Phil Castellini surprised that Opening Day tickets still unsold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

So Leather Pants was Trolling too?

---

Nope.

He's cool.

Because you're an owner apologist, you lose 18 cool points and perpetual rights to the second fridge.

Oh, and you're a troll not just because you responded to LP, but because you stole my catchphrase without giving me credit. I wasn't antagonizing you at all, but you decided to troll.

That's uncool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I vehemently disagree with Old school. But I don’t think he’s trolling. Just deeply misguided.

---

Thanks for having my back on this one and understanding disagreement doesn’t make someone a troll or must mean they are a family member of ownership or a simp or on drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Did you not see the comments I responded to? Perhaps I was trying to show how ridiculous they were by saying something as ridiculous to the other side.

---

What you're responding to doesn't matter.

You're still trolling if you're seeking to inflame.

And you were.

Admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Nope.

He's cool.

Because you're an owner apologist, you lose 18 cool points and perpetual rights to the second fridge.

Oh, and you're a troll not just because you responded to LP, but because you stole my catchphrase without giving me credit. I wasn't antagonizing you at all, but you decided to troll.

That's uncool.

---

I’m all for nicknaming the team the “penurious buttheads” if the season plays out well. You’d get all the credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

If he purposefully provokes others with incendiary posts?

That's trolling, bruh.

---

I don’t think he’s being incendiary. No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

What you're responding to doesn't matter.

You're still trolling if you're seeking to inflame.

And you were.

Admit it.

---

It’s pretty obvious it’s an inflammatory statement even if I was being sarcastic. See how I just answered your question directly?

I’ll wait for you to say Leather Pants was doing the same and did so first….multiple times. That the other times I was called all kinds of ridiculous crap, it was because people disagreed with me, not because I was trolling. And lastly. Tell us all with a straight face the Reds new normal payroll in the coming years is $44-$75 million. And lastly tell us all who on here that’s an actual Reds fan doesn’t care about the team winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

It’s pretty obvious it’s an inflammatory statement even if I was being sarcastic. See how I just answered your question directly?

I’ll wait for you to say Leather Pants was doing the same and did so first….multiple times. That the other times I was called all kinds of ridiculous crap, it was because people disagreed with me, not because I was trolling. And lastly. Tell us all with a straight face the Reds new normal payroll in the coming years is $44-$75 million. And lastly tell us all who on here that’s an actual Reds fan doesn’t care about the team winning.

---

Again, it doesn't matter what someone else was doing.

And let's not pull that strawman BS here. Don't be dishonest.

While not quite as egregious as being a toady for millionaires and billionaires, that, too, is totally uncool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Again, it doesn't matter what someone else was doing.

And let's not pull that strawman BS here. Don't be dishonest.

While not quite as egregious as being a toady for millionaires and billionaires, that, too, is totally uncool.

---

Yes it does. I answered in kind. Is it really that hard to say he was making incendiary and off the wall comments? Anyone with a first grade reading level saw it. Anyone who has been around here for more than 30 seconds knows i’m a lifelong fan and not a troll or any of the ridiculous and childish crap I’ve been called in this thread.

I’m not being dishonest. I straight answered your question and told you straight why I said what I did. I’m sorry you’d rather talk about strawmen or make me seem like a bad person because I think people are entitled to spend what they earn however they see fit regardless of what I or anyone else thinks they should do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Yes it does. I answered in kind. Is it really that hard to say he was making incendiary and off the wall comments? Anyone with a first grade reading level saw it. Anyone who has been around here for more than 30 seconds knows i’m a lifelong fan and not a troll or any of the ridiculous and childish crap I’ve been called in this thread.

I’m not being dishonest. I straight answered your question and told you straight why I said what I did. I’m sorry you’d rather talk about strawmen or make me seem like a bad person because I think people are entitled to spend what they earn however they see fit regardless of what I or anyone else thinks they should do with it.

---

No, it doesn't. "Answering in kind" doesn't absolve you of guilt-- it just shows that you can troll too. (And I'd argue you weren't answering in kind at all. I didn't insult you, yet you drug me into this with a troll comment.)

Strawmen are dishonest.

You've purposefully changed arguments into ownership cutting payroll to $44-75M instead of the measured and explained posts LP provided. You didn't like his posts because he proved you-- and ownership-- dead wrong. Ever since then, you've had a mad-on for him, and you've come for every post he's had. That's childish.

So are, for the record, these insults about reading levels.

The straw man you've built is straight up dishonest, as you know that wasn't the conversation being discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

No, it doesn't. "Answering in kind" doesn't absolve you of guilt-- it just shows that you can troll too. (And I'd argue you weren't answering in kind at all. I didn't insult you, yet you drug me into this with a troll comment.)

Strawmen are dishonest.

You've purposefully changed arguments into ownership cutting payroll to $44-75M instead of the measured and explained posts LP provided. You didn't like his posts because he proved you-- and ownership-- dead wrong. Ever since then, you've had a mad-on for him, and you've come for every post he's had. That's childish.

So are, for the record, these insults about reading levels.

The straw man you've built is straight up dishonest, as you know that wasn't the conversation being discussed.

---

The record speaks for itself. The $44-$75M was my point the entire time. It’s the hyperbolic stuff I spoke of since my first post. They are never going to spend that low and you know it.

The record shows it’s ok for people on your side of the argument to state basically whatever they want regardless of its objective ridiculousness or inflammatory nature, call me whatever and make insinuations about my character for the better part of a week now. But that’s all cool by you. You can’t be adult enough to acknowledge that in the conversation and move on. Just because you don’t say it doesn’t mean it’s not there to read. Instead saying yeah those things said were garbage, the first time I punch back with an open and admittedly sarcastic comment, you go all thread mommy on me and act like I lied when I flat out told you my motives for saying what I did. Congrats dude. You can’t be objective of the behavior of yourself and others on your side making things personal with me by calling me things that are utterly untrue. You’re either not wanting or are incapable of having a good faith discussion at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I don’t think he’s being incendiary. No.

---

I really love your band. ... And Russell, Russell, the guitar sound... is incendiary. Incendiary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

The record speaks for itself. The $44-$75M was my point the entire time. It’s the hyperbolic stuff I spoke of since my first post. They are never going to spend that low and you know it.

The record shows it’s ok for people on your side of the argument to state basically whatever they want regardless of its objective ridiculousness or inflammatory nature, call me whatever and make insinuations about my character for the better part of a week now. But that’s all cool by you. You can’t be adult enough to acknowledge that in the conversation and move on. Just because you don’t say it doesn’t mean it’s not there to read. Instead saying yeah those things said were garbage, the first time I punch back with an open and admittedly sarcastic comment, you go all thread mommy on me and act like I lied when I flat out told you my motives for saying what I did. Congrats dude. You can’t be objective of the behavior of yourself and others on your side making things personal with me by calling me things that are utterly untrue. You’re either not wanting or are incapable of having a good faith discussion at this point.

---

Good faith?

Please.

You haven't argued in good faith since your first suck-up to ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Good faith?

Please.

You haven't argued in good faith since your first suck-up to ownership.

---

Not being in good faith means you don’t see objective actions by both sides. Which you either haven’t or are completely ignoring in regard to personal statements made about me or off the wall statements that were made by those on your side of the argument.

What you pointed to in calling out good faith to me was disagreement in opinion. I also find it funny that I’m getting called a suck up and apologist to the FO when I’ve repeatedly called their actions incompetent for a good part of this thread.

It’s pretty clear we were likely talking past eachother and I stated as much in simple terms at post 218. I was speaking of dollars saved in the range of where the Reds historically set their payroll. They are below that and will be more so in the coming years. Recent history shows they’ll spend more than they have thus year or more than 44-75 million in years to come. You were talking about dollars exceeding what the Reds normally spend in payroll.

That doesn’t make me any of the things said about me. It means we were talking about different things and didn’t realize it until well into the discussion. I have pretty thick skin and never really got personal back with anyone who levied false allegations my way, or made insinuations about my character or world view because we have obviously different political beliefs.

For anyone that was truly offended by my original use of the term butthurt instead of the word upset and not using it as a post hoc excuse the throw personal comments my way, I do apologize if that wasn’t clear. When I first used the term I meant it to mean some people were so upset over the moves that it clouded objective analysis and lead to hyperbolic statements such as the $44-75M payroll example I used.

When I used the term earlier today, I meant it as good natured ribbing back to comments of a similar ilk made by people on the other side of the discussion. Yes, I get how it can be seen as inflammatory, but acting like it wasn’t a two way street is a bit much, when it clearly was.

I was at a bar last night when the bottom of the 9th came up and they had it on TV, and I was surprised to see most of the bar hooked on that last rally.

Meanwhile the only thing I could feel still was just disgust and resentment at what ownership has done to this franchise. I almost wish I could still be a legit fan, but Castellini has just sucked any remnants of enjoyment I get out of following this team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I was at a bar last night when the bottom of the 9th came up and they had it on TV, and I was surprised to see most of the bar hooked on that last rally.

Meanwhile the only thing I could feel still was just disgust and resentment at what ownership has done to this franchise. I almost wish I could still be a legit fan, but Castellini has just sucked any remnants of enjoyment I get out of following this team.

---

No surprise that a room full of people in a drinking establishment in Cincinnati were glued to a game on TV that involved a team from Cincinnati. Especially one playing in its 141st season. Most people don't digest everything Reds, they go to games with friends, drink beers and think about how their grandfather did the same thing and so did his grandfather. Sure they love it when the Reds win, but they also don't recoil at losses. They aren't carrying around the teams actions with them day to day, to them the Reds are just another part of their summer days and always have been.

When the Reds do great these people feed the teams coffers and make rich men richer, but they won't turn their back on them when they aren't, because they are just not as invested as us.