User talk:TrueConnoisseur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Master of Puppets

Hello, TrueConnoisseur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

P.S. No need to thank me for reverting it, was just trying to help. :) But thanks anyway! ^_^ Mopper Speak! 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if I may thank you for thanking me; unfortunately, not all that many people do that these days. Oh, and remember to sign your posts (just type four ~ characters (~~~~) without the brackets to sign)! Cheers, Mopper Speak! 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem! If you ever need me, feel free to drop by; I'll help with anything. And don't worry if the question seems too easy or some other thing like that; believe me, I was flying blind when I first came here, but asking others for direction helped - greatly. And finally, don't be deterred by grouchy users; their choice to be that way, but its your choice to be your own leader. So again, if you ever need more help, feel free to drop on by, and I hope you enjoy your stay at Hotel Wikipedia! :D Mopper Speak! 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Powell & Pressburger

Thanks TrueC, I see you are a true connoisseur :) There's even more information about P&P and their films at the Powell and Pressburger Pages. Powell did make some films after Peeping Tom, but not as many as he could have done had he not had that hysterical reaction to PT. SteveCrook 20:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I did know the programme. They did another good one with Leo Marks, the writer of Peeping Tom [1] SteveCrook 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgers-Giants Rivalry

Now, let's get this in prespective. I really, truly have no wish to start a big edit war with you. I don't want to fight, I simply want to contribute to Wikipedia. Now, you siad that the Giants were established first. Well, both teams were actually created in 1883, at the same time. If you have more info on it that I am missing, then by all means, let me know. Now, as for the whole Giants-Dodgers Dodgers-Giants thing, it dosen't have to go in any particular order. Either name can come first. I am by no way trying to change the whole article to reflect Dodger bias, I am simply trying to even things out. If I wanted Dodger bias, I would change the article name. I haven't tried to; I don't want to. I merely think that there is more Giant info and I want to balance it. And, as for the "those other teams" comment, you are very right. Those makes refrences to the other rivalries mentioned in the article, so you're correct. Thank you for your time.

That sounds fine. Oh, and no big deal, but you put that the Dodgers entered th NL in 1990. I assume you mean 1890, and with that thinking in mind, then the Giants should come first. I can live with that, then. Also, I do have a username, I just don't use it much. It's Ultimahero. Well, glad we can agree. Been a pleasure.

I don't blame you. I get mad at people when they make stupid changes, too. Sorry, but I can't say anything nice about the Giants now because they just won, but, maybe I can think of something later. Anyways, I got some Wikipedia editing to do, so I'll catch ya' later.

I've thought of something positive I can say about the Giants. They have been a consistently competetive team over the past few years. A division title in 2000, falling just short of the playoffs with only two games to go in 2001, one win away from a World Series title in 2002, over 100 wins and a division title in 2003, falling out of the playoff race on the very last day of the regualr season in 2004. (Yea, they struggled in 05, but they still beat LA in the standings.) Even now they are only a few games back of first place. The Giants, depite how angry I might get at them win they win, have been a very good team and a worthy rival.

It does seem fiting that they are tied in wins against one another right now. It really would be pretty cool if both teams could overtake the Padres and push the race to the last series. I think that it would really be something if they could both make the playoffs and we could see a NLCS between the Giants and Dodgers.

I certainly hope that Hoffmans blown save will become a trend. It would defiantly make the easier down the stretch. The NL should have let Jason Schmidt pitch the 9th. I know that he isn't a closer, but as a Dodger fan I can testify firsthand to how dominating he can be.

That's what I thought. I mean, this might be bias, but you have the guy who is leading the majors in batting average, and you don't use him? Oh well, though. And I guess that you really wouldn't want to wear Schmidt out. I'm just disapointed (although not surprised) that they lost. But, I guess any good team has to be able to win on the road when it counts, so thats what the NL will have to do.

Yea, no one wants their guy to be the one to blow the game. I remember back to just 2003 when the NL put in Eric Gange in the 9th. And this was in the middle of that mind-boggleing run he was on, and he blew the save. But, I guess you have to expect that. Next year they shold win it, though. I guess that we'll have to wait and see.

I agree. I think that it's foolish to let the All-Star Game be the determing factor when the fans chose the players. I understand that it's a game for the fans and that they should have a say, but if that's the case then the game shouldn't have any prize as dramatic as home field advantage. It seems to me that they want to increase the populararity with fans by giving them a say, and with the players by making it count. You can't have the best of both worlds.

[edit] Bonds

Oh, I don't follow him. But I heard on Gametime Live on FSR that he hit 751. So I updated it. If I hadn't heard it, I wouldn't have updated it. But I don't follow Bonds, I hardly even like him. Soxrock 23:45 July 3 2007 (UTC)

You should not defend Bonds. He did steroids and he's a total dick.►Chris Nelson 00:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Two words. D. Nile.►Chris Nelson 00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You're making it so much more complicated than it is. I'm not talking about any time, place or person other than Bonds. He's about to break maybe the greatest record in sports solely by cheating. Obviously he's a great player with or without, but the power steroids provided him are what got him at this number. He cheated, knowingly, and he doesn't deserve to break Aaron's record. Yeah, we're all big racists for wanting him to come up short of HANK AARON'S record. It's our deep hatred of blacks that wants Aaron's record to be protected from Bonds. THAT makes sense.►Chris Nelson 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You're obviously an intelligent guy, but you seem to be so full of shit it's insane. Racism has not one thing to do with this. You are absolutely delusional if you think steroids have nothing do with increased home run performances of some of these players in the 1990s. If steroids make one stronger, then fly balls become home runs. It's the only logical conclusion. Obviously there has to be baseball skill involved, being able to connect with the ball at all and drive it to parts of the field. So tell me, what is wrong with the conclusion that if a player that is good at hitting the ball takes steroids to increase his strength, some balls will go farther than they normally would without the added strength? What am I missing here?►Chris Nelson 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely patronizing. I don't "understand racism"? Give me a break. Your whole comment is insulting.►Chris Nelson 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)