cwsox

psycho, in a word you can understand, wrong. And this is not the foruym for a debate over Scripture, but you arfe wrong on your Scripturtal understandings. We can pull all pull a quote out here and there and prove anything. I can "prove" by Scripture that you are damned if you wear anything other than natural fabrics and if you mix cottons and wool in your clothing. I can cite Scripture repeatedly that says that lending money at interest is condemned and that when aliens come into ypur community you are to goive them free land, home, and food. So much for your political views on illegal aliens, right? the Bible condemns you for that... or one looks to something else. Any number of church bodies in our only country as well as around the world will moderately or vehemently disagree with you about what is immoral in relaity and according to the Bible. The Episcopal Church has made just such a stand. Now if you want to condemn the Episcopal House of Delegates and House of Bishops as immoral go right ahead. Free choice. But then you would be condemning any number of other church bodies in the US, Canada, and Europe. But I very humbly suggest that the issue is far far more nuanced and complex than you possiblky fathom. There is nothing that can be proven by Scriptures to call being gay "immoral." I am not going to go into it more because this is not the place to get a bunch of proof texts that out of context have no meaning to what God's Word is. And Psycho, consider how fast this discussion turned to someone posting about a "closet" and trhen poisting a closet and going for the personal - the constant "well you must be a f**" insult line. If theb taunts of those with insecure sexuality is where one wants to be, then be there. It is just the same old non thinking bulls*** - if you disagree you are a "communist" or "unAm,erican" or "cubs fan" or whatever else the other is that one can throw off as an insult rather than respond with thinking.

nothing you say - in my opinion, in many people's opinion, is "the truth." It is only your OPINION. And your opinions are illogical. To say, as you did, "Okay i guess i have to spell it out. The more gay people, the more death." That is not "true." Every human being born, dies. It makes no difference what orientation anyone is or isn't. There is not "more death" because of some people being gay. What makes "more death" is "more birth." And if you are referring to AIDS related deaths, world wide. as has been posted here repeatedly by Steff and others, the overwheliming majority of AIDS deaths in the world are straight people. So there is no "truth" in the illogical. "The more gay people, the less birth. Is that so hard to understand?" Again, illogic, and factually untrue. However, if that were true, then perhaps being gay is God's way or evolutions of saying the world is overpopulated enough as it is and thus a natural mechanism to lower the birth rate is natural and intended. This comment by you is irrational and insulting and vastly over reaching on its face: "It is NOT okay to be gay. It sets horrible example for children and it disrupts the main reason you are on earth, which is to create. With your outlook on things, in a few short years, its going to be okay to kill. " What an insult to post that. It also is an act of profound arrogance to assume that you alone have the "truth" on what the "main reason you are on earth" is. Religiously, it is wrong. That is not the "main reason" that is given in any Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Reformed, or any other number of faith group confessions. It may be your opinion. It may be the belief of your religious system. But it is not "truth." Contradictory and illogical on its face. And reveals your lies. How many times have you said "I don't care if anyone is gay just be..." but you have condemned it in your words in the same sentence here and elsewhere. To sum up: your opionions are not "truth." This is a baseball board. The statements that you made - if it is ok to be ok it will soon be ok to kill are insulting in the extreme, and I suggest, ludicrous and the fartherest thing from truth that I know. This is a baseball board. You have had enough people tell you enough on this subject. Just because this is an off topic area does not give you the right to post non stop on any thing over and over and over. Your undersrtanding of "free speech" is also way off. And it would be common couresty to take your opinions and hash them out with people on a lifestyle board or some otyher discussion group and not continue to insult and offend people here. The king of being sensitive is you. You cry whenever you think a right of yours is infringed but you say the stuff that winodj has researched, you mock and you insult, and you say that is your right to speak the "Truth" and anyone who disagrees is "too sensitive." People have a right to not be insulted over and over. People have a right to not have your insults jabbed at them repeatedly. People have a right to come to a baseball board and discuss off topic things without being told that they are responsible for "more death" and that your opinions are "truth." They are your truths, but not mine, and not many other peoples. Could you please take your need to comment on these things to a more appropriate forum? There must be plenty of internet places where you can discuss your lifestyle opinions and give this forum the peace that has been asked for by many.

I agree with your post

you are in a different atmosphere living where you do if you grew up in Chicago you'd experience the deep, deep animosity amongst the teams impossible to describe unless you lived in Chicago for a while I was at a bar last night cheering hopelessly for the Braves - if we can't win, the only thing worse is the cubs winning its a Chicago thing

Very good research there winodj- and thank you very much.

gotta disagree - one of the happiest days of my life was when we traded him away and I have never once regretted trading him away

Brian Virgil was our punter around 1980 or so and he was the only UM player that would never have been welcome in my home - he single handedly lost us the OSU game his senior year - but this year's punting team make Virfil look good - all of them - wtf is wrong with them both games we lost are squarely their fault - and they may cost us more games before they are through

Yo bro! Happy Birthday, my friend! Looking forward to seeing you at Soxfest!

I was not quoting Limbaugh, I took the larger portion of what he said, from the larger piece - not just one sentence - and summarized. I did not say that I was quoting him nor did I imply that I was directly quoting. My summary was very fair to the whole - not just one sentence as you cite - set of statements that Rusgh made about that day's Eagles' game. I did not use literal quotes, nor did I imply that I was quoting, I took the essence of a whole paragraph or several paragrahs, a longer piece at whatever rate. on that day's starter in a pregame game by game discussion on that day's games and starters - in other words, using the total, whole context - and stated what Rush essentially said. I did a fair job. Rush's whole schtick is being the "voice" that the "liberals" are trying to silence, the use of rhetoric to imply a conspiracy, which does not exist, implying statements that were never said in any way, feeding the Rushian sense of white male disenfranichisement and the need to always point to the other side and play the role of victim and name the othes as culprits. Neither apu nor I "screamed" that Rush be "skinned" or any other thing. We were acccused of some sort of censorship thing on our part and that is simply, to quite Sen Tom Harkin of Iowa, bulls***. Personally, I think Rush is is own best parody.

Those lyrics, in fact, all of the song Woodstock, by Joni Mitchell. CSN&Y sang Joni's song on Deja Vu. CSN were there at Woodstock. Not sure if Y was there but he didn't sing with CSN as far as I know at Woodstock, that didn't come until later when Deja Vu was recorded. Joni wasn't there, at Woodstock - she tried but couldn't get in. Joni wrote the song from tv news clips. Joni and some portion of CSN did a gig on the Dick Cavitt show in NYC one evening during Woodstock, the event.

truer words were never spoken Jeff Weaver is to pitching what Royce Clayton is to shortstoping

You get an A for sophistry.

that does not answer the question - where did apu or I "scream" for his "hide"

welcome to soxtalk ... I'm hoping for C. H. Rowland.

KT, HB!

Mr A HB! you are my favorite game thread lurker!

Please my friend show me where anyone is "screaming" for Rush's "hide." Please show me. I believe that I suggested it was a publicity inducing maneuver and not sure apu even suggested anything. I know it is the Rush mantra that his "enemies" are trying to "silence" him and that type of conservative paranoia feeds on itself, but please show me where there was any of that here, please, since you accused apu and me of that - unless you had someone else in mind, and I'd like to see it in their posts in that case.

I knew what you meant and did not amke that clear in my post, sorry. I have no basis of picking Molitor over Backman. Backman has been my candidate although I like the Gaston possibility. I think Backman and Molitor deserve serious interviews, they are both worthy and quality candidates who bring a lot to the table, with their own pluses and minuses, and let those who hire find the basis for picking one over the other.

Molitor is worthy of all respect and consideration

Having Ozzie Guillen as 3rd base coach would be like having Wavin' Wally squared three times over. We have a chance for a new manager and new approach and most people want a nostalgia ride to the past. Let's have Harry Chappas as a coach! Let's have Les Moss manage! Come back, Norberto Martîn, all is forgiven!

The principle is there were no principles involved in this. It was a calculated PR stunt. Limbaugh is going to laugh all the way to the bank with his increased ratings and hence revenue after this round of calculated publicity. Just the thing to fire up a flagging career (mixed metaphors though they may be).

I suggest that everyone crying for poor old picked on Rush watch the videotape of the actual comments, easily found on ESPN and the internet. You will see a very skilled broadcaster, a man whose livelihood is words, whose career has not been in the limelight of late, make a very deliberate statement, prefaced with an aside about causing trouble, say something that was unsupportable in fact. The unsupportable statement is that McNabb - whose has gone to 1 or 2 NFC championship games - is only started because the media wants a successful black qb. Most of us would suppose that McNabb starts because he has been their starter who has taken them to championship games, and that the Eagles' coach and GM, not the media, pick the Eagles' starter, based on their best estimate of how to win. The very skilled broadcaster who did the little aside before he said his unsupportable thing clearly put McNabb's starting into a color context on purpose. What has he gotten? More publicity than he has in many years. Lindbaugh has crafted a very clever PR stunt which pitches to the "poor white male being picked on" target audience, his bread and butter, and will benefit from the increased exposure and his "martyrdom." Rush, a very skilled broadcaster, could have said, McNabb shoudn't start because he is not playing well and no one would have cared. Rush the experienced professional oral wordsmith put it exactly as he wanted - hence the preface before he said it - to create controversy and get his name back in the limelight again and have everyone talk about him.

bingo

bingo

as I watched the entire commentary as replayed on ESPN, it was stated by Rush that the only reason McNabb is a starter is because the media wants a black quaterback to succeed. That was the reason for the controversy. Setting aside that McNabb has been to what, 1, 2 NFC title games, one as recently as last January, to attribute McNabb being a starter to a media thing took it over the line. If it had been stated that McNabb should be benched because of poor play this season, no controversy. The person who made this a racial thing was Rush by his comments, by his wording. Rush's radio show will get a big power boost in the ratings from aggrieved white male victims, his once strong but recently dwindling audience. I think this works out very well for Rush, as he intended.