longshot7

is everybody at the park tonight?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 09:32 AM) There is a way that I can prove/disprove the claim. Afford me the opportunity to test it. Allow me to create a new id that always takes the majority position. After 1 month's time I will reveal that it's really me Juggs & we can then look at the activity generated. Short of that there is plenty of evidence in the posts & threads. Including the topics I have created. Getting the thread back on topic, the issue is complex as it pertains to entitlements. I believe the Fed's recognition of marriage is based on where you reside. If that state recognizes your marriage then the Fed does. If that is the case then there is not much reason to debate this nationally. There may be some entitlements afforded to you out of state but the vast majority of them are based on your state of residency. It does not take a lot to establish some form of residency in another state. If entitlements were the central focus of the debate then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that same-sex resources could pool together to establish residency for all said couples in a state that recognizes their marriage. This can be established in a multitude of ways. I'd like to respond to this point, Juggs, without name calling. You make an interesting point about entitlements - as well as the fact that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, as seen in the anti-gay marriage bills voted on in last year's election. But what you say about marriages in general I find really interesting. Marriages like any social institution evolve, and have evolved over time. I suspect in time (say 50 years) that the concept of marriage will become even more secular than it is now, and that Americans will look back at these discussions that we have now and see them as fairly rediculous, like modern-day people look back at the pro-slavery arguments in the early 19th Century. The institution of marriage started as a simple property arrangement - because of the patriarchal system, men wanted to protect their property, their wives - from other men and from the women running away. Marriage installed a woman as property of her husband, and this was the way it was for a long time. Later, marriages took on Judeo-Christian religious components, which would function to justify the unequality of these "partnerships." It also, as religions often do, was used to keep naysayers in their place. This is the way God wants it, women were told, and because they didn't want to be condemned to hell, no one questioned it. Nowadays, it seems that although the property issues have been moved to the back-burner, religious issues still exist in the minds of many. However sad, I don't expect this to change anytime soon. But when that fades in America, as it has in much of Europe & Asia (but not in other places in the world which still utilize the dark ages model), I expect the institution of marriage to evolve once again. The entitlements issue I find interesting. Many insurance companies are now offering coverage to domestic partnerships, and I think that once people get used to the idea of same-sex partnerships, more advancements will follow.

QUOTE(bmags @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 09:20 AM) so you're saying we should hold a million man march in us cellular field to get to 3 mill? there's an idea!

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 02:03 PM) It'll be the 4th or 5th, most likely the 4th. unless there's a tiebreaker game.

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 01:36 PM) We play the Pirates and Reds on the road. How do you know?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 10:18 AM) KC is still in this, dont rule them out because of a little math. uh, yeah....

yes, she said this about the people affected by the hurricane: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," she was quoted as saying in an interview on National Public Radio. (while surveying the Astrodome in Houston.) "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," Barbara Bush said. "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columni...user=CTUSERNAME

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Sep 7, 2005 -> 09:18 AM) I wasn't trying to wash dirty laundry, I was trying to get perspective from Sox fans at the one other place I know, and where I've lurked. Also: I never mentioned the site by name. Merely "another Sox site." I've gotten enough feedback here and from others; I feel no remorse for what I posted. As for those who've posted IMO it was a history of this with me, two things: 1) When the team is sucking, the team is sucking. I certainly am not the only poster pointing this out. Posting problems can be tiresome if you don't post solutions, which is exactly what I did. 2) What are we supposed to post during dark periods like that? We go there to commiserate with other Sox fans. 3) A warning would have been nice, after a year participating there. I feel your pain. I got banned there in Feb for posting an opinion about steroids that someone didn't agree with, after I had been a loyal poster for over four years. Oh well - it's their site. I've recently been reinstated, so hey, there's still hope for you....

a terrible decision. I guess being named the best duo on radio in USA Today didn't help after all. Can someone email Brooks about this?

QUOTE(VAfan @ Sep 2, 2005 -> 10:24 AM) I was making a joke, but only Steff picked up on the green text. Still, after last night's game, Contreras has to figure in the postseason rotation, perhaps even among the first 3. Lately he's been really hot through the first 5 or 6 innings, which makes him a natural match for a good long reliever. El Duque should fill that role. Frankly, I could see the postseason rotation look a lot like it looked to start the season: Buehrle Garcia Contreras Garland If you love Garcia on the road more than at home, you could flip Contreras and Garcia. I like Jose in the 4 hole, despite his dominance as of late, because if we can make it to the CD and WS, he can go game 7 if needed. I think Duque should back up any of the starters in case of they get into a hole early.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 09:14 PM) Freaking studly performance by Santana tonight. He was rocking and aside from Vladdy playing like s*** once again (and failing to knock in runs with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs twice today). Total blast although I was dissapointed, stadium wasn't quite as packed as I expected. Still drew 41000 but there were a lot more on Tuesday than tonight. Oh and RedandWhite, ya I'm an Angel fan. They are my 2nd team Me too! I was at Tuesday's A's/Angels game - tight, but a great game (too bad about the outcome.) I'd like the Sox to play the Angels in the ALDS so I can actually see the Sox in person.... although Oakland will be tough to beat. If the Angels could hit on a regular basis, they'd be unstoppable. Unfortunately, they can't. This may go down to the final weekend again.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 12:01 PM) The team has great bongs??? we wish.....

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 29, 2005 -> 09:33 PM) If we're cheating at the Cell...we need to stop! Obviously, the players don't know which light is which! no we don't. There is nothing wrong with cheating (or gaining any kind of advantage) if it leads to a W.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Aug 29, 2005 -> 02:30 PM) I think it's too bad we're not going to see BA on the post season roster -- I think he could be a real spark. I agree, but I think it might be better if Ozzie took a lefty. BA did prove himself IMO, but there's only so many spots. That is unless Ozzie doesn't take the 7th RP.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 29, 2005 -> 02:16 PM) Thats right, brain fart. The real question is which catcher do we bring up then? Davis has been hurt - so I don't seen any other options but Burke - but I don't see him on the playoff roster. Of course, we could skip AJ for Josh Paul.

some of this is moot, depending on who's hot at the end of the year - but I figured everyone can try to guess the 25 for the Division Series. mine: infielders (7) Paul Konerko Tadahito Iguchi Juan Uribe Joe Crede Geoff Blum Pablo Ozuna Ross Gload outfielders (4) Scott Podsednik Aaron Rowand Jermaine Dye Timo Perez DH (1) Carl Everett catchers (2) AJ Pierzynski Chris Widger starting pitchers (4) Mark Buehrle Jon Garland Freddy Garcia Jose Contreras or Orlando Hernandez relief pitchers (7) Dustin Hermanson Bobby Jenks Cliff Politte Damaso Marte Neal Cotts Luis Vizcaino Orlando Hernandez or Jeff Bajenaru the main questions I see is if we need that 7th pitcher or another bat (Anderson or Gload) and who gets the 4th starter spot. Right now, I vote for Jose, but we'll see where he is in a month.... And I'm assuming there will be no trades on Wed.

a GREAT move!! This makes Baj eligible for the postseason roster, and as the rest of the league hasn't seen him yet, a secret weapon for the Sox. I thought the Jenks callup was too early, but this move reminds me of the K-Rod callup for the Angels in 2002 - of course they brought him up the last WEEK of the season, but oh well.....

why Timo over ARow???????? Ozzie no make sense.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Aug 25, 2005 -> 11:30 AM) Wait, what the hell happened? Chat room NOW. I can't - it doesn't work on this computer.

wht happend????????

Forget everything you think you've heard about Uncle Miltie - he's a gamer who just wants to win. Does he get emotional at times? Yes, but since when is that a bad thing. He reminds me of AJ. I'd trade for him in a heartbeat, but of course then the question is: WHERE WOULD HE PLAY????

QUOTE(soxman352000 @ Aug 23, 2005 -> 01:15 PM) In the words of Chapplle "f*** your couch Minnesota" GO SOX He meant Chapel - as in Billy Chapel, pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, pitched a perfect game at Yankee Stadium a few years ago.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Aug 16, 2005 -> 08:57 PM) I never could understand why we had Adkins up either. to be used in mop-up duty - but they haven't used him that way either.

Is this the longest game this season - for us?

somebody tell DJ how to pronounce JENKS.