South Side Fireworks Man

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) Homosexuality is normal, although it is not normative. Longshot's noting of lefties and redheads demonstrates the problem with your 50%=normal threshold, as would genius-level IQ, being very tall or very short, etc. All of those traits may fall out toward the edges of theor respective attribute bell curves, but they are nonetheless traits that can be readily encountered within the population at large. I don't have statistics in front of me, but the percentage of red heads or left handers far exceeds the percentage of people who engage in homosexual activity. There is a small percentage of people who are born with six fingers, or are albino, and because their percentage is so small, they would be considered abnormal. I don't advocate the condemnation of anyone based on their sexuality. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept that homosexual acts are not abnormal or immoral. I don't go around calling people names, I don't advocate harming or harassing anyone. At the same time, people who hold the traditional view of homosexual behavior should not be called names, should not be intimidated by threats of being suspended from their jobs, and should not be told to keep their opinions to themselves. The way I look at it, whatever a person does in private is not my business. But if that person wants to go public with what he does, I have the right to express my views on whether I believe it is right or wrong. And if people in the public arena are going to try to influence my kids with public statements, I have the right to respond in public with my views, so I too can influence others. As long as nobody is advocating any violence or hatred, both sides have an equal right to express themselves. It's insightful that all this uproar isn't being started by some "right wing nut job," but by reporters who would like to see Ozzie pay for what they suspect was an anti homosexual comment. Ozzie didn't advocate harming anyone, yet they want to inflict harm on him by suspending him because they suspect he might not have the same view as they do. There is no tolerance. There is no freedom of speech. Ozzie must be made an example of. I wonder what these same journalists reaction would be if Ozzie said something like, "Watch out for this guy, he's a Bible Thumper! I mean this guy is a right wing kook!' Just a harmless joke, right? Anyway, I appreciate the civil tone of your posts. That's all one could ask for.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 07:09 PM) You throwing around the word "fact" like some sort of right wing nut job standing on the pulpit makes me :puke Did I strike a nerve? Do you have to resort to name calling? It is a fact that homosexual behavior is not the norm, it is a fact that it has been frowned upon by societies around the world, and it is a fact that religions consider it a sin. You are the one who is being intolerant. I didn't start this conversation. I responded to another person's post in a civil manner. While that person disagrees with me, that person responded in a civil manner. No names were called, except by you. I'm not pushing an agenda here. But apparenty no one who disagrees with your agenda should be allowed to post here if you had your way.

QUOTE(UC76 @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 06:39 PM) Morrissey blows. Not that there's anything wrong with that. See, now this is my point. It's getting to the point where if anyone says anything referring to homosexuality that's not in a clearly positive and supportive context, people in the media want to intimidate them into silence. Why should Ozzie be suspended? Ozzie didn't insult anyone. He called his friend a homosexual. His friend wasn't offended, why should anyone else be? I don't know what Ozzie's views are on homosexuals, and I don't care. But apparently, if Mariotti even suspects that Ozzie's views don't line up exactly with his own, he should be suspended.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 06:02 PM) Look at Ancient Greece and Rome - or pre-Christian Europe. For a man to have a male lover was considered a high status symbol. Kings married Queens. Princes married Princesses. Counts married Countesses. Barons married Baronesses, etc. I'm sure there may be cases of homosexuals in history somewhere who believed having another homosexual lover was some kind of status symbol, but again that was not the norm. Some people in pre-civil war USA thought holding slaves was some sort of status symbol. The fact remains that the vast majority of people never held slaves, and no matter what slaveholders thought about status symbols, the slave trade was still wrong. While I can't speak for Islam, I can state with certainty that Judaism and Christianity are not founded on the beliefs of the inferiority of women and inequality of the sexes. These religions are based on the sovereignty of God and the deliverance of His people through his Grace and mercy. While the Bible states that male and female may have different roles in some earthly matters, it stresses that all are equal before the Lord. And I respect your right to your opinion, although I don't agree with it. Calling anyone anything as an insult is wrong. Although I'm sure we are all guilty at some point, the act of insulting is always wrong. But I wouldn't equate calling someone gay in a disapproving manner the same as using a racial slur. I would liken it more to someone calling an alcoholic a "drunk" in an unkind way.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) Why is being called homosexual an "insult"?? This is the root of the problem! That corollation, like calling your friends "gay" or trying to insult someone by claiming they perform gay acts - you're insinuating there is a right and wrong about people's sexual orientation and there isn't. Ozzie deserves to be called on this. It's not right. He doesn't deserve to be fired or anything like that, just to be called out publicly to watch his mouth. That the sentiment exists in his mind, as it seems in most people's, is what's wrong in all this. For it to come on the heels of him commenting about a radio host's broad generalizations about Latinos is ironic to say the least. Homosexual activity is abnormal. That is a fact. If it weren't abnormal, at least fifty percent of humans and animals would routinely engage in homosexual acts. In reality a very very small percentage do. In addition to being abnormal, most societies and civilizations in the history of the world consider(ed) homosexuality to be undesirable. That is a fact. Most major religions in the world consider homosexual activity immoral. The Bible declares homosexual behavior a sin. Because of all the facts stated above, many people believe that homosexual behavior is "wrong." You obviously hold a different opinion. So that makes you right and everyone else with whom you disagree wrong? Could it be possible you are wrong? Right or wrong, you have the right to your opinion and to express it. By the same token, people who believe homosexual activity is wrong for cultural, moral or religious reasons also have a right to their opinions and a right to openly express them without being called names or intimidated into silence by a vocal minority. For the record, in this particular case, Ozzie didn't comment on "right" or "wrong". He just joked that his friend was a homosexual. His friend took no offense. What is so "insensitive" about that? Some people just go around looking for a reason to be offended so they can push their agenda off on everyone else. Finally, as others in this thread have pointed out, it is indeed interesting how out of all the media people present, nobody deemed this printworthy except two employees of the Tribune Company, at a time when the Sox are enjoying success and their Cubs are taking a beating on the field and in the public eye.

QUOTE(rudylaw @ Aug 6, 2005 -> 11:04 AM) Im sure he will make our long swinging pull hitting offense look retarded. LOL! Juan Uribe may hurt himself trying to hit that frisbee! Can you imagine Konerko trying to time Shingo's breaking stuff? I don't think Crede would have much luck either.

I don't know if Griffey really wants to come here or not. But if he DID want to come here, the WORST thing he could say at this point in time is that he WOULD come here. He'd have to clear waivers past all the other MLB teams before he could come to the Sox. If he says he wouldn't come to the Sox, some other teams may not bother claiming him. But if he publicly states that he wants to come here, a team may claim him to block the Sox from getting him

Let's say a guy like Griffey is put on waivers and nobody claims him but the Sox. Now the Sox & Reds agree on a trade involving Young, Rogowski and a fringe prospect. Wouldn't Young, Rogowski and the prospect also have to clear waivers before they can be traded to the Reds?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 2, 2005 -> 01:30 PM) No matter what, I wish Mr. Zero the best. Amen.

QUOTE(Stocking @ Jul 30, 2005 -> 09:07 AM) anyone else a little apprehensive in acquiring eddie due to his torn rotator cuff? I love Guatdado as a pitcher, but that torn rotator cuff does scare me. I'd be willing to gamble that he stays well enough until the end of October if the price is right, but it is a risk--he could go down at any time. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I guess.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Jul 26, 2005 -> 06:19 PM) uh, your on crack you'd rather give up your best prospect, one of your top 3 releavers, and your #4 SP for schmidt/vizquel as opposed to giving up one of your TWO good outfield prospects, your SS, and your #4 SP? ok, boss If you don't know that BMac/Contreras means Bmac OR Contreras, you're the one on crack, son.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 26, 2005 -> 06:02 PM) The best deal would still be Schmidt/Vizquel for Contreras, Uribe, and Anderson. No, the best deal would be BMac/Contreras & Marte for Schmidt and Vizquel.

It may be a Bears town, but THIS is supposed to be an AJ Burnett thread!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2005 -> 06:15 PM) Put it this way...out of everyone in baseball, if I were GM, Vizquel is the one guy I'd over pay for. I'm talking about Valido and Gio for s*** sakes. Would you be willing to give BMac + another prospect or BMac + Marte for Vizquel?

Wow!

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jul 24, 2005 -> 01:34 PM) I would throw up if the Twins picked him up.. :puke I will throw up when the Cubs pick him up.. :puke

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2005 -> 11:54 AM) For those wanting a bat. My question is who gets replaced in the lineup and who do you all want? If the Sox were willing to take on his obscene contract, Griffey can be had for prospects, I'm sure. He could take Timo's place on the roster. That means he can play some DH, some CF, and some RF. Carl becomes the #4 outfielder and plays some DH. If it's now or never, I say KW should do this deal, if JR allows it.

Konerko wouldn't be so bad as a guy making $3-4million a year and platooning with Gload at 1B and Carl at DH. But as a highly paid cleanup hitter, he doesn't cut it.

I would trade McCarthy for Burnett, then flip him for Wagner. If the Reds would take Konerko straight up for Griffey I would do it, but I doubt they would. We'd have to add a prospect for them to add money, but that part could be worked out.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jul 22, 2005 -> 12:07 PM) The question is how much do you want to win a World Series? If it takes Burnett to get Wagner before the deadline then use BMac & not Contreras to get Burnett. Maybe BMac is the next great thing, but he's not going to be that THIS YEAR! With Wagner, everybody drops down which makes the pen that much stronger. On paper at least it looks like a 5 inning game in the post season. Right on.

Iguchi should be the regular starting 2B, but Willie should be playing more often. Iguchi looks like he could use a rest, and Willie is a better defensive 2B anyway.

QUOTE(Cubs Suck23 @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 08:54 PM) Last year he had a very powerful season with over 20 Hr's but this year he has only 5 Hr's and 36 Rbi's. Steroids?

QUOTE(DABearSoX @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 10:22 AM) It still amazes me how many people think dye can be an everyday first baseman.......he played one game at first, and played it a little in the minors.....idiots Anyone who thinks an athlete the calibur of Dye-- a major leaguer who has played baseball all his life, and who has showed the ability to play 1B already-- cannot play 1B adequately is the idiot.

Someone on another forum suggested Konerko for Griffey straight up. Dye moves to 1B and Griffey starts in RF. The Sox could then cut Timo and bring up Gload to back up Dye at 1B. Probably will never happen, but I like it.

Contreras is having a better season than Burnett or Schmidt and he's way better than McCarthy. So unless we're getting Roger Clemens, I'll stick with Jose, even though he does frustrate at times.