cwsox

that is what I was responding to so your last post loses me totally fact, which is what I deal in! Sorry

gload did not cost us this game, not at all it was a pure team loss

Cotts looked good today - very effective I have no knock at Cotts at all -

sounds like some day he will be our manager then!

i am listening to the score and they throw a lot of ifs in that, not at all sounding, to me, as if anything is close and on the level of accuracy, I rate the score about as well as the national enquirer they are filling air time and if I weren't at someone else's house I'd turn the s*** off

yep I nominate knightni to call KW now and tell him what to do

being at the game, I was not happy with Gload's error but that was not the world's most egregious error - it took a total team effort to get six walks and lose - for Garland to give up only give up 6 hits and lose - it took a team effort to make 3 errors - the only player who really got to me today was Jackson - what is he still doing doing in the majors

I know why you didn't make that football and I am not sure you really want to make the basketball either -- but trust me, I will hold you to that!!!!

the name Koch or the name Illini, there is no question change your name and your avatar back to Koch

you and I have connections - what does that prove? what is known is that the connections between Iraq and Al Qeada were all negative, hostile, because Saddam was an out and out secularist and Al Qeada was the total opposite and Iraq rebuffed Al Qeada at every opportunity so if A totally rejects B, then in Bush-lie-world, A is guilty of helping B - only in Bush lie fantasy immoral land but please don't reality disturb the Bush fictions though since Bush did something that is all his: make the world far more unsafe than it ever was

you couldn't have posted a bigger line of bulls*** if you tried and speaking of immorality, it appears that Bush and Cheney have reached a new low even for them which is saying a lot - in their latest campaign ad called John Kerry and faces of the Democratic party, they include a picture of Hitler there is nothing too low for the immoral scum that are Bush and Cheney and Rove and their campaign team

you have just won the avatar of the year contest

we had 4 post season appearances from 1901-1979 we have had 3 post season appearances from 1980-2003 JR's % is pretty good in Sox history

good thoughts towards JM, a good guy regardless of making a change, JM is always a good person who wanted to see us beat the cubs, and he did

my and hjohnson's in the game thread that I started were for the fact the Sox are using a 5th starter then I add another because Heads started and a game thread and didn't pin it and then I add another because beastly started a game thread too so we have merged three games threads 5th starter

ya, you do! for all its ups and downs and strange twists, gotta love Whie Sox history!

that is unwarranted is your comments you don't like a historical thread, don't read it, but cease the attacks, it is not the way we do things here Josh: keep on posting the history, please!

I live in the UD - don't want them up there

that says it all just because they act like assholes in their home is no reason for us to act like assholes when they play in our home

Best wishes to our calendar administrator

lot of rich people in this thread with lake homes. I will be at all three. This is the gathering of our clan. I must be there. and then return home to my Michigan one room apartment.

ok, the Sox lost their 1978 opener (not sure if it was road opener or season opener) in detroit at tiger stadium on a Lou Wittaker homerun in the 8th or 9th. It was very discouaging as I was there with a bunch of tiger fans. Intersting, it was the first and last time I saw the Sox lose in Detroit. Sox have won every game I have been to since at Tiger/Comerica, which includes a victory in 77 over Fidrych (my greatest moment, as he walked off the field, my standing and chanting Gone Bird Gone) and a day (in 79, maybe 80) in which Ed Farmer hit about four batters and scared a bunch more - kind of towards the end of his playing career.

I'm pleased! I got a couple of points on this in the YNOT!

My good friend Kap, I respectfully disagree that OT doctrine is replaced by NT doctrine. To begin with, the word doctrine is very problamatic to me, for it suggests to me a human codification of one particular interpretation as being "the" doctrine. Secondly, I will theologically discourse at length about nothing in the Christian Covenant (ie NT) replacing anything in the Prime (First) Covenant (ie OT) and no one wants we discoursing at length!. That becomes a matter of interpretation that is at once of total theological import to believers and at the same time totally tendatious and boring to almost everyone, filled with nuance that deserves respectful conversation in community, not cyber chat. And in the end, it is most certainly a matter which the Church has debated and differed on since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (Common Era) and will not be decided here - it is a matter in interpretation not essential to faith. That is a long way of saying people of good conscience will differ on that and it doesn't matter. On the second sentence, I would suggest that if one were to try and makie a living on the Chrisdtian Covenant (NT) defining marriage as between one man and one woman, one would starve to death. Christians in different eras have certainly differed on that. Indeed, in this very day, the African Anglican bishops who are most outraged at the thought of the Episocopal Church in the US consecrating a gay bishop are equally outraged if you tell them that pologamy and resort to prostitutes is wrong on Biblical (NT) grounds. Our interpretations of what "the Bible says" are far more culturally determined than Biblically or theologically determined. Those bishops would not agree with your statement at all. I embrace as my brother in Christ; the differing insights we all have reflect the intellectual and theological vigor of the life of the Church and God spare us from any perceived canonical interpretation that limits such vigor. One of Luther's greatest works was titled "The Freedom of the Christian" and we ought celebrate that! I think I have posted before that I have done gay and lesbian weddings. That should shock no one and outrage the usual others. I ask the same of them as I ask of anyone: a commitment to life long fidelity and faithfulness before I will ask God's blessings on the union of these two particular people. I4E, in answer to your question, I have no idea on the one hand; on the other hand, I suggest that some people who think they have "truth" think they have the enforce their 'truth" on everyone. God spare us from religious people who impose "truths." Faith and one's beliefs ought be a response to the call of one's God recognising that there are variety of understandings and they are all from God for we are all unique and made in divine image reflect a different aspect of God; it is in the diversity we find the unity of God (the origins of the Christian concept of the Trinity). The imposition of a religious "truth" that others must adhere to because some believe it - that is always a danger sign and a threat to the free expression of faith and life, or, equally, the right to have no faith, as it seems best to any one person, and yet live with stigma. And having said all this, I must repent for having posted in this thread and extending this thread's life.