FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) Until someone comes up with a better guide to living, I'll accept the Bible. Worshipping nothing, worshiping whatever feels good, is a fine path to STDs, addictions, and a miserable life. Having said that, I also recognize that some people find interesting interpretations of Bible truths and IMHO are dangerous. But overall, I would rather be in business with a believer than a hedonistic, anything goes, "nice person". But why do you suggest life is so black and white, so all or nothing? You're a more critical thinker than that. Being a secularist doesn't equate with being a "hedonistic, anything goes" person any more than being a spiritualist equates with being an abortion-clinic-bombing, homophobic hatemonger. Spirituality gives meaning and greater purpose to many people's lives, and good for them. For others, spirituality rings hollow and they focus attention on earthly matters and find fulfillment and satisfaction in that, and good for them. It's a disservice to secular-minded people to assume that life in the No God Zone must either equate to total dispair ('Oh, there's no God, what's the point of it all') or total abandonment of one's moral compass.

It would be something if Allawi holds on to the PM after his party finished a distant third in the election. Not that al-Jaafari is the answer, but if he got the gig and then moved toward an Islamist state it would be irksome to many. And not that I think Chalabi would have been the answer before dropping out the other day. Boy, that would make American/Iraq relations interesting. At any rate, the way I understand it, the President and two VPs have to be chosen by the elected national assembly, and then those three have to unanimously decide who the PM should be.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 04:32 AM) Belgium = France, Jr. But with much better beer!

Crab juice.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) I was born in Michigan City, Indiana. Oh, so it just smelled like France.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 02:18 PM) And I don't even like France that much. Weren't you born there??

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 02:09 PM) Belgium sucks. They got good beer, fries and some music. You can have the rest. Good chocolate, cheese, and sausages too. But the beer - OH, THE BEER...!!! As to the article, I'm much more pissed to hear that speaking freely in the American press cost the guy his job than I am about people pissing on GWB's likeness. While there is some objection by Belgians according to the article, most telling is HOW LITTLE objection there really is. The populace apparently understands that they have to host him and applaud politely and meet some minimal threshold of American appeasement, but they aren't going to feign love for the guy and they shouldn't have to.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) Might be nerds, but in those pictures there is a lady dressed like Jessica Rabbit, and if my wife EVER wanted to dress up like that, I would be fine with that one!!! I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way... That Roger was one lucky bunny.

I like this quote from Kenny:

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 08:23 AM) Nicely put winodj, but I dont get why ethnicity and sexual orientation are above religious faith on the offense meter. I've been thinking about this core issue and i think it's really a lot simpler than we've all made it out to be here. First, I don't place any higher premium on protecting ethnic or sexual identity over religious identity, and I don't know that many others do either. Very, very often when these world collide the central issue is a rights issue. Anybody can pursue any religious calling they hear in their heart -- until their pursuit infringes on the rights of others not called in the same direction. Typically this is what happens when Christian conservatives come to blows with gay rights advocates. And, as the party looking to compromise the rights of another party, anybody concerned over individual rights is going to find the oppressor to be in the wrong, even if they feel stronly that they are merely heeding their spiritual call. A person's right to practice his/her faith does not give them the right to curb the freedoms of others. And for me, that's the long and short of it. "Love and do what you will" (sage advice on the wall of a Champaign coffee house) are words that you would assume would be stamped on the Christian heart. Very often, they have the 'do what you will' part down pat, but the 'love' part not so much. Or, as FZ said on the subject: Do what you wanna,' do what you will, but don't mess up your neighbor's hill.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 02:56 AM) http://www.kenkomachi.com/index.htm Fess up, Cheat.... That's you under there, right?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 01:46 AM) "ol' tainted Cuban cigar trick..." Good thing Clinton wasn't in the CIA... Seems that would have resulting in Monica losing her, uhm... beard? That kind of evidence trail would have been easier to follow I guess.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 01:05 AM) So if I'm following correctly, the AARP is unsupportive of our US troops but is all for butlers in uniform kissing... OK, I guess you have to stand for something.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 22, 2005 -> 12:12 AM) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4282603.stm I'd say hundreds of atttempts on Castro's life by us is a bit of exaggeration. I know the CIA did look at the possibility of secretly dosing him with LSD back in the lat 60s, and they also explored the possibility of dosing him with a chemical to make his facial hair (and thus his machismo?) fall out. In both instances, the plan would have been to deliver the chemicals through 'the ol' tainted Cuban cigar trick.' Wacky, wacky CIA.

The piece goes on to point out that even though key issues like global warming have already achieved a firm scientific consensus, the Administration is now disputing/ignoring the scientific evidence and concensus out of convenience. Here's the whole article: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=517770

What's the guy in the upper left doing to his microphone?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 08:00 PM) in all seriousness, have you ever read revalation? OK, I'll bite. What does reading Revelations have to do with the matter at hand? And the whole "that's what I don't get from the left" is a convenient and seemingly agendized oversimplification. I don't have any numbers, but I feel confident that the left is on the whole much more aggressive in defending the rights and freedoms of non-Christian denominations in the country. Christians as an oppressed minority in this country is a hard sell no matter how you cut it.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 02:51 PM) Hey Mods. I suggest that we rename this thread......... Kips Iraq Death Score Card Much more fitting a title dont you all agree? Or maybe Kip's Iraq War Report Card. So far it seems there's a lot of failing grades to be handed out.

I don't know that the community here has ever been in the business of 'protecting anyone's sexual preference.' It's more being in the business of protecting ANYONE who is being singled out and made the target for personal attack. If there have been times where that hasn't been done equitable and universally then it is the failing of the Mods and Admins who - well intentioned - get it wrong sometimes too. As for the world history of killing Christians, let's also not forget that there is likewise a world history of Christians killing. As for suggesting Christians are in any way a minority... try being an atheist here in this one nation under Gawd and see how lonely it can be. PA, your suggestion that we all can disagree with other's opinions but need to respect the opinions equally is only slightly removed from the thin line I've been trying to discern and work with. I would say we can disagree with one another's opinions, yet always need to respect the INDIVIDUAL that is the source of the opinions (i.e., don't devolve into taking pot shots at the other side because they don't agree with us). Clearly, respecting all opinions equally is a tall order, but it doesn't mean civility and respect for the participants in the discussion shouldn't always be maintained. So, I still fall somewhat short of feeling a need to universally tread softly around the subject of religion or Christianity, simply because it is an institution people here affiliate with. I similarly don't see that we tread lightly around subjects like politics, homosexuality, etc., other than asking that discussions not devolve into hateful posts, and maybe to bring some facts in to back up opinions (often that seems to be strictly optional ). You perceive hypocrisy in the way some things have been handled here, and you bring light to it, as you should. When others here see hypocrisy in the actions of certain segments of society (including religious segments) they are equally entitled to bring their observations to this forum.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 03:09 PM) Lipsmackin thirst quenchin (ace tastin motivatin good buzzin cool talkin high walkin fast livin ever givin cool fizzin) Pepsi But sadly, nothing about a coffee table licking . . . btw, how bad is my Spanish?

I'd like nothing better than to go back to a loosey-goosey hands-off SoxTalk community where people don't have to worry about what they do and don't post, re Chaos' decision not to post a joke because of how it would be perceived. But the truth is that the site has become too large for no-holds-barred to be the rule of order. I do see a difference between a personal attack and a generalized, caricaturized/stereotypical joke, and I think others do as well, but I've been in exactly the same situation as Chaos (many probably have) and I thought twice about posting a joke and didn't. I also think there is a difference between a personal attack and an attack on an institution or an establishment, and that is where I would be fundamentally at odds with Pas assertion that attacking, deriding, or lampooning aspects of religion is no different than singling out an individual to attack. Maybe the difference is not actually as stark as I perceive it. And yes, I can see how someone blasting an institution (religious or not) you belong to or align with can tick you off. But that is not a personal attack and I think for the most part it is good fodder for discourse and debate as long as it does not devolve into personal attack. The I4E debates are a perfect example of that. I agreed with little if any of what he posted, but if he'd have been able to post his viewpoints without INVARIABLY resorting to personally attacking everybody who disagreed with him, he'd still be here. I do believe he took all dissenting views personally and figured if his political beliefs and values were being knocked then it's OK to get nasty and personal. But it is not. I think hypocrisy in general is always a good thing to rail against. From that perspective, religion and various segments of organized religion are always going to find themselves in the crosshairs. Religion in no way holds monopoly on hypocrisy, but neither are they free from it and so it will continue to be a point of discussion/argument and a focus of scorn/ridicule for some. But, from that perspective, if PA sees hypocrisy in how various topics are moderated here he is right to call it to light. I may be off base, but I think critical posts directed at segments of Christianity are an affront to PA's beliefs, and so we have the issue of why is it OK that something offensive to one side can stand while something offensive to another cannot. Again, I'd only suggest that personal attacks and generalized criticisms against institutions or larger entities (even those that you or I may find personally offensive or disagreeable) are different and can be effectively treated as such here. I don't think it has always been done successfully, but I think people have done the best they can. As for the whole gay issue, I agree there currently is an oversensitivity to the point of overkill on the part of all the peacekeepers here. As has been alluded to here, though, there is a board history that got us to where we are now, so the sensitivity is not born of nothing. My, but I can prattle on. Sorry.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 02:37 AM) Whoa. I can see both sides of this issue and agree with certain points made from either perspective. I'm not going to get into the back and forth discussion other than to ask .... If someone has an avatar or signature that is offensive to another, regarldless of why it is offensive, why not just eliminate the offensive item? If a poster finds near nudity offensive, that person can choose not to open that thread. No problem. However, an offensive avatar will be found thoughout Soxtalk. It really all comes down to common courtesy. That's not a difficult concept to grasp, but one that seems to be forgotten all too often in this day and age. Hey paleface, Me no like-em Black Hawks avatar. Me think-em you bad, bad paleface...

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 03:48 AM) :lolhitting :lolhitting Well, he's in the 35+ demographic...

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 19, 2005 -> 12:32 PM) where attempts have been made to make it over the years (including a real cheesy looking BBC special that was actually made) but the technology wasn't sufficient to get it done. I thought the BBC television series adaptation was great in all it's cheesiness. I think one of Zaphod's heads was even made of papier machete if I'm remembering right. But the thing is that the BBC television adaptation was a more similar animal to the original than the books. Hitch Hiker's started out as a BBC radio series first in 1977, and after the success of two series' Douglas Adams then wrote the book versions. So as far as translation to the big screen in a big-budget film, they can lose a lot of the nuance and cleverness of the book narrative and still get a spontaneous delivery that is faithful to the spirit fo the original productions. I hope the film version blows me away. but I'm afraid the visual effects in general might be too good. The radio play, the books ("a five part trilogy"), and the television serial are all so tongue-in-cheek, I think it will be somewhat jarring if the visual effects are not also. Still, I'll boldly predict the critics will love and give it 42 stars.