Rogers Hornsby reviews??
-
Review of "The Cat in the Hat" film
Written by: Rogers HornsbyLE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, a Scandinavian Revival paradigmatic magnum opus from 1966, is incontrovertibly the animus for this insensate ruination; however, the sum of this profligate and bedaubed prodigality does not equiponderate that of the autochthonous Melvillesque enterprise in postwar modernism.
Bo Welch (THE HOBOKEN CHICKEN EMERGENCY, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO), notwithstanding this is your incipient photoplay, it is axiomatic that the juncture has transpired for you to be superannuated. You are a maladroit dilettante, and your potentiality to adumbrate the sequential narrative is precariously wanting. Anterior to undertaking an appurtenant fabrication, you ought be necessitated to perpend the efforts of Mauriac and Queneau, and might I suggest CASQUE DOR? This Kammerspiel is obloquy to physicality, and to that, I take great offense.
And what of the ethereal artifice, one might catechize? It subsumes utterly of a duo of contumacious progeny who espy upon an altitudinous feline au fait in the bailiwick of confabulation. The feline acquaints them to a conglomeration of frolicsomeness, and subsequently spoliates their house, whilst the offspring acquiesce all along. The cat is idiosyncratic to behold, and it is the surmise and conjecture of this expositor that the scions are, in fact, quite unprepossessing. It is assuredly no Kiarostami, yet this, too, should have been subjugated to bureaucratic interdiction!
Upon egression of the cinema, an assemblage of puerile children asserted that THE CAT IN THE HAT reminisced of a Mohsen Makhmalbaf, though they were quite mistaken, indeed. It is comparatively that of a Marziyeh Meshkini, though her 2000 masterpiece is proficient at interlacing sagas of multitudinous acumen with paltry exertion.
Emmanuel Lubezki, though authenticated to be of facile expertism as evidenced by such recherchi actualizations as SOLO CON TU PAREJA and MARLENA EN LA PARED, is abominably able to conjure up little more than a Theo van de Sande -- a travesty of Knowlesian admeasurements.
This is an interminable scouring into the vacuous and stodginess, indomitably contriturating into the inauspicious torpidism.
2/10
-
@SchnauzerFace said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
Review of "The Cat in the Hat" film
Written by: Rogers HornsbyLE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, a Scandinavian Revival paradigmatic magnum opus from 1966, is incontrovertibly the animus for this insensate ruination; however, the sum of this profligate and bedaubed prodigality does not equiponderate that of the autochthonous Melvillesque enterprise in postwar modernism.
Bo Welch (THE HOBOKEN CHICKEN EMERGENCY, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO), notwithstanding this is your incipient photoplay, it is axiomatic that the juncture has transpired for you to be superannuated. You are a maladroit dilettante, and your potentiality to adumbrate the sequential narrative is precariously wanting. Anterior to undertaking an appurtenant fabrication, you ought be necessitated to perpend the efforts of Mauriac and Queneau, and might I suggest CASQUE DOR? This Kammerspiel is obloquy to physicality, and to that, I take great offense.
And what of the ethereal artifice, one might catechize? It subsumes utterly of a duo of contumacious progeny who espy upon an altitudinous feline au fait in the bailiwick of confabulation. The feline acquaints them to a conglomeration of frolicsomeness, and subsequently spoliates their house, whilst the offspring acquiesce all along. The cat is idiosyncratic to behold, and it is the surmise and conjecture of this expositor that the scions are, in fact, quite unprepossessing. It is assuredly no Kiarostami, yet this, too, should have been subjugated to bureaucratic interdiction!
Upon egression of the cinema, an assemblage of puerile children asserted that THE CAT IN THE HAT reminisced of a Mohsen Makhmalbaf, though they were quite mistaken, indeed. It is comparatively that of a Marziyeh Meshkini, though her 2000 masterpiece is proficient at interlacing sagas of multitudinous acumen with paltry exertion.
Emmanuel Lubezki, though authenticated to be of facile expertism as evidenced by such recherchi actualizations as SOLO CON TU PAREJA and MARLENA EN LA PARED, is abominably able to conjure up little more than a Theo van de Sande -- a travesty of Knowlesian admeasurements.
This is an interminable scouring into the vacuous and stodginess, indomitably contriturating into the inauspicious torpidism.
2/10
Seeing non-English words and phrases not italicized gives me fits. Well done.
-
@PhillyRunt44 said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
I've been looking at this card for a while now. Everytime I face him, it feels like he just smashes the ball and it just jumps off his bat. I'm hoping we get a beach ball pack in the conquest map tomorrow, but if not is he worth the stubs buying him off the market? I currently have Brian Roberts as my 2B, and hes done very well for me. I'm just curious if Hornsby is worth the upgrade. Any reviews/inputs are appreciated. Thanks!!
Yes. I was playing with Roberts and loved him but now I use Hornsby. Roberts is great defensively and his speed/base stealing are phenomenal but if you’re looking for a better bat, it’s Horsnby.
-
@sbevans142 said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
I had him. He was great. I sold him last night and went back to Carew. Immediately regret it lol
I did the same thing because I was hot garbage with Hornsby and Carew is now my best hitter. I'm hitting less than .250 in RS but hitting close to .400 with Carew in 100 AB's.
Carew has some position flexibility if you decide to pinch run for your slow first baseman.
-
I really struggled hitting with Hornsby and ended up selling him. Then I see others raking with him and think it has to be just me or bad luck. I reacquired him the other day and he is hitting better for me now. D is substandard but so far it has not been a problem for me. I want to love this card and hopefully he’ll keep hitting for me. First go-around it was nothing but pop-ups and weak fly balls.
-
I hate to break it to you, but all cards hit well if YOU hit well. Defense and speed are the two things almost 100% dictated by attributes, so focus on those areas when making a decision about a card.
If you put a good swing on a hittable pitch, 70 contact or 125 contact, you're going to get good results.
If you have 70 speed in CF, you aren't getting to the gap no matter what YOU do.
-
@Quint75 said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
I really struggled hitting with Hornsby and ended up selling him. Then I see others raking with him and think it has to be just me or bad luck. I reacquired him the other day and he is hitting better for me now. D is substandard but so far it has not been a problem for me. I want to love this card and hopefully he’ll keep hitting for me. First go-around it was nothing but pop-ups and weak fly balls.
Think it may have been bad luck. I'm having bad luck with him at the moment, several perfect perfects just not going anywhere. I'm willing to give it a pass for the time being though.
-
He just single handedly won a tight RS game for me 2-1 with 2 solo inside the park homers at the Polo Grounds. The 1st one he almost hit out over the pitchers in the left CF corner.
-
Hornsby is well worth it. His swing is amazing and he consistently gets great exit velos when you square up the ball.
Fielding can be suspect but his bat is too good to take out of the lineup. Not sure if another 2B would take his spot
-
@SchnauzerFace said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
Review of "The Cat in the Hat" film
Written by: Rogers HornsbyLE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, a Scandinavian Revival paradigmatic magnum opus from 1966, is incontrovertibly the animus for this insensate ruination; however, the sum of this profligate and bedaubed prodigality does not equiponderate that of the autochthonous Melvillesque enterprise in postwar modernism.
Bo Welch (THE HOBOKEN CHICKEN EMERGENCY, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO), notwithstanding this is your incipient photoplay, it is axiomatic that the juncture has transpired for you to be superannuated. You are a maladroit dilettante, and your potentiality to adumbrate the sequential narrative is precariously wanting. Anterior to undertaking an appurtenant fabrication, you ought be necessitated to perpend the efforts of Mauriac and Queneau, and might I suggest CASQUE DOR? This Kammerspiel is obloquy to physicality, and to that, I take great offense.
And what of the ethereal artifice, one might catechize? It subsumes utterly of a duo of contumacious progeny who espy upon an altitudinous feline au fait in the bailiwick of confabulation. The feline acquaints them to a conglomeration of frolicsomeness, and subsequently spoliates their house, whilst the offspring acquiesce all along. The cat is idiosyncratic to behold, and it is the surmise and conjecture of this expositor that the scions are, in fact, quite unprepossessing. It is assuredly no Kiarostami, yet this, too, should have been subjugated to bureaucratic interdiction!
Upon egression of the cinema, an assemblage of puerile children asserted that THE CAT IN THE HAT reminisced of a Mohsen Makhmalbaf, though they were quite mistaken, indeed. It is comparatively that of a Marziyeh Meshkini, though her 2000 masterpiece is proficient at interlacing sagas of multitudinous acumen with paltry exertion.
Emmanuel Lubezki, though authenticated to be of facile expertism as evidenced by such recherchi actualizations as SOLO CON TU PAREJA and MARLENA EN LA PARED, is abominably able to conjure up little more than a Theo van de Sande -- a travesty of Knowlesian admeasurements.
This is an interminable scouring into the vacuous and stodginess, indomitably contriturating into the inauspicious torpidism.
2/10
This makes my head hurt. To many big words.
-
@Bozzman0109 said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
@SchnauzerFace said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
Review of "The Cat in the Hat" film
Written by: Rogers HornsbyLE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, a Scandinavian Revival paradigmatic magnum opus from 1966, is incontrovertibly the animus for this insensate ruination; however, the sum of this profligate and bedaubed prodigality does not equiponderate that of the autochthonous Melvillesque enterprise in postwar modernism.
Bo Welch (THE HOBOKEN CHICKEN EMERGENCY, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO), notwithstanding this is your incipient photoplay, it is axiomatic that the juncture has transpired for you to be superannuated. You are a maladroit dilettante, and your potentiality to adumbrate the sequential narrative is precariously wanting. Anterior to undertaking an appurtenant fabrication, you ought be necessitated to perpend the efforts of Mauriac and Queneau, and might I suggest CASQUE DOR? This Kammerspiel is obloquy to physicality, and to that, I take great offense.
And what of the ethereal artifice, one might catechize? It subsumes utterly of a duo of contumacious progeny who espy upon an altitudinous feline au fait in the bailiwick of confabulation. The feline acquaints them to a conglomeration of frolicsomeness, and subsequently spoliates their house, whilst the offspring acquiesce all along. The cat is idiosyncratic to behold, and it is the surmise and conjecture of this expositor that the scions are, in fact, quite unprepossessing. It is assuredly no Kiarostami, yet this, too, should have been subjugated to bureaucratic interdiction!
Upon egression of the cinema, an assemblage of puerile children asserted that THE CAT IN THE HAT reminisced of a Mohsen Makhmalbaf, though they were quite mistaken, indeed. It is comparatively that of a Marziyeh Meshkini, though her 2000 masterpiece is proficient at interlacing sagas of multitudinous acumen with paltry exertion.
Emmanuel Lubezki, though authenticated to be of facile expertism as evidenced by such recherchi actualizations as SOLO CON TU PAREJA and MARLENA EN LA PARED, is abominably able to conjure up little more than a Theo van de Sande -- a travesty of Knowlesian admeasurements.
This is an interminable scouring into the vacuous and stodginess, indomitably contriturating into the inauspicious torpidism.
2/10
This makes my head hurt. To many big words.
And too many made up ones.
-
He hit one 524 for me last night. Start this man.
-
@Bozzman0109 said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
@SchnauzerFace said in Rogers Hornsby reviews??:
Review of "The Cat in the Hat" film
Written by: Rogers HornsbyLE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, a Scandinavian Revival paradigmatic magnum opus from 1966, is incontrovertibly the animus for this insensate ruination; however, the sum of this profligate and bedaubed prodigality does not equiponderate that of the autochthonous Melvillesque enterprise in postwar modernism.
Bo Welch (THE HOBOKEN CHICKEN EMERGENCY, JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO), notwithstanding this is your incipient photoplay, it is axiomatic that the juncture has transpired for you to be superannuated. You are a maladroit dilettante, and your potentiality to adumbrate the sequential narrative is precariously wanting. Anterior to undertaking an appurtenant fabrication, you ought be necessitated to perpend the efforts of Mauriac and Queneau, and might I suggest CASQUE DOR? This Kammerspiel is obloquy to physicality, and to that, I take great offense.
And what of the ethereal artifice, one might catechize? It subsumes utterly of a duo of contumacious progeny who espy upon an altitudinous feline au fait in the bailiwick of confabulation. The feline acquaints them to a conglomeration of frolicsomeness, and subsequently spoliates their house, whilst the offspring acquiesce all along. The cat is idiosyncratic to behold, and it is the surmise and conjecture of this expositor that the scions are, in fact, quite unprepossessing. It is assuredly no Kiarostami, yet this, too, should have been subjugated to bureaucratic interdiction!
Upon egression of the cinema, an assemblage of puerile children asserted that THE CAT IN THE HAT reminisced of a Mohsen Makhmalbaf, though they were quite mistaken, indeed. It is comparatively that of a Marziyeh Meshkini, though her 2000 masterpiece is proficient at interlacing sagas of multitudinous acumen with paltry exertion.
Emmanuel Lubezki, though authenticated to be of facile expertism as evidenced by such recherchi actualizations as SOLO CON TU PAREJA and MARLENA EN LA PARED, is abominably able to conjure up little more than a Theo van de Sande -- a travesty of Knowlesian admeasurements.
This is an interminable scouring into the vacuous and stodginess, indomitably contriturating into the inauspicious torpidism.
2/10
This makes my head hurt. To many big words.
It seems like Rogers Hornsby did not like The Cat in the Hat.
-
Couldn’t tell he was to busy pontificating.
-
A admin locked this topic on
