Texsox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 07:26 PM) Actually Tex look at the post # of your last post. I was looking at the replies count on the front page.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Rose between the white lines is a HOF, outside the white lines a piece of crap as are others in MLB Hall of Fame! It really is much simpler than that. He may be an angel who spends all winter bringing the homeless blankets and dinner, but every year MLB goes around to every clubhouse explaining the rules. He heard it 20+ times in his career, gamble on baseball and you will be banned for life. It is so simple -- you do this, and we do this. The penalty was clearly laid out, it was clearly against the rules. Zero ambiguity. Now he should be excused because????

The next post will have the honor of being #400 in this thread.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) Yeah because the poster who brought that up caught NO s*** for it... cmon Tex.

We all Bartman

Washington writer rips fan = bad Soxtalk posters rip Buerhle for hunting = OK you know, just sayin'

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) Nothing... Nothing... Is better than a big, think piece of bacon. It's my favorite vegetable. And you can wrap it around anything and it makes it mo better.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) Tofu is not meat. It's the other, other, white meat

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) He's a scum bag, we all know that. Then throw Ty Cobb out of the hall. No, Rose knowingly broke a rule in baseball that carried with it a *lifetime* ban. He knew the rule and the penalty. There is not a rule that Cobb broke that carried a lifetime ban. What excuse is there? That the rule is unfair? Then change the rule. Why not be specific, it is a lifetime ban unless you are the all time leader?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) This argument makes no sense, when you look at the evaluation criteria for the Hall. We can't look at a player or manager and select only certain aspects of their careers to include or exclude from consideration - the person is the person, real and whole. Also, Rose has lied, lied again, and kept lying, over and over, on gambling. I don't know if he gambled as a player or not (and don't really care), but if that matters, then take into account he has shown zero reason to trust anything he claims or denies. And that's another thing, he did repeatedly lie until he could profit from the truth. I'd be a hell of a lot more understanding if he came clean right from the start.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 01:36 PM) Definitely a Chicago native. you betcha We have Scouts from Iowa here this week and when they asked for a pop, my trading post clerk looked at him funny and asked, what do you want?!

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) I believe it's called the Hall of Fame and Museum, that's why in my other post I mentioned I wouldn't object to another section were certain aspects of the game are recognized, ie, a player who had a big impact on the game but not HOF worthy or the darker parts of the game. How much evidence is there he gambled when he played? If there's not very much or none, then he should be recognized as a player, but again, put it on his plaque I do appreciate the museum aspect, and wish there would also be room for guys like Baines, not just drug users, tax evaders, and gamblers. QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) This has been my stance for a while now: He gambled as a MANAGER. There is NO evidence he did so as a player. Find the middle ground: instate him as a PLAYER, but keep him banned as a manager. Let him in the hall as a player. About the same as the Bonds argument, he was a HoF player before he started using drugs. Every spring training MLB visits every team and informs the player about the rules. That includes gambling and a lifetime ban. I'd rather they drop the lifetime ban and say if you distinguish yourself enough as a player, we'll drop the lifetime ban. Maybe Joe Jackson doesn't have enough hits to have his ban lifted.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 24, 2009 -> 01:32 AM) I can stop doing them at any time. I don't need to waste one of my 8 days off that I get per month working on them. Some people like Picasso, some like O'Keeffe. Doesn't mean that either one is less loved.

pork roast w/ rosemary risotto with shrimps asparagus peach cobbler w/ ice cream

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Well right, but that's not killing just to kill. That's killing for protection. Some would want to relocate the snake.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) I DO agree that wasteful hunting (killing for the sake of killing) is wrong, With the exception of making areas safer for people. Sorry, a rattlesnake that takes up residence near my house will die.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Right but we dont know how a human would act who was in the same situation. Lets say that there is a more advanced species on planet earth that keeps humans for pets. If they fed us a bowl of cereal every day would we still eat it, or would we refuse even if we thought it was the only food available? I know that some dogs will eat their treats or human food before they touch the food thats in their bowl. It shows that they have preference, but also have a need to eat... Depends on how we are raised. If one type of food is all you know, why would you crave something else? We would however, sample other foods and see how they are. Some will be toxic and make us sick, perhaps even kill us. Those we probably would stop eating. Others we would find palatable during some seasons but not others, again we would develop some knowledge. We would also find ways to process some items for food. We may catch a small rodent, bird, etc. and see how that tastes.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) The Hall is a crock without the all-time hit champion in it. It's about time. It weakens the punishment for gambling, which damn near destroyed baseball. I'll accept a Hall of Fame that recognizes the sort of fame that comes from a positive impact on baseball while following the rules. I'm not certain why baseball would honor someone who basically took a dump on it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) I dont really believe this is true. I dont own a dog, but I do have cats. They may eat the dry food that is in their bowl, but if a cheeseburger is available theyd forget all about the food in their bowl. I personally do not hunt, I just dont know where I stand on the issue of eating meat and I understand that I am hypocritical so I just dont get involved. Any type of rationalization that I have come up with just does not work, so I just have given up on trying. I think what is interesting though is that I have seen humans compared to carnivores (its not our choice argument), but fruits/vegetables are the primary food for most (if not all) primate species. I also think there is a difference between hunting for sport and killing for food. I dont get any enjoyment out of thinking about an animal dying to feed me.... I have had both, and you can feed them the same thing every day and they will be wagging their tails the same on day 3,937 as they did on day 4.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) I don't eat the same thing every single day. And there are millions of people in India that have never had meat in their life. I'm sure they eat a variety of things and aren't like dogs. I was not suggesting anyone eats like dogs. What I am suggsting is those that care could find the veggies that use the least resources to grow and just eat those. But most people like variety in their diets and may eat items that use more or less resources than others. So, while I would not rank the veggies in order of resources, it would seem that asparagus which has a long time to harvest would be taking up more space than corn which is mature quicker. I would not criticize those that enjoy asparagus. Some melons take more water to grow than say apples. I agree it seems odd to grow feed to give it to a pig so we can eat the pig. Hunting wild animals seems much better based on the information you offered.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Indeed. The amount of food and water provided to one cow could feed a heck of a lot more people than the meat from that one cow. LINK Yes indeed. Animals use up way more water and feed than vegetables. Thankfully, there are men and women like Mark Buerhle out there thinning the deer herd. Imagine all the water that is saved by not having hundreds of thousands of deer, cows, pigs, chickens, etc on the planet. Every animal that is killed is thousands of gallons saved and more room for the veggies to roam free and without predators

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Indeed. The amount of food and water provided to one cow could feed a heck of a lot more people than the meat from that one cow. LINK This certainly is an area that animals have an advantage over us. A dog will eat the same food day after day and not grow tired of it. Perhaps humans will develop a wafer that is easy and cheap to mass produce. Maybe there could be a yellow or red one for the vegetarians, made from land based veggies or something, and a green one made out of ocean plankton.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Jul 24, 2009 -> 08:08 AM) I like Tex...becasue it's ironic. He is actually in Sweden. Yep, grandma with 12 cats. I live in Toronto now.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 09:14 AM) That may be the case but as a human I have the ability to avoid undue harm and suffering just to satisfy my taste buds. True. It is that same big old brain that allowed humans to be more efficient predators that helped you to form that belief.