JUGGERNAUT

I could care less what your personal opinion is of me. It's childish to even mention but I guess you've been bullying people that way all your life to make up for a lack of acumen & knowledge of subjects. You even need SS to fight your battles for you apparently. Since you have a mind of a child I'll refer you to sticks & stones. What you have stated is that you find it perfectly acceptable to publicly humiliate, & make discouraging & deragatory remarks toward a single person in the most vile & evil means you are capable of but you find it unacceptable to allow the use of slang & ethnic slurs that are rooted in sarcastic comedy because YOU feel people can be hurt by them. You're opinion has been noted. Since you have nothing further to offer than your childish methods of name calling you can drop off the face of the Earth now. For those who have the intellect to actually debate the issue I would like one of you to provide some links or references to data that proves your point. That is that the use of the word mick or dago or any other ethnic slang term causes serious harm to others. Likewise please explain how it is acceptable to use words & terms that irrefutably cause pain & suffering to someone & yet it is unacceptable to use words & terms that MAY cause pain & suffering to someone. I say may because there is no data justifying this harm. At best we could say there is the possibility of inconsequential harm because that's what the data suggests. What do we know about ethnic slurs & slang? 01-They are popularized by entertainment media 02-The FCC receives next to nothing in complaints when they occur 03-There is no uprising by constituents upon elected officials to prevent their usage 04-They are common among bars & sporting events 05-The overwhelming majority of the people when hearing one .. laugh. 06-Hillary uses them 07-They are common on comedy shows & pay cable shows 08-They are common in gangsta rap 09-No one has ever been sued for slander or libel from their use 10-Only people who are more concerned about other people's behavior than their own have a stink fit over them. Want's some more real factual evidence in support of my point? The N word is back. This was taboo in my home. I would scold any one (kids, & adults a like for using). But it's back. Why? Because apparently some who identify with the word feel a sense of kinship in it's usage. Apparently they aren't offended or appauled by what it represents to their history. Now they do have unwritten rules as to who can use it but the reality of it appearing in film & music entertainment again is real. In case that went over your head let me simplify it for you: if you are a member of a group then it's ok to use slang terms for it. So a dago can use dago, a mick can use mick, & an N can use N. But if you aren't a member of the group then it's still taboo. That's the gist I get out of it. It seems to me the younger generation is re-writing the rules to subvert your need to censor what everyone says, thinks, & does in this country. It's natural for all humans to want to form group associations. Even slang ones. It's natural for them to be proud of that association. Based on some of your posts I can only imagine the number of people some of you must have crushed in your path to get to where you are. Of course that's morally sound for you because it's personal. Don't harm the group itself but crush the people within it. That's a real fine moral code you live by.

That's the scary part because it is impossible to police the entire fault line in an ocean. There's no way to prevent it once they get there hands on the nucs.

A contract that allows for a demand to be traded? How can that possibly work with respect to the MLBPA & the league office? If he demands to be traded & the CWS choose not to trade him then he has two options: play & be paid or refuse to play & have the contract voided under league terms at the team's discretion. While the player refuses to play he doesn't get paid. In the case the contract is voided the league would likely treat it as an arbitration scenario where the team that signs him to a new contract would have to compensate the CWS with picks or the league itself would compensate the CWS with picks. That's assuming of course the MLBPA allows the contract to be voided in the first place because the likelihood is that a new contract would reduce the player's earnings. I just don't see how a demand to be traded can be honored. It's definitely in the CWS' best interest to keep him happy & if he prefers to go elsewhere then there's no point in KW getting involved, but at some point he's going to have to grow up & face the reality that it's pretty clear his NYY days are over.

Context is everything. Hmmm, if Texsox thinks I'm the most pathetic form of life because I choose to refer to Moronitti by an ethnic slur I wonder what he must think of Hillary who stereo-typed all East Indians as being gas station attendants in STL? Of course Hillary knows everything as well I suppose. Perhaps somebody should have told her that Ghandi is of such stature as a human being that he is above ethnic slurs. Oh my is that possible? Could it be that ethnic slurs no longer are appropriate when we distinguish ourselves beyond the stereo-type? Or perhaps she should have just made a joke about Ghandi or his family directly on a personal level that could result in the personal suffering of his descendants. Any pc cops want to weigh in on that? Is that what she should have done? Is there any underwritten rule that says don't insult the person's ethnicity only the person? The hypocrisy of the pc advocates know no bounds. Using slang is an art. It requires timing & the proper situation to do so in such a way that it is taken in gest rather than seriously. You look for an opening to apply it. That's how it's used without causing harm to others. The response "that's a good one." is an acknowledgement that all are j/k. If as one suggests the core of humor is rooted in the neccessity to insult others then I would prefer to be insulted in a group association of millions which is neither tangible or recognizable than to be insulted personally which can in no way be deflected without serious retaliation.

I just love the logic of someone who feels it's perfectly acceptable in the moral relativist world to think it is better to refer to someone as "the most pathetic form of the human race" than to call them a Mick. It must be the same logic that feels it's better to publicly offend & emotionally abuse a person with a personal attack in a serious way than to ridicule a group in a satirical way. Or perhaps it's the logic that feels that personal denigration of person is preferred over group denigration. Oh I just love it when the PolCor people continue to show how articulate & well-behaved they are in their ability not to offend any one other than the person they wish to attack. Hmmm, I wonder if you enjoy doing that. It certainly seems like you do. So on the one hand there are the non-pc people like myself that enjoy the usage of ethnic slurs because they add color to life & they don't personally offend or harm any single individual & then there are the pc people who seem to enjoy the usage of personalized slurs & attacks that strike right at the bone of a person & are specifically designed to both offend & harm that person. I think I like my non-pc world better & will fight with along side all the non-pc people to keep it. There was another group of people not to long ago that believed they knew everything, tried to institute thought & speech police, & closed their minds to their own way of thinking. Should I tell you who they were or are you smart enough to figure it out? They still exist in small cells throughout the world. I won't call you the most pathetic form of the human race because I have no need to do so. It doesn't entertain me & it adds nothing to my life. It's not colorful. It's simply a mean-spirited thing to say by a mean-spirited person who has little else to offer on the subject. One would call that bullying. Which is why we form group associations in the first place. There is strength in numbers to prevent abuse from personal attacks such as your. Whether they come in the form of words or otherwise.

The latest on RJ as reported by the NY Post: RJ has given AZD a deadline of 12/31/04 to deal him. If he is not dealt at that time he's staying with the AZD. It is now believed that the AZD are going to accept the higher prospect deal. AZD <- Vaz, Navarro(1), (Duncan(5) or 2 of Cabrera, Gomez or Halsey) + 7-10M NYY <- RJ Navarro is key to the deal because AZD still wants Green from LAD & they want Navarro. So it's expected that AZD will choose Navarro & drop the cash from 15M to about 10M. That's a high price to pay but they really want Green. That would drop Vaz price to betw 25-28M/3 yr & possibly knock the CWS out of consideration. It can be assumed that AZD will trade Vaz. They can take on both Green's & Vaz's contracts for 2005. Essentially AZD has about 4 days to deal with other teams & the LAD to get Green & as much as they can for Vaz, Navarro, & the rest. If the CWS is involved then it would go down like this: CWS <- Vaz + 7M, + LAD talent LAD <- Koney, Navarro, & new NYY prospects & AZD talent AZD <- Garland, Green I don't see any LAD talent the CWS would want so it would most likely be cash + prospects. Of course it's all speculation but there's no question the LAD's want Koney to replace Green, & AZD want to add Garland to their rotation. That keeps the CWS very much alive in the Vaz trade talk.

OHIO STATE finally confesses that a booster was paying student-athletes. This comes a year after Clarette made the allegations & on the heels of the Alamo Bowl. Clarette wad driving a different car every other week. It is a sad day for college football. OHIO STATE got away with it. For now. I can't believe the NCAA did not investigate this themselves & put OSU on probation. It wasn't just Clarette. Several players had been saying the same thing yet the NCAA choose to allow OSU to deal with it internally. Of course OSU denied the allegations & bought itself enough time to guarantee their bowl eligibility. Even if ND does lower academic standards for athletes to match that of OSU they still have to deal with the payoffs by other schools. Can you win the BCS w/out cheating? That's the 64K question for today. By the way for all you ND fans, ESPN Classic has an ND classic game on this weekend. ND re-runs play on New Years!

The CWS had 78 SB's last yr. Pods w a down year at the plate had 70 SB's. MIN had 116 SB's. The need was obvious. Moving Lee cleared over 16M/2yr. That allowed them to sign El Duque to a 2yr & Uribe to a 3yr plus plan for Rowand. So that trade affected no less than 6 players for the CWS: El Duque, Uribe, Rowand, Pods, Viscaino, PTBNL That certainly qualifies as a big move.

Don't forget Hideo Nomo. I think he had a lot to do with Ichiro getting here.

My gift to all you advocates of thought & speech control: Oh I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Wiener. That is what I'd truly like to be. 'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer Wiener, Ev'ryone would be in love with me. My bologna has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R. My bologna has a second name, it's M-A-Y-E-R. Oh, I love to eat it everyday, and if you ask me why, I'll say, "'Cause Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A."

Apparently you don't know the meaning of that word either I wouldn't want to make it too complex for you, so try to remember this ... Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Now you can add to that the following ... either as a result of laziness, refusal to learn (lack of an open-mind), or circumstances beyond one's control. Hmmm .. I would definitely say refusal to learn fits you like a glove.

When a child I'm responsible for acts up in public I simply ask the child one question: "Do you want me to call a cop?" You see it works both ways. Why spank when you get the child to face the consequence of their actions? By seeking the state's help in the matter I the parent am free from blame & punishment. The state then becomes responsible for the child's action & misbehaving. Lucky for me I've not had a child of mine say "yes" to that question. It seems to be effective enough. If they do say "yes" I would follow up with this .. "ok then. It's been nice knowing you. We'll help you pack for the orphanage where nasty kids are going to pick on you & steal anything you ever get."

Nature is cruel. Especially when you ignore the history. The long-term effects of the quake are negligible for the rest of us but I think they could have an impact on that beach property for years to come. Can a nuc explosion trigger such a quake? I imagine that's the next thing to consider in the wake of global terrorism. Remember to for the families of lost souls due to these tragic events.

His 2004 are actually better than his 3 yr avg: vs. Right 472AB, 63RBI, 265A, 320O, 422S vs. Left 389AB, 50RBI, 288A, 347O, 470S

The guys yet another specialist. VS. LEFT: .285 / .850 VS. RIGHT: .242 / .650 HOME: .272 / .720 AWAY: .254 / .766 Strong against RH, weak against LH. vs LH: 239AB, 285BA, 352O, 498S, 33RBI vs RH: 265AB, 242BA, 291O, 358S, 29RBI The CWS have a nice combination of specialists which is why I think they'll go with 12 arms this year.

Trying to justify the $? None On 171AB, 205A, 253O, 281S Runners On 122AB, 303A, 331O, 418S Scoring Position 68AB, 397A, 419O, 500S 30 27 4 None On/Out, 1/2out 64AB, 203A, 292O, 266S Men On, 2 out 54AB, 296A, 333O, 352S Scoring Posn, 2 out 34AB, 412A, 444O, 500S Close and Late 47AB, 277A, 320O, 362S Ok. You've made your point. If there are men on when Timo hits he's a star. But if nobody's on he sucks. I can say sucks right? As a bench/pinch player that's a good value. Especially for a LH hitter.

Take this to the bank. ND Alumni are as influential & proud & hungry for ND to win as Steinbrenner is for the NYY too. If Weis has trouble recruiting the elite than the standards are going to be lowered. It's inevitable. Willingham's fire is more about that issue than his futility to create a top 10 defensive team.

And then they wonder WHY I hate MORAL relativists & PC cops like yourself. I/I've know/known people who have Phd's in English lit as well as foreign languages. Guess what? They use slurs to. Why? Because it adds COLOR to the conversation! Maybe no one ever taught you this but SLANG is a form of entertainment. It's comedic & sarcastic in nature. Those words do exist in the english language. The PC cops haven't re-written them yet. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Do you even know what intelligence is? Inteliigence is the ability to use knowledge. If you know SLANG & know how to use it then you are actually exhibiting more intelligence than someone who does not. Which brings up an entirely different debate. What value is their in a dictionary if they are constantly going to re-write definitions? Since when does moral relativism & political correctness supercede the value of historical fact & record? Yet that is EXACTLY what has been happening over the past decade. The Borg is trying to assimilate us all into Oscar Mayer Wiener singers.

You refuse to let me HIJACK this thread DESPITE all my efforts! I hate you I'm probably not the right person to tell you this but you mentioned 911 & suicide so let me try to help. You should never be ashamed of something that seems entirely natural to you. Ever. I did not say you weren't equal, I was just giving you insight in how most heterosexuals view the issue of gay marriage. The truth. Not the media-spin. I do not feel the same as they do. I think there are things in every one of us that define are innate core. Things that can not be re-programmed or corecively burned out through re-education. That is who we trully are. For whatever reason you are gay. So what? Be proud of who you are. If someone were to tell me that most Irish people are alcoholics because of genetic inheritance & that I should take care of that in future offspring I would laugh about it. I would not take offense. It's a stereo-type comment that is funny. Hell as I said before I'm proud of my Irish heritage including the myth that Irish kids get their first drink when they are tall enough to grab it from the bar. There I go trying to hijack the thread again. Let me try another example & believe me this coming from a Bible thumper is going to seem weird but then those who know me know that I believe in democracy & freedom above all else especially & including political correctness & moral relativism. Are you offended if I were to ask you if you thought of being gay as a sexual fetish? If so, why? Is it really any different for you to like men then say for me to like women with small feet? There are so many sexual fetishes in the world & I don't think any one thinks of them as being unequal or one being better than the other. Sure some might border on being legal & civil but those are the extremes. Implants exist because some men have a sexual fetish for big breasted women. In Asia they would crop feet for centuries because some men have a sexual fetish for small footed women. They still do in some parts. The point of all this is that a sexual fetish is an innate part of who we are. It's not something we read about or are taught about or practice to grow a liking to. It's just something that comes natural. Maybe there were genetic or social causes that brought it about. No one knows. There is research being done but it's not so we can place a value on them but rather because we are curious creatures who want to know. We constantly ask the question "why?" about everything. It is what distinquishes us the most from every known form of creation in the Universe & why we believe we are God's children. Do I accept you as being gay? Yes. I'm not a bigot. I don't know why you are any more than you do but I do believe it feels as natural to you as my own sexual fetishes do to me. At some point we all come under attack when we like something that does not seem normal or is simply disliked by someone else. That simply means that person doesn't share them. It doesn't mean they are right & you are wrong or vice-versa. It simply means what comes natural to you doesn't come natural to them. Now the people I don't accept are the socialist marauders who believe that what comes natural to them MUST come natural to all. They know who they are. Those who see political correctness & moral relativism not as an option but a rule. They are the enemy. They are the one's likely to impose genetic manipulation to reduce the differences amongst us. They represent the Borg within humanity. Those are the people I don't accept but out of devotion to freedom & democracy continue to tolerate. For now any way BOOOOOOOHAHAHAHAHAHA! THREAD HI-JACK AGAIN: Is it ok for me to use ethnic slurs in reference to myself? Do I not have the right to ridicule even myself?

Because I'm not a F'g robot! I'm not a F'g VG! I'm not a F'g computer screen you can just dictate my likes & dislikes to! I'm a living, breathing, feeling human being. My likes & dislikes are different than yours. We are naturally drawn to things based on how we feel. I don't like Moronitti because of the way he writes. I don't like him for the way he sounds on the radio & I don't like him for the way he looks on ESPN. And guess what? I feel good when I don't him! Oh my God! Don't have a heart attack now! Don't go wizzing in your pants! But yes it's possible for humans to feel good when they don't like something or someone. Do you know what else? Humans feel good when they rib each other! Maybe not in your mundane robot Hillary made village but they do where I live. They laugh about. They even say "that's a good one!" Yes, believe it or not there are some of us who's lives are patterned off the Soprano's & man does it feel good! Real good! Calling each other ethnic slurs lights up the whole backyard barbecue! Damn! You can even hear the laughter down the street it gets so loud! And some of us light up stoggies too! And I'll say another thing. I hate all of you for not letting me hijack this thread in support of ethnic slurs. To answer Texsox, & all the rest of you moral relativist prudes who think it is more important to protect against the use of the word d-g-o than to protect the right to prayer for 99% of the students in MS against the objection of a few others it's pretty simple. We use ethnic slurs just like we use any other form of slang BECAUSE IT'S FUN! I travel all around the world including the Far East & guess what? They use more slurs than we do! That includes Mexico, Argentina, Australia, England, & Japan. Now I've never been to France or Germany so I can't speak for the thunderdome of the socialist plague there. But in all those other places they do it because it's fun! They like to laugh & eat hearty & it's part of their nature! No one ever gets up & says I find that rude or offensive because THEY DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!

Ignorance is bliss. Children will often ignore facts in hope they will no longer be facts. Specifically, I never in my post placed a judgement on your being gay. I neither sanctioned it as being nature or being a choice. To the contrary, I pointed out that leading science believes it to be a function of both. Now you are a single person in a humanity of 6 billion souls. I will not venture into understanding why or who you are because you are statsitically immeasurable as single person. You may be gay due entirely to nature or genetics or you may be gay entirely due to choice. I have no idea in your case. Science rarely works that way. There is rarely a litmus test available to any question. Science deals with probabilities. What is more probable than not. That is all. Again I never made a judgement. I simply wrote a what if post rooted in recent scientific findings. Nothing more than that. If it turns out to be more choice than nature so what? If it turns out to be less than normal so what? Why should this bother you? What should be most important to you is the freedom to live your life in any way you see fit. Within reason of course. No school, government, or socialist group should stand in your way of doing so. That goes for all Americans. America is the land of tolerance. The references to equality is that we should all have equal access to that which enhances our standard of living. It has nothing to do with having to think, eat, & act the same so that we are all mundane yet equal robots of some god-forsaken moral relativism.

Obviously I care more about the free-speech aspect of all this than the gay issue, but I do have a question for the new-schoolers & if SS wants to weigh in that would be fine. What is wrong with letting it run it's course? Example: A poster referred to Moronitti or something he said as gay. Why not tolerate that UNTIL someone shows a sensitivity to it? They can do that by PM'g you, posting themselves (if they are strong-willed) or by PM'g another to show it for you. If no one objects to something then why not just tolerate it? Again I take more issue with not being able to use ethnic slurs than anything else. The Babe used them, so many other sports icons used them, some use them today. They are integrated in America's tradition & culture & intolerance towards them shows the worst abuse of political correctness & moral relativism there is. If I call Moronitti a pucchiacha or a puttana for the Cubs is that objectionable simply because I used mob-speak? After all by the strictest interpretation it's an ethnic slur. In fact anything bad in a foreign language or derivative of such would then be an ethnic slur. If I call Moronitti a facia brutta is that an ethnic slur? Personally I think he's a strunz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs There are more Irish than there are Italian. Call me a Papist, a Paddy, A SpudFuker, or what not. Guess what? I'm proud of it. It means you are distinguishing me for being Irish. That's a lot better than being mundane or irrelevant. I'm proud of my Irish heritage. It's colorful. You might find this interesting. http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/482/...2_HilaryC.shtml To introduce a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, Clinton said, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years." Hillary Clinton in It Takes a Village: "Within and beyond their homes, adults must speak out against racial, ethnic, religious or gender slurs." It amazes me that the very institutions that made 1984 & Farenheit 411 mandatory reading are now in belief of this kind of thought-policing.

Well this thread sure has spun off into different directions. First can we get back to what created this? A poster used the word gay in a post as an attribute of Moronitti that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS SEXUAL PREFERENCE! He believes he was using the word gay to mean .. dumb, or stupid. But I don't think that's the case. There are plenty of words that mean that. No the old-schoool use of gay in the context to something somebody says or does means much more. It's the direct opposite of the new school meaing of "Word". It's not necc dumb or stupid but rather so mundane that it shouldn't have been said or acted. Now the sirens go off in the socialist mind because they believe any usage of the word gay can ONLY have a sexual reference. Baka. Such a colorless world they must live in. Now of course the thread has gone well beyond the issue of free-speech, sarcasm, & slurs to that of gay marriage & the gay issue itself. Makes you wonder if socialist always have alternative sex on their mind Well let me just clear it all up for you from an old-school point of view. Americans are against gay marriage primarily for one reason: they feel they are better than gay people. That's it in a nut-shell. Plain & simple. They don't "feel" that gays are equal to themselves. That feel that sex between a man & woman is more natural, more sacred, more worthy than the rest. Now America is the land of tolerance. Old-schoolers perceive that to mean I'm better than you but I'll tolerate your existence. New-schoolers perceive that to mean equality. I suppose one of these days they'll even want to re-write tolerance to mean equality. It doesn't mean acceptance in any way. It simply means allowing something to exist. Whether it be speech, behavior, or what not. That's all it means. Now do heterosexual Americans & Earthlings for the matter have a right to think they are better than the rest? Well evolution would suggest yes. After all the rest can not continue to exist without some form of heterosexual union. Whether it be in person or in a lab. But even more to the point is the recent scientific findings & where the research is leading. Ahhh .. very interesting indeed. It could have the new-schoolers entire foundation of equality come crashing down. What if I were to suggest that non-heterosexuals were abnormal or defective humans? I suppose a dragnet would form around this thread & incinerate it immediately just like in Farenheit 411. But that is exactly where the research is leading. The prominent theory is now that sexual preference is a function of genetic abnormalities & social abnormalities. In terms of genetics it's linked to Testerone levels during pregnancy. Recent data suggests that the T levels are a good predicter of female & male character traits in the child regardless of the sex. In terms of social abnormalities new case studies suggest many middle-age homosexuals are now seeking therapy because they are unhappy with their lack of maleness. They cite abnormal social upbringings as a cause. Situations were mothers wanted a daughter so much that they treated their sons like daughters. And vice-versa of course. Is it rare? No one knows. The data is incomplete. Just like all sexually related data is. Including the Kinsey report which was founded upon pedophile data to suggest they we are consciously sexually active from the point of our birth. That believe of course leads to the suggestion that sex between humans at any age & with any age difference is both normal & acceptable. All that can be said is that the recent foundings have been so profound that the research is growing. More universitites world-wide are participating & there should be a lot more data to make decisions upon in the years to come. But it is surprising that those involved in the original APA stance back in 73 I believe have even begun to yield. The original stance was that it's not a choice but rather a normal part of nature. Now one of them has conceded that at least 3% of homosexuals & lesbians are indeed a consequence of choice & not nature. You know what happens when you open the door to other possibilities. The crack get bigger & bigger. The biggest threat to the new-school belief on homosexuality of course is not strictly homosexual or heterosexual relations but rather that of bi-sexual relations. The APA has for decades taken the stance that bi-sexuals are the rarest population of alternative sex relations. But recent data in this area is blowing that out of the water. If bi-sexual research is true in it's claim that better than 80% of women have inherent lesbian tendencies & 50% of men have inherent homosexual tendencies then clearly being gay or straight is much more a matter of choice rather than nature. Not that there's anything wrong with that but Earthlings seem to also value that which is natural over that which is choosen. Example: God-given athletic talent is better than chemically induced talent. One is nature & the other is choice.

You should stay out because you are clearly an ND hater. You sound like you're foaming at the mouth when you write. Plus you have no idea what you are talking about. Would you like to compare the number of ND football championships & bowl appearances to any other program? You can take pleasure in their recent demise since D grade students are taking over the sport but don't sound like an ignoramous while doing it. Why do you think there are ND rules in the BCS packages? Why do you think ND can go 6-5 or even 500 for that matter & make a bowl game? Because ND is an icon. Just like the NNY. Obviously the analogy of the NYY placing a self-imposed salary cap on themselves went over your head. The analogy fits because ND's refusal to allow D students to play limits their talent pool in the same way a self-imposed salary cap would for the NYY. At least you didn't bother to challenge that among the schools that require a C average to play ND ranks far above the rest in bowl appearances & BCS bowls. That's a clear testament that the school remains popular amongst the masses. As for recruiting Weis doesn't just have his own merit to sell. Amongst the higher academic institutions like ND, ND ranks far above the others in the number of players who have/are playing in the NFL. I think if you ask the coaches of the BCS schools they are hoping Weis can do it. They want to see ND back in the BCS maybe even more so than the alumni. Because if Weis can;t do it & ND decides to both admit & allow D students to play there will be no stopping ND. Armed with a network TV contract that rivals any other school ND will be able to pick & choose from the very best year after year. It will become a stopping ground for kids wanting to play in the NFL. It might even become something of a farm system for the Bears if they remain in the cellar & contiue to draft high.

Na. Old-schoolers will win. Why? Because new-schoolers are p....s! Seriously we'll win because it's human nature to become bored with complacency. Eventually the masses will get so bored with political correctness & moral relativism that they will just start to ignore it & do their own thing. But make no mistake Soxtalk.com is a far more open & tolerant forum than WSI. I think ST admins & mods are partial new-schoolers. They see the value of the goody-2-shoes speak argument but they also have read 1984 & Farenheit 411 & are mindful against censorship. Which means I still have time to convince SS that freedom is better than complacency. That spicey foods are more appealing than bland ones. That hate is not a bad word. That loathing the Cubs is a good thing. That denigrating the Cubs is a good thing. That treating the Cubs & Cub fans as inferior lifeforms is a reasonable thing. Do such things as fan-driven Cub sites actually exist?