Jake

Had we gotten him, I would have probably just pretended it was a great deal to hide the pain.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 08:00 PM) Actually, the discussion is terrible. In fili, you're allowed to take personal shots at posters because everybody thinks they're right and everybody else is wrong. That's why i stay out of here. i wouldn't last two seconds in here without getting accused of trolling. Then I would get warned by a mod and eventually suspended if i didn't succumb. lol well. This thread has had more digressions than most. I read in the 'buster frequently and enjoy most of the discussion. When it turns into what you describe, I just move on to the next thread.

QUOTE (Cali @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 07:39 PM) Uh-oh... Gordon must be a racist. QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) lol. That's what soxtalk has become. It's politicstalk for the most part. Lame as hell. This is supposed to be a sports board. We could trade for strasburg tomorrow and it wouldn't generate 40 pages of this dumbs***. Most of the posters that live in filibuster rarely ever post in pht. We need to get rid of fili asap. It's a SPORTS board, people. There is some excellent discussion in this part of the board, far better than some of the other "niche interest" boards that attempt this sort of thing. The plus is it keeps people here, and I'm okay with that.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 11:10 PM) A nice perk about working in baseball: The entire park, gym and batting cages included, is at your disposal when the team is on the road. Where do you work? Feel free to PM if you don't want it public. If you don't want me to know, then I'll just go cry in the corner

My reaction to this thread is "I love caulfield"

Also, what the hell happened in here? I posted this morning on page 21 and I went back from this page (30 on my settings) and all I've seen for a while is discussion on priesthood. so....chicken sandwiches?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 2, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) No, I'm saying the coverage was so intense and the fact nobody ever said this is not a priest issue only but a societal issue (scum of the earth pedophiles are in ALL FIELDS in which they can get to kids) to the point RIGHT NOW you say the words "Catholic priest," you might as well say the word "pedophile." Sad. Today there is no doubt no kid can consider being a priest. It is a bad word to society. My son could be a priest if he wanted. I respected the priest of the Catholic church in my hometown very much. I would also think my son was wrong about something important, but leading a life trying to help people isn't the worst thing he could do and if he was happy with it, then I'd be happy with it. I know several people contemplating a life as a priest and I don't think less of them. Priesthood in and of itself doesn't breed pedophilia and I strongly doubt that pedophiles flock to it. The celibacy probably makes it more likely for that side of folks to come out, but again it's got to be so few and far between.

Only if Marty posts sexist remarks on his twitter EDIt: greg, reading your post made me realize that I've seen as many Royals game at Kaufman as I have the Sox at the Cell. A bad fan I am.

I worked for a TV channel for well over a year (we'll say it is on the liberal side of things) and I can tell you, Greg, they are always thinking about Christians. Part of this, of course, is just because TV news viewers tend to be on that side of the spectrum. It may be coincidence (TV news viewers are older, older folks are more often religious) but nonetheless these networks don't really want these groups pissed off. It does happen though...there is typically an effort to have a secular broadcast and at times that rubs people the wrong way. This is a good instance of it because if you are not appealing to a higher authority that says otherwise, there is not a strong argument against gay marriage. So...a secular broadcast almost must be on the favorable side when it comes to the issue, though it is best to be neutral. It is easy to let the opposition of two viewpoints turn into the opposition of two groups (religious vs not) and let's be honest, more people will watch the latter. I learned why sometimes you have to feel like God is under siege. I asked the question...why can't we just report good news? Why can't we avoid controversial topics? People won't watch TV if you do that. It's as if we want what we don't want. It is an interesting balance where you don't want people to be so offended that they quit watching but you may take a position that engages people and it won't always be in a positive way. I also really believe that there is a large, significant group of self-declared Christians that are not opposed to gay marriage. This and just my own study of the bible is why I am pretty adamant that this is not an "atheists vs chick fil a" issue. The angry group are simply those that disagree with the comments, nothing more specific. The angry folks probably have never had the chicken either....

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 06:52 PM) This is also where White Sox bench players go Monday thru Friday. I lol'd

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 11:07 PM) You don't want to make it a religious argument yet you take the holiest text in Christianity and say it was authored by assholes. The Bible to Christians is a Devine inspired text and not an opinion rag written by some cave dwellers. And you realize that homosexuality did exist back then right. You act like this was some secret. I can say that you're trampling all over my understanding of the world but that's not the point. My point is that we are hearing the word through those that didn't know a thing about being gay or having feelings of marital type and magnitude that go along with that. Sex with something other than the opposite sex was not commonly thought on and was associated in that culture with alternative religious practices and the old practice of men having sex with young boys. My interpretation of religious texts is that God for some reason withheld an opinion on same sex romance. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that homosexuality as a romantic preference isn't received as a real phenomenon until about 1800 years post-Christ. I'm trying hard to distinguish between the man-boy sodomy that was looked down upon by most Western cultures by Biblical times/rape by sodomy/other non romantic same sex acts and homosexuality as we know it now. I do not believe that there is good reason to be a lover of the Bible AND be opposed to homosexuality.

Also, I plan to give much of my money to Chick Fil A in exchange for amazing chicken

My intent was mainly to disassociate Christians with that position on homosexuality. Not all see it the way we assume, just most. I don't mean to make this a religious argument, but only religious topics are offended by fact-based arguments. My assessments of the writers of the bible are very subjective, but I hope the point that (by Earthly perception, which is what every other topic is bound by) humans wrote the Bible shines through as a worldly fact. These same humans, whether reading or writing the Bible, would not have understood a discussion of homosexuality since it didn't exist to their knowledge. My opinion is that the Bible makes no statements about homosexuality and thus the practice of marriage is not addressed to that end. So -- nothing else is under attack because there are no faith-based arguments in non-religious topics to muddy the waters when worldly facts are presented (other than politics sometimes ) My feeling is that too many hide behind their religion to support their fear of alternate sexuality. Greg or other religious folks in this thread may very well not be in this camp, but I cannot help but think that this common reading of religious text is perpetuated by those less noble than our good Soxtalk posters.

Didn't read Rush's bulls***, but we should quit saying that being a "Christian" and opposing gay marriage or homosexuality in general is wrong. There are Christians that realize that the Bible was written and assembled by a bunch of assholes that not only had their own agendas and fantasies (here's looking at you, John the Revelator) but also a bunch of assholes that had no grasp of the concept of alternate sexuality. Literally zero. I have heard accounts from people living as recently as the 1950s that WERE GAY but had no idea that those feelings were a known phenomenon or shared by others. Homosexuality being known as a clear cut preference is very new and real sexual attraction and "love" between the same sex wasn't going on around Jesus and his immediate successors. They couldn't address what they didn't know. Marriage as only being between man and woman makes sense since that was the only thing that made sense at the time. It is easy for a Christian to say that the "true" intent was that marriage was an institution of love. Or you can be like me and laugh at the history behind this major world religion and the assembly of its practices and beliefs.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 07:43 AM) That is far too pessimistic. It's a possibility but a remote one. Odds are he will be throwing again within 6 months. Any chance he has some labrum scarring or something like that? I had a doctor that wanted to go in and remove scar tissue and fraying as opposed to actually repairing the labrum. They estimated around a 3 month recovery vs 12+.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 07:28 AM) LOL WTF? Get off of the crack!!! not without ozzie. hahahahahahhaha Okay that's Greg's response. What about everyone else?

Liriano = god

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) So I can tell people on Soxtalk how bad they suck if they have a facebook page? You're about to get criticized to all hell

QUOTE (Noonskadoodle @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) Have any of them said KW was still trying to work on something today? Mentioned something "complicated" regarding Gavin

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) It's not over until bucket, docsox, rock or kona say it's over! This

Quiet before the storm Come onnnnnn insiders

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 31, 2012 -> 07:19 AM) Mitchell isn't anywhere close to putting up nice numbers in Triple A. So far, he's putting up a .250 BA and .650 OPS, and striking out almost 50% of the time, which is almost impossible for a non power hitter. He's clearly not ready for this league. Way too early to say that. There are a lot of 1 week samples that make Dunn look much worse

Great addition in the near term. Next year when you can only DH one of Prince, Miggy, VMart, and Soriano....that defense will be crazy bad.

Even if nothing happens, I just want to know what we were trying to do. lol

Sounds like Rip Hamilton would be a nice fit for Rose