vandy125

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 10:58 PM) I have absolutely no idea if the batting order shuffle will work, but there is some logic to Uribe moving into the two-hole. 1. Uribe was tied for 2nd in the AL in sacrifice flies, and tied for 3rd in sacrifice hits. With Podsednik being the constant threat to steal, we are looking for a hitter willing to sacrifice his share of at-bats. If Uribe continues this trend, he could fill the role pretty well. 2. The other line of thinking is that batting in front of Thome and Konerko could really benefit Uribe. Its possible that being placed in front of the big boppers might give him better pitches to hit. For a free-swinger like Uribe, this could lead to a pretty productive year offensively. Now, I'm not sure how much stock to put into the two examples listed above, but my guess is that this may be part of what Ozzie is thinking by moving him up the order. Could it fail? Of course. And I'm sure that if Ozzie and Co. sense that Uribe batting 2nd ain't gonna work, they'll make a change. As I've been saying for quite a while, I'll give Ozzie the benefit of the doubt. One other point is that Iguchi is probably used to junkballers from playing in Japan. He will see a lot more of that at the bottom of the order than batting behind Pods where there will be a lot of fastballs thrown. Is Uribe a good fastball hitter?

Did anyone go to the web site and look at what they say about the "sport"? There are some good quotes in there such as: "Even though chess involves considerably less strategy than RPS, one may use any of one’s pieces at any given time, according to certain rules." http://usarps.com/site/index.php/welcome/1/

QUOTE(TLAK @ Jan 17, 2006 -> 06:31 AM) He was horrible in 50 of his losses, giving up runs at more than a 6 ERA clip. Thats not giving your team much of a chance to win no matter who they are. If he could avoid terrible innings and learn to survive even when he doesn't have good stuff, perhaps he could turn it around. Maybe we should be comparing him to the old Garland instead of Contreras. Garland figured it out and last year avoided the disaster inning, he gave his team a chance to win even when he didn't have his best. Vazquez has had 8 seasons to figure it out and the recent numbers don't indicate that he has. Since defense was brought up in this thread, I wonder if that has anything to do with some of the horrible innings that he has had. Doesn't a bad defense just make bad innings worse when a pitcher is out there? When a pitcher is on with Vasquez's stuff, no one can touch him. When he is "meh", how does a defense affect that? What were the defenses like behind him in Montreal and New York?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 14, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) Without the MLB license, I really have no interest in this game. I guess I will just keep playing MVP 2005 with updated rosters. I will still play this game and think that it looks awesome, but the licensing thing does make me a little upset. I was looking forward to seeing what the World Champs looked like on my favorite baseball game.

I'll just add a thought about our electoral college. It has been said that it gives the states with lesser populations the ability to have their say in who is elected President. That way, it is not always the cities that have their way, but small town America gets to have a voice as well. If we switched to popular votes, due to population. These are the states that would gain a bigger voice (they happen to be the most populous). New Jersey Georgia Virginia Indiana Washington Ohio Michigan Illinois Pennsylvania New York Florida California Texas 24 states would actually lose a bit of power if this were to change.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) So asking a priest why Dinosaurs are nowhere to be mentioned in the bible is a question they can't answer.. Other than the obvious answer (which it is not to ou) Why can't they answer this? I doubt that going through different points that you make and discussing them would make much difference, but the bible does mention dinosaurs. It obviously does not call them that since that term was invented in the 1800s. Take a look at Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 to start out with. At least look to see if there are responses to your questions before statin what is "obvious."

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Okay, a simple no would've done just fine.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:19 AM) He's even better than that once you get to know him. Nice

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:44 AM) No, Voltaire was the man who originally came up with the idea of Deism, And actually Spinoza was the first to prove that the Bible itself was not the word of God, but in fact written by man.. But, hey don't let the facts get in your way of your attempt to argue this. Have you ever looked into why Spinoza wrote the things that he did? Could he have had some political motivation to do it? He did not prove anything, he just attempted to subject the Bible to a type of scientific critique. Ironically it is similar to what you are doing by saying that science has proved that God does not exist. Here is a book critiqueing what Spinoza's treatise said. I suggest that you do some more reading. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022677688...5Fencoding=UTF8

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:44 AM) I posted a link which got ignored, on the truth of the bible for starters.. Alot of what I have read on the subject are in books, last time I checked I can post links to my library.. I can post names but again this would you to actually read their matterial. Which I take you would not do. For Starters Socrates, Plato,Aristotle, Spinoza, Hell even laerning the true message of Jesus. .Not found in the bible. You know I have actually read all of those people that you quote. Heck, I even did my senior thesis on what Spinoza did as far as critiqueing the Bible (In case you were wondering, he had a political agenda behind his writings). I do not see what they have to do with the truth of the Bible. It is a belief that cannot be proved just as saying "there is no God cannot be proved". Of course, this all may be falling on deaf ears.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) Nope, you're off a bit. I am completely open to the idea that humans and other life on earth was "designed" by an "intelligent" being. I am not open, however, to the idea that this being has anything to do with any god referred to in any ancient text that today's religions use as the basis for their existence. Good to have that cleared up. Is this kind of like a wind it up and let it go thought? QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) I don't buy that, given that the myths/legends pre-date the bible. And since I don't believe in the devil anyways, this is a concept that doesn't compute for me. This is where beliefs come into play. The myths/lengends may pre-date the bible, but I do not believe that they pre-date those "unnatural" "intelligences". I still hold to the bible for my beliefs. I'm just curious, what does it not compute with?

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 11:44 AM) My statement may have been oversimplified a bit, but I do believe that the majority of the bible is either "Titanic" meaning a completely fictional story is created around a few hostoric facts, or borrowed from other cultures/religions. For example, take the story of the last supper. In Norse mythology, the story of the death of the god balder is summarized here: The Norse demigod, Loki, an evil and mischievous being, was not invited to join 12 other gods at a banquet at Valhalla, the great banquet hall of Norse gods. Angered by the slight, he showed up anyway (like Judas, the unwelcome 13th guest), and during what was supposed to be a harmless game, caused the death of Balder, the god of light, joy, purity, beauty, innocence, and reconciliation Another example-- the Epic of Gilgamesh(predating the bible by hundreds or thousands of years) contains a "great flood" story. A third --Take the similarities between christianity and mithraism, which was a religion that again predates christianity and had a decent following in the roman empire right up to christianity's emergence: “The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). From their common Zoroastrian sources, Mithraism first held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth. Life then becomes a great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, the children of light versus the children of darkness (identical to Pythagoreanism). All souls were to be judged by Mithra (represented as a bull) with the Elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Mithraism divided the human race into three classes: the spiritual Elect, the wicked, and those who try to be good but can't seem to overcome evil. The Elect go straight to heaven, while the good-intentioned wait until judgment to be resurrected, where the wicked will be destroyed. Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacrament, bread and wine. Mithra was born in a cave; a cave is likewise the setting for the nativity of Jesus in the widely-read and influential Gospel of James, which though not canonical is the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary and claiming her continuing virginity. Both nativities were celebrated on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries. Many have noted that the title of Pope is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism. Both Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.” (Cumont, 191) Both religions placed a flood at the beginning of history, and both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the world. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184). I truly believe that anyone that waves these aside as pure coincidence is just wearing blinders. The bible is chock full of things like this, and if the bible isn't even original, then how could it possibly be the word of god? If all these stories are myths and legends, then how can any of it be taken to heart? Thank you for the response. What should be understood is that I am coming from a completely different perspective than you, and the difference is in a belief at the core. From what you are saying, it looks like you have a naturalistic, uniformitarianistic point of view. Meaning that everything that has happened and is happening is the result of a natural process that has not changed throughout time. You can definitely tell me if I am wrong in this. I believe that there is more to everything than what we see, that the way things are occurring now may not be the same way as they did in the past, that things other than natural processes or movements can direct where things have gone and where they are going. Based upon this, and my belief that the Bible is the standard of truth, I can take a step back and say why does it look like all of these lengends and myths make the Bible lok unoriginal. I am not limited to natural responses with this and can say that there is an unnatural motivating factor involved. For example, the Bible talks about God and Satan, good and evil, etc. Could it be that the evil has purposely caused these myths and legends to arise just so that people can be mislead into thinking the same thing you are? The ultimate tactic would be to discredit the enemie's words? That does not seem like much of a stretch, and I think it is something that we would even do in our wars. We would give people misleading information so that they draw the wrong conclusions. This is off the top of my head. Let me know what you think.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) I can agree with that. Me too. That's why I said FWIW. We all know that Bush isn't the best public speaker..

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Ummm, he's a Yale and Harvard graduate. Yeah, complete dumbs***. :rolly FWIW, he also got slightly better grades at Yale than Kerry even though Kerry was always portrayed as being more intelligent. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...luster_student/

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) Yes, my word selection does come out as being an ass, but its not the case. On this topic I try to enlighten people who have been blinded by the truth as I was.. I feel that if I can open up a couple of minds to think about what they believe in, and have them think Logically. And with my blind hatred towards KW, didn't help me cause when I was first on here last year.. But, with the FACTS on the Bible, this is something that can not be disputed..That I only look at. Which are far and few between. I have been involved in several of these debates before. The problem ends up being that each person comes in with their own set of assumptions at where "truth" begins. What do you base knowledge and truth on? There has to be something that each person can measure truth up to. This is one of the basic questions that everyone needs to answer, but the answer ends up being a belief. When you call something a FACT, what are you measuring that up to? No one is going to prove the other one incorrect.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) I don't know what he is doing, but I know what he's not doing. He's not reading what's written. Is that a fact or a belief?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) How can a fact include "I believe"? Isn't that an opinion? Pretty simple. It is a fact that he believes abortion is murder. It is a statement about his beliefs.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:30 AM) Then I guess Brit Hume and Sheperd Smith aren't pundits either. Speaking of left-leaning anchors, I'll throw Jon Stewart in there, despite the fact that his show is more entertainment than news (the same is true for certain segments of Olbermann's show as well). I would have to say that Jon Stewart is more typical of what people in the article would be watching than most of the names that have been brought up here.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 08:31 AM) The liberal media at MSNBC covered the Alito hearings and their analysis consisted of Pat Buchanan and a bunch of former RNC hacks. There wasn't a single democrat represented in their four hour coverage of the Alito hearings on Monday. But yeah, liberal media I guess. Maybe it is just me, but I thought that the article was talking about mainstream, quickhitting media in general. You seem to be talking not only about one singular instance, but also about something that no one would watch out of the group of people talked about in the article. People who just want to watch the news for a minute are not going to watch the four hour coverage of something like that. That is getting "deeper" into the news.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) Why put Scotty on the podium and claim they didn't know each other and probably never met, etc., when there is no real harm in saying that Bush met Jack and 2,000 other people that year in the course of his duties as president. Maybe they should just keep a database of all of the people that Bush has met. Then, they can cross-reference that with any names that come up in a scandle. That wouldn't be a waste of tax payer money...

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) Wow vandy! All those people were part of the Bush Transitional team? Must have been a big team. Just saying that there are a lot of people who have donated a lot of money to his campaigns. There are also a ton of people involved in getting him to the position that he is in. According to this Washington Post article, there are 474 members of the "transition team." http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s01/0117-02.htm

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) I remember everyone I had a meeting with that also happened to donate over $100,000 to me and was on my Presedential Transition Team. Better chance that I'd remember that person if they were a friend to my advisor Karl Rove. Yeah, I would remember every person on here that I met 4 years ago. Especially if they were a friend of a friend... http://www.tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_...00PioneersMajor Major-League Pioneers for 2000 David G. Albert Anthony J. Alexander Joe B. Allen III A. Paul Anderson George Leon Argyros Jorge L. Arrizurieta Jeanie Austin Alfred S. Austin Joe L. Barton Lee Bass Lawrence E. Bathgate II George S. Bayoud Jr. Henry C. Beck III Louis A. Beecherl Jr. Dennis R. Berman Wayne & Lea Berman Roland W. Betts Teel Bivins James J. Blosser Joseph H. Bogosian Michael M. Boone Rudy Boschwitz Katherine E. Boyd Daniel H. Branch Stephen & Kimmy F. Brauer Tim Bridgewater Nancy Goodman Brinker William O. Brisben Leslie J. Brorsen C. David Brown II W. L. Brown Jr. Christopher B. Burnham William H. T. 'Bucky' Bush Jonathan Bush Joseph C. Canizaro Stephen G. Canton Alvin "Pete" R. Carpenter Alice Clement Carrington Charles M. Cawley G.W. "Bill" Ceverha Elaine Chao Martha Chayet Robert B. Chernin Chris Christie Esq. James H. Click Leonard S. Coleman Jr. Herbert F. Collins Peter R. Coneway James Michael Connolly Natale "Nat" G. Conti Bob Corker James B. Culbertson William J. Danhof Robert Addison Day Jr. Robert H. Dedman Jr. Robert M. Devlin William O. DeWitt Jr. Jennifer Dunn Patrick J. Durkin James Dwyer Richard J. Egan John Engler Melvyn J. Estrin Charles "Tre" W. Evers III J. Nelson Fairbanks Robert Fee Thomas Martin Fiorentino Jr. C. Edward Floyd Thomas C. Foley William P. Foley II Matt Fong Jose Angel Fourquet Sam Fox James B. Francis Jr. Bradford M. Freeman Russell F. Freeman Jeff Fuqua George R. Gilmore Tony Gioia David F. Girard-diCarlo Charles L. Glazer D. Stephen Goddard Jr. Stephen Goldsmith William Gormley Robert T. Grand Maurice 'Hank' R. Greenberg Mark A. Guzzetta Fred Jones Hall Adele Hall Tim Hammonds James "Buck" Harless James A. Haslam II Ellsworth G. Havens Joyce A. Haver Richard Heath David V. Hedley John M. Hennessy Hans H. Hertell R. Steven Hicks Michael R. Hightower J. Roger Hirl Alfred Hoffman Jr. Robert B. Holland III David Horowitz Nevils Dudley Horton Jr. Allan B. Hubbard Kathy Hubbard Randall D. Hubbard James R. Huffines Richard E. Hug Gaylord T. Hughey Jr. John C. Huizenga Chris Jenny Walter E. Johnson Thomas L. Johnson Sr. Robert Wood Johnson IV Karen Alexandra Johnson Don D. Jordan Sheldon B. Kamins Stephen Kass Munr Kazmir Craig Keeland E.G. "Ken" Kendrick Bobbie & William Greene Kilberg Nancy Kinder James Louis Kittle Jr. Robert "Bob" K. Kjellander Jr. Dorothy Bush Koch C. Michael Kojaian Hersh Kozlov Thomas R. Kuhn E. Floyd Kvamme David M. Laney James (& Sandy) C. Langdon Jr. Franklin L. Lavin Kenneth & Linda Lay Fred 'Ted' W. Lazenby Howard H. Leach Ronald Steve Letbetter Tom & Nancy Loeffler Jeff B. Love John B. Mahaffey Thomas P. Marinis Jr. Robert & Mary Jane Martinez William Martini Sharon L. McCutchin Colin Riley McMillan Andrea & Dean McWilliams Gualberto Medina Jules Frank Mermoud David A. Metzner Vance C. Miller David Miner Stephan M. Minikes Suzan Mitchell Philip O'Bryan Montgomery III H. Gary Morse Dennis Muchmore Robert Madison Murphy Palmer N. Murray Charles D. Nash Jr. Patrick M. Nesbitt Andres R. Nevares James B. Nicholson Dennis E. Nixon Alan P. Novak Erle A. Nye Robert J. O'Connell Joseph J. O'Donnell Joseph I. O'Neill III John Ong Bill Owens Patrick C. Oxford William J. Palatucci John N. Palmer Sr. Anthony & Margaret W. Parker James E. Paul Jr. Bill Paxon Marshall B. Payne Stephen P. Payne Tom Petway III Robert H. Pickens Donald E. Powell Heinz C. Prechter John Price Chesley Pruet John S. Rainey Ralph E. Reed Jr. James M. Reynolds III Mercer Reynolds III Tom Ridge A. W. Riter Jr. Sig Rogich Raul Romero John D. Rood Evans Rose Jr. Edward W. Rose III Larry Ruvo John "Chip" Saltsman Jr. A. R. "Tony" Sanchez Jr. Dwight C. Schar William R. Scherer Jr. Joel A. Schleicher Rockwell A. Schnabel Peter Secchia Nicholas T. Serafy Jr. Allan "Bud" Shivers Jr. Ned L. Siegel Martin & Audrey J. Silverstein James P. Simmons Gregory Slayton Barbara Sobel Alex G. Spanos Ronald P. Spogli John R. Stafford Manuel N. Stamatakis Dorothy Stapleton Roger T. Staubach Glenn Dale Steil Charles J. Swindells Peter Terpeluk Jr. Sol Trujillo Jack C. Vaughn Jr. Rene Vazquez Botet Thomas E. Wagner Raymond & Ann Wagner Jr. Martha C. Walda Roger Windham Wallace Frederick L. Webber Ronald Weiser William F. Weld Paul F. Welday Jimmy Westcott Robert H. Whilden Jr. Jack Roger Williams George M. Williams Robert Jones Wright Charles J. Wyly Jr. Zachariah P. Zachariah Kenneth B. Zangara

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) Mark Buehrle was on AM 670 this morning. He said the he will not be pitching in the world baseball classic. He told the manager 2 weeks ago. He is still on the roster in case he changes his mind. He's pretty sure he will not change his mind. He wants to rest his arm after pitching so much and winning the WORLD SERIES. Sorry if this has already been reported. That is good news! I think that he has earned a bit of a rest.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) Ok. Keep your blinders on. Do you remember who you had a meeting with four years ago? I have trouble remembering meetings from a few months back.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) Naa I think they should just refuse to learn english, and force the mayor to start making every thing in Polish as well.. Then in a couple of years they get their own TV stations, and next will be their own Radio Show..And who ever disagrees with this is a racist.. How does a language = race?