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

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think all Ted is saying is that all the figures in this drama -- Ruth, then Maris, and now Judge -- played RF for the Yankees. You guys are being kinda harsh.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think all Ted is saying is that all the figures in this drama -- Ruth, then Maris, and now Judge -- played RF for the Yankees. You guys are being kinda harsh.

Bullsh@t! Quit trying to defend him.

He asked what two coincidences occur if/when Judge hits home run #61. The 61 years between Maris and Judge doing it is very clear, but only includes the two of them. But for the second part, Ruth didn't hit 61 home runs, yet the OP specifically asked for coincidences involving when Judge hits home run #61, not home run #60 or #62. The LEAST the OP could have done is acknowledge that mr2686 had the correct answer, or that maybe he just missed seeing his earlier post.

And trying to claim that including a card of Ruth's in the OP somehow made it okay, and that everyone should have known that meant Ruth was to suddenly be included in the second coincidence, makes absolutely no sense. Go back and look at all the guesses for that second coincidence, I believe pretty much all of them only involved Judge and Maris, so I was not alone in my interpretation of what was being asked.

And no one was being harsh, unless being factual and truthful is now that. The only person possibly being treated disrespectfully was mr2686, who appears to have correctly answered the question, but was afforded no credit for doing so, or at least an explanation as to why he was supposedly not right.

[RCMcKenzie]

Bob, for what it's worth, I think you and Ted contribute positive things to the board. I also thought you were being harsh about a trivia post. Also, I think Peter would make a great lawyer.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Bob, for what it's worth, I think you and Ted contribute positive things to the board. I also thought you were being harsh about a trivia post. Also, I think Peter would make a great lawyer.

Ted's a great guy, but I've gotten into it with him before. And despite my only putting forth what was to my knowledge factual and true information in a different thread some time ago, he basically made out like I said or implied something I did not, and actually made what I felt was a very disrespectful comment towards Cobb, which then basically could be further extended as an insult to all the other MLB players during the height of Cobb's career in the deadball era. And when I told him I found what he said to be disappointing, he just did the same thing he did in this thread, say he wasn't going to respond and stopped saying anything else.

Again, I just honestly pointed out the facts in regard to his question in this thread, and how it seems he slighted the person that correctly answered the second part of his question. But when I go to defend and speak up for that person, I'm accused of being "harsh" and supposedly in the wrong. Yet others will come to his defense, and are supposedly right. What is it, he gets to say and do whatever he wants, and can never be considered wrong because he's been on here so long and the majority of the old-timers here on the forum all look up to and worship at his feet? If I am wrong, I'll say so. But I also won't back down from BS put out by some, nor shy away from discussing something I feel is wrong or inaccurate.

Having said that, I love collecting cards, and this is a great forum. And Ted is a great guy. It would be nice though if like a lot of other people, there was more open-mindedness, and the realization that in the face of contradictory evidence or facts, that maybe one isn't always right after all, and can just admit it as opposed to walking away. Too often on here I get ridiculed for long posts. So be it, but at least I try to give complete and factual responses, and include what I feel is relevant evidence and examples to back up my points. But far too often I simply get met with the "I'm right and you're wrong" defense, and no evidence, examples, or responses to any inquiries to try to prove their opposing points or views whatsoever. I've come to realize that is that most likely because there is no factual defense to be given, nor evidence or responses that can prove them right. Oh well, have a nice night.