We are watching a AAA team

[OldRed]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

[butsir01]

Only 17 left in this mess. The worst would be 72-90. Sounds familiar.

[Cranny]

Only 17 left in this mess. The worst would be 72-90. Sounds familiar.

Dubious.

[WLTFE]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Waiting for an admission of not following CT rules which we get lectured on constantly.

[butsir01]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Waiting for an admission of not following CT rules which we get lectured on constantly.

The U.S. Men will win the World Cup before you read such an admission.

[Cranny]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

[craviduce]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

Not a good look, Cranny.

Seriously, though. How does one respond to someone they have on ignore? And how far are you digging this hole? Did you call 811 before you started digging?

[Imperial Capitalist]

It's always instructive to see which questions/posts Cranny thinks are worthy of trying to have the last word on vs those best ignored.

Alas, the life and times of octogenarian hall monitors...

[sikeston bulldog2]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

Goodness. That’s three questions- about baseball-no, the Cardinals-yes, or is this team a AAA team. Three questions.

[Cranny]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Red - you run with rodents, you become a rodent.

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

Not a good look, Cranny.

Seriously, though. How does one respond to someone they have on ignore? And how far are you digging this hole? Did you call 811 before you started digging?

Craviduce, I'm going to say it again. I have all the respect for you for posting all the information about the minor league players and minor league games. That makes you an invaluable member of the forum. I appreciate it because I got to WWU most every year to the minor league breakout discussions, and am on the back fields most years at Spring Training. That being said, however, you're not a moderator (to the best of my knowledge) and should stay out of any squabbling discussions between other posters. However, for your information, when you have someone on ignore, sometimes their post comes up on a thread that has a long chain of posts. I do indeed have him on ignore as the moderators ordered us to do.
And in most instances I don't read his post if it comes up on a long chain, because that particular poster is a troll.
You know it. I know it. And most of the other posters know it. And the mods sure know it.

[craviduce]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

Guilty complex? Not once was your name mentioned.

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

Not a good look, Cranny.

Seriously, though. How does one respond to someone they have on ignore? And how far are you digging this hole? Did you call 811 before you started digging?

Craviduce, I'm going to say it again. I have all the respect for you for posting all the information about the minor league players and minor league games. That makes you an invaluable member of the forum. I appreciate it because I got to WWU most every year to the minor league breakout discussions, and am on the back fields most years at Spring Training. That being said, however, you're not a moderator (to the best of my knowledge) and should stay out of any squabbling discussions between other posters. However, for your information, when you have someone on ignore, sometimes their post comes up on a thread that has a long chain of posts. I do indeed have him on ignore as the moderators ordered us to do.
And in most instances I don't read his post if it comes up on a long chain, because that particular poster is a troll.
You know it. I know it. And most of the other posters know it. And the mods sure know it.

your faux sincerity is classic, and your gaslighting top notch.

Thank you.

[Cranny]

Meanwhile, everyone is still patiently waiting for Cranny’s answer to the legitimate question posed earlier in the thread (and reposted, quoted, or referenced by several other posters since):

He won’t mention it, Red, because he’s been warned by the powers to be and doesn’t want to get banned. But the references are obvious, don’t you think?

Only because you reported him. Didn't they tell you the same thing?

They did, and that’s why I have him on ignore per their demand, and will keep him there.

Serious question: If you have him on “ignore” (i.e., Foe List) and therefore allegedly can’t see/read his posts, then how is possible for you to directly quote-reply to him?

See here:

apparently Baghdad Bob doesn't like poopie words and is a self appointed mod!

I can’t read your post, but you’ve been warned to stop stalking by the moderators (like I’ve been warned) so I suggest you stop before you’re banned.

And here:

Be careful, stalker troll. You’ve been warned by the powers to be. You were told to put me on ignore.
You might want to follow their advice.

So were you...and you continue to follow my posts...so go and report us both.

You follow with a post after every one of my posts. Not vice versa. Stop the stalking and trolling before it’s too late for you.

As a purely technical matter, it is impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. How do you explain this apparent discrepancy?

Evidently he doesn't have an answer. What a shocker.

What a shocker that I don't spend 24 hours on here, sdaltons. And why are you participating in this discussion? Is piling on you your thing? Is it how you get your jollies?

The post I quoted above was at 11:01am. You posted IN THIS THREAD at 3:25pm. Don't lie, it's quite unbecoming. You have no intention of answering the question.

I am participating because I'm curious what the answer is, even though I know we'll never get it.

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

I guess this is the rare exception when Cranny doesn’t have to have (and doesn’t want) the last word . . .

Any response from Baghdad Bob?

Hey, NY! Simply wonderful to see you post. Have a delightful evening. All the best to you.

I think you just got caught.

Serious question, Red. Is this about baseball or the Cardinals? Or about whether this close to .500 team is a AAA team?
You started this inane thread. Stay with it.

Not a good look, Cranny.

Seriously, though. How does one respond to someone they have on ignore? And how far are you digging this hole? Did you call 811 before you started digging?

Craviduce, I'm going to say it again. I have all the respect for you for posting all the information about the minor league players and minor league games. That makes you an invaluable member of the forum. I appreciate it because I got to WWU most every year to the minor league breakout discussions, and am on the back fields most years at Spring Training. That being said, however, you're not a moderator (to the best of my knowledge) and should stay out of any squabbling discussions between other posters. However, for your information, when you have someone on ignore, sometimes their post comes up on a thread that has a long chain of posts. I do indeed have him on ignore as the moderators ordered us to do.
And in most instances I don't read his post if it comes up on a long chain, because that particular poster is a troll.
You know it. I know it. And most of the other posters know it. And the mods sure know it.

your faux sincerity is classic, and your gaslighting top notch.

Thank you.

It isn't faux. It's very sincere. And I don't even know what "gaslighting" is.

You know what's exciting, though, craviduce? Springfield has the second most wins of any minor league team (at all levels of the minors) in 2025. And I believe has broken the Cardinal AA all time win record for a AA team in the Cardinals system.
Now, that's worthy of discussion.

[NYCardsFan]

Not a good look, Cranny.

Seriously, though. How does one respond to someone they have on ignore? And how far are you digging this hole? Did you call 811 before you started digging?

However, for your information, when you have someone on ignore, sometimes their post comes up on a thread that has a long chain of posts. I do indeed have him on ignore as the moderators ordered us to do.
And in most instances I don't read his post if it comes up on a long chain, because that particular poster is a troll.
You know it. I know it. And most of the other posters know it. And the mods sure know it.

Sorry, Cranny, you can keep repeating that inapposite (non-) response till you’re blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is it is not a plausible answer, for the reasons already explained in the chain above. But in case you missed it:

The answer is that even though you have someone on ignore, their posts still show up if they’re on a chain of posts. But you already knew that.

But in the two [now three] examples I cited, you directly quote-replied to WLTFE within minutes of his post, there was no intervening “chain of posts.” As a purely technical matter, it’s impossible to directly quote-reply to a post on this forum without first being able to see/read it. But if he’s on your Foe List and you were truly ignoring him, you wouldn’t have been able to see those original posts, and therefore you wouldn’t have been able to directly quote-reply to them within minutes.

So once again, if he’s on your Foe List and you’re adhering to the mods’ “demand” that you ignore him, how did you manage to directly quote-reply to him like that?

[WLTFE]

Baghdad Bob seems to be an appropriate nickname....'don't give me facts...just believe what I say!'

[craviduce]

I don't know if Deadwood is a TV Series any of you have seen.

There's a scene where Al is in his office speaking with a Dope Fiend, and the Dope Fiend is lying to him. Al goes on a rant about the the smell of Cat P/iss and Liars.

classic scene.

[WLTFE]

I don't know if Deadwood is a TV Series any of you have seen.

There's a scene where Al is in his office speaking with a Dope Fiend, and the Dope Fiend is lying to him. Al goes on a rant about the the smell of Cat P/iss and Liars.

classic scene.

A fantastic series and movie and you’re observation is spot on...You would think someone who has been documented by several posters of lying would simply leave that thread alone...instead of arguing and continuing to look foolish.