GatewayRedbirds.com

Q: what did a random kid next to me do to deserve a foul ball he didn't catch?

A: absolutely nothing, except be born less than 10 years ago.

Q: what did I do?

A: catch the [expletive] ball.

To the victors go the spoils, uless there is a kid in the area I guess.

I'm not going to push a kid out of the way. But if I catch a ball, I'm keeping said ball.

Let me note that there is a difference between a ball tossed into the stands (give that to a kid), vs. Winning the fan lottery and catching a foul ball or HR. I'm keeping the latter.

Popeye_Card wrote:Let me note that there is a difference between a ball tossed into the stands (give that to a kid), vs. Winning the fan lottery and catching a foul ball or HR. I'm keeping the latter.

Just giving you [expletive]. I understand the want to catch a foul ball or homerun. No doubt about it. I agree with TT I think though who said it's catching it that would be the fun part. I couldn't care less about the ball.

Edited to say: I don't think the people should be getting [expletive] for keeping the ball either. Hell, they may have little ones at home they wanted to give it to. And, little rugrats shouldn't cry if a baseball comes within 15' of them and they don't get it.

If I ever catch a home run or foul ball I will high five my friends, laugh about it, maybe a quick cell phone pic and immediately look for a kid to give it to. I won't give a [expletive] about the ball and I will make the kid's day. He'll enjoy it for a while, probably keep it in his room until he's 11 or 12 then it will end up in a box somewhere. Where it belongs...it's a [expletive] ball.

So, yes. They are asshats because they didn't do what I would have.

This story was covered on All Thing's Considered today and not in some intelligent way either, just another "hey look at these a-holes" treatment.

G. Keenan wrote:This story was covered on All Thing's Considered today and not in some intelligent way either, just another "hey look at these a-holes" treatment.

What's the intelligent way to cover such a story?

stlouie_lipp wrote:

G. Keenan wrote:This story was covered on All Thing's Considered today and not in some intelligent way either, just another "hey look at these a-holes" treatment.

What's the intelligent way to cover such a story?

Maybe a discussion of how the internet snark/hater machine will gear up and mindlessly grind away on just about anyone unlucky enough to be caught unawares in an embarrassing moment. It starts as background footage on a baseball broadcast. The announcer chimes in with his opinion and frames the situation. The camera crew takes more shots to reinforce that opinion. Then it ends up on a popular blog where the anonymity of the internet lets morans take pot shots and proudly proclaim their moral and ethical superiority, the what I would have done in that situation. It gets re-blogged and posted in forums. Goes viral. Next thing your happy moment with your date at a game is plastered under the headline WORST PEOPLE EVER and the "story" gets reported on national radio between segments about the presidential campaign and the war crimes conviction of Charles Taylor.

The internet takes our inherent flaws of rushing to judgement, love of gossip, and petty sense of superiority and magnifies it by a gazillion.

G. Keenan wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:

G. Keenan wrote:This story was covered on All Thing's Considered today and not in some intelligent way either, just another "hey look at these a-holes" treatment.

What's the intelligent way to cover such a story?

Maybe a discussion of how the internet snark/hater machine will gear up and mindlessly grind away on just about anyone unlucky enough to be caught unawares in an embarrassing moment. It starts as background footage on a baseball broadcast. The announcer chimes in with his opinion and frames the situation. The camera crew takes more shots to reinforce that opinion. Then it ends up on a popular blog where the anonymity of the internet lets morans take pot shots and proudly proclaim their moral and ethical superiority, the what I would have done in that situation. It gets re-blogged and posted in forums. Goes viral. Next thing your happy moment with your date at a game is plastered under the headline WORST PEOPLE EVER and the "story" gets reported on national radio between segments about the presidential campaign and the war crimes conviction of Charles Taylor.

The internet takes our inherent flaws of rushing to judgement, love of gossip, and petty sense of superiority and magnifies it by a gazillion.

Agreed ... sort of like assuming a kid is some kind of spoiled little brat is that who cries because he didn't get the ball instead of maybe just being tired because it's late and he has sat in the same place for 3 hours? wink wink...

Seriously you have a good point but they should have given it to the kid. Not doing it was kind of douche baggy. Not worlds worst person show everyone on the internet douche baggy, but just douche baggy enough to hit the radar.

jim wrote:

G. Keenan wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:

G. Keenan wrote:This story was covered on All Thing's Considered today and not in some intelligent way either, just another "hey look at these a-holes" treatment.

What's the intelligent way to cover such a story?

Maybe a discussion of how the internet snark/hater machine will gear up and mindlessly grind away on just about anyone unlucky enough to be caught unawares in an embarrassing moment. It starts as background footage on a baseball broadcast. The announcer chimes in with his opinion and frames the situation. The camera crew takes more shots to reinforce that opinion. Then it ends up on a popular blog where the anonymity of the internet lets morans take pot shots and proudly proclaim their moral and ethical superiority, the what I would have done in that situation. It gets re-blogged and posted in forums. Goes viral. Next thing your happy moment with your date at a game is plastered under the headline WORST PEOPLE EVER and the "story" gets reported on national radio between segments about the presidential campaign and the war crimes conviction of Charles Taylor.

The internet takes our inherent flaws of rushing to judgement, love of gossip, and petty sense of superiority and magnifies it by a gazillion.

Agreed ... sort of like assuming a kid is some kind of spoiled little brat is that who cries because he didn't get the ball instead of maybe just being tired because it's late and he has sat in the same place for 3 hours? wink wink...

Seriously you have a good point but they should have given it to the kid. Not doing it was kind of douche baggy. Not worlds worst person show everyone on the internet douche baggy, but just douche baggy enough to hit the radar.

My backlash against the kid is really just a backlash against the sermonizing of the Yankees broadcaster and the cult of childhood in general. The kid is probably a good kid. The parents looked to handle it all very well. The only people who seemed to notice the whole thing were the broadcast team. The parties involved seemed to all be carrying on their merry way before the internet decided they must be selfish douchebags for not giving a ball to a kid they didn't even notice. Kid won't even remember the whole thing 6 months from now but people are saying he's been deprived of some beautiful, foundational memory that he will treasure until his dying moment. Maybe it was that couple's anniversary or first date or some other special occasion and they wanted a momento of it. I really don't care one way or the other. The whole thing is pointless. People at work need a diversion though and this couple was unlucky enough to be the internet punch line du jour.