iamshack

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) Using slang terms for female genitalia as an insult is sexist. It has nothing to do with being omniscient or perfect. Yeah, and so are a lot of things. Get over it. I also use the term "dick" for when people are being a jerk. So I am an equal opportunity offender.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) Yes. Define: Sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women). A better question might be, is it always wrong to not allow men and women to play alongside each other? There we may have a much different discussion. We could split the sports into contact and non contact sports. We could look at sports with mechanical equipment like NASCAR. We could look at ones with fine motor skills like pool versus gross motor skills like shot put. Fair point, Tex. I guess the question might be "Is it wrong to be sexist when it comes to all sports"?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Yes, but that wasn't what I was address. It's sexist to use a slang term for female genitalia as a euphemism for being weak, cowardly, etc Oh please. To a few posters that post quite often in the Buster, maybe in your never-ending quest to become perfect, politically correct and omniscient human beings, you could get over yourselves for a long enough time to stop criticizing every little thing everyone else does and focus on your own failings. I have some great workout routines I could recommend.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) It's 100% sexist regardless of context. It is sexist to believe females should not be allowed to play alongside males in sports?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) Go read Steve's post again if you'd like. It wasn't an inspired discussion, it was him deciding what the article was about without reading it. When all else fails, resort to the pedantic. No one said the exact words "6-7 year olds should be cut". That is true. If you want to take that and interperet it to fit your needs, go right ahead. But everyone reading this thread understood those posts just fine. Sorry, but as much as I often disagree with Steve, the fact that he is mocking the misleading nature of the title, I did not read that as "First graders should be cut from their sports teams." Secondly, you seemed to imply there was more than just one poster of this belief, since you posted something to the effect of "the people without kids seem to be the ones in favor of 6-7 year olds getting cut." Are all those "people" just Steve?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Seems pretty clear what, for example, these posters think... Seems they think the reaction to this is about being a "p****", which I think is sad and more than a little sexist considering the context. But regardless, it is their view. Feel free. Hope it makes you feel better. Often times, a thread inspires discussion on a related point or topic. Simply because a reply is located within the thread does not mean that the points discussed within those replies go directly to the topic of the thread or the article that inspired the thread. Those replies, as well as my own, obviously go to the general issue the thread raised. They are a commentary on the general topic. No where is there a reply by anyone that states 6-7 year old students should be cut.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) In my school district we have a no cut policy. No one is ever cut from any of our squads. BTW our varsity football team just won our district for the 4th or 5th year in a row. Notice you aren't guaranteed to play, or even wear a uniform on game day, but you are never cut. Until what age?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:21 PM) When people say something ignorant and empty, I will point it out for what it is. Call it what you'd like. And I don't think people who disagree with my on this are ignorant or anything like that, by the way. I disagree with them, but I can see people's points about when they should be more competitive, girls vs boys as seperate or together, boys on softball, etc. You didn't and wouldn't hear me say that. And I'll call you a condescending overlord self-important control freak.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) On your first point, yes, they did. Right in the thread. Second point, that's great! Hope its fun! Third point, a 12 year old is a lot different than a 7 year old. At age 7, they are in their first year (likely) of organized baseball. And at age 12, five years in, I fully expect players to get more playing time based on performance. Where? As to the third point, no one has really disagreed with that sentiment.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) I did ask Steve that, but not because of his view on the issue. Because, if you see his response, it is clear he didn't even bother to read the article being discussed. It was like walking into a room, shouting a random non-sequitor, and leaving. Why bother? You did the same to me yesterday. It has more to do with you disagreeing and trying to belittle someone by pointing out their ignorance. Why bother posting that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Very definitely not, as evidenced by some of the stories here, like the one in the article. But as a parent, you sure do have a different perspective on kids' sports. Seems kind of obvious, doesn't it? I do think it is interesting, most of the people posting in here about being reasonable and fair with young kids, have kids... and the people who seem to like the idea of 1st graders getting cut to field a more competitive team don't. No one here has made the statement that a 1st grader should be cut. Secondly, I have friends with children and family members with children and I probably spend a hell of a lot more time playing and teaching them sports than you have any clue about. Thirdly, how old are your kids? A bit of a lesson at the age of 12 or so about the fact that some kids are better at sports and thus deserve to play more than they do might ease the pain a bit when they get cut from their freshman baseball team or when they ride the pine every game on the junior varsity field hockey team.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) I do have to say, wrestling is different, for all the obvious reasons. Not sure that is a good idea. But, since there usually is no girls' alternative, I guess it makes sense. Wow. Overlord? People can say whatever they want. I can also point out how silly I think others' views are. Who do I think I am? An internet message board poster. Who are you? Well you seem to have a recent habit of asking "Why did you even bother to post" if you don't agree with the content of someone else's post. That would seem to imply as though you are the one who ultimately decides whether someone is fit to post or not, and thus, the overlord crack.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) Don't get me wrong, getting a girl like that when you're 17 would be kind of cool, but I have a feeling when you scrape off all that make up, she may not be such a looker. She's already not that much of a looker with the makeup...but I guarantee her body is exquisite if she is a cheerleader for the Bengals.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) LOL, the seagull posting in here is awesome. Let's see how you feel after you have kids. No one is saying they shouldn't keep score. They are saying that maybe 1st graders shouldn't have to worry yet about being cut from their f***ing little league team. So now that you have kids, and some others do not, that immediately qualifies you to be like the youth sports overlord? Or is it because you umpired when you were in HS? Who do you think you are that you can determine who gets to have an opinion on something and whose commentary is worthy of posting?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) No it doesn't. The skills you are getting from sports at 6 or 7 aren't the same as even 10 or 11. They are supposed to be learning basic competition, but also teamwork, and getting away from individualism. They are also learning the basics of a particular sport. I confess I was referring to kids older than that in the subject of this article....I was more responding to Tex's comments than the article in question...at 6-10 or so, I agree kids need to engage athletics as much for pure exercise as for any sportsmanship or learning experience. But once you start talking about 6th grade and up, you need to start introducing real competition, and part of what comes along with that is the idea that some kids are more talented than others, someone always loses, and sometimes you just have to sit back and let the more important people do their thing.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) So you just limit registration? In many of these areas there are more interested in playing than can conceivably be deployed on a team. It's not like the s***ty kids aren't very aware that they suck...it's just as embarrassing to suck ass and still be on the team as it is to be cut or redeployed into a weaker league. It's an unavoidable fact of life, and sheltering kids from it until 12 years old only makes it more difficult for them to adjust later in life.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Kids aren't cut from school and parents generally don't get into fist fights over 2nd grade math tests. Kids flunk out of school and are held back a grade. Kids get split into separate groups based on their aptitude. Ask teachers how angry parents get about their kids' grades.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) At these ages, it shouldn't be ultra-competitive. At 6-7 years old, they should just be starting to keep score IMO. They shouldn't be worried about touring teams and cutting players for years. There is plenty of time for that stuff as you get into the 10-11 year range (4/5th grade) and then to build on it into the middle school levels. We are talking about cutting 1st or 2nd graders here. That is just crazy. Right, I don't have a problem with any of this. I'm referring more to the comments about not keeping score until the kids reach high school. Kids are graded throughout school on EVERYTHING. Why should athletics be any different?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) At those ages, you do not cut players to be "more competitive". That's absurd. The fact that she was cut because of her gender makes it worse, though I agree that that aspect has me torn a little bit. I used to ump little league, when I was in High School. I once had two coaches from opposing teams have a shouting match, that escalated into a phyiscal fight behind the backstop, that I had to break up. Also once watched a coach grab his son (player) by the shirt and shove him against the fence for a lecture, about taking more pitches. He was like 9 years old. There are some people coaching these teams that need to get the f*** over themselves. It's not about you, asshole. I agree with this, however, going too far to the other end of the spectrum has consequences in my opinion as well.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) Shack. Talked to them yesterday. Sounds like you are pretty out of luck in terms of what an in-store branch can do. She said she would have been able to waive/reverse your fees, however, once it hits collections, they (meaning the instore branch) lose any ability to assist there customers. Basically she said it is up to whomever you talk to at customer service. Thanks Jason...I don't know why the branch would have more authority than the overdraft collections department, but that is what they claim. Sounds like the only options I have are those that the manager of the branch offered me that I listed previously.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) I'd point out that Emery has also said in some areas he's different than the Patriots. The one thing I've figured out about Emery so far is that he seems to be the type of scout that likes athletes. He talked about getting guys that were bigger, faster, and stronger than the rest. I think the Patriot way he was referring to was the overall confidence factor and the fact that he wants to keep things quiet (no more leaks at Halas Hall). Oh I wasn't referring to Emery as having anything to do with the Pats...I was responding to the other posts about the Personnel guy we interviewed from the Pats. As far as Emery goes, I know very little about him other than what has already been discussed.

I was going to post something similar to Wite yesterday...we should be looking to begin the NEW Patriots way, i.e., the Bears way, not try and duplicate a system that half the rest of the League is attempting to emulate. One thing in regards to Patriots coaches, I do think Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel are very good coaches, but once you start trying to bring in some of the lower (or lesser developed) branches from that coaching tree you start reaching. I'm not thrilled with Emery, but I wasn't part of the interview process, nor do I have any sort of intimate knowledge of the candidates, so I am going to give the Bears the benefit of the doubt and believe this guy was the best candidate for us at this time.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) I honestly don't know how anyone stands those two... they are obnoxious and only take the callers that are easy to poke fun at. They also never own up to things they are wrong about.... just a waste of airtime. +1

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 10:41 AM) ? I know better than to even get into this with you...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) I'm not offended. I'm laughing at how terrible and hackish they are. They have a right to publish dumb, hack articles full of crap ideas refuted hundreds of times, and I and others have the right to point this out. There's plenty of venues to get AGW information, and not all of it good. We don't need more venues printing blatantly false information, and places that do are rightfully subjected to harsh criticisms. My only issue is the one side is not the only one printing blatantly false information.