Texsox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 06:45 PM) This thread has jumped the shark and is now accomplishing nothing. It's become a mindless stream of "I don't have the answer, or anything close to a suggestion, so here is the most politically correct thing I can say." I'm sure that'll solve the problem. If I was religious, which I'm not because science, but if I was, and things such as this seemed to be happening on a daily a basis in the name of my religion, I'd either leave it or I'd be speaking out against it on a daily f***ing basis, and demanding the leaders of said religion do the same. And if they refused, again, I'd have to do some soul searching to find a new way of life because f*** this and f*** them. Science has created the worse imaginable ways of killing people. Bombs, chemical weapons, guns, diseases. Why aren't you condemning the evils of science on a daily f***ing basis? You should be demanding that the science leaders also condemn scientific discoveries to kill people. Or find another way of life.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 04:36 PM) It's also the N=1 fallacy... Plenty of issues with that argument Either argument takes a very small subset of a group of people who share similar beliefs and expands that to include every member. It also makes the supposition that because you identify with a certain belief that all your behaviors can be attributed to that shared belief.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) that is everyone believes he is the lone gunman. not a good example. how bout using the Columbine High School shooting. I'm not understanding your point.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 04:06 PM) i know what you are saying. that is why i stop reading anything about how cold or how much snow. cmon when did all this get sooo sissified ??? When schools became responsible for the kids standing outside their homes instead of the parents.

Did you mean to put that in green?

If someone that posts here commits a terrible deed are we all tainted by our association? People all have beliefs, we take one set of beliefs, apply a label, and believe that is the cause. So if someone is a certain religion, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, and perverts the religion to fit their own world view, we still blame their religion. I'm not certain doing that is necessarily of any help. On a parallel thought, Lee Harvey Oswald did not believe in any organized religion, and based on his time in the Soviet Union, was probably atheistic. Shall we blame his terrorist actions on being an atheist? Apply the same call to action. Stop all atheists, etc. How about we treat criminals in a group, regardless of their motives, and allow honest people to their beliefs?

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) Among The Thugs by Bill Buford. Has societal and group mentality issues That was on my radar to read. I am worried about the language and if it would be appropriate for a high school class.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 11:04 AM) Great, and when the Cubs don't come close to even making the playoffs, the person who made the ridiculous World Series prediction should lose all credibility as an expert. Depends on why. There wouldn't be any NFL experts out there after the Bear's season. IIRC they were picked near the top in almost everyone's predictions.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 10, 2015 -> 10:06 AM) I feel this way about ALL organized religion. At some point in time, whether in the past, present or future, some piece of those religions will commit terrible acts in the name of their god. I feel this way about ALL countries. At some point in time, whether in the past, present or future, some piece of those countries will commit terrible acts in the name of their country. How about all countries? When the same terrible acts are perpetrated in the name of a country we are patriotic and defending our way of life. When those same acts are perpetrated in the cause of deeply held believes the people are terrorists and fanatics, etc. If we are following elected officials, yeah! If we are following our own deeply held beliefs, nay!

For anyone with a job that involves making these sort of predictions for a deadline in December, picking someone that no one else picked is both a f=great attention getter and if it pans out, makes you look like a genius. Not the Mr.Genius but a genius. Now be one of the guys that picks a team that has had a historical and for us hysterical streak of sucking (Cubs) to win and it happens . . . Wow. It gets people reading and talking.

I've been asked to outline a Special Genres class as an elective or alternative for their usual English 4 class. I've put together a reading list for a border literature/south Texas writers class now I am putting together a sports literature class. I'm hoping one or the other gets on the master schedule. The books need to be challenging and offer some opportunities for rigorous assignments. I've been thinking that Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air (mountain climbing) should be included. Friday Night Lights (Texas football), Veeck as in Wreck (autobiography genre), Boys of Summer (baseball) . . . It can't be a "blow off class" for just guys.

^^ I quickly distance myself from groups like this. I'm wondering which way the world would be better. Just insult everyone at every time so they "get over it" and "don't know who to kill" or develop a little respect for everyone. The answer of course is somewhere in the middle.

Very proud of my daughter being chosen as a finalist for Houston Advertising Assoc. Newcomer of the Year award.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 04:01 PM) pretty much plus I'll have to check into the state income tax for each location. I would also prefer deferred money. Build a better team around me when I'm playing then who cares after I'm gone. Plus there will be more money for me to spend after I'm retired. yeah, I'm playing for #1. Y'all can pawn your WS ring when your broke ass has nothing left. I'm going grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 11:00 AM) This is the only right answer if we are being realistic Thanks LittleHurt05

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 10:30 PM) Soxtalk Admins are the awesome. Thanks, hi8is. You are welcome. Thanks Admin

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) Sign me up coach, I'll play 18. It was dark.

High Bidder #1 High Bidder #2 High Bidder #3 High Bidder #28 High Bidder #29 High Bidder #30 And if he'd agree, Boras is my agent.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 10:07 AM) Are we now going to blame the hostages for being or associating with Jews in France, because being Jewish is offensive to certain people? This is why you have to confront terror with defiance, because they can't be reasoned with. Are you saying that every media business should be required to print these cartoons?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) My point was if you report on the story and only report half of it, then you are doing a half-assed job and a disservice to your readers. Newspapers here sure seem to be strong and brave when it comes to revealing government secrets or blasting the Vatican, but God forbid (or Allah forbid?) they publish anything that insults Islam... Perhaps we are arguing two different points. I believe we both agree that the story is newsworthy and needs to be reported. I disagree that every media outlet needs to show the cartoon. To me it is the same as a beheading photo, or an accident where someone was dismembered. It is up to the media outlet do decide for their company to include the graphics or not.

43 degrees, 28 mph north wind My golf team? Practicing and playing 9 holes. Raider Tough

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 08:11 AM) A lot of different news companies run those beheading videos with disclaimers. Its a choice the company makes, but it shouldnt be made because of what terrorists want I agree. Alpha's point is everyone should do it and if they do not they are cowards, liberal etc. I am defending the above bold.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 07:38 AM) Not quite the same as printing "racist" cartoons in a newspaper you 1) don't have to buy, 2) don't have to look at, and 3) isn't being force delivered to their homes. Also, equating this to racism? The only way this remotely the same as the scenario you put forth is if they're printing these cartoons, seeking out radical's houses, and delivering them to their doors, or hacking their computers/cell phones and making their browsers default website the newspaper in question. Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people. I disagreed, that isn't even close. I was working with the example Alpha gave. You can report the news without reprinting the cartoon. Also, again my original question is this . . . Is it OK for your employer to knowingly put your life in danger if you are a receptionist, accountant, foreign office employee, for the Chicago Tribune and they reprint the cartoon? Only three people answered, SoxFn mentioned jobs that are already dangerous like law enforcement. Alpha who said his employer sends him on deliveries in bad weather. Is that the same thing? I said no. I say it isn't OK for an employer to knowingly put their employees lives at risk especially when they are working jobs that would not ordinarily involve death threats and there are alternatives that would result in the same result. By covering the story and not reprinting the cartoon the news is covered. Same as we do for violent crimes. No one is pushing to have the crime scene photos released.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:50 PM) Where do you draw the line? Every time a terrorist tells you he is offended by something then you refuse to acknowledge it? We do not publish pictures of a beheading yet we cover the story. I don't believe every magazine, newspaper, etc has to include the cartoon while covering the news. Alpha's point was you can't cover the story without also reprinting the cartoon. I disagreed.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:15 PM) Well, if you are a member of the military or police force, etc, than you are and will be put in severe danger. And you have knowingly signed up for a dangerous job. If you are the reporter at Vogue covering the Paris fashion scene does Vogue have the right to put your life in danger by publishing those cartoons? QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:27 PM) The employer isn't necessarily putting them in danger. These cartoonists are drawing their own cartoons, they aren't being mandated to draw them. The newspaper has an identity, everyone knows what that identity is. People who work for TMZ know that they are dealing with the seedy side of Hollywood, people that work at Vogue magazine know they are dealing with fashion, people that work at hustler know they are dealing with porn, and the people at CH know that they deal with satire, and a lot of it has to do with religion. And it isn't the first time they have been attacked, everyone in that building understood the risks. I'm discussing if another news organization decided to republish the materials. Alpha said that CNN and others were wrong for not publishing the cartoons. So my point is more does Vogue have the right to publish those cartoons and put their fashion reporters live's in danger? Alpha believes that CNN, Fox, etc should all publish the cartoon if they are reporting on the story. I disagree. I think those other groups could report the story without the cartoons and the added life risking implications they may cause. I agree if you are working for certain publications, you must understand the risks.