home

Bonds Hits 755, Ties Aaron

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:06:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm going to bed. What a depressing day.

This is an Open Thread.

House Dem Hall of Shame on the flip.

Altmire
Barrow
Bean

Boren

Boswell
Boyd (FL)

Carney

Chandler

Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cuellar

Davis, Artur

Davis, Lincoln

Donnelly

Edwards
Ellsworth

Etheridge

Gordon

Herseth Sandlin

Higgins

Hill

Lampson

Lipinski

Marshall

Matheson

McIntyre

Melancon

Mitchell

Peterson (MN)

Pomeroy

Rodriguez

Ross

Salazar

Shuler

Snyder

Space

Tanner

Taylor

Walz (MN)

Wilson (OH)

< Bush FISA Amendment Now Debated In House; Bill Passes | The YKos Presidential Forum Lobbyist Exchange >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bonds Hits 755, Ties Aaron | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Depressing indeed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:08:24 PM EST
    For the record, the capitulation roll call is here.

    For the record, the Padres beat the (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:15:26 AM EST
    Giants in the 12th inning.

    Here's MLB Commissioner Bud Selig's prepared statement re Bonds:

    Congratulations to Barry Bonds as he ties Major League Baseball's home run record. No matter what anybody thinks of the controversy surrounding this event, Mr. Bonds' achievement is noteworthy and remarkable.

    "As I said previously, out of respect for the tradition of the game, the magnitude of the record and the fact that all citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, either I or a representative of my office will attend the next few games and make every attempt to observe the breaking of the all-time home run record.



    How do they count the traffic?? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    Dodd claims 500,000 hit KOS per day.

    Is that 500,000 different individuals?

    Or is it more like 100,000 hitting it 5 times each??

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Studies have indicated (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    that Daily Kos gets approximately 500,000 unique visitors daily.

    My ego would think ill of me if I were not to point out that when I was FPer, the number was 700,000.

    Parent

    BTB (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    I would assume that they can count IP's, so you are saying they are unique.

    As for ego...

    You have one??

    Who would have known??

    ;-)

    Parent

    If you want to measure actual participation (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    Jotter's quarterly review is probably more interesting.
    In the quarter just ended, Q2 2007,  5333 Kogs wrote 22691 diaries, 11095 Kogs recommended diaries and 14192 added comments to  diaries.

    In total there were 16540 active Kogs who either wrote a diary, recommended a diary, or commented on a diary. Of these, 78% were active in the previous quarter, 22% were new faces.  Two thirds of the 6168 new registrants were active during the quarter.



    Parent
    andgarden (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    What is a Kog?

    Is it a "cog?"

    How does that relate to the 500,000 per day figure?

    Parent

    and thanks (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:02:53 PM EST


    Parent
    A Daily Kos participant (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:12:36 PM EST


    Parent
    andgarden - Thanks (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:48:32 PM EST
    So in reality it isn't 1 or 2 out of 500,000 people visting per day are not excercising their freedom of speech and writing nasties as Dodd implies,  the average is around 1 or 2 out of  184.

    That's probably high because it doesn't happen everyday, but it is still a very significant difference.

    Parent

    Show your math (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:51:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Where are they now? (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:03:43 AM EST


    Parent
    I'll show you mine if you show me yours.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:57:00 PM EST

    ;-)

    I really shouldn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    just because you are in your demand mode, and that doesn't work well with me.. as I think you know.

    But I'm still enjoying reading all the complaints about the feckless Demos, so just to show you I can be nice....all I did was take:

    In total there were 16540 active Kogs who either wrote a diary, recommended a diary, or commented on a diary.

    Over 90 days that would be an average of 183.77 discerete comments/posts/diary made by the cogs in the machine...per day..

    Dodd claimed that the attacks/over the top comments were associated with 500,000 visitors. That's fine, except the visitors weren't writing, the "Kogs" were. Plus I think newbies must be approved and wait 24 hours before they can comment.

    Also of interest we can see that:

    Of these, 78% were active in the previous quarter, 22% were new faces.

    Next time say "Please."

    Bzzzzt! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:27:56 PM EST
    That was the total number of COMMENTERS, not comments.

    So how you calculate 1 or 2 commenters of the 183 per day posting offensive comments is your trouble.

    Of course, the 1 or 3 per day is also unsound.

    O'Reilly scoured the entire archive of millions of comments and came up with what 10? 1 that could have been the same person, who could have been a RW troll.

    I a m not saying that is so of course but it is a theory with as much evidence as yours.

    Parent

    Barry Bonds..... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    With the help of roids or not (I happen to think with the help of roids), it's still a hell of an accomplishment hitting that many bombs.  Give Bonds his due...the best ballplayer of his generation.

    I'd still take Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Williams ahead of Bonds on my all-time all-star team...but he'll go down as one of the best to ever step in the box.

    Don't look now..... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 10:58:38 AM EST
    Newt Gingrich is talking some truth and making sense...I, for one, would never have guessed it.

    Link

    There Is A Bridge (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    I can sell you cheap, It is in need of minor repair.

    Newt has lied so many times that he has no credibility.

    He is going to make a run for POTUS.

    Here is Gordon Brown on the WOT:

    What had just been narrowly averted, he said, was not a new jihadist act of war but instead a criminal act. As if to underscore the point, Brown instructed his ministers that the phrase "war on terror" was no longer to be used and, indeed, that officials were no longer even to employ the word "Muslim" in connection with the terrorism crisis.

    In remarks to reporters, Brown's new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, articulated the basic message. "Let us be clear," she said, "terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions."


    link

    Gingrich last month:

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich charges that the United States has been waging a weak and "phony war since 9/11" and continues to lose ground to radical Islam.
    In a speech to the annual conference of Christians United for Israel, Gingrich charged that instead of fighting to win, President Bush is now pursuing appeasement through a proposed Mideast peace conference.

    Comparing that to the attempted appeasement of Nazi Germany at Munich before World War Two, Gingrich said, "We don't have a peace process. We have a surrender process."

    Gingrich said the United States and Western civilization are in a global conflict with radical Islam, and must choose between victory and surrender.

    link


    Parent

    I'm not saying.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    he will always make sense in the future or won't change his tune yet again...but his statements in that article I linked too were on the mark.  

    I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    He hasn't found anything other than a hollow nut. What he is saying is that Bush has failed and we need to really do the job right. A statement further to the right of Bush, the way I see it.  I think he is just renaming the WOT the War on Muslims, and upping the ante.

    He is calling Bush a wimpm and appealing to the uber right warmongers.

    Parent

    I read it differently..... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    I think he's saying that a more effective anti-terrorism strategy than Bush's wars would be to ween off foreign oil and stop supporting Mid-East tyrants....aka non-militarized solutions.  I happen to agree.

    He is a politician after all, so Newt probabably doesn't know what Newt means.  Somebody else writes his thoughts for him.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    Both of us know that the WOT is phony. Guaranteed that yours and my thoughts about what that statement means is 180 degrees from Gingrich's position.

    I do not trust anything he says. He is a die hard right wing republican who advocates WWlll, and bombing Iran. He is not for ending the Iraq war, but believes the only option is winning.

    With Bush lame duck status and low poll numbers Gingrich is  scoring points by distancing himself from the other GOPers.

    Parent

    Bonds Hits 755, Ties Aaron | 22 comments (22 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment