vandy125

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 12:51 AM) Perhaps I mis-speak when I say morality cannot be legislated, and I really mean morality ought not be legislated. Cartainly laws can and do have moral weight, but they should not be based on relativistic moral positions (e.g., I'm a racist so I'm going to push for a new set of Jim Crow laws even if my position is not representative of societal mores.). So laws should be based upon a common agreed societal position? What if the racist position was a representative of societal mores? Can you say that the Jim Crow laws are wrong if everyone else says they are right? What if 50% say it is right and 50% say that it is not?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 01:02 AM) Why require the changes to be "slow" or "normalized"? That doesn't go far enough -- science can actually deal with patterns and change by finding an underlying model. Maybe the constants change wily-nily every time a measurement is made. Maybe the next time you drive a car your brakes won't work, because He won't like friction any more. Maybe -- because He of course has the power to change any measurement with His Noodly Appendage. I'm just saying, don't count it out. All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past? It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) So we can decide morality for the nation? My views should be rejected because I go to Church? How about anyone that drinks beer shouldn't be allowed to force their views of alcohol laws on anyone? If you own stocks you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on financial matters? Don't you know that you can't tell anyone else what to do? That is the one supreme law. You cannot tell others what to do. That's what I'm telling you...

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:33 PM) This is, I think, a corect assessment and an important point. Scientists do, by and large, contend that the basic laws of physics have held constant over the lifetime of the universe. We accept that there have been universal constants like the speed of light and the nature and behavior of subatomic particles, etc. A favorite tactic of the creation "scientists" (I'm allowing myself the PA Conceit of openly deriding a group that has no bisiness calling themselves scientists) is to suggest that in the early days of the universe (maybe the first six, for example), perhapes these universal constants were not so constant. Maybe the laws of physics were a bit more malleable at this time and, the argument goes, that is because the Hand of a divine agent is at work at this time and physical laws do not pertain to such a Hand. Well, of course, none of this is testable even if it iis imaginative. Once something falls out of the realm of the testable it is no longer of concern to science. That distinction, that which is testable by means of scientific inquiry and that which is not, is the dividing line that ideally should serve to keep the physical and the metaphysical at arms length. It is not for science to ponder the existence of divine agents, souls, heaven and hell, etc. It is the job of science to develop and over time incrementally improve on working explanations as to how the physical universe operates in the absence of (untestable) metaphysical causative forces. I completely agree that this thought is outside of the realm of science because it cannot be tested at all, but even if it is a poor example, it does highlight one of the limits. We have been around for a blink of an eye in the generally agreed upon scientific timeline. How can we really know whether or not those things that we see as constants right now really have fluctuated over time in either a normalized pattern, a slow degradation, or an incredibly slow increase? We just have not been around long enough to measure some of these things.

I thought that this thread was starting to head down an interesting route with some of Tex's comments. So, maybe we can steer it back in that direction. One of the things that I always think of is that there are uderlying assumptions as to the basis of truth in both religion and in those who believe that the scientific method will be able to fully understand and grasp origins. For example, I'll throw my own beliefs out there because I don't want to misrepresent anyone else's. There is the belief that the Bible is a source and standard of truth. Sure there are some discoveries that may cause us to reexamine how I look at different portions of the Bible. It may even cause a look at the original Greek or Hebrew to see if the text could have been translated in a different way (can be the case with Hebrew, which is many times written without vowels as an example of something that can cause a mistranslation). On the other side, there is a belief in a kind of uniformitarianism when attempting to project ideas in to the past. You have to have the assumption that conditions as they exist now behave in the same manner that they did millions or billions of years ago. You make observations on how things are working now, and project that into the past. I'm sure that you can bring up examples of ways to study the past such as looking at ice core samples or looking at the past by studying the stars, etc. Those things can be a guide, but there are still assumptions that need to be made. This is one of the examples that I can think of. Where does your standard of truth sit? There is only so much that we can personally experience.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) Good post. I understand that Ozzie makes the final decisions... which is fine by me. He just gets s*** on whether he does a or b no matter what, because there are too many self-professed geniuses posting around here.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 05:39 PM) Also, just FYI. Bobby Jenks coming in was not Ozzie's idea. So no props to Ozzie. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap;_ylt=AiU...104&prov=ap It was still his call to put him in. Wasn't it? Is it really that hard for some of you to just say, "Good job Ozzie" just one time?

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) I'm still happy with Ozzie as a manager for now so I'm not about to jump on any anti-Ozzie bandwagon. I'm sure some of the people here are right about him sometimes but my attitude is: this team has been sucking all year and really--what does he have to work with? Now they're kinda coming together FINALLY. Another year of this though, and I may be less understanding. I'm also still very happy with Ozzie. He makes some mistakes, but who doesn't? Every single move he makes is scutinized by some people. I think of it like grading a paper from a student. They may miss a comma or punctionation every once in a while, but the paper can still be excellent overall. Some people just seem to get really bent out of shape, on a misplaced, comma, and can't step back and take a good overall look on what has been done right.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) Well, maybe all he needed was a break? That's sort of scary. Or, maybe pulling him out of the rotation pissed him off and caused him to focus more on his delivery than he had been. It was nice to see a 94 and 95 on the gun with him.

QUOTE(KevinM @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 07:50 AM) Is it really that unacceptable to slam Ozzie? Seriously, he knows no more about the game than most intelligent fans. He doesn't think Thome and Richar can handle a tough lefty, but Pods and Erstad can. He's an absolute joke of a manager and it is embarrassing to watch him call for a bunt from a guy who had been roping the ball all night. Why can't Ozzie just go with a solid lineup? Owens Richar Thome Konerko Dye Fields Pierzynski Uribe Garbage That is saying a bit much. How many intelligent fans have actually played in a major, or for that matter, a minor league game? How many spend most of their time working with these players and know what is going on with them? I would think you would have to know quite a bit about the game in order to make it to the level that he has.

Good to see Jose looking good!!

QUOTE(rangercal @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:38 PM) since you know it all, go work for them. I'm sure they would love your input every game. http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/mlb/help/jobs.jsp?c_id=cws Can we come down off of the high horse and at least admit that it was a questionable call? It looked like Owens could swipe those bags easily. Especially with Borowski's pick off move. It looked like the perfect storm to have him steal and have one of the hottest hitters this game take a shot at winning or at least moving him to 3rd.

Why would you try and bunt with how well Fields has been swinging?!

From a Sun-Times source: Pods rumors denied

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) .469 with RISP .381 with bases empty Those are good averages, but wouldn't they be a bit skewed because with runners on, you can have sacrifices that do not count against OBP? You do not have that with the bases empty.

There it is. Number 756

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) Steroids do not make you hit the ball with more regularity. Steroids do not make you have better hand eye coordination. If Bonds did use steroids, it should be taken with a grain of salt. So did Guillermo Mota and Robert Valido... I think that we can all agree that Bonds always has had incredible hand-eye coordination. However, steriods would have allowed him to possibly reach a level of strength that he would not have been able to get to and to maintain that level for a longer peroid of time than he would have had he not been on them (supposedly). I would say that most people would have already pencilled him in for the HOF before the steroids because of how good he already was.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) That was/is (one of) my main point(s). I don't think he was getting it. So, I tried to give it a rehash. It is the main reason why it is called a performance enhancer and is a very good point.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Aug 6, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) For baseball, being big and bulky would slow down your swing and with the lack of tendon and ligament support would also cause further chances at injury etc. I don't know what else to tell you if you are trying to tell me that being bulky (losing range of motion in the process) has no effect in any of this. I know more about steroids and steroid use than most likely all of you, im not assuming anything. Everything you just said above really had nothing to do with baseball, in which I was talking about. You just said basically what steroids do. I really don't think that he is talking about necessarily getting bigger and bulkier (hence slowing down one's swing). What he is talking about is the rebuilding of muscle tissue at a faster pace. This faster pace does not mean that you will get too bulky. It means that you can reach your goal level of muscle mass in a much faster period of time. It also means that it is much easier to maintain that muscle mass as you are going through your daily routine. You will not get tired out as quickly as normal because you will have a much quicker recovery time (the muscle tissue gets built back up quicker). For instance say someone wants to add 10 pounds of muscle to reach a goal that will not prohibit them from swinging. Player A without steroids, but working hard take 1 year to do it. Player B with steriods, and working hard takes 3 months. Also, Player A after playing in 60 straight games is more worn down than Player B because his muscle tissue is not being rebuilt as quickly. TIFWIW. That is what I have read up on steriods as doing, and it is why pitchers get caught with it a lot. They need their muscles rebuilt quicker so that they can go out and throw again without much loss of performance.

QUOTE(CubsSuck1 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 08:46 PM) I think Paul and Huckabee were both impressive in this morning's debate. Giuliani.... made himself look like an idiot. Out in Iowa, Paul made quite the impression. He and his supporters were all over the local news. I've turned into a Paul fan so far. Looks like the first candidate I would actually like to support.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) Sox are 10.5 games out of first. I mean, it's not going to happen, but ... 10.0 games now... Not gonna happen, but it is fun seeing them play well.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) So who has done it the right way? Prove to me that PK, Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, Crede, Rowand, Everett, Iguchi, Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, Vazquez, McCarthy, and every other person who has worn a White Sox uniform for the past 3 years or 5 years or 10 years has been clean and performed like you think they should perform. You can't. There's absolutely no reason not to add Bonds if he wants to come here and is willing to play LF, other than blind bias and hatred. This shouldn't turn into a Bonds bashing thread. So, I'll say this and leave it at that. Then, go ahead and respond however you want. I am not going to respond again. Are any of those players under investigation by the feds? Do any of those players have multiple books written about them with very specific information in it? How are those players perceived by the media? Are any of them viewed as badly as him? There couldn't be a reason for that, could there? Where there is smoke, there is fire. I don't hate Bonds; I really can't say I know him at all. But, there is enough documented evidence and shady people that he deals with for me to get a pretty informed opinion as to how he has gotten where he has. How about he actually go ahead and dispel some of this evidence against him if he truly is innocent. If not innocent, how about an apology? That would go a long way with me.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) Adding Bonds really is like adding 2 and a half hitters to a lineup; first, you have Bonds, who is 1 and a half players himself. Next, you take the person hitting 3rd in front of him and watch said player - be it Jeff Kent, Rich Aurilia, Benito Santiago, or JT Snow - have an amazing season getting pitches to hit because protection actually does exist. Finally, you realize that by adding Bonds to the lineup, the Sox offense could score 900 runs with 4 guys - Konerko, Thome, Bonds, and AJP - making big money. If they can find a way to keep Dye, they could very easily have the best offense in the league. This is all with adding 1 bat to the lineup. Check out what the fans would think so far: 85.7% - No 14.3% - Yes I don't want him, and I don't care how he is in the clubhouse. To me, he has done everything the wrong way, and I expect baseball to be played a certain way. I will not pay to see someone like that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) Too early for me to start saying "I told you so" in the Floyd bashing threads yet...but there's 1. You can at least say that we saw that he does have potential, which some people were saying that he doesn't.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) I know he's been hurt, but still in pain? It sounded like he was pitching in pain earlier in the season, but is fine now. I could have heard wrong. Game OVA!