Steff

Thu Feb 10, 7:45 PM ET By Bridget Byrne The 46-year-old star of Fox's The Bernie Mac Show announced Thursday that he has sarcoidosis, a rare and sometimes life-threatening autoimmune disease that causes inflammation of the body's tissues, most frequently in the lungs. Mac, who first made the disclosure via Star magazine's Website, issued a statement through his publicist saying he was first diagnosed with sarcoidosis in his 20s. "I've had sarcoidosis since 1983, and it has not altered or limited my lifestyle," Mac says. "No one knows where sarcoidosis comes from or where it starts, and there's no known cause for this condition that effects primarily minorities." Last summer Mac's health became an issue when he was hospitalized after completing work on Ocean's Twelve. Filming on the fourth season of The Bernie Mac Show was subsequently delayed. Initially, a Fox rep said Mac was merely taking a self-imposed hiatus because he was suffering from exhaustion, brought on by a heavy work schedule that included his TV show and the Ocean's Eleven sequel, along with the baseball film Mr. 3000 and the upcoming Guess Who, the racially flipped update of the 1967 drama Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, in which he plays a dad upset his daughter wants to marry a white guy. The network later said Mac was suffering from pneumonia. But now, his spokesperson tells Star that Mac "had double pneumonia which weakened his lungs and his entire immune system, and the sarcoidosis symptoms became pronounced." The disease can prove fatal in about in about five percent of cases and is cited as the cause of death for football great Reggie White last December. Hall of Fame basketball player Bill Russell also suffers from the disorder. Mac's publicist, Matt Labov, is quick to point out that sarcoidosis is a "treatable illness and not deadly." In his statement, Mac says, "I still walk, play basketball and do normal things...Since sarcoidosis hasn't slowed me down, then it shouldn't be a concern for others." The Chicago native says he has visited several sarcoidosis patients at La Rabida Hospital in Chicago. "I'll be devoting my summer to creating the Bernie Mac Foundation. Through my ongoing and private efforts, I'm organizing a golf tournament in Chicago, and the proceeds will be given to different sarcoidosis organizations. I hope to announce further details about this soon." Fox, meanwhile, says that since a healthy Mac has returned, there have been no further interruptions to filming his sitcom, which airs Fridays at 8 p.m. ET/PT. Production is complete on about half of its 22 scheduled episodes.

They slowed down, and tossed him on the grass.... how considerate of them. :headshake

There were 3 good arguments that Jesus could have been Black: 1 He called everyone "brother" 2. He liked Gospel 3. He couldn't get a fair trial. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish: 1. He went into His Fathers business. 2. He lived at home until he was 33. 3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus could have been Italian: 1. He talked with his hands. 2. He had wine with every meal. 3. He used olive oil. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus could have been a Californian: 1. He never cut his hair. 2. He walked around barefoot all the time. 3. He started a new religion. But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus could have been Irish: 1. He never got married. 2. He was always telling stories. 3. He loved green pastures. But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus could have been a woman: 1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food. 2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it. 3. And even when he was dead, He had to get up because there was more work to do. Amen

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 04:34 PM) I guess it depends on what you define as a "bad home". Maybe it's the kid who's parents don't pay enough attention to them. Maybe it's the kid who's parents already abuse him/her. IMHO, it's those types of kids that would be an easier target compared to one that has parents who are very involved and have a very open relationship with their kids. Would the teacher have started some kind of relationship if she knew the kid would go home and tell his parents what was going on? On the other hand, I would agree that anyone (no matter race, gender, etc.) is at anymore risk than anyone else from some Joe Blow child molester who just happens to like the way they walk down the street. When someone says "bad home" I read "less fortunate" which equates with "poor". I simply didn't/don't understand what he meant.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 04:03 PM) Then maybe you just don't agree. I can't be any clearer about the connection and how I see it, sorry. I just think that no one.. regardless of race, gender, family status, or worth is anymore at risk than anyone else.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 03:49 PM) Now, c'mon Steff, where did you get that? I neither wrote it or nor implied it. Predators will look for easier targets. In other words, kids who probably won't tell. Usually, those kids don't have a good enough relationship with their parents and have no one to turn to. Any kid can be a victim of an attempt of some kind, usually the kids who have poor family communication will keep silent about it. Of course there are exceptions, but usually that's what happens. I'm not revealing anything that most social workers or school councelors won't tell you. Obviously I misunderstood which is why I asked rather than assumed that's what you meant. So now you are saying that victims of sexual predators are mostly children from bad homes..? Seriously.. I don't get the connection between the two things.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) That's nothing -- Did we post the story about the guy who cut his own off in a bar bet after his team (rugby or football) won something? That was very recently Yea.. "That's a fan" or something like that is the thread title.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7595038 LONDON (Reuters) - A British woman was sentenced to two and a half years in jail Thursday for ripping off her ex-lover's testicle with her bare hands during a drunken brawl after he refused her sex. Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage in May last year after Geoffrey Jones, 37, who had ended their long-term relationship, rejected her advances. She grabbed him by the genitals, tearing off his left testicle, then hid it in her mouth before a friend of Jones handed it back to him saying "that's yours."

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) Preying is why they call those people predators. They know who the kids are that come from the bad homes and who to target So now you're saying that only children from bad homes are victims of sexual predators..?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 02:28 PM) Yeah, ultimately, it comes down to parenting. This would never have happened to me, cuz I would have told my parents in a heartbeat. I'll rasie my kids the same way, I'm only responsible for them. I don't know if I'd blame bad parenting. Adults in authoratative roles sometimes pray on the most unsuspecting. I'm sure not all the posters here who said you would have "hit it" have bad parents.. overactive hormones maybe.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 01:52 PM) C'mon people, it's not Mr. Roger's neighborhood out here. This kinda stuff and some far worse goes on all the time. Yea.. far worse does go on. So just look the other way..? It's pretty effing sad when a parent can't be sure their kids are safe at school. Oye.. I would love to be a fly on the wall when some of you become parents..

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 12:25 PM) Thanks for clearing that up... wasn't sure what is quoted and what's rumors at this point I'm eager to read this book.. the rumors flying have been crazy!!

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 12:13 PM) Mike Greenberg pointed out something important today on his morning show... that is the paper who is reporting all of this (is it the post or times?) does not have excerpts from the book, so there are no quotes. That is why McGwire's statement said he would wait to review the book. The comments in the papers the past few days are quotes that Jose and the publisher released. What Mike said was that there are rumors of other players but since the have been no further comments released it's speculation as to who those others might be.

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 12:08 PM) no idea what your trying to say but either way.. judging someone from a message board does not = how the really are a message board is basically agree or disagree, pretty much how it goes around here.. you agree there will be those who disagree and you b**** about it.. you disagree there will be those who agree and you b**** about it.. You're damn right about that... judging them from bulls*** they hear also applies, IMO. :rolly Now if only people followed that rule. As to what I was referring to.. I was just reminissing over some past PM's.. no big deal.

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:57 AM) haha no its only how you know me from a message board.. you dont hang out with me or know me personally so its a totally different situation Well.. the person I know from this message board is much different than the person I see posting in many of these threads or words to others.. but there's no sense in addressing that issue here.

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:48 AM) I had sex when I was 13, im fine That's debatable...

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:41 AM) Again point me to where it said that the kid was FORCED to do anything or was against his own will in this, I dont recall seeing that anywhere.. And it is fine because when you hear about younger kids having sex you dont say "Well those kids are f***ed" When I heard about those kids that were having oral sex on a school bus and wore color coded bracelettes to signify what they had done... or those "rainbow" parties.. I said "those kids are f***ed". The girls grow up with little or no self respect thinking that it's ok to have multiple partners and that giving blow jobs in public, one after another, is ok. And the boys grow up thinking that's normal and, IMO, leads to sexual agressivness. As to whether the kid, or any molested kid is forced... and I don't know anything about this other than what I've read (thank God) but it seriously damages a person's mind when they lose control and can't decifer between what's right and wrong. Kind of like hanging out with the wrong crowd... it's wrong to rob a liquor store, but when coerced by others it might not seem like a bad idea. That kid wasn't forced to rob the store.. but his life is surely f***ed because of it.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:28 AM) When I was in high school we used to open all the windows and freeze, but act like we were hot, just so the french teachers nipples would get hard. I didn't even take french...but I ended up in her classroom on more than one occasion. not so relevant to the topic...but wanted to share Oh I miss high school... Boys will be boys...

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:25 AM) so let me get this straight.. if a 13 year old has sex with a 13 year old... its fine BUT if a 13 year old has sex with a 27 year old, the kid is f***ed for life?? HMM.. Maybe in your world. Both are wrong in mine.

QUOTE(thomsonmi @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) Not to get too technical, but since I am a plaintiff's trial attorney... In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public person may not successfully sue for libel unless the person can prove malice. Malice was defined as "with knowledge that it (the material in question) was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This would be the standard applied to a lawsuit filed by Mark McGwire or any of the folks accused in Canseco's book. "or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not"... Doesn't that kind of negate the previous line...? Unless I'm reading wrong.. one can sue if the info is false.. OR if the person presenting the information didn't care if it was false..? Thanks thomsonmi.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:18 AM) right, it's a tort, that's why McDonald's had to pay the woman (possibly, I've never read the lawsuit) Oh sorry. I thought you were referring to my second statement.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:13 AM) of course it is, it's possibly negligence You can not be arrested for negligence, unless it results in a crime.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 11:02 AM) Sorry, I said a law had to be broken and you said anything, I thought you meant anything. Well.. last time I checked it wasn't against the law to not secure the lid of a coffee cup.. yet McDonald's paid dearly for that mistake. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. To be able to sue, a crime is not in the criteria.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) Steff, Thanks for the answer. I couldnt remember which way the case went, I thought it went against the publisher but I wasnt sure. Now there still is this problem, which I decided to stop being lazy about and get a Westlaw case: Krueger v. Lewis 342 Ill.App.3d 467, 276 Ill.Dec. 720 Citing, Rodriguez-Erdmann, 190 Ill.App.3d at 33, 137 Ill.Dec. 218, 545 N.E.2d 979 So, for any of them to beat Canseco in court, they will have to show that Canseco knew the statements to be untrue, or there was a reckless disregard. These are not very easy standards, compared to regular defamation or slander cases involving non-public figures. It'll definitely be interesting to see which way, if anyone, goes. Do they just leave it alone and ignore it..? Do they defend their honor.? And if so.. how? It's like trusting the witness to a crime who just happened to be running from the scene of another crime. One thing... Jose has been pretty clear on his feelings towards MLB and some players.. I think proving malice would be the easiest part. He's obviously got a big mouth.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:44 AM) The two situations are totally different. The 1st couple have kids and had and on going relationship and claimed to be in love. This other kid, from what it sounds like so far, was just in a physical relationship. If it turns out that there was more to it and she was jerking him around (no pun intended) with love and marriage talk, I'll change my opoinion. The kids didn't just magically appear.. the had a relationship previous to her getting pregnant. And if you notice.. this kid mentions more about spending his life with Mary versus caring for his children. Appears to me that he could care less about them, but seems to be brainwashed by the woman that raped him. How that is not considered by some of you to be eff'd up I'll never understand.