the Emerald City and Kansas sequences) were the last to be filmed, there was even more time to fiddle with the outfits worn by his various characters. Although Morgan did not make his first appearance before the cameras until 14 January 1939, he posed for makeup/costume test shots of all of his characters in mid-November 1938. On 17 November 1938 (while the scenes in the Tin Woodman’s forest were being filmed), Morgan tested his Professor Marvel makeup on the set, using the same costume he had worn for his Wizard test shots the day before. Six days later, Morgan again posed for test shots of the Professor Marvel character, this time with a different hairstyle, jacket, and tie.

 

The story behind the jacket selected for this second shot (and ultimately used in the film itself) is one of the most curious of all Oz anecdotes: A tattered coat selected from a local second-hand shop by MGM’s wardrobe department turned out to be a garment originally owned by Oz author L. Frank Baum himself. Once gainsaid as “an example of the lies press agents are willing to tell in order to get a story in print,” the story of the jacket’s origins was retold and affirmed by Aljean Harmetz in her book The Making of The Wizard of Oz:

 

What definitely did occur on The Wizrd of Oz — perhaps the most astonishing thing that did occur — was dismissed as a publicity stunt. Yet it is vouched for by [cinematographer] Hal Rosson and his niece Helene Bowman and by Mary Mayer, who served briefly as the unit publicist on the picture. “For Professor Marvel’s coat,” says Mary Mayer, “they wanted grandeur gone to seed. A nice-looking coat but very tattered. So the wardrobe department went down to an old second-hand store on Main Street and bought a whole rack of coats. And Frank Morgan and the wardrobe man and [director] Victor Fleming got together and chose one. It was kind of a Prince Albert coat. It was black broadcloth and it had a velvet collar, but the nap was all worn off the velvet.” Helene Bowman recalls the coat as “ratty with age, a Prince Albert jacket with a green look.”

 

The coat fitted Morgan and had the right look of shabby gentility, and one hot afternoon Frank Morgan turned out the pocket. Inside was the name “L. Frank Baum.”

 

“We wired the tailor in Chicago,” says Mary Mayer, “and sent pictures. And the tailor sent back a notarized letter saying that the coat had been made for Frank Baum. Baum’s widow identified the coat, too, and after the picture was finished we presented it to her. But I could never get anyone to believe the story.”

That an old coat of Baum’s might have turned up in a second-hand clothes shop near MGM was certainly plausible, as the author resided in Hollywood for the latter part of his life. However, the documentation behind this legend is rather skimpy.

[moonslav59]

The Dark Side You Never Knew About The Wizard of Oz

Jun 27, 2022 | Jessie Atkin

"After two weeks in the hospital it still took six more weeks of rest at home for the actor to recover. It turned out that Ebsen was actually allergic to the aluminum dust, and was recast by Jack Haley, who did not have the same allergy."

 

Wrong, again. Poison is not something people are allergic to or not, silly!

 

BTW, they changed the composition from powder to paste, so the dust would not get in Jack Haley's lungs, or he'd have had the same reaction. The paste did get in his eye, and he developed and infection (not an allergic reaction) and ended up needing eye surgery.

 

(Maybe this is all just fake news or alternate facts.)

Edited August 26, 2022 by moonslav59

[Elktonnick]

Wrong, again. Poison is not something people are allergic to or not, silly!

 

BTW, they changed the composition from powder to paste, so the dust would not get in Jack Haley's lungs, or he'd have had the same reaction. The paste did get in his eye, and he developed and infection (not an allergic reaction) and ended up needing eye surgery.

 

(Maybe this is all just fake news or alternate facts.)

 

Your quibble is with author of the article not me. You may wish to write him one your epistles. I am sure he will find it as interesting as I do.

[JDavis76]

your quibble is with author of the article not me. You may wish to write him one your epistles. I am sure he will find it as interesting as i do.

 

lol

[moonslav59]

Your quibble is with author of the article not me.

 

Ok. You didn't say it was an allergy. It must be my bad eyesight.

[Elktonnick]

Ok. You didn't say it was an allergy. It must be my bad eyesight.

Yes I was there when Buddy Ebsen had his reaction. Because it happened 8 years before I was born I had I just thought it was an allergy, my bad!

[moonslav59]

Yes I was there when Buddy Ebsen had his reaction. Because it happened 8 years before I was born I had I just thought it was an allergy, my bad!

 

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Elktonnick]

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Just repeating something I read. Since it is so important to you. You really should write that author I am sure he will give your letter the attention it deserves.

[JDavis76]

Just repeating something I read. Since it is so important to you. You really should write that author I am sure he will give your letter the attention it deserves.

 

Why would you do that to that author, did he kick your dog or something?

[Elktonnick]

Why would you do that to that author, did he kick your dog or something?

 

I know. But Moon if he does write him will write several pages of word salad that will give him a good laugh.

[iortiz]

Reading that Bloom doesn't regret regarding the moves before the trade line.

 

Not sure how to take this since this team was not going to go anywhere anyways.