cwsox

he was banned and the ban continues - the action was originally done by Murcie and if Murice wants to undo it that is his call but until Murice does, when I am here and he is not, I follow what Murice has done - that is why multiple admins just as there are multiple mods the discovery it was the same person was made by 2K4, not by any self-admission - in fact, our banned poster was claiming to be someone else 2k4 has otherwise does a fine job of explaining why this was pinned - because what is done has a reason and it is not done secretly but shared with all the posters so you know what is done and why, there are no "secret" bannings here - my plan is to unpin it tonight As I went back into the thread where the original ban comes from to verify the idential ip addresses, it brought back a lot of painful memories and the reasons why the dude was banned originally - and if anyone is dragging this out, it is oldroman for continuing to thiunk he can outwit us - he can for a short time, but people smarter than me will catch these things

I agree with YASNY - as usual!

that quote doesn't say to me that "I was slacking and now I will work" but more the usual type of boilerplate sports cliche that a player will say after when starting with a new team after a few less than stellar years to divert attention away from possible diminuation of skills just the way I read it...

last week a 14,160 game and I was so blase I didnt even stick around to see where I finished nationally 3rd at our location, maybe 100,000 ahead of 4th and about 200,00 behind 2nd - but 2nd and 1st are recent transfers to our bar from another location been playing not so much lately - saving a little money on eating out as well as dieting

the link did not work for me???

going to go against what I said and post once more in this thread Earlier it was posted that this is in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:4-6 (4)Do not be deceived; (5) neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (6) inherit the kingdom of God. And that is a horrible, politically slanted and unjustified act of violence against the Scriptures because the words "effeminate" and "homosexual" are not in the Biblical text. That is simple fact. (In fact the reference is incorrect, it is 1 Corinthians 6.9-10) I have the original text in front of me, in the koine Greek. I am reading it in the Greek right now. The word "homosexual" did not exist until the late 19th century; it is a half Latin half-Greek word made up for the new vocubalulary of psychology developing in Germany then. It cannot appear in the Scriptures because it did not exist as a word until 120 years ago or so. The word "effeminate" is unknown to me in the Greek Biblical text and is certainly not present here. The Greek words that are used apply to male prostitutes and those who commit acts of violence against unwilling partners or those who engage in Roman cultic sexual practices. I am simply astounded at the poltical agenda of those who mis-translated the Corinthian text for their own political purposes. Of course that passage is taken out of context anyway. But should one choose to focus on that text, let's look at the word "covetous." Have you ever wanted something that belonged to someone else? Then whatever is wished against others is visited on you. And one can't say "well, it doesn't really mean that about covetous people..." one is picking and choosing in violence to the text of the Scriptures. But it might be that covetous people are really condemned, huh? After all, in the 10 Commandments (Lutheran and Catholic numbering) coveting is mentioned twice and gay sexuality not at all. So for those who wish to judge others, the condemnations being heaped, be careful, because the Biblical texts throws those back on the judgers in most unusual ways. I was told somewhat directly that if one sticks a stick into another guy and calls it love, doesn't make it right. Well, stick your dick in male, female, animal, vegetable, mineral, apple pie, doesn't make it love and doesn;t make it right. And "sticking your dick" is not exactly a phrase of love, and also rather male-related and is revelatory in its own right. In fact, the Scriptures call for all sexual unions to be ones of love, faithful, commitment. Those are the paramaters. To condemn, using the Scriptures, two men or two women in expressing love sexually, the condemnation made by unmarried straight people having sex is certainly, well, nicely, ironic, and someone totally misses out on something the Bible is saying. It is also a cop out to say "well what I do is natural but what they do is unnatural." All special pleading (as with being covetous above) is suspect. Science hasn't understood it all yet, whether it is DNA, genetic, or perhaps biological but for gay people, gay sex is natural. It is also normal. It may not be normative, but it normal. Same sex mariages have been celebrated by he church in the past - and I mean in the first ceturies and at other episodic times in the church. And at other times, just accepted. Edward II King of England and King James the VI and I of Scotland and England were gay. Edward had a bad fate because he favored his lover over some of the jealous nobles. James however had his happy little behind the throne life and is remembered today as being the King James in the King Kames Bible. Yes, King James was as out and open a gay king as ever was. The only reason that he had a child was the King of Denmark, father in law to James, threatened to invader England to avenge the insult against the Danish king's daughter if James wouldn't sleep with her. So James did his royal obligation - he had sex to prevent war - and thus was born Charles I. Many church bodies in Europe and increasingly in this country are celebrating same sex marraiges or partnerships or commitment services or whatever. Those who do so take the Scriptures with all seriousness and with integrity before our God. Not all Christian churches are at this point yet to be sure but it took a few centuries for understandings of slavery to change and we are in the midst of the reunderstanding of the equality of women in the church, so this will take time. It was raised that the Church has lost a great deal of authority with the child abuse scandals. Yes. And for those enraged at the Church for what happened there and the years of silence and complcity, I join you in intense anger at those who allowed these things to happen - incidentally the same leadership that wants to condemn so many things - still, for example, birth control - but yet countenanced child abuse. And as a pastor, in fact, as a leader in my church body, I am also a member of the ACLU because there must be a separation of church and state. At various times in our US history the church codoned slavery, killing native Americans and taking their land, ignored white rape of black women (ie Strom Thurmond..) while being part of the lychings of black men for look at white womn (remember Emmitt Till), said the Bible was against unions and workers orgainizations, civil right, inter racial dating and marriage and many other things, including birth control and divorce. (In fact, in Chile, the Church has still prevailed to make divorce illegal. They have their pro family stand and the highest rate of adultery, out of wedlock children, and unmarried sexual unions anywhere. So much for pro family.) Fact is, the church should be issuing dictates for the government to follow, their track record is horrible and we are not a theocratic nation. Hey, if St Mary Perpetual Virgin or Robertson Bible Church do not wish to perform gay marriage services, then don't do them. If Bradfrd Congregational Church or Augustana Lutheran Church or St Paul Episcopal Church do them, then God bless them. If you oppose gay marriage, don't have one. Under the civil law, we cannot discriminate. Equal protection under the law is in the constitution. The whole scare tactic of what next is simple scare tactic bogus. A marriage under law is a civil contract between two people. To change 1500+ years of English civil contract law is not something happening in our lifetime. Marriage law will remain a civil contract between two people. Marriage has its problems. It is not the "institution" that some make of it. It never has existed in Biblical times as it is practiced now - name me the Biblical couples who do - Abraham giving his wife to the Pharoh for Pharoh's pleasure and Sarah giving to Abraham her maid - Jacob with his two wives - David - name someone. Marriage has its problems. I see it as a pastor who works in a law office. With a 50% divorce rate and no one coming to be married who hasn't been divorced or not living together or had sex - in 26 years of prdained ministry the only virgin at the altar at a wedding that I have known of was me. Straight people have shown us how they value marriage. Britney Spears. Nick and Jessica. Benfier. The 50% divorce rate. The Bachelor. Average Joe. the Bacherlotte. etc etc etc We all see the straight world valuing marriage. As a pastor in the church, I know that the strengthing of marriage and family is to seek to work for the health of all marriages and all families - including gay couples and straignt couple, straight ap[rents and gay parents. It is the love and the commitment of the family that matters, not whether it conforms to some church's idea of what to should be. People havce a right to choose to commit their love and life to the one whom they love, and to derive all the benefits and other things that society has granted to married couples. That should not be abridged by the gender of the two people. This is a civil, legal issue, not a religious issue.

no

a further and last word for me on this subject the Scriptures are to me the source for ther faith and life of the Church and I take them as authoritative the words in the Bible have been twisted and contorted and the message played with by generations - Fanof14, no, you and your fiance are not in danger of condemnation - in fact pulling out a verse here or there and notr looking at the whole of what is has been a sin of the Church. The Scriptures speak very little of personal sexualiity - God is not the Divine Enquirer - what God calls for is jusrtice in relationships and that is the standard. What God talks about repeatedly in the Scriptures is justice, equity for the poor, mercy - indeed the Scriptures are not about personal salvation at all but in living in a covenantal relationship with God - by God's grace. And that relationship in covenant always draws us to seek justice for others. The sweeping culmination of 1 Corinthians is that without love, everything else is naught. And love does not condemn. In fact, as we are reminded in Romans, it is God who justfies - who is it that condemns? No one. That people can think that is in the least upset about the expression of love between two people in not Biblical and in fact unGodly because focusing on that is to ignore the clear repeated message of God that we are called to seek justice in this world, including economic justice, and be peacemakers. That is the repeated message of the Scriptures, not the things that so many obssess on. Why they obssess on what is wrong? Sin - or because control can be had by making people feel guilty about the private day by day thinsg in their lives rather than the church having the guts to confront the institutions and conditions that hold people in bondage. And as the 8th century and later prophets railed against injustice and as John the Baptist and Jesus repeated those calls - so ever have they been ignored. a message board is the place where sound bytes can be cyber delievered but a full examination of the Scriptures is not possible and I am not going to try. I will note that Biblical examples of marriage - name me any that are to be considered any role model for anything. God does not condemn homosexuality. Those churches which celebrate union services or marriages are doing so with profound respect for the Scriputres. That Christians disagree over the interpretation of some things is not new - nor is the blessing of gay marriages. I have said all I am going to say in this forum. Let it go on as it will. As an ordained servant of the Church I affirm that God does not condemn and that God's grace is sufficient. I will affirm that God will have a strong opinion on whether we are called to worry about whether every two people who wish to make a commitment of life long faithfulness is a cause for the Church, as opposed to say, people dying of hunger, those without medical care, the poor, the alien, the oppressed, the structures in society that make these evils. Jesus never came to say, I have come to judge people's sex lives. Jesus did speak of many other things involving injustice and poverty and those in need. That si the role model we are called to follow.

and you might want to know that is a bullshiot tranlsation I have the original translation, in Greek... the word "homosexual" did not exist until the late 19th century when it was invented the word homosexual appears NO WHERE in the Bible no where not any where Did Paul condemn ritual prostitution? Yes. Did Paul condemn homosexuality? No. The pick and choose method of Biblical quotations is always fun. I can cite passages that condemn fat people and gossips and those disobendient to their parents but everyone picks on what they really hate Your translation there besides being simply wrong has inserted their own political beliefs in the sacred texts and that I find offensive. I don't intensely dislike the New American Standard but they, like the NIV, commit the sin of inserting their own political agendas into the Scriptures. Case in point, here.

yep, exactly we cannot control what the Sox do but we can control how we react about it and panic will not enable a single thing other than the discomfort of our lives over something that is at root an entertainment and not real life itself, no matter how important it is to us in our lives

Last night, as anyone who is awake at all knows, the Cubs went through one of their mysterious games. Their fans are in one degree or other of hysterical anguish. White Sox fans, though, real White Sox fans, just sniff. Jean Shepherd said years ago that if you had to go into combat, you wanted to have a White Sox fan by your side. White Sox fans expect failure and evil, are inured to hardship, and know that disaster and destruction lurk behind every turn in the road. White Sox fans know that their team begins the year lethargic and somnolent, like cranky bears, and wake up after the Fourth of July to flirt with first place before collapsing in September. Although the Cubs do the same thing, their fans are insanely optimistic, chanting their Wait till Next Year mantra, and never learning that next year never comes. White Sox fans know that next year always comes, and its always the same, and that even if the team should happen to be successful one year, that management will trade the best players for prospects over the winter, and the best pitcher will be gimp-armed in spring. So good luck tonight, Cubs. Win for the sake of your emotionally volatile fans. Me, I'm going to a band concert. source of above

Jean Shepherd: Being a White Sox fan meant measuring victory in terms of defeat. A 6-5 defeat was a good day. A big rally was Wally Moses doubling down the right- field line.

nothing it has made you a stronger person any weakling can follow some teams it takes a real person to be a Sox fan -

I cannot argue with this!

I was out for the past few hours and am just seeing this - I will always try to be the first to acknowledge when I am wrong - so much for .00005% !!!!!!!!! - I am appreciative of the establishment of what is so here - thanks!

I have my disagreements with JR (especially 1994-95) but I think he has been a good owener over all I have met him once (in 02) in a unique situation where we had extended conversation and I am convinced that he wants a winner as much as we all do - be careful of what you ask for - you may get it - you have no guarentee that any other owner would not try to move the team or would not pull what the Brewers announced - there are no guarentees and the odds are what we will get would be worse than what we have -

I don't have a link but they have been owned by Clear Channel for years now if I recall anything correctly - the playlist got reduced somewhat and there was some outcry and then nothing else happened, because XRT listeners are loyal, the station is profitable, and Clear Channels owns enough other in Chicago to let XRT stay as loose as it it I have been following XRT all of its life - climb up their broadcasting tower (same as SCOREs) and fall of it and you will probably land on the house where I grew up, a home that was in my family from 1954 to 2003. I played on that lot long before the station was originally built there - in fact, I remember when they broadcast from there - there is a .0005% chance that I am wrong on them owned by Clear Channel, maybe another media giant, but that all went down a long time ago, maybe in the late 90s sometime but I could be off of that, but no where near in the recent past

can you give us some clue of what you are talking about?

LUP was not that great not ever my personal preferance would be WLS in the 60s and XRT in the 90s XRT is the best in Chicago now (no doubt) but it used to be better, the play list was ever more adventuresome, in the mid 1990s - they have cut their playlist since they became a pawn of Clear Channel

true

sometimes it might be nice to actually post the final score for the rest of us not in the in group...

i will diss fauz news for you slant and spin and one-sided idiology derives that news department as befits republican officials who put it together with Rogr Ailes all are biased except faux which is so absud and ridiculous as to be silly if it were't dangerous

Otis was the Mayberry town drunk on the Andy Griffith Show.

sorry to be an annoying Mr Grammar Guy (but I am) - I may have no right to offer my opinion but I will: the correct use of the word would be: "JR's obstinacy in not spending on a winning baseball team has left us with no World Series wins." sorry to be so tendatious here. (Incidentally I disagree with the sentiment about JR.) another example: Ozzie's obtinacy in never talking ball four is why he had so few walks. an example without a negation in the sentence: Rose's obstinacy when he had multiple chances to tell the truth over the past 14 years is one reason he is despised today.

or could be the other way around - not actually murdering Ozzie but stuffing a sock in it might just guarentee a 1st round enshrinement!