|
May 23, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.Friday, December 19, 2008Great Moments in Public-Private SynergyFrom page SR-7 of the Mitchell Report:I sent a memorandum to every active player in Major League Baseball encouraging each player to contact me or my staff if he had any relevant information. . . . Through their representative, the players Association, I asked each of them to meet with me so that I could provide them with information about the allegations and give them a chance to respond. Almost without exception they declined to meet or talk with me. From today's newspapers: In a declaration filed in federal court in Houston as part of [Roger] Clemens' defamation lawsuit against Brian McNamee, assistant U.S. attorney Matthew Parrella said he told McNamee he was not a target of the investigation but could become one if he failed to cooperate. Emphasis supplied. Ask yourself: if you were asked to voluntarily come in and talk about your coworkers' conduct to a private law firm hired by a business association to which your employer belonged, and knew ahead of time that you would face federal prosecution if they believed that you were not being truthful, would you do it? I sure wouldn't, and I bet George Mitchell wouldn't let any of his clients do it either. So forgive me if the above statement he made his report doesn't cause me to be outraged at the players, which I'm sure is what he intended. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:40am Comments
Craig Calcaterra said...
Jay, I can’t speak for other bloggers, but the reason I do it the way I do is because that’s the way I was taught to add emphasis to blockquotes in legal briefs. Lawyers have a style guide called the Blue Book which specifies that (or at least it did ten years ago, which was the last time I looked at the Blue Book). I think it’s mostly a flow thing. Get the argument out first and then deal with the formalities of citation later. Hard to say. Your way might be better. Posted 12/19 at 03:55 PM
Jay said...
Fair enough. Years of legal precedence > One random blog commentor Thanks for the explanation. Posted 12/19 at 04:01 PM
TLA said...
Sorry to lower the level of discourse, but the former Senate Majority Leader is a blowhard. I prefer to give him the same treatment as his blowhard, pinstriped target. Which is to say, I avoid talking about either one of them. Posted 12/22 at 08:47 AM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: Programming Note>> <<Previous Post: "Call" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oddly specific blogging question:
Whenever a blogger (seems to be a somewhat universal convention) adds emphasis to a blockquote, they say something such as “Emphasis supplied” or “Emphasis mine” after the quote.
Why not add that note the before, so as to give the reader a little heads up to said emphasis? Doesn’t that make more sense?