text:
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4824 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Sunday, November 14, 2010
2011 Hall of Merit Ballot
Sorry guys, I started a new job this week, and I thought this had been posted, my apologies for the late start.
OK, it's time to start the voting. There is no rush . . . please read through the discussion thread to work through the candidates.
The election closes
It isn't an easy thing to submit a ballot, but that's by design. Not because we don't want to grow our numbers (though we've done just fine there, started with 29 voters in 1898, and passed 50 eventually), not because we want to shut out other voices. It's because we want informed voters making informed decisions on the entire electorate, not just the players they remember.
So if you are up for this, we'd love to have you! Even if you aren't up to voting, we'd still appreciate your thoughts in the discussion. Some of our greatest contributors haven't or have only rarely voted.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .
Please take a look at the 2010 election results, and don't forget the top 10 returnees must be commented on, even if you do not vote for them. They are, in order: David Cone, Phil Rizzuto, Gavy Cravath, Hugh Duffy (back in the top ten), Bucky Walters, Luis Tiant & Rick Reuschel (first time in the top ten).
Voters should name 15 players, in order. Thanks!
Newcomers on the 2011 ballot.
2011 (November 8, 2010)—elect 3
Thanks, Dan!
JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: November 14, 2010 at 07:39 PM | 223 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.jimd Posted: December 07, 2010 at 01:16 AM (#3704491)
I count 39 ballots. What a difference a week makes (15 ballots).202. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 07, 2010 at 01:17 AM (#3704494)
The election has been over for 17 minutes now.203. user Posted: December 07, 2010 at 01:51 AM (#3704513)
I should be able to post the results thread tonight.
I'm fairly confident this is entirely a function of ERA versus RA. I've made a post with slightly more detail on the Chone Warp thread.
I feel compelled to point out that the middle section of my discussion of Larry Walker is completely false. It's a couple sentences held over from the formatting that I used to compose the ballot, and they should have been deleted. His nearest comp is not Derek Jeter (it is Vladimir Guerrero), he did not finish in his league's Top 10 in Win Shares seven times (he did that twice), and his Monitor score is not near 200, but actually just shy of 150. I think all those erroneous stats actually apply to Roberto Alomar, although I'd want to check to be sure.205. bjhanke Posted: December 07, 2010 at 10:29 AM (#3704664)
None of this affects Walker's ranking on my ballot, but to paraphrase Mark Twain, I thought it best to call out my own error and look stupid, rather than say nothing and remove all doubt.
Well, it does appear that I have some explaining to do. First, for user, comment 203, I responded over on the Chone Warp thread. What you said makes good sense, but it led me to a place I didn't think was right. Could you look over there and respond there? The discussion doesn't belong here.206. bjhanke Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:17 AM (#3704665)
Next, I apologize to all David Cone fans. What I did was bad. Running short on time, I just copied over last year's comment without thought. That was wrong. I checked the results thread, and fortunately for me, David would not have been elected even if I had voted him #1. But still, I should have done better. On the other hand, you have the motivation all wrong. I've lived in STL all my life except for three years at Vanderbilt U. The Mets are Pond Scum. ESPNY stands for Every Sports Personality in New York. I'm not a fan of New York in baseball. What happened to my analysis of Cone was this:
1. I think that "clutch play" is bunk. Joe Carter fanatics make my head hurt. But, trying to balance things, I will try to make at least some adjustment for things I don't really believe in, if a lot of other people do believe in them.
2. Living in a NL city, I see a LOT more Mets games than Yankee games. I personally saw Cone melt down once and heard about it a few more times. He admitted he'd done it, if I remember right. When he left the Mets, I assumed, stupidly, that he remained the same person, and I didn't see him pitch enough to correct the memory.
3. Combining the two problems above, I tried to make a "clutch" adjustment of some sort to Cone, precisely because I DON'T believe in it. I will always make at least some effort to give the other side its say. I don't apologize for that at all. But when the overwhelming consensus is that no adjustment is needed, and I don't really believe in it anyway, it's time to stop making it. I absolutely promise to work up David Cone strictly by the numbers next time. Both his fans and his high placement in the ballot tallies deserve that.
- Brock
This next one is a response to Zop and his thought that I might be "reverse timelining" on Kevin Brown et al. This is a complicated issue, and you lack, I think, some of the context, so this will be a long post. I'll try to keep it as short as possible, but I can't be sure what you do and do not know about this or about my methods. This started when we were ranking the pitches who were already in the HoM, and I put almost all the 1880s guys in the top third. Paul Wendt, who REALLY knows his early baseball, noticed this, and said that if I thought that, I should also think that there were more 1800s pitchers that should go in. This was unquestionably true, so I spent a lot of the last year working up the 1880s pitchers. That's why the obsessing. It wasn't that I think that 1880s baseball was the best ever; it was a response to a valid challenge.207. bjhanke Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:49 AM (#3704667)
As to my methods, there are three difficult facts about 1880s pitchers; they are the foundation of my ranking the guys so high in the positional list. First is this thing that Bill James noted in his Historical Abstract and Win Shares. If you evaluate by value, as Win Shares does, you will conclude that all the best seasons ever were posted up by 1880s pitchers throwing over 500 innings. There's just no way for a position player to overcome the impact of that many IP. If you look through Win Shares' list of teams with shares for all their players, you will find that it is rare for a very early team's highest WS total to NOT be by their pitcher. That's each team, much less the whole league. The effect is THAT strong.
Second, Bill also noted that immature versions of baseball, like high school and amateur play, drift towards having the best player be the pitcher. The best pitcher on a high school team is often the cleanup hitter as well. Now, I do not timeline, in the sense of thinking that the game has "improved." But it certainly has evolved and matured. Rules changes are smaller by far than in the 19th century, and there are fewer of them. The game has matured, so there IS a "maturation of the game" line. This is NOT a quality line. It's more of a stability line. But it is there. And one of its implications is that a higher percentage of the best 19th c. players were pitchers than is true now. I think that pitchers are underrepresented in the HoM. But I also think that 1870s-1880s pitchers are the most underrepresented, because they are disproportionately likely to be the best players in their leagues. Thus the obsession over 1880s PITCHERS, instead of all players.
Third, and another related fact first noted by Bill, it has become less and less common over time for a pitcher to deserve to win the MVP award. The reason is that the number of innings that a pitcher can handle has dropped almost continually over time, while the number of plate appearances for hitters has increased, due to longer schedules and higher percentages of schedules played, due to modern medicine. The drop in IP is another function of the maturation of the game. You can easily track it by making a chart of IP for the top three or ten or whatever number of pitchers in a league. You'll get a reasonably smooth curve, starting when the 80-game schedule comes in, that drops quickly through the 1880s and 1890s, "turns the corner" at about the turn of the century, and then flattens out but never turns completely horizontal. This effect is still happening, although it's now advancing very slowly. Old fogies complain about it all the time now, but they treat it as if it were a recent effect. It's not. It's been happening ever since the 80-game schedules, which were the first ones so long that no one pitcher could handle the entire workload.
Anyway, the result of all this is that the time period when an individual pitcher had the highest value per season is the 1880s, when the 80-game schedules first appear. That doesn't affect career value, because these guys' arms burned out and they have ten-year careers with huge seasonal IPs, rather than 20-year careers with 200-IP seasons. But it does affect their peaks and primes, because so much value accrues in so little time. Consider Radbourne's 1884 season. It's 679 IP at a tremendous rate. Well, that's equivalent, in IP, to a modern three-year peak. Three, or even two, of these seasons can amount to a pitcher's entire prime, with just as many IP as you'd want in a modern prime. And on top of that, most of these guys hit better than modern pitchers do, and some are Bob Caruthers and Guy Hecker, who were mid-lineup hitters on top of their pitching values.
And right now is the weakest period for pitcher in-season value, so I end up thinking that Kevin Brown was a worse pitcher than Sam Leever, much less Jim McCormick.
Sorry. The site has a limit on post length, so I thought I should make a break here. Anyway, I have two more points to try to make.208. bjhanke Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:56 AM (#3704668)
First, all this is about value, not rate. Rate has not changed. Kevin Brown's ERA+ is not something I adjust for due to time period, nor is David Cone's. The only adjustments I make for rate are for times of very low scoring, when it's just hard to really separate your shutouts from the other guy's one-run games. But rate doesn't care how many years it took to accumulate your career IP. But peak and prime value do. If I could just forget about value, peak, and prime, and focus only on career length and rate, I'd never be in this pickle. But peak, prime, and value all do count, so here I am, obsessing over Will White and all the other 1880s pitchers, because they are the ones with the ungodly peak and prime values.
Second, this messy problem may be a-changin', due to modern medicine (by which I do NOT mean PEDs, although I do mean Tommy John surgery). Clemens, Maddux, Unit, Schilling, and Glavine all look real good to me. When Roger shows up, I will certainly have him in my top three, and probably #1, unless it's the same year as Barry Bonds or someone. Pitcher MVPs may yet return, but they are not there now.
Well, that's about as short as I can make this. If you need more detail, I can ALWAYS write longer. I'm real good at that. But if you were wondering where my stuff about early pitchers comes from, that's it. Three related observations by Bill James and a challenge by Paul Wendt. At least I START with reliable sources, even if I wander off into who knows where.
Oh, shoot. One more thing. If you want to see what I think the "maturation curve" looks like (it's a curve, not a line), just chart up league fielding percentage over the years. In applied math, there's a concept called a "tracking stat." That's a stat that doesn't directly measure what you're looking at, but does mirror it. There's no real way to quantify "maturation", and so no way to directly graph it. But fielding percentage, IMO, is the best tracking stat there is for maturation. And it's lots easier than trying to count up all the top three workloads for every season.
Man. Thanks for reading. - Brock
Oh, right. Alex King (comment 200) -209. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: December 07, 2010 at 02:02 PM (#3704695)
THANKS! I'm glad you were disturbed by something I also found disturbing, and VERY happy to have an offer of help. But it's just possible that "user" actually already knew this one. Please navigate on over to the thread called "Chone's WARP and the Hall of Merit" and look at the posts around #140. It looks, just from his few calculations, like the whole issue is that WAR uses total runs allowed instead of earned runs allowed.
Thanks again! - Brock
"But fielding percentage, IMO, is the best tracking stat there is for maturation. And it's lots easier than trying to count up all the top three workloads for every season."
I've counted up the top X in IP for each league/season. The is X is based on the total number of teams in the league. It's what I use to normalize IP across eras. Let me know if you want the data . . .
Actually the X stops at 3/4 of the teams in the league. I basically use the middle half of teams in the league as the baseline. So in a 16 team league, the 5-12 pitchers in IP are averaged.
brock, I don't dispute that much or all of what you're saying could be true.211. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 07, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3704866)
There are counter arguements, of course. You could argue that pitching was a less specialized skill in the 1880s, using the batting value of pitchers as a proxy for pitching specialization. You could argue that since teams just put their best athlete at pitcher, rather than identify the best pitchers at pitcher (indeed, I would argue that pitchers are, in many cases, the WORST athletes on a modern baseball team), 1880's pitchers were worse than modern pitchers. You could argue that replacement level for pitchers in early baseball was higher than it is today.
You could argue those things, and many more, but... I wont. I wont because I don't have to.
For the purposes of voting in the HoM, we have to submit to a few fictions. We don't, for example, allow people to acknowledge the obvious truth that baseball was less professional in the 1880's and the players probably of lesser quality than players from later eras. We don't allow people to consider that the population/players ratio is not constant with time, meaning that it is certain that average players from certain eras were much stronger than others.
And one of those fictions is that you have to be fair to all eras. Meaning, you can't argue that pitchers from the 19th century are vastly superior to those in the 20th century. Each player must be evaluated based upon the opportunities they were given; a player born in the 1860's is evaluated in the 500IP context; a player born in the 1920's gets war credit; and a player born in 1980's may have to get tweaked for lower seasonal IP totals (if we ever come to a consensus on the relationship b/w seasonal IP and career IP).
Kevin Brown is among the top 10 pitchers of his generation. Because of our constitutional mandate to treat all eras equally, you must, in essence, imagine as if he were born in 1860 and say, "if he were born then, how would he have compared to the pitchers of that era". If you're not asking that question or something similar, you have an unconstitutional ballot.
Brock, would your PHoM be Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Cobb, Wagner, Mays, and 230 1880s pitchers? Were there even 230 pitchers in the 1880s?212. bjhanke Posted: December 07, 2010 at 07:14 PM (#3705027)
Dan - No, and no, and I know what you're doing with the questions, and it's a legitimate thing to do. You're asking me if I mean to treat the 1880s unfairly by wanting to have a normal number of position players in there but a large number of pitchers, or a number of pitchers so huge that it would dwarf the normal number of total players expected from the period. That's what Zop is also questioning, and it's a fair question. That would, indeed, not treat the era fairly. It would favor it. But it's not what I'm trying to do.213. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 07, 2010 at 08:16 PM (#3705116)
While there are several pitchers who benefit from the high peaks and primes, they still have to have something to offer that has value; this approach is value-based. If I decide that whatever WAR is doing to Will White, it's correct and he really was a replacement rate pitcher, then his rate becomes zero, and it doesn't matter how many seasons of that he put up, they have no value, and I start looking real hard at Guy Hecker, who I have next in line. So, what I'm using this for is to account for the distribution of talent in the era, not the amount of it. About numbers, I'm being cautious. I have exactly two 1880s pitchers on my ballot, and they are in the middle and in the bottom half. I have three guys from early 1900s Pittsburgh.
What I'm doing is more like voting for five center fielders from the 1950s: Mays, Mantle, Snider, Doby, and Ashburn. That's way above the average for center fielders in a decade, but this decade just happened to have a lot of talent concentrated there. The last decade (the 2000s) seems to have a lot of good shortstop candidates - ARod, Jeter, Tejada, et al. I assume this is because modern medicine has allowed larger players to have more agility, so they can play shortstop and still hit for power, but it doesn't matter why to the ballot. For every extra 1950s CF, you should be able to identify a position where there are one fewer than normal HoM guys. The same, I think, will be true of this current crop of shortstops, when they become eligible. The total number of players from each decade should balance out, but the distribution can - and always will - be skewed within that number. So what I think is that there should be a few more 1880s pitchers in the hall, but FEWER position players than normal. Actually, I think that there is a current shortage of 1880s position players, but I'm very OK with that because they SHOULD be underrepresented. You notice that I have no 1880s position players on or near my list of 15 except Ed Williamson, who has support here and who I have never worked up because he only played 13 seasons. He's not on the ballot this year, and he's going to have to put up a hell of an argument to get on my ballot. He's an 1880s position player. John Clarkson and Cap Anson are the clear HoM guys on his great teams.
In short, I think that the 1880s are underrepresented, and we've not treated that time period completely fairly. We have a low number of position players, particularly high up in the internal positional rankings, and we have a normal number of pitchers. So we look like we have a small shortfall of position players, but what we really have is a shortage of pitchers, because the distribution of talent is so odd in that decade.
This is where I think I'm well within the limits of the constitution. As I read the thing, it says to do what I'm doing. As long as each time period has a proportional number of total players, it doesn't matter which position they play. I have no intention of flooding the Hall with 1880s pitchers PLUS the normal number of position players. The total number of players altogether is what I think matters. The 1880s just happen to have a larger percentage than normal of pitchers WITHIN that total number. As long as the total number of 1880s players in the Hall is proportional, I'm pretty sure I'm OK with the constitution. On the other hand, the commissioner is here to read this. If he says I'm wrong, I'm going to ask some questions about how to proceed, but I'm also going to take his word for it.
Does that make sense? I can see why you would question. If I only talk about 1880s pitchers, it's fair to start out by assuming that I mean to put them all in along with a normal number of position players. That would certainly be unconstitutional, and I'm aware of it. But, as long as the total number is proportional, I think the constitution wants us to distribute the talent however the talent happens to distribute in that time period.
Thanks for a good question that, I think needed to be asked of me right about now. - Brock
Sure, if you think the 1880s slice of the HoM should be 80% pitchers but that the 1880s shouldn't crowd out any other time period, I think everyone would be OK with your voting on that basis.214. . . . . . . Posted: December 07, 2010 at 09:24 PM (#3705178)
But that doesn't account for your voting for all the aughts guys, like Leever, over Kevin Brown, for which the logic still remains baffling to all of us. You talk about ERA+ "compression" in the deadball era--have you counted how many standard deviations above the mean Brown was during his peak/prime versus Leever's number? I guarantee you Brown will blow him out of the water. Using a quick ink test, Brown's best ERA+ finishes were 1-3-3-4-4-4 in the 14-team NL, while Leever only cracked the top 10 in the 16-team majors three times, going 1-4-8. And you inexplicably say that Leever's "2660 IP are not, in context, worse than Brown's 3256." But...but...pitchers throw FEWER innings today than they did in the 1900s, not more! If you're going to account for contextual usage norms, that favors Brown in the comparison with Leever, not the other way around.
None of this wound up mattering, since Brown rightly sailed in and the Leever bandwagon fortunately remains empty. As long as we count the ballots of the yests of the world, you can do whatever you want. But I think virtually everyone would agree you've left the reservation on this one.
I have three guys from early 1900s Pittsburgh.215. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 07, 2010 at 10:04 PM (#3705212)
If your system is telling you 3x more pitchers from a single team are worthy of induction than in the entirety of baseball over the last 50 years, then that's a ringing sign that your system isn't fair to all eras.
If your system is telling you 3x more pitchers from a single team are worthy of induction than in the entirety of baseball over the last 50 years, then that's a ringing sign that your system isn't fair to all eras.
This probably isn't the best place to carry on this conversation, but since it IS being carried on here...
Does *being fair to all eras* require you to take the same number of pitchers from each era? Isn't it also possible that to *be fair to all eras* you need to recognize the possibility that a particular role (starting pitching, relief pitching, fielding at 1B or 3B) is more important in one era than it is in another, and therefore you need give that particular role more weight when evaluating candidates from that era than you would when you evaluate candidates from a different era? If you have an evaluation method which indicates that it was more critical to team success to have quality starting pitching in the 1900s than it was in any other era before or since, then I submit that it is entirely possible to recommend more starting pitchers for induction from the 1900s than it is today, while still being fair to both eras. What you are doing there is recognizing the importance of the role in winning pennants then, vs the importance of the role in winning pennants today.
I'm not saying that's what Brock is doing, mind you - but I don't think it's necessarily the case that a system which suggests that three pitchers from the same team in the 1900s are among the top 15 players not yet in the Hall of Merit is being unfair. Perhaps a system which looks at all eras through the lens of what's important today is actually being more unfair than a system which attempts to account for changes in the way the game has been played over the years.
Isn't it also possible that to *be fair to all eras* you need to recognize the possibility that a particular role (starting pitching, relief pitching, fielding at 1B or 3B) is more important in one era than it is in another, and therefore you need give that particular role more weight when evaluating candidates from that era than you would when you evaluate candidates from a different era?217. lieiam Posted: December 07, 2010 at 10:52 PM (#3705270)
The problem with this reasoning is that if Kevin Brown or any other modern pitcher had been active in the earlier era, he presumably would have accrued similar value to a pitcher from that era. Era-dependent changes in positional value are a function of context. To penalize post-1950's pitchers because of their year of birth violates the fair-to-all-eras mandate of the HoM.
Everyone knows that a pure peak voter, not applying any era correction, would have a ballot full of 19th C and early deadball pitchers. Same is probably true for shorter-term (3yr or 5 yr) prime voters. That such ballots don't exist, outside of brock's, is indicative that unadjusted voting of deadball pitchers has been resoundly rejected by the HoM electorate.
I wouldn't say i agree with all of Brock's ballot (although I do like to see support for some of those old pitchers) but I think the criticisms of his ballot here seem to be going too far...218. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:04 PM (#3705281)
if Kevin Brown or any other modern pitcher had been active in the earlier era, he presumably would have accrued similar value to a pitcher from that era. Era-dependent changes in positional value are a function of context. To penalize post-1950's pitchers because of their year of birth violates the fair-to-all-eras mandate of the HoM.219. . . . . . . Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:32 PM (#3705294)
If Juan Pierre had been active 100 years earlier, he presumably would have accrued similar value to, I dunno, Willie Keeler. But because of when he was born, his skills are not as useful. Is he being penalized? I think your questioning of Brock's ballot is legitimate, but this interpretation of being "fair to all eras" seems to go too far.
If Juan Pierre had been active 100 years earlier, he presumably would have accrued similar value to, I dunno, Willie Keeler. But because of when he was born, his skills are not as useful.220. Mike Emeigh Posted: December 07, 2010 at 11:35 PM (#3705297)
Whoa, whoa. Different thing entirely. brock's arguing that the magnitude of the value that pitchers created was greater in the 19th century and they should be rewarded for it. You're giving an example where a style is more effective in a different era.
My understanding of the HoM rules is:
-if pitchers as a whole earned more value in 1890 than 1990-- this must be adjusted out to ensure fairness to all eras (examples: election of Roger Bresnahan, extreme war credit cases, the large proportion of voters who look at ranking among cohort)
-if a player's "style" was particularly effective or ineffective in a given era-- you're in theory allowed to correct for this, but it's certainly not required and all or nearly-all voters do not.
I'm saying that Brock is not doing the former correction, and that is not allowed.
Look, its very simple: if another voter had 10 of his top 11 pitchers from 1980-2000, people would be screaming bloody murder about timelining. Just b/c brock has chosen 1880-1900 to be the ones he's overweighting doesn't make it any less illegal under the HoM constitution.
The problem with this reasoning is that if Kevin Brown or any other modern pitcher had been active in the earlier era, he presumably would have accrued similar value to a pitcher from that era.
And the problem with that reasoning is that it's based on a faulty presumption - that he would rank in (roughly) the same position relative to the pitchers of the earlier era as he does relative to the pitchers of his own. It's just as possible that Kevin Brown is a rare commodity today, but common in 1900, no different from Sam Leever or Deacon Phillippe or Vic Willis, et al, and that he stands out more in today's context precisely because he IS so much rarer today than he was in 1900.
Being fair to all eras, in my judgment, means that you take into consideration what it took to win a pennant, in each era, and reward the players who contributed the most toward that end. That means not just overly penalizing players for the context in which they played, but also not overly rewarding them for the context in which they played, either - and I am of the opinion that the high regard for Kevin Brown and some of the other modern pitchers comes close to the latter.
I think there are two separate but related points being discussed here. First is being fair to all eras. My simple take on that is summed up in the phrase "a pennant is a pennant". A pennant in 1895 is worth as much to the HOM as a pennant in 1975.222. Rob_Wood Posted: December 08, 2010 at 02:06 AM (#3705355)
I do not take it to mean that we need to "adjust out" any differences among eras. If first baseman were more valuable to a team winning in 1895 than in 1975 (due to tiny gloves or whatever), then it is perfectly justified to give an 1895 first baseman more "credit" than a 1975 first baseman. Or a 1970's centerfielder being more valuable than an 1870's centerfielder due to the many more (tough) chances he faced.
However, related and partially at odds to the "be fair to all eras" principle is the "equal opportunity" principle. This dictum suggests that one should consider how a particular player would have fared in other eras/styles. Gavy Cravath, say, would presumably have had more value had he played in the live-ball 1930s than in the dead-ball 1910s. Some voters give Cravath "extra credit" for this type of reasoning.
(to be continued on the next post)
(continuing my two cents)223. bjhanke Posted: December 08, 2010 at 07:52 AM (#3705483)
The 1880's pitching value issue started, as do many things, with Bill James. Bill crafted a pretty decent set of formulas for ascribing value to each player on a team, essentially divvying up the credit for each team win among its players. These formulas were based upon many crude estimates and approximations that worked well for much of baseball history. However, applying these formulas to the 1880s suggested that by far the greatest single seasons ever turned in throughout basebal history were by 1880's pitchers.
Bill rejected this using his substantial common sense. He essentially threw up his hands and said that cannot be correct, so he discounted these seasons by half, or something like that.
But it is true, by the reasons that Brock and others have posited, that 1880's pitchers were tremendously valuable, especially compared to 1880's position players. Exactly what the correct split is nobody knows, though James's discount is probably in the right ball park.
So using the interpretation that being fair to all eras is tantamount to "a pennant is a pennant", these 1880's pitchers should be given very serious consideration by HOM voters. But there are reasons why most voters have not gone as far as Brock has gone.
First, these pitchers generally speaking had short careers. They were over-used during their hey-day and could not sustain their peak performance for very long. So only the very most peak-value voters would have many 1880's pitchers on their ballots.
Second, any voter who pays any credence to the "equal opportunity" principle would discount these 1880's pitchers for the very fact that they were a small subset of all baseball pitchers who were given this special opportunity to be so valuable. Many, many other pitchers throughout baseball history, so the argument goes, would have performed as well (or better) than these "lucky" 1880's pitchers.
This last argument dovetails nicely with this tenet of looking at how well a pitcher does vs his contemporaries (ERA+, IP ranking, etc.). Wilbur Wood, to take perhaps a silly example, could well have been the Hoss Radbourn of 1884 had he been born 100 or so years earlier. So maybe Wilbur deserves a little "credit" for (hypothetically) being a great pitcher of the 1880's. And maybe Radbourn deserves a little "discount" for being given a unique opportunity which (hypothetically) hundreds of other pitchers could well have taken advantage of at least as well as Old Hoss did.
Constitutionally each voter must abide with the "be fair to all eras" principle. And given my simple "a pennant is a pennant" interpretation, I think we all do a pretty good job with this. No timelining, per se, no reverse timelining, etc.
However, I think each voter can use personal judgment as to how much of the "equal opportunity" koolaid they must drink. Personally, I find this argument persuasive in small doses, so I use it on the margins. Others undoubtedly use it a lot more, and presumably others a lot less, than I do. But I don't think we can legislate the "right" amount to apply.
Bottom line: if Brock sincerely believes that his ballot reflects his reasoned view of the players' true contributions to winning pennants, though I disagree wholeheartedly with it, then I think it is a fine and appropriate ballot.
First, thanks to Rob Wood for his comments, particularly if this is the Rob Wood who collaborated with me (was co-author) on the 1989 Baseball Abstract.
The rest of this comment is in reply to Dan R.'s comment #213, "Sure, if you think the 1880s slice of the HoM should be 80% pitchers but that the 1880s shouldn't crowd out any other time period, I think everyone would be OK with your voting on that basis."
The question of how to apply "fair to all eras" does not strike me as simple when applied to the HoM. Does it mean that each year - decade is a better example - should have (roughly, I'm not talking hard quotas here) the same number of HoMers as every other decade, which will skew the results heavily in favor of the 1870s, when there were sometimes only 6 full-schedule teams in a league season and never more than 8? Does it mean that the number of HoMers should be proportional to the number of Major League team/seasons during the decade, which will skew the numbers in favor of the modern game and its 30 teams? Or something else?
What I've been using is closer to option 2, but not quite so extreme. I'm still not comfortable with the 2000s having twice as many HoMers as the 1920s because it has twice as many teams, but I don't think that people who do believe that are off the reservation. I sort of anchor my proportions to the idea that there are 243 players in the HoM, and 140 seasons of play, the last decade or so of which don't count because the players aren't eligible yet. This gets me to about 2 HoMers per year, for a year with a "normal" number of teams. Actually, there have been enough expansion years that the number is a bit under 2 per year, but it's a fraction. Right now, the "normal" number of teams through the 125 or so seasons of eligibility is close to 16, the canonical two 8-team leagues, although it is creeping up year by year now. So I use that as my benchmark or guideline (NEVER a quota).
Well, the 1880s, or the American Association decade from 1882-1891, just happen to have those convenient two 8-team leagues. So I would expect the HoM to eventually end up with a bit under 2 x 10 = 20 HoMers for the period. Somewhere in the range of 16-20, since these are NOT hard quotas. I went to the Plaque Room and counted. There are 12 guys who I think are definitely 1880s: Keefe, Caruthers, Clarkson, Galvin, Radbourne, Bennett, Ewing, Stovey, Browning, Kelly, Richardson, and Glasscock. I also include Cap Anson there but Bid McPhee seems to have more value in the 1890s. Paul Hines and Jim O'Rourke are really too evenly divided to assign to one clear decade, so I counted each of them as a half. That gets me to 14 HoMers from the 1880s, when I think the range ought to be 16-20. So I think the HoM could stand to add a couple or three HoMers. I have 2 1880s guys on my ballot, McCormick and White.
As it now stands, 5 of the 14 are pitchers, or 36%. Since I think the decade is dominated by its pitchers more than any other, I think that's too low. I want to raise it to 7 pitchers out of 16 HoMers. That's 44%. I think that's being fair to the era.
Some of you may not be comfortable with using anything like this interpretation of "fair to all eras" because it's uncomfortably close to a quota system, or for some other reason. If the consensus or the commissioner rules that this is wrong and the concept means something else, then that's OK by me. But as of now, this is how I interpret the phrase, because it allows me to plausibility-check the various periods to see which are over or under represented. My plausibility checking led me to the idea of two 1880s pitchers. Does that help anyone figure out how I am trying to think here? Criticism is fine, or I wouldn't write all these words. But I would like to be criticized for what I actually believe. It's 44%, not 80%. And I do think the decade is short 2 or 3 guys.
- yet even more from Brock
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Support BBTF
Thanks to
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2021 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(160 - 8:58am, Jan 28)
Last: progrockfan
Most Meritorious Player: 2019 Results
(6 - 7:54am, Jan 24)
Last: Handle's Messiah
Lance Berkman
(13 - 11:19am, Jan 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata
Larry Walker
(42 - 10:16pm, Jan 21)
Last: Bleed the Freak
Gavvy Cravath
(305 - 9:37pm, Jan 21)
Last: DL from MN
Most Meritorious Player: 1923 Discussion
(7 - 4:23pm, Jan 21)
Last: MrC.
Tim Hudson
(6 - 1:14pm, Jan 19)
Last: cookiedabookie
Mark Buehrle
(9 - 1:15pm, Jan 18)
Last: cookiedabookie
Torii Hunter
(23 - 2:18pm, Jan 15)
Last: Rally
2020 Hall of Merit Election Results: Jeter, Tiant, Jones and Helton
(33 - 12:37pm, Jan 15)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko
2020 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(569 - 10:06pm, Jan 14)
Last: DL from MN
2020 Hall of Merit Ballot
(73 - 10:11pm, Jan 09)
Last: Mike Webber
New Eligibles Year by Year
(979 - 1:07pm, Jan 09)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko
George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy and Jimmy Ryan
(122 - 10:16am, Jan 09)
Last: progrockfan
Vida Blue
(6 - 5:38am, Jan 09)
Last: The Honorable Ardo
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4824 seconds


text:
Diana Campillo has lived in 10 countries and visited dozens more. She speaks Spanish, English, French, Italian and some Thai. A Brit by birth and Mexican by ancestry, she is my most American friend around here. When you ask about her favorite place to live growing up she fondly recalls, "Italy was fun because I was in my early teens, had lots of friends, started to find my freedom. I loved the food, the lifestyle. I lived in Genoa and traveled around Liguria. I loved to just get on the train visit a different town every weekend."
Today, Diana is the co-owner of Rawai Muay Thai gym in Khao Lak, Thailand. How she came to be in "the fight game" is a story best told in her own words.
I am a middle age woman who took the road less traveled. Ended up with a life I could have never imagined
Where did you grow up?
The short answer is "all over." I was born in London. Four years later, we moved to Paris. Four years after that we moved to Mexico City. Then to Washington D.C. for more four years. Then back to Mexico City for one year and to Genoa, Italy where I finished middle school. I completed high school in Boston. My Dad worked for the Mexican diplomatic service, and that's why we moved around a lot. We were lucky to have such beautiful cities to live in though. My only complaint was having to make new friends and leave old ones behind. It was hard for me to deal with and was the cause of many arguments growing up.
How did you come to live in Thailand?
After September 11th, I began to question my life choices. I was finishing a Ph.D. program in Public Policy at the University of Maryland and doing an internship at the World Bank in D.C. My professors were supportive, and it looked as though I might be going into a life in Academia. But when the planes crashed on that fateful day in 2001, I realized how fickle life was. That it could end at any moment and I felt I still wanted to see more of the world. I did not want to focus only on work. So I made up my mind to travel again, and in 2002 I took a job in Chengdu, China, working as an English teacher at a local college.
After one year of working and traveling around China, I visited Thailand. On a boat trip to the Similan Islands, I bumped into my future husband, Tuk. He spoke little English, and I spoke no Thai but somehow we hit it off, and we have been married for 14 years.
Thai is a tonal language, and I can't tell the difference between rice and knee
What was it like learning Thai?
Well, it's a work in progress. I find that learning a language is much easier as a child. With Thai, I focused on learning the numbers first. I would go to the markets and bargain with the sellers. I was not afraid of looking or sounding silly. Thai is a tonal language, unlike the Western languages. To my untrained ears, many words sound the same. I can't tell the difference between rice and knee which in Thai are said almost the same ("khao") but with slightly different tones. To make life easier I just try to keep my sentences short and talk with a monotone sound. Thai people understand me from the content of the whole sentence as opposed to the individual words.
How has it been blending into a Thai & Muslim family?
It was hard the first year, mostly because I was stubborn. Raised in the West, you are taught to speak up, to stand out. I hold freedom as a fundamental value, freedom of belief, of choice, of movement, everything. And as a woman, I hold these beliefs close to my heart.
With time, however, I learned to be flexible, to pick my battles.
My husband, Tuk, is Muslim and was raised in a lower class, traditional family. His parents are old school, and they did not approve of me in the beginning. With time, however, I learned to be flexible, to pick my battles. My husband also had to change his expectations, and we were able to meet in the middle.
I did not change much. Actually, I just stopped letting differences bother me. If I wanted to join in a family event, I would, and if not I wouldn't. I stopped caring about what his family might think of me, of what locals might say. I just focused on Tuk, on our business, and with time, people accepted me as I am.
I was in love, I knew nothing about boxing but jumped at the idea of starting a business with Tuk
What are the biggest lessons you learned as an entrepreneur?
I learned to take risks but to also think things through. I was falling in love with a Thai boxer. I wanted to stay in Thailand but knew I could not stay a tourist forever. I had to find something to do. Tuk had been a fighter all his life; boxing was his passion. I knew nothing about it but jumped at the idea of starting a business together.
I was young enough to be fearless yet, old enough to be realistic. We needed funds, and I had some savings. Had I known back then all the hardships we would have to face, I might not have done it. But I also believe that life offers you opportunities, and I'm too curious not to take them.
We opened Rawai Muay Thai in November 2003. Back then there were few gyms in Phuket and none that taught foreigners in a camp setting. Back then people would visit a gym, take a class and head back to their hotel. We had the idea of building bungalows and having our guests stay in the camp. We wanted people to have an all-inclusive experience, to spend time with Thais, in and out of the ring. We started with one student, Adam from England. Now we have 15 trainers and around 30–40 students per month who visit us from all over the world.
How is it to raise third culture kids in a small town?
Our kids are 12 and 8, two girls. They are known in Thai as "Luk Krung," or half children (half Thai and half foreign). I speak to them in English, although my mother tongue is Spanish. Living in Asia, I thought English would be more practical for them. Their father speaks to them in Thai.
We moved from Phuket to Khao Lak, about four years ago. We bought land in Khao Lak and built a second gym and moved our business here. Our gym rental contract finished in Phuket, and we wanted to be in a smaller, calmer place, better suited for people who want to train. However, Khao Lak is a small seaside town, a tourist destination, and thus has few schools.
The girls go to a school about 45 minutes away. When they get back home from school, they train at the gym. They seem happy. They are more Thai than foreign, I think…having been born here and lived in Thailand all their life. We do visit my family back in Mexico from time to time, and hopefully, the girls can live abroad when they finish high school, and see the world as I did.
Moving around taught me to be flexible, to accept people and cultures more and to judge less
Living abroad all my life molded me into who I am today. I am a person with no hometown, a person with few lifelong friends. Moving around was tough growing up, but it taught me to be flexible, to accept people and cultures more and to judge less. To understand that my way is not the only way. That there are infinite ways to look at the world and to do things. That is the beauty of the world, and traveling gives us a glimpse of it every day.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
National Medical Laboratory Professionals WeekRideout Press Releases
April 22-28, 2012
April 22-28th is National Medical Laboratory Professionals Week. You know, those folks in the white coats, bent over a microscope, helping to find the cause of what ails you.
Because they work behind the scenes, you might not be aware of the important role they play in virtually every aspect of healthcare.
Medical lab professionals and pathologists not only assist in saving lives and monitoring health, but also in containing the costs of your care with fast and accurate results.
Rideout Health salutes the skilled professionals who work in our five laboratories located in Yuba and Sutter Counties, and whose services are available 24/7 to provide our medical teams with the information they need to treat patients or plan preventive care.
For more information about Rideout's outpatient lab and testing services, call (530) 751-4900 or visit www.frhg.org.


text:
Southern Living Magazine, a staple in most southern homes and revered almost as much as The Bible itself, recently released its inaugural list of the South's Best awards. The list celebrates the spectacular sights, inspiring destinations, and cultural institutions that define the South in 2017. Southern Living surveyed more than 22,000 readers on the best-loved places in several categories, and it's no surprise to us to see the Golden Isles recognized throughout the lists.
South's Best Island
St. Simons Island claimed the #2 spot on the list of South's Best Islands. Known for its laid-back atmosphere, friendly locals and picturesque landscape, St. Simons Island is the perfect escape for weekend getaways, summer vacations, or even permanent residence. Don't miss: the St. Simons Island Tree Spirits.
Jekyll Island also landed a spot on this list, coming in at #7. With majority of the island protected from future development, Jekyll Island is truly a nature-lover's paradise. Explore the island's 20 miles of paved bike paths as you wind through marshes and maritime forests. Don't miss: Driftwood Beach.
South's Best Resort
The Cloister has gained recognition with Southern Living as the #6 Best Resort. The resort recently added 63 new rooms to its Garden Wing and completed an expansion of Tavola, one of Sea Island's nine onsite restaurants. Don't miss: The Georgian Room, Georgia's only Forbes Five-Star restaurant.
South's Best Hotel
Jekyll Island Club Hotel earned the #3 spot on the list of Best Hotels. The hotel was once the private retreat for some of America's most wealthy families, and was even the site of the first transatlantic phone call. Its idyllic setting in the Jekyll Island National Historic Landmark District provides ample opportunities to step into the past. Don't miss: an alfresco meal at the Courtyard at Crane.
South's Best BBQ Joint
Southern Soul reigns supreme on this list, boasting the #1 position. Chances are pretty good that if you've visited St. Simons Island anytime over the last couple of years, you've been able to smell their smokers literally from miles away. It's a favorite spot for locals and visitors alike. Don't miss: anything on their menu, seriously.
It's no secret that the Golden Isles is a very special place. From award-winning accommodations, islands and restaurants, you won't be disappointed. Take advantage of these deals and specials as you plan your next visit to the Golden Isles.


text:
Platinum-selling Artist Teams with America Remembers® to Release Commemorative
25th Anniversary Colt® .45 Pistol
Nashville, Tenn. (October 27, 2015) - In celebration of his 25th anniversary in the music business and just in time for the holidays, country singer Aaron Tippin is teaming with America Remembers® to release the limited edition Aaron Tippin Colt® .45 Pistol. The commemorative gun will be available for purchase on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 exclusively at americaremembers.com. Pre-sale purchases are available now.
"This year I've celebrated 25 years with great new music and also some really good wine," says Tippin. "To be chosen to be commemorated by a company that has created guns for Elvis, John Wayne, Conway Twitty and George Jones is a huge honor. America Remembers has always done beautiful firearm pieces. I'm so proud to be included in this group."
Tippin joins an elite group of celebrities who have been honored with custom America Remembers® firearms including Elvis Presley, John Wayne, George Jones, Chuck Norris and Conway Twitty.
The Aaron Tippin Colt® .45 Pistol retails for $1995.00. The pistol is engraved in gold with symbolic images depicting Tippin's patriotic music career. Each gun is numbered within the edition limit of 300, and is accompanied by a numbered certificate of authenticity.


text:
Wimbledon prize money up 40% and roof planned for Court One
- From the section Tennis
The All-England Club has announced a 40% rise in prize money for Wimbledon in 2013 and plans for a retractable roof for Number One Court by 2019.
Prize money will total £22.6m, up £6.5m on 2012, with the men's and women's singles winners receiving £1.6m each.
Philip Brook, chairman of the All England Club, has denied the decision came about under pressure from players.
"We've listened to the players, but we have had no negotiations with players or the ATP or WTA tour," he said.
With the Centre Court roof in use since 2009, a total of 26,500 covered seats will be available across the two show courts once the work on Number One Court is complete.
The prize money on offer to the winners of the men's and ladies' singles winners was made the same in 2007 and will rise £450,000 from the £1.15m that champions Roger Federer and Serena Williams received in 2012.
Brook told BBC Sport that the latest increases are intended to support players lower down the world rankings.
"When we made our prize money announcement last year, there was a focus on players who lost in qualifying or in the early rounds of our championships," he said.
"These are players who are not multi-millionaires. They are players who are probably in the top 50 to 200 in the world.
"We wanted to do more for those players."
The singles players who lose in the first three rounds at Wimbledon will see their prize money rise more than 60% this year, taking the overall increase for these players to around 90% over a two-year period.
Former British number one Greg Rusedski told BBC Sport that the All-England Club had made the right decision.
"At the end of the day, the winner gets £1.6m, but that is usually Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray or Federer winning the big prizes," he told BBC Sport.
"Money becomes irrelevant to those guys as it is all about winning titles. But at the lower range it is very substantial and very important because the increase makes a big difference. It allows them to pay for their coaches, travel and a physio if they have one with them on the road.
"The increase makes a big difference in their careers and livelihoods."
There is also a 41% increase in prize money for players in qualifying, bringing the two-year increase for that category to 71%.
Brook added: "I would like to thank all those whose contribution to Wimbledon's success both on and off court has today enabled us to announce these significant levels of investment in The Championships."
There was also record prize money at the opening Grand Slam of the year, the Australian Open in January, with the singles prizes rising from $2.3m to $2,430,000, around £1,635,693.
At the French Open, which begins next month, the winners will earn 1.5m euros, around £1,279,600, an increase of 250,000 euros on last year.
At the US Open, starting in August, the total prize fund will be up by $4m to $29.5m (£19.34m).
"Wimbledon needs to remain competitive," Brook said.
"The fans won't be paying for this. It's very important to us that the fans who come to Wimbledon pay a reasonable price for their ticket."
Rusedski also welcomed the decision to put a roof on Number One Court.
"In modern times, you need to have live sport all the time," he said.
"If the weather is suspect at Wimbledon, as we know it sometimes can be, it allows people to see live tennis rather than replays of John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg playing in the 1980s."


text:
English | Espańol
All Issues > Volume 18, Issue 2
Two years ago, on the first Sunday of Lent, March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II did something shocking. He asked for forgiveness of the sins committed by Catholics throughout the centuries. This event was prepared for by a study of the International Theological Commission. In this study, the Commission stated: "In the entire history of the Church there are no precedents for requests for forgiveness by the Magisterium for past wrongs" (1:1). Pope John Paul II continued this unprecedented, radical initiative for reconciliation a week later when He realized His dream of visiting the Holy Land. There He again apologized to the Jewish people and even inserted this apology in the wailing wall in Jerusalem. This act was of unfathomable, symbolic significance.
This great movement of the Spirit in forgiveness and reconciliation continues to sweep across the face of the earth. Many bishops have tried to apply the Pope's call to their dioceses. Are you fulfilling your ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18) in your family, church, neighborhood, and workplace? Are you forgiving seventy times seven times? (Mt 18:22) Are you forgiving from your heart? (Mt 18:35) Are you breaking new ground in forgiveness and reconciliation?


text:
Freedom In Between
An interview with Johan Tali, one of the curators of Estonian Pavilion at the 14th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice
Sandra Kosorotova in Tallinn
At the 14th International Architecture Exhibition in Venice, running from the 7th of June to the 23rd of November 2014, Estonia will be represented by three young curators from Estonia, all of whom are currently living in Vienna.
The curator of the Biennale, Rem Koolhaas, has asked the participants to react on the assumption that after World War ll, national particularities in architecture vanished and in their place, a new universal architectural language appeared.
Johanna Jõekalda, Johan Tali and Siim Tuksam see the future of architecture as closely related to the development of digital technology and social media. Their project, "Interspace", deals with the topic of public influence on the environment. We contacted Johan Tali for a little catch-up on how the project is evolving.
More than a year has passed now since your decision to participate in the Estonian curatorial competition. What has been your strongest motivation in doing this project?
I think what got us interested was the call by the Biennale's artistic director (Rem Koolhaas) to approach proposals for national pavilions from a more research-oriented perspective. We found ourselves very comfortable in coming up with a proposal not fully knowing what we would like to do in the end -- the proposal was more about pointing out the general problematics and specialties, and leading from that, to set a task for ourselves. Whereas past Biennale themes have been very abstract and open to interpretation, this time the general theme deals very specifically with national and global influences of the last century upon the fundamental elements of architecture; we found it an opportune moment to bring Estonia into this comparison of more than 50 nationalities. Furthermore, it would become an opportune moment to review our spatial conditions from the view of an "outsider", i.e., ignoring the local romantic views and values placed on local projects and instead, looking at them from a global perspective. I think that was our trump card in the competition for the curatorship -- being fresh and open to collaborations and ideas on a given theme which, in our case, was public space in the age of digital communication.
Photo: Kristina Õllek
As a result of the competition, the public and the jury voted for your proposal, "Interspace", to represent Estonia at the Biennale. Could you please give a brief introduction to the project?
To put it simply, it will be a 1:1 model of a contemporary public space -- we call it Interspace. It is our aim to concentrate on the general shift towards a more individual participatory model of defining the public domain via technology, and to compare it to an institutionalized definition of public space. In a digitized society (E-governed Estonia), there is still a need for physical space, and we seek to point out the individualized, fragmented, multidimensional nature of these spaces.
The interactive installation aims to produce a reading of spatial conditions that dominate our everyday environments by showing how digital technologies and physical bodies are related to both each other and to the public collective space. For example, we increasingly communicate not with each other, but rather, with the imagery and avatars on our mobile devices; instead of acting out in public, we publish, tweet and reblog using the web. Associations for the word "public space" have changed radically in the last century, and our project aims to show what public space in Estonia was and is.
It is quite unusual that, in addition to the large number of three curators, the project also involved the participation of a group of students from the Estonian Academy of Arts who took part in a workshop that you organized. Please tell us about this experience.
We started off with a question: "What is digital public space and how does it change physical space?". To be quite honest, in the beginning we did not know the answer to that question, so we decided to crowd-source the answers. A mindset of twenty students set off to answer the question, while our task was to curate and document all of these different approaches. What came out of it was a set of new ideas about public space; the material greatly influenced our understanding about the key elements of public space. The class really became a laboratory for experimenting with different ideas. In that sense, teaching really became researching -- we could only supervise their ideas and we had only indirect influence on the outcome. This kind of collaboration can only lead to new ideas -- it was not about sharing our knowledge, but about creating a platform for creating new knowledge. This modus operandi is at the very core of not only contemporary academic work, but also of a contemporary architectural practice; this is something that we will definitely continue to pursue.
Photo: Johanna Jõekalda
So, you have been talking about the progression of humans diversifying, which then suggests the need for a more adaptive architecture. But the most recent trend, #normcore, is, on the contrary, about the homogenization of people – the choice to be approachable by anyone, and to not be unique. How might this affect architecture?
Normcore has NO core. The common denominator is an illusion of satisfactory conditions for everyone when, in fact, they identify no one. In society, no single person is truly "the norm" (in the mathematical sense of the word). There is no single person that matches the profile of the generic customer upon which shopping malls were modeled. The question, "What is a collective average, and how to not express the collective in such a way that it does not really relate to anyone, but rather, is open to everyone's interpretations?" has actually been one of the main topics of our research. From such things as the very modernist idea about an abstract, unified style that can be expressed with a clean, purified shape, or from the method of organizing cities( Le Corbusier's plan of Paris) as a strict, anonymous grid of continuous "sameness", we have learned that modernist architecture has failed to house the multitude of our identities. The counter-movement to these modernist ideas about the city grew out of postmodernism -- the attempt to capture the complexity and diversity of society into a unified, complex system. This costly-to-build complexity that emerges from an invisible field of fluctuating information has one problem -- it gets old very fast because the world that it expresses is in constant change, and thus, sooner or later, it renders out any fixture that has become outdated. This is the starting point for our project. Instead of averaging the individuals to a common denominator, we seek to define a new style of complexity by using technology as a tool for information about ourselves and our behaviors. We are trying to imagine a public space that accommodates and communicates this fluctuating information field. Without the exclusion of a single, individual trace of information, Big data could help us render the model of society in all of its complexity. The key here is not to rule out anomalies or oddities, but rather, to include all of this (and everyone) in an interactive design done in the name of diversity. The expression of diversity and a multitude of individuals will carry a much bigger potential for everyone to confront what they did not see, relate to, or know of, thus providing a bigger potential of discovering something new and meaningful. The statement behind #normcore can be seen as a an attempt for the fashion industry to desperately find the one last trend in a world in which fashion is not possible anymore due to personalization. The anonymous style that #normcore is thriving on will lead to a lack of potential in discovering anything new.
"Interspace" is about the public's influence on architecture. In his book "Architecture of Happiness", the writer and philosopher, Alain de Botton, talks about how, on the contrary, buildings can affect our state of mind...
From my point of view, freedom is even more important than happiness. We are looking at ways to use public space as a creator of a maximum number of freedoms. So, instead of architecture limiting one's freedom, we seek ways for architecture to allow it. It is a feedback loop of behaviors that feed architectural placemaking. From the point of public space, architecture has the exclusive tasks of storing the ideas of the collective and formulating a scenery for the collective in which to interact and communicate; as individual trajectories are becoming more and more personalized, the multitude of views about the public don't seem to fit "under one common roof" anymore. An example of this is Tallinn, where the public domain is being formulated by the interests of a specific class of Estonian nationals in order to maintain the status quo and to diminish the different cultural backgrounds and hierarchies. This friction can only be overcome with spatial conditions that do not discriminate against the individual, but that are open to different uses and associations. They must provide freedom.
How, in your opinion, might the engagement with the Biennale affect your career and international profile?
Over the course of the last year, we have learned not to predict the future, as whatever we will imagine to happen will surely end up differently. We have been able to provoke an international discussion with professionals (from Estonia, Italy, the USA, The Netherlands, Austria, the United Kingdom, Norway etc.), some of whom have been dealing with these topics since the sixties. Surely the topics that we are interested in are not just trending, but there does not seem to be any turning back. Estonia, having been called a "forerunner" in digital technologies, is a perfect place to critically look at the effects that these new technologies have on society and the spaces that we share.
Currently, the curators are organizing a fundraiser to develop an additional virtual pavilion for the exhibition in Venice. The virtual counterpart of the pavilion will allow people to use their computers to browse the exhibition, and furthermore, to manipulate the physical space in the pavilion and vice versa, in real time - www.hooandja.ee/projekt


text:
We probably wouldn't want to live in the 'Divergent' dystopian world but that won't stop us imagining what faction we'd be in! Sometimes it's a little tricky to tell your Dauntless from your Candor, though, so we've come up with the perfect challenge: can we guess your faction based on your favourite 5H lady?
Did we get it right? Let us know @maximumpop!
- Don't miss this super secret announcement at YALC! You won't be disappointed.
- You need to vote on these fan theories about those Harry Styles 'Dunkirk' set pictures
- Grab yourself an exclusive proof every day at YALC with Hachette – and if that's not enough, have a makeover too!
- Quiz: an abundance of Zayn: are these John Green quotes or 'Mind of Mine' lyrics?
- I tried to play Fifth Harmony's 'Work From Home' on Smule's Magic Piano and here's how it sounds


text:
US, January 12, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - We again see a shift in focus on Gaza by Israel and continued support from the US. It is obvious that Israel is preparing itself for another go at Gaza with the usual over emphasis on rocket attacks. The frequency in air strikes is escalating to almost a daily affair and the terminology is shifting away from normal militia to that of Al Qaeda. In the meantime we have the US indicating that it may take sanctions against the Israelis to enforce the recommencement of peace talks. What is pretty evident is that peace talks historically have never been successful because Israel will not stop building on Palestinian land and the US never practices what it preaches.
What is of extreme concern is a new tactic coming out of the US when the following was announced in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "U.S. to store $800m in military gear in Israel"....maybe Obama and the US Congress would like to define the term "Store".....is this a new secretive means of getting weapons exported to Israel without the normal process of passing this through Congress for approval without a transmittal notice? Is this another Obama WMD - Weapons of Mass Deceit?
The report states the following: The U.S. Army will double the value of emergency military equipment it stockpiles on Israeli soil, and Israel will be allowed to use the U.S. ordnance in the event of a military emergency. The Haaretz report went on to say: This is the final phase of a process that began over a year ago to determine the type and amount of U.S. weapons and ammunition to be stored in Israel, part of an overarching American effort to stockpile weapons in areas in which its army may need to operate while allowing American allies to make use of the ordnance in emergencies.
The American public and the more friendly members of Congress (if they exist) should now be asking many question regarding the change of US policy (or should I say aggression). Some of those questions could be along the following lines:
• Why would the US Army need to operate out of Israel?
• Who does the US Army perceive to be the enemy (Gaza, Lebanon or Syria)?
• Why would a requirement exist to stockpile in Israel when they have access to both Turkey on one side and Egypt and Jordan on the other?
• Will the arms that are intended for use by the IDF still be process via the President or Congress?
It is obvious that this new tactic is a way of smuggling (some would say gun running) weapons into Israel for their own usage against Gaza and Iran.
We saw such a build up just prior to "Cast Lead" when the US shipped many weapons to Israel that were used and continue to be used on Gaza.
Maraka complicit in ILLEGAL WAR and MURDER again and again
Again I repeat that almost every weapon used past and current by the IDF on Gaza is in violation of the Geneva Convention. I would also add that the weapons used that contain uranium components are WMD's and not conventional weapons. They are totally indiscriminate and do not identify international borders. The IDF since the attack in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza 2008/9 has also contaminated its own soldiers, population, land, crops and water supply throughout Israel.
It is so interesting to see this unbreakable bond between the US and Israel. On one hand we see political spin talking about applying pressure to Israel when in actual fact it is the opposite and there is no pressure on Israel whatsoever. Again we have to look deep inside the politics of the US, UK and EU to realize that "The Friends of Israel" political groups, the Pro Israeli Lobby and the Christian and Jewish Zionist Groups totally control governments. They brush the palms of many leading figures on both sides of the pond by funding their election campaigns, invite them over to Israel for an all expenses paid holiday and then plan their own evil agenda on how to manipulate US, UK and EU policy to their own advantage.
This is the true state of the corrupt governments of today. They are so far removed from true democracy one would need binoculars to even catch a glimpse of politicians who show true compassion or even try to understand the injustices that exist in areas such as the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Pakistan and now Yemen.
One must understand that the governments of today turn their backs on mass genocide and torture in order to better their own position in politics. They turn their backs on the huge deteriorating extremes of poverty in order to better their own economic greed or control of someone else's natural resources. They continue to turn a blind eye in their own countries use of WMD's but pretend to support the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT). Could one ever imagine that this NPT that was signed in 1968 still remains a non effectual treaty?
Is this just another case of the "Big Boys Club" having meetings and conferences around the world to pontificate or a place to wallow in the splendor of 5 star luxury?
This treaty in the main is interpreted as consisting of three levels:
1. Non-proliferation
2. Disarmament, and
3. The right to peacefully use nuclear technology
The treaty is reviewed each five years in meetings called Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In addition, Sessions of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference take place on the intermediate years. Simultaneously, many events organized by independent institutions, groups of experts, think tanks and NGO´s take place worldwide in order to provide reports and recommendations that compliment the Preparatory Committees.......can you see what a mean.....an absolute load of codswallop!
It is evident that selected governments of this world (G8), international bankers, and Israeli support groups really do control the world. They create non-effectual UN Resolutions, treaties, global warming conferences (during these extreme cold snaps of weather), and peace talks etc the list is endless and they never go anywhere and never reach a successful conclusion. Would someone care to estimate the cost of holding these elaborate "Big Boys Get Together" ....millions of dollars? They even have the audacity to come out with such statements as "Make Poverty History".....it is just one big false façade into making us believe they are doing something constructive and compassionate when in actual fact between them they are extremely destructive.
One might ask the question what has all this got to do with Gaza? In allowing this arrangement to take place it means that Israel has an open cheque book to take weapons from the US stockpile in Israel. It allows existing systems of recording to be bypassed as this will now only involve the relocation of US weapons from one area of the globe to another.
What are the implications of this change in policy? It shifts the logistical storage facilities from previous locations to that of Israel and more importantly makes Israel a prime target for any future attack or reprisal attack against a US facility. It also indicates that Israel will now be in a state of preparedness to take further action against Iran, Gaza, Lebanon or Syria. One could say with great confidence that this huge arsenal would certainly have weapons that contain uranium components. Should events lead to a reprisal attacks it goes without saying that the aftermath of such an attack would be catastrophic to say the least.
Finally I just want to explain the evil that exists in new US weaponry technology. Currently there is a vast array of new weapons waiting to be tested on unknown potential victims. As we know Lebanon and Gaza became experimental test beds for both US and Israeli weapons. We are now looking at missiles that can fly at hyper speed and weapons that are so devastating and indiscriminate it is hard to believe that any country would allow their manufacturers to design or build them.
now see the giant Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) (OBAM-A)
guided bomb being deployed to the Middle East ready to be used on some
unsuspecting victim with terrible consequences. MOAB is also known as the
"Mother of all Bombs." This bomb is currently stored in Qatar
awaiting it first mission which will probably be Afghanistan so it's just a
matter of time to see where and when this 21,700 lb bomb will be used.
Just when you think you have seen the end of these incredibly nasty weapons we see the emergence of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb currently under development by Boeing. This weapon is being rushed through its development stage by the Pentagon in order to have it available for a possible attack on Iran or possible North Korea.
I find the language used by Obama and the US Government extremely threatening especially when they stipulate that such weapons are being designed for a specific task or country. One would never have imagined that anyone could bestow such an honour, as the Nobel Peace Prize, on a person who continuously makes threats and is hell bent for war! I suppose at the end of the day its one of America's greatest export industries, so war is good for their economy. Such potential conflict is also an opportunity for the US to hike up the price of a barrel of oil that is so vital for their own oil company's vast profits.
It would be interesting to see if the MOAB ends up on Israel soil based on this new strategy. This particular bomb can be launched from a C130 Hercules aircraft (out the tail ramp) which Israel already has in its fleet.
Then there is the MOP, which is more specialized, can only be dropped from
the old B52 aircraft or more than likely will to be dropped from the B2
Stealth Bomber. This raises one very important question. The US has indicated
it will not attack Iran but said that it may not be able to stop Israel from
doing so!.......my question would therefore be that if the MOP is being rushed
through its current programme to make it available for Iran......who will
deliver the weapon to its target?
Israel certainly does not have suitable aircraft and therefore this means that if Israel does carryout an attack on Iran it will certainly require the active participation of the US. One could see the US B2 Stealth Bomber operating outside of Iranian airspace at high altitude (totally blind to Iranian Radar); release the weapon which will then guide itself to target. It would be very easy for any weapons expert to know if such a weapon had been used and also very obvious who had launched it.
Tomorrow we see the start of a special week of remembrance for Gaza and I sincerely hope that we all not only support the Palestinians during this sad event but also stand alongside them as they strive for an internationally recognized sovereign state of Palestine. In'shalla.
Peter Eyre - Middle East Consultant - 12/1/2010


text:
© Copyright 2012. Neocirculation. All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact Us | RSS
NEOCIRC001 trials recruits the 1st baby
Monday, June 30, 2014
The 1st trial of the NEOCIRC project, NEOCIRC001 opened in May its 1st site in LaPaz Hospital in Madrid, Spain. After screening of potential patients for 3 weeks, the 1st baby was recruited on the 25th June 2014.


text:
MemoryMixer Store
Flower Power Borders Pack
Designer: Lindsay Jane
Categories: Embellishment Packs Green, Orange, Purple, White, Yellow, Lindsay Jane, Kids, Outdoors, Spring
Tags: Flower Power Borders Pack, Spring, Kids, Outdoors, Hearts, Flowers, Dots, Stripes, Spring
|Add to Cart Add to Favorites Tell a Friend
Price: $2.99
Add to Cart
Flower Power Borders Pack is a quick way to add a cute edge to papers! Coordinates with Flower Power Embellishment Pack, Paper Pack, Embossed Paper Pack and Frame Pack. VERSION 2 OR HIGHER
*** Please refer to QuickMix download speeds/times before purchase:
1. This QuickMix design is a downloadable purchase only. Download times may vary.
2. MemoryMixer Software required. Buy MemoryMixer Software Now.
Additional Images:


text:
What makes a good plot twist? And how do you build up to it? How many clues should you give the reader?
There is no perfect plot formula. I cannot tell you the number of clues you should include before revealing the murderer or the right chapter to introduce a sex scene. But do not despair. The good news is, you already know how to tell a story. You do it every day. You have been doing it since you were a tiny child. Think about pace. People your story with characters your reader can believe in. Put obstacles in the way of these characters. Respect your reader's intelligence and whatever you do, don't be boring.
Louise Welsh is the author of eight novels including The Cutting Room, A Lovely Way to Burn and Death is a Welcome Guest. She has received numerous awards and international …Read More


text:
International Ad Scheduling with Google AdWords
A few days ago there was a debate on the Spanish Google AdWords Community Forum about ad scheduling. Some of the comments were misleading, others simply incorrect.
I weighed in - after all I had spent some time getting my head around this issue a couple of years ago.
So here's a break down of the problem...
You are based in Madrid and your account is, therefore, set to Central European Time - but your clients are all over the world. You know that your customers are most likely to be searching for you during office hours... so you'd like to set a timeframe for your ads to appear - 9am to 5pm. So that's what you do.
The simple thing to assume is that Google will "translate" this into the local time of the searcher, right? Well, that's what we all assume at first. But of course, a little thought tells us that all Google can do is have the account awake or sleeping - it cannot have it awake for some visitors and asleep for others. So anyone looking for you in New York, for example, will only find you between 3am and 11am - ooops!
So how do you configure time windows for international campaigns? The answer is - you have to have multiple campaigns for different time zones. Both the ad scheduling and the geo targeting are set at the campaign level - so you cannot have different times or geo regions between Ad Groups in the same campaign.
To use our example, therefore, we can set up a duplicate campaign (this is really simple to do if we use the AdWords Editor) and then we change the geo targeting to include our New York target (it could be the US - or the eastern states, whatever we need to cover - bearing in mind, of course, that within the US there are multiple time zones) and then set our ad scheduling for 3pm - 11pm - remembering that this campaign will wake up and go live at 3pm in Madrid - so 9am in New York!
The only slight complication comes when your time frame overlaps midnight. So if you needed to have your ads running in New Zealand, for example, you'd need your ads running from 9pm to 5am - but Google will not let you have a start time AFTER the end time (obviously!). The solution in this case is to have two active periods. The first from midnight to 5am, then later in the day another from 9pm to midnight.
At first this can be quite confusing - but once you understand that Google runs your ads in your own time zone it does make sense. But you'll still need a pencil and paper to write it all down before you try and configure campaigns across the continents!


text:
Shoes Children Football shoes adidas Originals Predator 18.3 Junior FG Football Boots Black EAP24J
adidas Predator 18.3 Junior FG Football Boots These adidas Predator 18.3 Junior FG Football Boots have been constructed with control embossing to help deliver a greater first touch so you can influence the game in your teams favour. The boots have a stretchy sock-like collar which fits like a second skin and provides essential ankle stability, whilst the anatomically designed upper mimics your heel shape for a locked in fit and the adidas branding completes the stylish look. > Junior Football Boots > Full lace fastening > Cushioned insole > Touch coated mesh upper > Control embossing > Moulded studs > Knitted ankle and tongue > Predator detailing > adidas branding > Upper: Synthetic/Textile, Lining/Sole: Synthetic
Generally, all orders are processed and shipped within 7 business days.
When do I receive the shipping order?
Most boats within 24 hours. After completing the order, we will send you the tracking number by e-mail and we will give you the request addresses.
Can you send to my country?
We can ship to your country We can send the sample of an item or large orders to more than 100 countries.
When does my order arrive?
This shipping method is the fastest available. The delivery time is 3-5 days for all major destinations. Shipping costs vary by item, but all orders with express shipping receive a 36% discount on postage. We also need to speed up the options available for most products, which means that the order will arrive 3 or 4 business days after leaving the warehouse.
Easy 60 days return
We are committed to total satisfaction. If, for any reason, you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may receive a full refund of the product price and related taxes within 60 business days of receipt of the goods. In order to receive a loan for an exchange or credit for a recharge account, please note that all returns and transactions must be in new condition, unused or unused in the original labels and adhesive labels attached. . Used, worn, dirty or lost items will be returned to the buyer at their own expense and no refund will be made. Swimwear for women can only come back if a hygiene insert is placed. Underwear, non-standard items and non-standard items are non-refundable. Since the return is the responsibility of the customer, you must receive the delivery number of the courier company on return.
All transactions are protected. The site is equipped with an SSL encryption system that protects your personal information and payments. We do not sell or publish items ordered on the website, or directly to anyone we have known for 18 years. We will not collect personally identifiable information (such as name, address, phone number, and e-mail address) that you also collect as "personal data" about you, unless you choose to provide it voluntarily.
you may also like
£57.57 £20.06
Save: 65% off
£68.05 £23.28
Save: 66% off
£43.76 £20.76
Save: 53% off
£62.65 £21.99
Save: 65% off
£49.87 £20.03
Save: 60% off
£36.06 £18.00
Save: 50% off
£59.61 £20.11
Save: 66% off
£51.25 £17.64
Save: 66% off


text:
Breastfeeding Problems
Chiropractic's Involvement with Breast Feeding Problems
There is nothing more frustrating than the helpless feeling of not being able to feed your baby. With the prevalence of formula and the pressure exerted by many well-meaning health care aids and family members, many women resort to bottle feeding prematurely. In many cases, chiropractic care may be the help they need to get on the road to a great breast feeding relationship.
There are very few mothers who actually have a primary breast glandular insufficiency which is causing a "lack of milk" or a "decrease in milk flow". When there is a problem, it is most commonly that the child's suck reflex has been inhibited by mechanical forces, most of which are easily detected and corrected in the chiropractic office. For example, the hypoglossal nerve (Cranial nerve 12), which directly governs movement of the tongue exits the skull just lateral to where the skull rests upon, the first bone of the neck (at the occipital condyles in close proximity to the atlanto-occipital joint capsule).
When parents bring their baby in to our office we do a thorough examination of the infants suck reflex, cranial bones and spinal bones (specifically the upper cervical and thoracic regions). Most commonly we find infants who are having difficulty with breast feeding do so because they have a misalignment of the first two bones in the neck which is inhibiting their bodies ability to suck properly and to fully open their mouth. They may also have a misalignment of the jaw or the bones which make up the roof of the mouth (specifically the vomer or palatines).
As chiropractors we can normalize the position of these areas by using very specific chiropractic adjustments. Adjusting a baby is very different than adjusting an adult. We only need to use the tips of our fingers or a very special adjusting tool to re-align the bones of a baby's spine. It is very gentle and very specific.
Ultimately the goal of the adjustment is to re-align the bones of the spine, the jaw or the skull so that their can be normal nerve system function. This will allow the babies nervous system to carry out the suck reflex properly and ultimately allow the mother and baby to have a successful breast feeding experience.


text:
NFL Players Union Appeals Ray Rice Suspension
The NFL Players Association is appealing Ray Rice's suspension from the NFL. Does it have a legal standing? WSJ's Ashby Jones discusses on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: AP
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... the NFL players union also arguing that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell should not be part of the rice appeal ... with the legal analysis on the story were joined by Ashby Jones from the Wall Street Journal law ... bureau XP thank so much for joining us thanks to me I mean to read quickly it from the statement from the players' union We've acid a neutral and jointly selected arbitrators hear this case as the commissioner and his staff ... will be essential weaknesses in the proceeding and thus cannot serve ... as impartial arbitrators ... now under the collective bargaining agreement Mr Bell has the authority to hear all discipline appeals so ... do they have a case ... what they're arguing that the Steve Rogers ago is conflicted out that he played a central role in the medium to push the thief initially ... in this situation so there are good that he shouldn't be able to be the Garver trader on this on whether or not the indefinite suspension was fair ... so they're saying that the collective bargaining agreement here ... that those terms the description not apply ... and that they should be a will take their appealed directly to a third party neutral arbitrator ... their legal basis ... well well I think there is anything that they can argue that because of conflicts to go to the arbitrator now ... rather than wait for Dell to hear an appeal and then go to the arbitrator would be the normal ... course of events that this would take out what was a time frame were looking at a BP of us ... did these things don't take a ton of time it's not like the of the yield going into court of law which can take you know months and months aam ... what I don't think we know the exact I forget that I would say probably aam several weeks maybe a month and half that at the at the latest ... aam it you know we're in the Millwall football season now right and the Ravens are playing in there a good team they would like to have ... aam Mr Rice back presumably at some point I aam ... and I think what's probably most troubled troublesome to them is the definite part of that I don't know how long ago the without a look ... at the other complaint to the players Association said he was first ... he was banned for two games and then in definitely banks other arguing that he's being punished twice for the same infraction that that that's right um and it's been a court of law that would be called double jeopardy from here is that does that relate to doesn't really apply because we're dealing with on ... a private organization which stupidly could do whatever it wants to ... however in the collective bargaining agreement that the part above the law that says that this type of thing can happen ... he of all the information you need of a punishment ... six months later you can come out based on the same information you've had ... and say you know what we're going to change the itself ALM so they're arguing that that is where the double jeopardy kind of situation and it shouldn't be allowed and have the official ... rules change regarding domestic violence in the NFL after this ... will initially was like a two game suspension and that's what everybody and sent everybody into an up or initially up one day not that wasn't enough you know ... marijuana suspensions are for much longer than this etc ... so aam ... they've extended the lead beliefs about six games now that sort of that the minimum that he hoped the service situation like this ... aam but but says that you cannot obviously they've they've gone to a stricter penalties for ... him Mr is feeling a lot of heat from advertisers those notably Ani's Orbison others into the way this is been handled ... so is this fine to play into the case ... I'd I don't I don't know why don't I don't think so I think that the Mr. Delhaize's hands ... full aam and I think as you pointed out this is the bigger the big question now was so much pressure our advertisers can put ... on the league and on budget bill the step down ... aam I'd I'd fewer nasty week ago what with said his job is safe now it looks like it's of all that a little bit um shakier but but that sort of a different issue than the Ray Rice issue which will ... head out on parallel tracks or so to speak from the dark days for the NFL yet so much to ask the view that


text:
Faneuil Inc.
Solution Provider Category: Contact Center
For more than 23 years, Faneuil (www.faneuil.com) has successfully designed, implemented and operated contact centers on behalf of highly regulated government and commercial clients. Headquartered in Hampton, Virginia, Faneuil provides outsourced customer care and other business processing solutions for an extensive client portfolio nationwide, managing more than 600 million customer interactions each year. Services are provided to customers through multiple channels, including inbound and outbound calling, chat messaging, email, fax, mail correspondence, and face-to-face communications. Utilizing advanced applications and a team of more than 4,500 service professionals, Faneuil delivers broad support to several diverse industries, including utilities, transportation, health and human services, government services and commercial services.
Headquarter Locations: Hampton, VAUtility Type Supported:
Commodities Supported:
- Regulated
- Competitive Retailers
- Federal and Public Utility District
- Muni
- Co-op
Utility Size Supported:
- Electric
- Gas
- Water
- Wastewater
- Refuse
Delivery Model: OtherCategories: Contact Center
- < 100k
- 101k - 300k
- 301k - 500k
- 501k - 700k
- 701k - 1mm


text:
Garfield County Sheriff's Report
Editor's note: The Garfield County Sheriff's Department reports the following incidents and arrests. Summonses or arrests merely indicate an accusation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless found guilty in court.
Cattle killed: On Nov. 1 at 10:40 a.m., Garfield County Sheriff's Animal Control took a complaint of some cattle that had been shot near the Mesa-Garfield county line on BLM land. No suspects or leads were reported at that time, and no new information was available from the sheriff's department as of Nov. 8.
Vehicle vandalism: On Nov. 1 at 8:45 a.m., dispatch took a report of $3,000 in vandalism to a vehicle in the Battlement Mesa area. No suspects or leads were reported by the sheriff's office.
Driving without a license: On Nov. 3 at approximately 12:30 a.m., deputies contacted Errol R. Jas, 44, of Glenwood Springs for allegedly parking improperly along South Canyon Creek Road (CR 134) west of Glenwood Springs. Jas was cited for driving without a valid license, failure to provide proof of insurance, and displaying an invalid license plate.
Under the influence: On Nov. 4 at approximately 1 a.m., deputies arrested Adrian Guadalupe Briseno-Ruelas, 23, of Carbondale, for allegedly driving with a suspended, revoked or denied license; failure to drive in a designated traffic lane; driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and driving with an open container of alcohol. He was booked into the Garfield County jail. NEED Location
Domestic disturbance: On Nov. 4 at about 8 p.m., deputies were called to a domestic disturbance near the city of Glenwood Springs and arrested Pedro Alvarez, 28, on charges of obstructing a police officer, harassment, domestic violence and child abuse resulting from negligence. Alvarez was booked into the Garfield County Jail.
Stolen firearm: On Nov. 5, at just after midnight, deputies took a report of a stolen firearm outside of Parachute. No further information was reported.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
Comprehensive Garfield County maps go live
A new suite of online maps show Garfield County in incredible detail, from watersheds and fire risk to zoning and property tax information.


text:
Completely renovated in 2004 this attractive complex consists of 70 apartments over 2 floors, each containing a bathroom, and a kitchenette with a fridge, oven, microwave and terrace, for an extra fee you can get a safe deposit box and internet access. There is a cafeteria and TV lounge to relax in.
Amenities & Services
There is a lovely swimming pool area with sunbeds and parasols and a pool bar, a gymnasium, laundry facilities, internet access, and a 24 hour reception area.


text:
Meet The Cats That Sleep Inside A Chain Chomp From Super Mario Bros. (11 pics)
Everyone remembers the Chain Chomp from Super Mario Bros. 3. They were intimidating and scary but not to these cats. The creator of this cat bed owns a company called Catastrophicreations that specializes in making furniture for cats. He decided he wanted to make a Chain Chomp inspired bed for his feline friends and they absolutely love it.
Do you like it?


text:
Skift Take
Nobody outside of the EU is fully embracing the emissions scheme and everyone is looking for a way to avoid implementing the rules. Obama will likely bow to industry pressure while promising lighter environmental restrictions.
Aviation groups pressure Obama to ground European airline emission rules via @thehill http://t.co/Kjh1XKGK
Tags: european union, green