CanOfCorn

And PURE capitalism doesn't work. I don't think any pure form of economy works. Capitalism as the MAIN TENET of an economy is still having a rough time, obviously...but it's better than bread lines and/or 80% income taxes.

Love me some irony.

Perhaps there should be a rule...post out of order and you must sit out one round of the alphabet.

Shufflin' off to Middle Buffalo: Brother's Gonna Work it Out - The Chemical Brothers Lightnin' Hopkins - REM Vanishing Point - New Order Polly - Nirvana Every Little Thing She Does is Magic - The Police Something's Goin' On - Mystic 3 Players - Crazy Town This is the One - The Stone Roses Oh Daddy - Fleetwood Mac Jubilee - Moonpools and Caterpillars

Might want to refresh before you post, Tex. Just sayin'.

Love the way this thread changes directions on a dime.

Everyone see that Chelios might sign with the Wolves? Check the Trib website. Yikes.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 03:35 PM) X-Clan, the hip hop group, coined the term "vanglorious". You are showing your age.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 03:26 PM) The only problem is that we need more information. KyYlE23 says that it was erected without permission from the landowner, but no where in that story does it say who the landowner is. The story says he erected it without permission from the government, and that the land was transferred to the NPS, but doesn't really say who owned it before. It implies that it was government owned before that, but doesn't say. But again I ask, just because it is a religious symbol, does that mean it isn't historical? To answer your question...religious artifacts and symbols like this can definitely be historical. IMHO: They shouldn't be BUILT on government/public property. They shouldn't be placed on government/public property. But, if they precede the government/public owning them, there's a debate, but I personally don't have a problem with it. In this case, if the previous owner didn't give permission and the government has a problem, just move it. Donate it to the local church. Or leave it and donate the land around it to the local church.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) Oh boy, this is going to be a long offseason. Pray tell...why?

Never doubt your instincts.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) Tourism must be at an all-time high there. China?

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) If you need you some pants, it sounds like its already out. Just peeking out a little.

Heeeeey...I was just kidding. I love me some pants. Wait, that came out wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Frankly...I just have no urge to target an infielder with the assets we have. Our need at the corner OF/DH spot is just a lot greater. /thread.

Cry me a river, Pants.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 02:09 PM) Xenon by itself is not dangerous but in large quantities it can displace oxygen, so be careful. You...and your pants...are nerdy!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) Another problem is that the original monument was erected with no permission from the landowner at the time. So its isnt as if it was ok to be there to begin with(regardless of meaning, Im not saying I disagree with it being there, but it was basically a 'squatting' monument). The courts are going to ruin the meaning behind it, if it hasnt been done already. This is what I was referring to. This, plus the fact that it is a religious symbol, makes it a very difficult call. It's like a statute of limitations. It's been there for so long, should it be granted access to stay? I don't know.

But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix. The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious. I really don't have a side in this debate.

My sweet tooth is aching.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) Look at other historical sites - was everything there, placed there legally at that time? I'm betting not. That's pretty irrelevant to me, in this case. If it were still private property, or if it was placed there after the transfer, then yeah, take it down. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you give me an example?

Cuz I want this to go on for as long as the Alphabetical Convo thread 10: Happy - Ned's Atomic Dustbin Lonely Soul - UNKLE Satellites - Doves Sleep On The Left Side - Cornershop Pain Lies On The Riverside - Live Suck My Kiss - RHCP Handcuffs - Parliament Loving Can Be An Art - KMFDM Black Sheets of Rain - Bob Mould It Is On - United State of Electronica

Hell has a special place reserved for me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) I don't think its about believing, or not believing, at all. Its about history, and respect. The National Park Service has a duty to, among other things, protect historically significant artifacts within their jurisdiction. This, to me, clearly fits into it. The kicker, though, is that this was built without the ok from the previous owner. So what, exactly, makes it historically significant? Just because of the length of time it's been there?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) Or could say that they have six legitimate starting pitching candidates on their roster? Possibly seven if you include Torres.