Soxbadger

Right and if Rios can hit mistakes hell be hitting over 250. He just hasnt been hitting anything.

Hmm that was odd Rios looked decent that at bat. First time the ball has seemed to leave Rios bat well.

Really making a lot of assumptions after 1 inning of work.

This game is weird, it has seemed ike the Twins fans just didnt believe that they would win this game.

So Kreutz is taking less money to play with the Saints. I guess he really cared a lot about the Bears.

The lowest Ive ever seen him timed at is 4.6 (official or unofficial), but in my opinion he just isnt blazing. I dont really think Vick is a good comparison, because what makes Vick is the fact he has top end WR/RB speed at the QB position. Tebow does not have that, he will never have that. The only way Tebow can be successful is if he becomes accurate. Even Steve Young allegedly had sub 40 time and he wasnt going to make it on his legs alone. Tebow just really needs to focus on throwing first. They even say that about Vick who is by far a more talented runner.

Tebow 40 time, 4.7 Jay Cutler 40 time, 4.81 Michael Vick 40 time, "It has been reported that Michael Vick's 40 time was 4.36." http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2011/2/...erback-40-times Just so you know here are the top 5 from this season: 1. Tyrod Taylor, Virginia Tech: 4.45 2. Jake Locker, Washington: 4.52 3. Colin Kaepernick, Nevada: 4.53 4. Josh Portis, Cal U-Penn: 4.56 5. Cam Newton, Auburn: 4.58 The difference between Vick and Tebow can be summarized as follows (imo). When it comes to Vick you have to game plan to stop the run because he is as good or better than some NFL starting RB's with the ball in his hands. When it comes to Tebow you have to game plan to stop the run because hes just not that good of a passer.

SS2k, I know you guys are joking, but its statements like that which can be taken out of context to defeat our claim that "things like that are never said." Which goes back to my original point, I try to not use words like "never" because all it takes is 1 example and you lose.

lol Such a joke, my first posts in this thread were about slander/libel. My horrible post that got the response (no one could read it that way was this) And I didnt read 6 pages of posts. I read the article, thought people were overreacting on the libel/slander thing, then said in my opinion the article wasnt as horrible as some people thought. As I said before, dissent is not very welcome. And people remember dissenters, which is why event though Im probably in the majority 50% of the time, its the other 50% thats remembered. Because many do not like those in the minority who dare express their views. I often wonder how many people with different views just dont even bother to post because they dont want to deal with the mob.

I can only go by what the article says on ESPN. If it was originally 1 sentence then the author messed up. I did read the first post in the thread, but because it did not match the article as posted on ESPN, I wasn't sure if the poster formatted it correctly. I never rely on a quote in a thread from an article because of people parsing, taking things out of context, so I went straight to the source.

First of all your sentence is patently false, both the author and myself dont comprehend the paragraphs (its not a sentence) the way that you do. So either a) the author doesnt know what hes writing and I don't know what Im reading or b) you are reading it incorrectly. Im going to go with B. I tried to be kind with how I wrote my first comment, to show that different people can read the same thing and have different interpretations. Lets look at the staement: You'll note that the author broke it into 2 paragraphs. As Im sure you are aware, this indicates a break in thought, and youll notice that the paragraphs do indeed have 2 different thoughts. Paragraph 1, quote 1 is referring to Soxtalk and how sometimes you "have to have tough skin not to reply". He then moves onto a second paragraph, which indicates shift in thought. Youll notice that in the first paragraph references the specific, the second paragraph is general. Notice, "it gets kind of scare sometimes with the stuff people write", does not say "on the website" or make any reference to Soxtalk. Why? Because it clearly was referencing things that were said in general, not things that were specifically said on the site. It implied it TO YOU. It did not imply it to me. At worst it implied to me that people on this site say negative remarks about Ozzie that may go over the line. I read nonsense negative comments on this site every day about managers, players, etc. I guess Im not so bold as to say that there is not 1 member on this site, who hasnt said one of those things, thought one of those things, sent an email with one of those things. I always forget that mob rules on this site and any voice of dissent is met with comments that attack the poster, instead of actually discussing the subject.

To be fair, I didnt take it that way at all. I thought Ozzie Jr was pointing out that the fans can get pretty nasty towards his father. I have no doubt that its probably true those things have been said or written (maybe not here, but somewhere). It was some what of a martyr statement. I post here, I never thought for a second he was implying Im a racist. At worst I thought he was implying that some of our posters are less than eloquent when making their statements, and that I can agree with.

Well theres a million legal reasons why getting into libel/slander makes no sense, but the more practical reason is that truth is a defense. First comment: It gets scary. Opinion, cant be libel or defamation. Second Comment: death threats Fact, Im sure that if you go through all of the posts youll find some one (sarcastically or not) saying that they would like to kill XYZ. Even if its just another poster, it would still be true. Third Comment: Get out of here you Mexican.' This would be the most likely statement you could prove false, but even then Im not so sure that I cant believe in 1 game thread it wasnt said. Everything that is said on this board is part of history, as a collective you may think that those statements are not representative of this site, but it does not mean that there arent 1 or 2 posters who may say something like above. I cant imagine there will be a retraction, I cant imagine he will edit the piece, as there is simply no reason to. If I write an article that says "CC Sabathia isnt a good hitter" doesCC get to write me and say "im a good pitcher I want a retraction"?

The journalist wrote what Ozzie Jr. said. If its not true thats on Ozzie Jr. Either way its Ozzie Jr.'s opinion whether its right or wrong. I just am not going to be so bold as to say something like that has never been said, because its a fan site with thousands of posters and not every single person here would I vouch for.

If the Bears had the top offensive line last year maybe Id be more worried about his leadership or intangibles. I guess Id rather hope Carimi becomes the leader as hes actually played with great offensive lines.

Crain needs a k here which is a tough request.

CQ still does not realize the appeal can only hurt him.

9 outs time to get it done.

Damn you.

Break this open CQ

Not Dunn, its CQ.

Damn right off his knee I think.

Well I think Morel will keep getting more at bats because Teahen is gone now.

What is this winning baseball, Im confused.

Hmm so time for Lilli bunt?