vandy125

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) I also have not encountered one person who has said anything remotely close to this being a race issue. Here is what I see as a BIG part of the problem. There are places in this country, such as where I live, where there is not much of a black community in the area. So, one can not really even have the opportunity to discover through personal means where members of that community stand. The only thing that we see is Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and other members that the media always runs to. This is probably the worst sampling that we can get. But, it is the ONLY sampling that many people see. Also, if you do have access to that community, how many people have actually asked someone if they thought it was a race issue, and have gotten an answer that they know is what the person is truly feeling? I would suspect, and this is JMHO, that a black person would not want to tell a white person that they saw it as a racist issue unless they are a bit more boisterous. So, my point is, that even if their opinions are not even close to representative of the black population, a lot of people get their reactions from that community through the likes of Jesse, etc. Awesome! After living in Chicago for a while, I know not to trust their opinions, but I really am left with no basis to know anything at all about what that community thinks other than my memories from high school of friends I had back then. And who really talked about those types of things in High School? edit: Wanted to make the green clear.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 10:22 PM) And hey, if I learn to throw 95 MPH with a nasty hook, I might be looking at a career in the big leagues too! Last I heard, you weren't already throwing 90, and had no hook whatsoever. Nice comparison...

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 07:59 PM) What does Jerry do well outside of 'run fast'? I know he's been amazing since being recalled in early July . . . 39 G | 156 AB | 19 R | 49 H | 2 2B | 1 3B | 1 HR | 7 RBI | 8 BB | 27 K | 14SB/3CS | .269/.313/.314/.627 and even better since July 19th (beginning of the BOS series) . . . 25 G | 106 AB | 8 R | 26 H | 2 2B | 1 3B | 1 HR | 4 RBI | 4 BB | 19 K | 9SB/0CS | .245/.279/.311/.590 but can't this team do better than a dirt poor, barely breathing (possibly dead) man's Nook Logan in the leadoff spot next year? It's pretty obvious the organization wants to go for it again in 2008. With a group of aging (but still quite good) veterans leading the way, this team is going to need a productive leadoff hitter if they want to win anything. I can't see Jerry Owens posting anything better than a .260/.295/.315/.610 (this is on the optimistic side) line in 500+ ABs next year and that's not going to get it done. I just don't think he's all that talented. So, you see him regressing since what he has done in since July?? If he just learns a bit more patience, and get on base more often, he can keep stealing at a good clip and cause all of kinds of problems on the base paths. I have also seen him make some very nice plays in the OF. I enjoy watching him play, and think he can be solid. Also, who says he needs to be leadoff. Can't you try and get a SS that can also lead off?

Why all the hate for Owens in CF next year? If he keeps making improvements, I think he can be very solid out there. Then, we won't have to tie up a bunch of money in a FA CF, and we can see whay needs to be done to get a good SS, which I see as the biggest hole in the lineup.

NICE! Now we just need to find a SS...

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) Oh, I'll be doing that with the 401k for sure. I meant that I'll have other money that I'll want to invest in mutual funds, CD's, money markets, etc., except that I have very limited knowledge when it comes to those sorts of things. I'm looking for a good source for information on the fundamentals of investing. This is where I usually go when I run into some terms at work that I am unsure of. The stock simulator is also interesting here. I kind of compete with one of my co-workers with that. Investopedia

Darn my English, Dutch and German ancestry! The German part has some apologizing to do, and the English and Dutch parts are not quite ready to accept it!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 09:53 PM) Similar story happened to my mom's friend. She was going up 55 back towards Chicago from central Illinois. She passed through a mile long "construction zone" that was nothing but two signs saying "construction starts" and "construction ends." She had severe stomach pains and just wanted to get home and maybe to the doctor. She was pulled over by the police and ticketed for speeding in a construction zone (10 or 15 over the limit). She did end up going to the doctor and needed emergency surgery to remove her appendix. They still wouldn't throw the ticket out and she was forced to pay $500. I'm surprise that the cop wasn't at all lenient. I remember when I was in a car with my friend and his beeper went off to let him know that they found a heart for him and he needed to get to the hospital, we just took off flying in that car (not wrecklessly). We kind of thought that if we got pulled over, we could just explain it to the cop and may even get an escort to the hospital. Maybe we were completely off though...

QUOTE(juddling @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) Nifong also noted in his letter that his middle name was misspelled on his law license and that a puppy had chewed on part of the document. "Consequently, it has never been framed or displayed," he wrote. Sounds like a little kid throwing a tantrum. "I never wanted it anyway. It is stupid."

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) I agree with Rex on this, but I have to say that, personally, I disagree with you on the civil vs. ordained marriage. I understand what you are saying, but to me, I'm not saying "I do" in front of God, a minister or a judge (and I've been married twice, once by a judge and once by a minister, and yes, I am Jewish, but my wife isn't and her stepfather is a UCC minister and was kind enough to marry us)...I'm saying "I do" to the person that I am marrying. To me, that is the most important person in the universe and beyond at that particular time. I don't give a hoot if God says ok. I don't give a hoot about my marriage license from the state. Those are both formalities, in my eyes. And I think that is a major part of this issue, is that people forget that marriage, or any union for that matter, isn't about what God thinks, the state thinks, it's about the two people actually uniting. When people can think about that and that LOVE is the most important thing in any marriage, maybe this issue will subside. I completely agree with you that you are making a sacred promise to your spouse when you say "I do". However, I think that there is something to be said about making that promise in front of God and other people and having their full backing (blessing). Marriage is not easy; you have two different people trying to be one. LOVE does fade at times, and you need to work at it during those times to make sure that it grows again. If you do not have God and other people holding you to your promise during that time when your love fades for your spouse, what else is going to hold you to that promise? A lot of people are not being held accountable for that promise, and it makes it easier to break. Now, I know that marriage statistics are pretty much the same for Christians and non-Christians. So, what is that saying about the extra accountability that should be occurring by being married before God? I'm really not sure, but I think, unfortunately, that it says something about a kind of lethargy I have seen in the Christian community in regards to relationships with both God and people. We don't really "talk" with either one about deep issues that matter. This is JMHO.

First off, thanks for coming at this from a good discourse. I always learn new things when discussing these topics and hope that others do as well, and I appreciate that ability. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) Well, the OT condemns it, and the NT not so much. By extension of your reference to the cast the first stone Gospel refence in which Jesus supplants the Law of Moses, I should take Jesus' apparent lack of concern over homosexuality (he never mentions it) as an unspoken dismissal of the uptight OT dictums, yes? No, he actually upholds the law of the OT for the most part. What he has done is fulfilled all of the prophecies of the OT, and has brought about a new way of atonement. We are now able to ask him for forgiveness and repent instead of having to go sacrifice a lamb, etc. Instead of the need of a harsh punishment (death by stoning) there is now forgiveness. Also, the ceremonially cleansing and other practices are no longer needed to be pure because of this. We can go before God at any time now. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) But, I'll use your own acid test and discount one of the rare NT references to homosexuality, from Paul in Romans 1: This is a verse commonly pulled out to demonstrate that, yes, homosexuality is bad by NT standards too. But, this is one of the examples you are talking about that is "merely writing down what happened": Can we step back and look at the full context of the verse there? It actually says: I'm reading it as saying that it is "shameful", "indecent", "unnatural", and "perverse". It is doing more than just stating what has happened in this case. It is saying things about what happened as well. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) Your drawing the distinction between condemnation of a practice versus writing down what happened I can accept on its face, but, I know I can draw out other OT examples where practices that are quite normal today were explicitly condemned. I can't recall the book or verse at the moment, but the one about men with poor eyesight being unworthy to approach God's alter comes to mind. I'll have to find it. I would be fine commenting on them if you brought them up. Just try and keep in mind my comments up above about the difference in the ways that God can be approached and the new forgiveness available through Jesus. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) As for common ground and appealing to with a non-Christian. . . this is the sort of discourse that must occur in a society where not everyone shares the same belief system yet we still try to seek understanding of where our operspectives come from. More to the point, the but about the Bible clearly condemning homosexuality, but that shouldn't matter to non-Christians is an illogical statement. There are lots of non-Christians whose rights are compromised because they are gay and therefore not allowed to enter into civil unions, adopt, share parental custody, enjoy spousal hospital visitation priveledges, etc. If vestigial belief in the condemnation of homosexuality by conservative Christians is holding our society back from correcting this injustice, then it should matter and does matter to me. You will probably be very surprised by this, but here it goes. I am actually not against giving homosexuals the same rights and considerations that heterosexual couples receive from a government marriage or civil union. What I am against is my church blessing that as a Christian marriage since I do not see it as fulfilling what God had ordained. I would say that there are many Christians not making the distinction between the government they live under and the rights provided by it and the church's power that they live under. After saying this, we are told to live under the laws of the land we live in, and we need to respect those around us. I see church ordained marriage as different from state marriage. One is a religious thing, the other is not. As such I do not see why we should be pushing those beliefs on the state. Something such as stealing though (as an example), is not a religious thing that is separate from the state. If we see that not being addressed, we do need to push on that. Here are some verses that speak to this a bit: Government Verses

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 07:56 PM) I'm at a bit of a loss here. I'm no biblical scholar, but Lot's family was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. These two cities were destroyed for not honoring God correctly, yes? So if that's the case - why did God spare a family who's father molested his daughters? How is that honoring God's law? The only reason Lot was saved was because of Abraham, but they did pay a big price by him being saved. Lot was Abraham's nephew, and was kind of like the nephew that always finds himself in trouble because he just is always getting into bad situations due to poor decisions. I'm not sure what you would call what happened because it says that they got him drunk and basically passed out. From Genesis Chapter 19 What happened did end up being a punishment. Because it led to the Moabites and the Ammonites, and they were at war several times with the Israelites. An ironic note about the Moabites is that later on they were a part of causing some judgement to occur on some of the Israelites for sexual immorality in Numbers 25 That was probably a bit more than you were looking for, but there is your answer. I'm not sure why exactly it was done for Abraham, but that is what the text says.

Just throwing this out there, I don't know how true it is, but weren't there stories out there about death counts being artificially inflated by the "insurrectionists" (I think that is what we are calling them now). They were having people report more dead than actually occurred to make it seem worse and to try and get us out of there. Anyone else remember this, or do I need to grab a tinfoil too?

Pics: Charging the mound

QUOTE(rangercal @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) I will never use BP again. This is just sickening. Yep, I'm staying away from them unless I hear about some major changes.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) Then to you it is also pretty clear that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and it's OK to own slaves as long as you buy them from a neighboring nation (Leviticus 25:44), and that you can of course kill your neighbor if you find he has been working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2). Likewise, you're crystal clear about it being better for you to give your daughter up to be raped if it keeps two men from sinning by lying together (Genesis 19:1-9 - a personal favorite of mine). If you are clear about all of these things, and a boatload of others taken right from the Bible, then you are somewhat of a misanthrope in modern society. If you only think God's word as recorded in the Bible is only eternally binding when it condones bigotry against gays but less so regarding these other ancient dictates, then certainly you are in good company. But your interpretation of the Bible and which of God's laws should be heeded nonetheless remains distressingly selective. Aahh. The pick and choose what you want to believe and what is convenient attack. You might as well throw the whole thing out when you start doing that. I think that Benedict Spinoza First Exodus 21, it is not saying it is good or bad, but is merely putting down restrictions for a common practice at the time. Again, the same thing with Leviticus. The Exodus 35 one that you brought up is interesting because Jesus addresses that when he is confronted with an adulterous woman (notice that the creeps did not bring the man before him too, but that is a different thing). If he followed the law of Moses, she would be stoned. If he followed the law of the land, she could not be stoned. It was a nice trap. He, the only one who could, forgave her and told her to sin no more. So, the sin was condemned, but could now be forgiven in a way that was not before. There was no more need for sacriifices on the altar, etc, but a new way of forgiveness. The Genesis 19 one, I was actually just reading the other day. Again, the text just puts what happened in black and white. Just because the Bible states what happened, it does not mean that it is condoned. Why didn't you go a little farther and talk about Lot's own daughters sleeping with him as it says in the script? It isn't condoning that either. It even states that the Moabites and Ammonites came as a result of that. Which were two nations that the Israelites seemed to constantly be at war with. The difference between these texts and the one's that were sited is that there is condemnation of the practice. It is not merely writing down what happened. I know that is not PC to say, but it is what I believe, but I also believe that I do not have any ability to judge anyone. That is between each person and their maker. I cannot know someone's heart. I can bring the sin before the Christians that are doing it, but what common ground is there for me to appeal to with a non-Christian? To put it another way, the Bible clearly condemns it, but if you are not a Christian, that should not matter to you.

I feel a boycott coming on... Do they own any gas stations other than the BP one's? Am I thinking of the wrong company?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) The question then becomes...how do you evaluate the theories and evidence you do have? Because there are some items we simply don't know a lot about, and others we have lots of information about, and it's not always how old an event is that determines how much evidence we have about it. Exactly what is being done today. You search and probe and try to find the best answer with the acknowlegdement that this is the best answer so far based on such and such information (may be a little or not very much), and may change when further things come to life.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) That's not faith in a model, that's faith in authority. Much, much different. And I think you're wrong about people having "faith" in the idea. If people in general had faith in an idea, you wouldn't see everyone constantly jumping from one diet to the next. Everyone I know would still be eating bagels and commenting about how slim they're gonna be by avoiding all that fat. Still waiting. Agreed that it is a faith in the authority of the model (theory) that the scientists may not necessarily have. I think that you do see people put faith into different ideas. They invest time and money into the different fads because they believe them to be true. When they see that it is not working, they jump to the next fad that they believe in. The thing is that the things we are talking about do not even occur within one person's lifetime, and they cannot see whether or not it is working. So, people do hold on the ideas that cannot be proven one way or another. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) The silliness that would result from mentioning 'theory-not-fact' for every idea for which it is true is mind-boggling. We'd have to explain that exercise may burn calories, but it's really not proven. Things may fall towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2, but it's just one idea. That's a world that no one wants. I think that you are confusing the here and now ideas with the projected out over a time period theories. You can say that things do fall towards earth at 9.8 m/s^2. The theory comes in when you say that things will always and have always fallen towards earth with that same velocity. As you get further out from the current time, the assertions will hold less weight. For example, take four statements, which do you have more confidence in? 1. It is now raining. 2. It will rain tomorrow because there is a front moving in. 3. It will rain on Monday of next week. 4. It will rain on September 29, 2007. As you keep going, more unknown variables enter the equation. We were not around at the beginning of time or even a billion years ago. So, we can only come up with theories. I think that many of those types of theories (they may even be good ones) are often passed around as fact today, and that is where I wish there was some sort of qualification. That is JMHO. You may disagree with that.

When your computer boots up, try pressing the F8 button. You should get a menu that allows you to boot into safe mode. If the problem is software related, the rebooting issue shouldn't occur (most likely) when you are in that way. This will allow for more troubleshooting or to move files off of the computer more easily. A couple of possible issues: Over-heating - Is it in a cramped area, or does it have a lot of dust inside (this is something you should be able to look at)? Hard-drive about to go - Just a possibilty, probably need a comp tech out to look at then Memory Issue - Same as hard drive Motherboard Issue - Same as hard drive If it still has a warranty on it, or it has some tech support available from the vendor, you may want to give them a call.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) Disagree. In scientific papers, everyone understands that a model is not unadulterated fact. In popularizations, it's simply cumbersome and apparently mealy-mouthed to mention it. In the latter, the scientists themselves certainly don't have "faith" in the model. I think that this is the key point here. Most people are going to get their information from the popularizations and not from scientific papers. Therefore, it is seen as fact by the general population. Most people are not taking into consideration that these are the best theories out there so far based upon the scientific model, and they do believe that it is all completely true instead of a theory. By doing that, they have placed placed their "faith" in that model without even realizing it.

For those of you who wanted the Sox to go after Porcello in the draft. This is what he would have cost: Porcello Signing Sounds like a lot to me, but I have not kept track of signing draftees all that much. Just saw this in FutureSox. Go ahead and delete.

If Crede is healthy, I can see an OF of Owens, Fields, and Dye. I wouldn't actually mind that too much. If Crede is not healthy, then I would hope that we would sign both Dye and Rowand. Then, we would have Owens Dye and Rowand out there. To me, the big issue with this team for next year is the SS position. We need something better there next year. There are a lot of good options with the OF; I don't see much available for a SS.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) Hammerhead pretty much encapsulated the response I'd give. And I concede the real question is not then can we legislate morality, but whose morality do we legislate? Didn't you say we legislate by popular opinion, or did I read it wrong? If it is by popular opinion, then you have to say that there is no true right and wrong, it is a matter of opinion. And the moment, you say that your opinion is right and mine is wrong, you are bringing a standard into the equation. So, which would it be? Is there a standard, or is it an opinion of the masses?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 09:13 AM) If you're only saying that current models may not be accurate, that there may be a more fundamental, underlying model beneath -- well, yeah... As I understand it, that's why string theory is. Science recognizes this. As such, projections are not "faith" -- they are conditional statements. "IF this model is correct, then..." Faith does not allow such a caveat. IMHO, the "IF" portion of many scientific statements are usually left off. Many theories are presented as fact when they are really theories based upon our current knowledge and projection of that knowledge. Some people believe in these theories so deeply that they do call them fact, and that is where faith comes in. To be able to call it fact, you have to believe in certain projections to be true. Again, their relativity to our timeframe determines how much faith it takes to call something a fact. If the statements are predicated with conditional statements, then, I agree, that does not take "faith". It is merely a statement as to how we see things and not a statement of fact or truth. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 09:13 AM) If, on the other hand, you're saying that there may exist no real underlying order whatsoever, then the story I told is no less arbitrary than "slow" changes in natural laws, whether they arise from a deity or because nature randomly flips switches (and it would have to be some bizarre kind of randomness that would be impossible to quantify, in that case). Positing "slow" changes just makes the notion LOOK more palatable, without making it logically any less far-fetched than the idea that Newtonian physics might suddenly fail and we're all about to fly off the surface of the planet. Whatever faith is required to believe in the basic idea of science is perfectly universal. What I was getting at was not a "slow" change in natural laws. I was getting at the possibility that the natural law is of a substance that over billions of years, the speed of light (as an example) does slow down due to an unknown force, or that it has sped up over billions of years due to some unknown force. We just have not been around long enough, measuring these types of things, to see that there is some force acting that we would need to add to our understanding to better describe how we see things. I'll try to put it another way since that seems a bit jumbled. There is a possibility that there is a natural law that has not been discovered yet that acts on some of the laws that we have determined are constant. We cannot know whether or not that is true because we have not been around long enough to measure enough of these things.