|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 207 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-02-10 | | Jim Bartle: Hard throwing young pitchers for the Cincinnati Reds: Gary Nolan, Don Gullett, Rob Dibble. Better be careful. |
|
Sep-03-10
 | | LIFE Master AJ: <<Sep-03-10>
<<<<Phony Benoni:> <LMAJ>> I posted something in the Cafe, but stuff gets buried there too easily.> <One approach would be to look up the kibitzes of somebody who posts regularly on the POTD; <<dzechiel> is a good example.> You can find quite a few of them just by going to his page, and clicking on 'More" kibitzes.> <For a more complete approach, go the the <Search Kibitzing> page and try this:> <dzechiel +user: "dzechiel"> That will get you every single post dzechiel has ever made. Of course, a number of them won't be on the POTD; narrowing it down further would be harder. <The form of the search is very important. You must leave a space between the first <dzechiel> and <+user:>, and then another space before <"dzechiel">. The plus sign, colon, and quotation marks around the second <dzechiel> are absolutely essential.> Once you get the hang of it, you can have a lot of fun with this. For example, here's your very first post: <Showalter vs Pillsbury, 1904;> ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** You are freaking brilliant!!!!!!!!!!
Game Collection: "ChessGames" >Problem of The Day< (2010) I have already added a week's worth ... I get stuck analyzing the games rather than just adding them. (If I just plain added, I could have done 2 months worth already. Instead, I am reading the kibitzes, and analyzing the games. Like a putz. *Sigh*) |
|
Sep-03-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Tigers and Twins had another epic at Minnesota last night, with Detroit winning 10-9 in 13 innings. It got so bad that Tigers 3B/SS Jhonny Peralta wound up playing 1B for the first time in his life. His comment: <"It's kind of similar to third base, but I think it's a little bit busy."> |
|
| Sep-03-10 | | Jim Bartle: Fell asleep in the 12th. Damn. |
|
| Sep-04-10 | | playground player: <Phony Benoni et al> I've posted a game on my forum which contains a grotesque error which everybody missed, the first time around. Can you spot it? Come on, give it a try... |
|
Sep-04-10
 | | LIFE Master AJ: Game Collection: "ChessGames" >Problem of The Day< (2010) Updated all the way through the end of February, thanks to you. 10 more days will finish the collection ... |
|
| Sep-05-10 | | Travis Bickle: Hows it Going Dr. Benoni? The Bears who went winless in the pre-season are giving your Lions 6 points in the early line. I don't have alot of faith in my Bears as of yet going 0-4 in the pre-season and with an injury riddled secondary at safety. Plus I don't have alot of faith with The Bears offensive lines pass blocking ability. Good luck on the upcoming season after you leave Chicago. ; P P.S. Care to comment? |
|
Sep-05-10
 | | Phony Benoni: <Travis> In 2008, the Lions went 4-0 in the preseason, 0-16 in the regular season. In 2009. the Lions went 3-1 in the preseason, 2-14 in the regular season. In 2010, the Lions went 3-1 in the preseason. I'm surprised the Bears are favored by only 6 at home. But I would take the points, and won't be surprised at a Lions win. This year, Detroit is going to be a team you have to outscore; there aren't going to be a lot of defensive struggles. Can the Bears put up 30 points? |
|
| Sep-05-10 | | Travis Bickle: <Phony Benoni> Can the Bears put up 30 points? First off your Lions have improved and I think will give The Bears a real fight. Can the Bears score 30, that remains to be seen. |
|
Sep-05-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Yes, the Lions do look a little bit angrier this year. You've probably seen this play already: http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2010/... For my money, that's worth a suspension. But around here, people are loving it. New attitude, they say. And what's the big deal, anyway? Delhomme bounced right up and started crying like a baby, so it wasn't like he got hurt. OK. I'll give you "bounced". But it would have been nice if Suh's hit hadn't been what caused the bounce. |
|
| Sep-05-10 | | achieve: Hi <Phony Benoni> - just hopped over to read your bio, which was quite fun really - and my interest was immediately drawn to the KBN mate, well done! - so to answer your question, for official team games it is more accurate to use "Netherlands" than "Holland", though everywhere in the world both are understood and allowed, is my perception. But to get back briefly to the B&N mate, I started to study it a few years ago as I couldn't find the right way to go when I played against myself (even the fabled rybka engine defends inaccurately!), looking for the best defense for the lone king, and only after about two weeks(!) of daily investigation and practise, I got it down... After that I still spent months perfecting and expanding on the techniques anc several procedures that can be used, and tried to develop, and succeeded, several procedures I thought were uniquely mine, but of course just variations on a theme ;) |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | dakgootje: If I may be so bold to expand a little on the 'Netherlands' vs 'Holland' matter, to shed some light on the context: Theoretically the correct name is 'Netherlands'. Holland is informally used, even once in a while in the Netherlands - but it is not officially recognized. You can compare it with the difference between England and 'a larger body' - regardless of whether this larger body is England+Wales or Great Britain or the United Kingdom or the whole British Empire. England has for long been a term for all of them, until the rise of Scottish nationalism in the 1930s when the term 'England' got restricted to the historic country England that existed before the Acts of Union of 1707 - or indeed even before the Union of England and Wales hundreds of years before that. To exemplify, the Oxford History of England does not deal solely with 'England' and Benjamin Disraeli signed the 1878 Treaty of Berlin as 'prime minister of England'. The Dutch case is similar. Originally, Holland was a very wealthy and influential area which now covers provinces called 'North-Holland' and 'South-Holland'. So, often taken as the start of the Netherlands was the 'Dutch Republic' -Republic of Seven United Netherlands- which fought for independence from Spain. They succeeded and the Republic survived until 1795 when Napoleon invaded to set up a new Republic, the Batavian Republic. During the time of the original Republic [lasted ~200 years] it went economically very well, generally called the Golden Age. <Holland> [the province] was the center in many respects, political, economical et cetera - and thus this name was associated with the whole of the Republic. The last time the name was officially used, Kingdom of Holland, in the countries name was when it was a brief puppet kingdom for Napoleon [1806-1810]. After 5 years of being officially part of the French Empire, in 1815 -after Napoleons final defeat- there was an independent Kingdom again. First a short 'United Kingdom of the Netherlands', but <since 1839 officially it has been simply 'Netherlands'.> You will find some idiots screaming far and wide when you use the name Holland for the Netherlands -- de juro: they are right, de facto: who cares? |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | Jim Bartle: PB: Do you know who the Detroit player or manager is in the photo at 3:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qefv...
I went to the box score the day Gehrig didn't play and the Yankees beat Detroit 22-2. But what struck me most was the time of the game: 2:22. They really kept things moving back then. In fact, in that 1939 season the Yankees scored 967 runs, which would seem to take some time. But still they only had three games longer than 2:35, and none more than three hours. (Of course when you're averaging six runs a game, there probably won't be too many of those long extra inning games.) |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | whiteshark: <Greetings, O Seeker After Knowledge!> Am I right here to ask since when <Dutch> is the adjective for the Nederland? And why? |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | Jim Bartle: Found the photo: it's Detroit manager Del Baker, on the day Gehrig's streak ended. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | dakgootje: <Am I right here to ask since when <Dutch> is the adjective for the Nederland? And why?> Obviously has the same root as Deutsch and comparable to Dietsch; Dietsch comes from diet and Deutsch from diut which mean 'people' in respectively Middle Dutch and Old High German. This 'people'-term was necessary to make the difference with the upcoming Franks and Slavs -- if I remember correctly. I don't know when the English narrowed the word from 'germanic language/people' to the area which we now call the Netherlands. Think I remember up to the late 17th, early 18th century there was still not much of a linguistical difference [between the languages themselves], so I suppose somewhere around then [so, when the difference did start to become noticable]. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | playground player: <dakgootje> What's the story with Frisia? Is there a separatist movement there? |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | whiteshark: Thanks <dakgootje>
<I don't know when the English narrowed the word from 'germanic language/people' to the area which we now call the Netherlands.> Me neither. Historically I can follow the common roots and split between Dutch and Low German. The break is 1648 when Thirty Years War ended by signing the Treaty of Westphalia. At least it's within the unified Dutch Republic period. The Hanseatic League with Luebeckian Low German as lingua franca in the NorthSea and Baltic was on it's last gasps and Middle High German became standard written language. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | dakgootje: Perhaps achieve could shed some light on that, as I don't really know. The area of Friesland is very distinct from the rest of the Netherlands. Of course, different areas have different dialects and -looking over the whole of the Netherlands- there is a playful rivalry between the west and the rest. The west [the old Holland, nowadays North-Holland and South-Holland] have by far the most amount of people per square km [or mile] and thus that is where the big cities are along with the political and economical centers. Because exaggerations are fun; the westeners are city-people, the southeners have the best accent possible which does mean they are really only half-dutch and half-belgian, the easteners talk weird and are all stupid farmers and in the north-east... well, does anyone really live there?! But that is all fun and games; differences do exist but [except perhaps totally in the south] it won't make such a big difference. Except for Friesland it seems. I have barely ever been there but from what I've noticed and heard and read it seems like they cling more stubborn to their culture - perhaps in part because Frisian is a real language, not just a dialect. They don't do as far as wanting to seperate [except for some screams here and there by fanatics/lunatics but I suppose there are Welsh as well who want their own country]. So perhaps <achieve> can enlighten us more but the way I see it.. If you'd have to pick 'the odd one out' for Dutch provinces it is Friesland.. But I don't think many people really care with it and visa versa. |
|
Sep-06-10
 | | Phony Benoni: <dakgootje> Thanks for the information; always appreciated! I knew it was a situation comparable to England vs. United Kingdom, but not the details. How this got started: you may know that, in the few moments when I'm not thinking about libraries or baseball, I compile tournament game collections. . Currently, I'm working on one for the Munich 1936 Team Tournament, and was getting conflicting information about the name of the team from the Netherlands. <achieve> was the first person I thought of asking, simply because I knew of his connection with the Max Euwe Center. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | whiteshark: During the Dutch Republic wasn't there kind of trade war between British and Dutch East-Indian Companies? |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | dakgootje: <Currently, I'm working on one for the Munich 1936 Team Tournament, and was getting conflicting information about the name of the team from the Netherlands.> Yeps, I had read at achieve's :) I knew this was more information than you needed but I personally remember things better with a little context -- and I had some spare time on my hands ;) <During the Dutch Republic wasn't there kind of trade war between British and Dutch East-Indian Companies?> Certainly. I think all trading companies had their rivalries even though the British was probably second -after the Dutch- in man, power, money etc. Interestingly, the VOC existed roughly the same period as the Dutch republic; the latter 1581-1795 and the former.. about 1600-1800 I think. Any way, the Dutch Republic and the British Empire have of course fought numerous (sea-) wars so I doubt not that both competed in those as well, both with pure firepower and 'out-trading' the other - even though I really don't know much about it. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | achieve: <hello> I think dakkie's information is very thorough if not excessive, though sharky's questions required some research. What are your sources, dak? I encountered several wiki articles that danced around the Dietz, Deutsch, Dutch issue, but really, it means "[the language spoken by] the common, local people", and one thing led to another... Our national anthem offers great opportunities for finding detailed research and etymological study. But very interesting historical and linguistical angles appear and pop up all over the place. Anyhoo, an elaborate and highly interesting linguistic, historical and sociological discussion can arise from the subject, of course, and it is both interesting and tempting to take note of the information that is available at the touch of a button on the net. The trick and challenge are of course finding the essential causal links, IF, those can be traced. I also, after dak's post, immediately thought of the Frisian and Limburg provences in further enlightening the difference between 'Holland' (west-Netherlands), and the 'United Netherlands' as we have come to know it today, officially, while - almost to this day - the difference/divide is still palpable at an intellectual and cultural level. Yours truly ;) |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | dakgootje: <What are your sources, dak?> Mainly memory. I am sure wiki has a great many articles on the VOC and British equivalent, but thought I'd read that a different time if it was interesting. Looked up a few years for the Holland/Netherlands part [e.g. treaty of Berlin and exact years the Kingdom of Holland existed]. Quickly grabbed an etymological dictionary and looked for 'Duits' [the Dutch word for Deutsch/German] but that did not help much. I remember reading a year ago or something about Dutch and German being the same until, I thought, start of the 18th century but could not find where I had read it. <Our national anthem offers great opportunities for finding detailed research and etymological study. > Certainly! Isn't it terrific?! The anthem itself being a monologue from viewpoint of William of Orange and thus offers a small history-lesson for good listeners all in one go! ...Once had a discussion with someone who stated we should get a different one [probably main theme: Look we are great! Aren't we just the best at killing others? We are fantastic.] because the current one would state the Netherlands really is Germany [van duitsen bloed] and pledges allegiance to Spain [koning van hispanje heb ik altijd geeerd]. It is quite preposterous [and sad actually] that people criticize what they don't even try to understand. |
|
| Sep-06-10 | | Jim Bartle: Headline on an AP story today:
"Element of Surprise Key to Onside Kicks" |
|
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 207 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|