Gregory Pratt

What was AJ in there for?

I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't offer things insincerely like that, and certainly not atheletes on TV, public access or not. He should give him the tickets he told him he'd give him, but he won't.

I believe that the Patriots had a couple of injuries in the second half that caused them to stop running as much. -- http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_10777-Bear...ed-Tickets.html

http://www.cartoonbank.com/newyorker/slide...0913algore.html Yes, that's Al at the end.

What's this about AJ and Springer?

Skip Bayless was arguing today that Brian Urlacher is better than Butkus and Singletary and a bunch of other stuff about how great Urlacher is. What do you guys think about that? (I don't know what to think, really, except that Urlacher is amazing.)

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) On a sidenote, on Inside the NFL last night the quartet really really ripped into Belliceck for what they called his lack of losing in a respectable manner. They were talking about how he's no doubt one of the greatest coaches in the league but that it shows a lot about his character when you lose the way he did. In addition they really made it seem like Belliceck never in fact talked to Peyton and that Peyton just mentioned his name in passing because Peyton probalby didn't want it to be a story during these next 2 weeks. And I got to admit, after seeing the clip a couple times, it was a pretty crappy job Belly did. In addition the analysts on Inside the NFL ripped into him for the way he treated the media during the post game conference. Take it for what it is worth though. Afterall, Carter called the Bears a terrible team earlier in the year (and apparently ripped into Grossman big time off the set and the other three really let him hear it about that). Yeah, I mentioned that segment yesterday. I'm amused by the whole situation. It's silly.

QUOTE(tigerfan @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 04:41 PM) You didn't have to, the way you expressed it your view about the church speaking out on this said plenty. I'm not responsible for other people's interpretations. This is all nonsense -- it's a fictional rape, in a movie, that serves a purpose. It doesn't promote pedophilia, and that's crazy talk. That, more than anything, is what I object to in the church, and everyone else', objections. "The scene encourages pedophilia!" The hell it does.

We'll go through this piece by piece. Why would I volunteer for the committee when I'm trying to protect the pedophiles? Where did I ever say, "Silence the Church!"? My original comment said that the Church should protect its own members before it criticizes a movie for "promoting pedophilia and rape" and furthered the hypocrisies presented by another poster. Also: I love the religious frenzy that a) provoked you to accuse me of supporting pedophiles against justice and B) continues to misrepresent what I said. I never said that you, or the Church, should be silent. Depends. In certain situations, definitely. Like a school who covers up that their Coach has been molesting girls for years, and then gets busted, and then they fire him -- it's nice and all, but I don't personally care what they have to say about the matter. At a school I'm aware of -- a damn good school in Mt. Greenwood -- a kid stabbed another in the parking lot about two years ago. Not too deep, but deep enough to bleed. The school decided not to call the police, and talked parents out of it, too. If the people that I know were responsible started preaching about gang violence to me and preventing it, I'd call them hypocrites, because they didn't even suspend the kids who were involved so as to not invite media scrutiny. In both cases, however -- hypothetical and real, and in both cases I know of real events just like those -- the people may have a right to say, "Don't make our mistakes," but they certainly don't have the right to attack the latest movie (that they probably haven't seen and wouldn't understand) just because they used to cover up pedophiles. And by that I mean, they lack the moral authority. This Catholic Church, today, lacks moral authority, IMO, in dealing with pedophiles, and they don't have any authority whatsoever to blast a movie about a troubled girl because they disliked a scene. And they can't use the cover of, "Well, we're trying to protect kids from this film that promotes pedophilia!" because that's bulls***. Nothing in this film promotes pedophilia. It's crazy, hearing people talk about it, and criticize it, as "promoting pedophilia." Give me a break. Whatever, man. These are false examples, so I'll just respond with a Hell yeah!! Hell yeah!! Right, background and criminal checks are well enough. I'd prefer it if they stopped transferring pedophiles to other cities once they receive complaints. Although, I must say, I don't believe that the entire Church is guilty of harboring pedophiles (what the general Catholic Church is guilty of, IMO, is having archaeic minds at the top) but the entire organization deserves scorn when they attack art using some sort of Holy Highground.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) So teachers can't talk about abuse. Doctors can't talk about abuse. Police and politicans can't talk about abuse. So kids have no advocates in your world. How sad. Thanks for mischaracterizing my comments completely and absolutely. Let's re-read: I sure did mention teachers, and doctors, policemen and politicians, and I sure did forbid them from commenting on the matter. (Green green, above.) Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Let's go to you now, and we'll come right back to me: First off, I never said they shouldn't take a stand. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the Church' criticism of this film. By all means, if they want to speak out, the Church should, but I'd prefer to see real moves within their organization to stop their priests from touching altar boys before they take the moral highground they don't have against a film that they likely haven't seen and wouldn't understand if they did. Which is a reference to the often-times archaeic nature of the Church. What if I said I think you're standing up for pedophiles? I mean, simply making that allegation without textual support makes it true, right? Really now. I've had issues with interpretations, and other people's comments to me, plenty of times on this board, but I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia and "making it easy" on pedophiles. Makes me glad we had this discussion.

Another aspect of the Catholic Church's hypocrisy in criticizing this film is that it's likely still going on. From what I recall, the Church spent a lot of time just moving priests from place to place instead of firing them, and I imagine it's still going on very actively. Besides that, churches of all sorts have been b****ing about movies for a long time and they need to get over it. It's fiction, and it's a story. Go stop the pedophiles in your church before you talk about a big work of total fiction.

That's f***ed up.

Floyd. Erstad has a far better chance staying healthy on our side of town with Herm.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 25, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) It sounds like someone who saw what happened to Billy Koch. Sort of. It also sounds like someone who understands that he won't throw hard forever. I'm glad to see him mature, as he has in so many ways since coming here.

I'm pulling for Haeger, but it seems like the organization favors Floyd. Who knows? (I don't like Haeger's chances of blowing everyone away in the desert, either, which I think is a shame. Stupid environment.)

I think a part of it is that I'm a Tom Brady, Bill Belichick kind of guy. Especially Belichick. I love his cheap ass sweatshirts, no matter how much he gets mocked, and I love the way he dissects other teams, and makes the most out of bad personnel. I don't have a lot against Manning. I respect his abilities and all, but I don't care for him, either. I prefer Montana to Marino, Brady to Manning. If you get what I'm saying. If I've said that I hate Manning, I take it back. I certainly don't. I just don't particularly like him, or his hype, or his team, and him being the face of that franchise, he gets the brunt of the criticisms.

Generally, the Colts fans I've met are obnoxious (which isn't a shot at you or anyone on this board) and I don't care for Peyton Manning.

When have I ever said that Peyton Manning isn't entitled to being a prick? (I don't think I've ever called him a prick to begin with.)

Looks to me like he shook off-camera. Manning's back covers a lot. But I see his hand coming in and Manning's is in, and then he pulls out and pats him on the stomach. Maybe that's a faulty interpretation, although I must say, even if Belichick didn't shake his hand, I don't care. Everyone gets caught up at times, and I think he's entitled a little prickliness. I think everyone is, really.

On Inside the NFL, Costas was talking about how Belichick should be more gracious and criticized him for blowing past Manning. It's the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes. He shook his hand and patted him on the chest. Should he have given him a little kiss on his abnormally large forehead, too? Read an article today arguing that the Patriots owe Brady real receivers next year. Can't say I disagree. Reche Caldwell, ha. -- Outside of that, I must say I'm thrilled about the Bears-Colts game. I hope the Bears rip the Colts apart. I just hope Lovie and Turner have a better gameplan than Herm Edwards did. Obviously, the Bears must run the ball, and I think we saw the Colts D come back to Earth. But they've got to mix it up well, pass and run and stuff, or else we'll wind up like the Chiefs.

Also: I concur with ptatc

QUOTE(shoota @ Jan 23, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) How's Lisa Dergan taking this news? I guess I'll fill in for Pods for the next 6 weeks. I hope they have eggs at the house... Wow.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 22, 2007 -> 10:41 PM) Yeah.........and Pat Robertson?! What's that about? He's not a conservative, he's a straight up loon. I move that we rename the political awards Ronald Reagan for Conservatives and JFK for Liberals. There you go again, trying to rename everything for Reagan. Weren't they Reagan/JFK in the past? Perhaps, ah, it'd be better to rename them for a different Conservative/Liberal.

When's the actual voting and all that stuff? When's this thread closed?`