sox4lifeinPA

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 12:42 AM) I have never seen someone get so whiny about politics on a f***ing baseball message board. :headshake and apparently you've never been around to read israel4ever or cwsox's posts... Because what I'm saying doesn't have ANY truth to it. And actually, if you didn't read, this is the sex, lies, and POLITICS forum. If don't want to read about politics, why are you reading this?

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 12:40 AM) U.S. Catholic bishops receive 1,092 new sex abuse claims Read the article for much greater details. I know this doesn't make a single one of those cases right at all, but there are 68, 000,000 baptised Catholics in the US. And over 44,000 priests. Your numbers are shown over a 50 year period, someone with number crunching abilities could show you how small of a percentage of the prorated totals would be 5% at worst?

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 21, 2005 -> 12:34 AM) Soxtalk isn't the US government or an employer. It's a f***ing internet message board. If you don't want to follow the rules of Soxtalk, you can leave. I explained how I think Soxtalk's rules generally work. If you disagree or think the rules should be "all or nothing", explain why. why does everyone keep getting bent out of shape about this? I really worry about any medium that claims freedom, especially from its "enlightened" elitist members (just ask them), yet allows a clear disparity between one way of life over another all the while it silences dialogue and discussion about that problem. For me, however, I'm interested, as I said, in the microcosm that is soxtalk. I believe many of the ideals and policies here reflect the agendas of the left and are inconsistent with a clear logical, non-biased way of thinking. That being said, I love this place and fully support the leadership in running this site and making the rules, and as a former moderator, I think it is vital to discuss and assess the rules that are implemented here. I really don't see how my role, or any of our roles are that different from our discussions of Bush's cabinet or Kerry's senate voting record. Discussion is good. banning bad. I think there's a problem with censoring one poster for 5 or 6 words while allowing a whole thread of posts of nearly naked women. Or allowing posters to be berated for their thoughts on the white sox's rotation or bullpen, etc. or avatars or signatures involving offensive images of someone's faith. Do I think we should censor those things? no. Do I think we should allow anyone spew filth on this website? no. Do I think there's a huge gap between protecting one set of beliefs and practices over others? definitely. my point has been made.

Deep breaths everyone. First of all, Apu, I have much more respect for you than to read the sweeping generalizations you just made in that last post. c'mon, exactly HOW MANY Catholic parishes were involved in the child abuse scandals? And could it be that some people might just be sick enough to falsely accuse some of those priests? You're 100% right about the guilty parties. It's inexcusable what went on, and I stand with you in calling for earthly punishment for those people (cos they're in for it at a latter date). Point being that a large majority of catholic priests are doing quite well and serving their God faithfully. I honestly think they should be allowed to marry, but that's another story. If every evangelical christian was out posting signs and holding rallies in the streets, I'd be REALLY impressed regardless with how "off" their message might be. Once again, I agree with you, "laying down your life for a friend" should be stamped on every heart of the Christian. I understand where people are coming from with the ten commandments but considering rate of divorce in evangelical churches, I'm not sure we should be focusing on keeping the commandments in court houses as much as we should just focus on simply keeping the commandments. I also agree with you that "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." I again, don't think you're describing every christian but a very stereotypical view of a type of christian. finally, I've seen 3 movies (De-lovely, Alexander, and House at the end of the world) all of them had VERY homosexual characters in them all of which didn't seem to have much of an everyday issue with being that way. The point being that there's far more of an influence in the media for us to "accept" that lifestyle as normal and ok. Yet with over 50% of the US population professing some belief in the Christian faith, where is the representation in TV and movies? It's a joke. I'm not sold on the "born gay" mentality, but I'm definitely not sold on a heterosexual male "choosing" to be gay. I think it's defects of development, genetics, and learned/responsive behavior. by the way, I was watching a very interesting expose on the Matthew Shepard incident on TV. It turns out that his killer knew matthew quite well, had gay relations with at least one other male, and attacked another guy later that night. so, hate crime? not so sure. oh yeah, that was on CNN. Personally, I was born with a desire to seek out truth, The Truth. I can't say I knew what it was in my youth, but I knew I was different. I wasn't like everyone else. I found out that I was a child of God while I was in high school, and I've been practicing it, ever since.... (sound familiar????)

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 11:07 PM) I don't see how that has anything to do with morals? I don't get it. That was my point. Heads22 was saying that it WAS about morals, and I think it has to do more with just plain common sense. Kids don't gain anything from their parent's mistakes. I'd quote scripture, but I might get banned

That follows no logical course of thought. The United States Government protects my right to say things like "all women are inferior" (an inborn trait as you say) and not have any legal recourse. Likewise, I could get fired from a job because I am a practicing Muslim, and I could sue. Yet, you are saying, soxtalk's policies are to protect the non-legally protected and limit free speech? how does that work?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 11:38 PM) The one that immediately comes to mind: Of course, no avatar has ever made me laugh harder, I'd have to say. Am I a bad guy? Yeah, probably. Precisely my point. We all have a great laugh at the Christian faith, but the second gay rights or abortion or something equally important, although not personally ascribed in my life, gets knocked.... the messanger is evil. why? the crusades? the rich white folk who have had all their fun so we have to subconsciously repress them now? I don't get it.

go for what? I think it's either all or none. Selectively choosing one cause over another is what's wrong with our culture, or rather, yours. Sideshowapu chooses to ignore the rampant belittlement of such groups as catholic priests or evangelical Christians. This website is a microcosm for the outside world. It makes me sad that ANYONE has to be berated, discriminated, or prejudiced against. I just ask a simple question of what makes one person's rights more "worthy" of a cause?

I thought it was a pretty solid movie. Having a religious background and an interest in the story helped me get over any shortcoming by Reeves. I actually learned to like his rather jaded approach to the part. His character more or less has to trick himself to believe that there's any hope for his soul by destroying demons, but the desperation shines through. Rachel Weiz(sp?) is very attractive as usual. Shia Labuef(once again, sp?) is entertaining. And the effects are great. I loved the scene with Lucifer at the end. 8 of 10 for me. Don't expect anying amazing, and you'll be entertained. Nice cameo by Gavin Rosdale of Bush, too.

hmmm...that's disappointing. I only say that, because I have recently seen a few people's avatars that I personally could take offense to, however, choose not to because it's not worth it.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 20, 2005 -> 10:50 PM) Smoking weed has nothing to do with morals, but I understand what you are saying. I will never know why Bush won the election on morals. I wasn't a big GWB fan until John Kerry came along..but at least Bush pretended to care about the issues that feel are important. It shouldn't be difficult at all to see it from that perspective. I don't think it's much of a moral thing as an inteligence thing. Many of you don't get it because you're still kids (under 22 is still a kid). Parents don't need to use their mistakes as bargaining chips for their kids to behave. Kids don't need a friend, they need authority and someone to hold them accountable. That's what f-ed up about our society over the last 20 years. Who cares what John Kerry did to get out of Vietnam, Who cares what George Bush did while on the path to discovering himself?

Zoloft+Cocaine+Guns+Crazy Wife=Dead Phil Hartman very sad

So, it's not ok to make derrogotory references towards one's sexuality on this website... but it IS ok to use derrogotory pictures referring towards one's faith or religion? I'm just asking. I promise to behave

so now all of you hippie-ultra-liberal-pro-legalization-of-gay-marriage-and-every-drug-know-to-man-kind-communists can tell us why George W. Bush is a bad person for smoking pot.... I hate when adults use discernment when discussing mistakes, such as pre-marital sex or drug use.

I'd like the league number and password please...

happy b-day steven

Hey lowercaserepublican... when I got banned because the leftists on this website didn't like what I had to say, would that fall under my pariah or right wing conspiracy theories? By your admission, that there's no absolute truth, why would anyone's comments on this website be deemed as offensive or in violation of secular-humanist code? Seriously guy, you don't make sense... let the dialogue happen, otherwise you can go hold hands with the other "little eichman's" at the book burning later this week. don't you get it? You and left have significantly misalligned views.

hehehe...and grizley adams had a beard...

Zero The number of attacks on US Soil for 3+ years. Yup, sounds like they're doing their job to me.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:14 PM) PA - I though a person had to do that already. When I opened my checking account back in 1999 (or so) I had to do that (not the background check, but the other item). I am not sure I agree with a background check, but that isn't my decision to make. I have nothing to hide so they are free to check away. It's newer than that. It's a social security check, and international students, for example, have forms to fill out and passports copied and verified with the fed.

I'm sure you think Black people aren't socially disadvantaged too....

We're T-minus a few months. good to see that you don't have me on block PM me with details about the rock.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 14, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) OWNED. Nice one Flaax. People do realize that this Act has done absolutely nothing to capture terrorists, right? Right? Its the illusion of safety. It's the Patriot Act -- Preparing Americans To Readily Ignore Overt Totalitarianism Act. that's funny, I was just wondering why you didn't comment on what I had to say. I think it's a great idea for documentation and identification to be checked when setting up a financial account. I wonder how that will affect anyone planning attacks? that's right...it's an illusion of security :headshake

Who's to decide what is offensive? or disparaging towards another? The whims of the PC crowd never ceases to amaze me. Christians are mocked and berated every day. Anyone standing up for decencies sake is spat upon all in the name of "free speech", yet that free speech is only actually "free" when it is acceptable to the mantra of that group. truly unbelievable hipocrisy.

count me in