vandy125

The crate worked for my dog as well. One other thing to mention, I have always heard to never rub a puppy's nose in his mess. By that time, they will have moved on, and will have no association in their head with what the bad act actually was. You need to catch them in the act of doing it in order to punish them so that they can make that immediate association. Otherwise, they get confused and have no idea why you are upset at them.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Either 2 or 3. AJ leads off with a lazy ground ball. Where are those grinder ground balls when you need them?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) 2 botched defensive plays in the last 3 batters. That will definitely help the pitching bounce back this year...

That is awesome. Is that a garage door I see in the front?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) "Character" is bulls***. It certainly wasn't in place at the beginning when Ty Cobb got the most votes despite the fact that everyone hated him. Other examples: Paul Molitor. Kirby Puckett. All the known cheaters. "Character." For baseball players. It's nice to have, but it doesn't matter as far as HOF. And by that I mean -- I'd give a guy a point or two for it, but I would never keep a guy out because he was mean to the media or perceived as selfish by teammates. Regardless of following it or not (I think that they should), it is part of their rules for election. This is taken straight from their web site: Baseball HOF I see several things there that Pete Rose failed at.

The sun rises and sets again.

Isn't one of the things that they consider for the HOF supposed to be the character of the player? It is not based purely on statistical acheivement. The guy gambled on baseball. Then, lied about it, and continued to lie about it. He is now telling a different story than what he started out with. How can you believe anything that he says? Does that type of character fit into the HOF?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Me too. I recall other religions being touched on briefly in junior high, but I definitely had a World Religions class in high school that was very interesting. Good stuff. And even though it was a Catholic high school, I recall no bias. Having a very good, respectful teacher was probably a plus. I am curious if anyone has experienced the opposite. Taking a world religion class where the teacher was very bias, and it led to issues. We have heard 2 accounts from the other side, and I am wondering if this teacher's bias that we should fear so much is as prevalent as we are led to believe?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 12:45 PM) i was thinking more along the lines of preparing students for engineering or mathematical sciences. religion class isn't going to do anything for that. of course, critical thinking is a key to succeeding in almost anything. I agree that critical thinking is important, but I think that it is also important that we give our students some understanding as to why people behave the way they do. Help them to understand someone else's motivation. This is particularly important at this point in time with the conflicts that are going on. If we could listen and understand another's point of view, that would help out immensely. Critical thinking does not help resolve conflicts if you cannot understand another's starting point.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) I draw the line at religion in public schools. So, even a discussion about different religions is off-limits? It is no surprise to me that people don't have any reasons or thoughts behind what they believe and just blindly state they believe A, B, and C. We never teach them to look at what they believe and what others believe. There just seems to be a blind personal belief system that is being taught. Most students don't know about any other way of thinking or any other options. They are not being allowed to form opinions. If you ask questions about their beliefs, it turns into "How dare you question my beliefs?" when you may just be asking for information as to why they think something. Its the default response to a question that you have not thought deeply about.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) That's basically my reservations about it, too. There's way too much room for bias from the teacher. Elective, yes. Mandatory, no. Maybe this is a poor analogy (you can point that out to me later ), but isn't there a lot of room for bias for any type of social science? We trust our teachers to be able to do other things correctly with some oversight, why not this? At what point are you drawing the line and saying "too much".

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:44 AM) Was I the only one here who had a "Social Studies" class in I think 6th grade that spent at least a month or so actually going through the beliefs & practices of something like 7 major religions? I went through the Public system, and we never studied anything with religion. It may have been that particular teacher for you who took the onus upon his/her self to teach the class about the major religions.

I think that a mandatory course in understanding what people believe should occur. We never take enough time to understand where other people are coming from, and I think that is one of the biggest problems we face. Let's teach our young what other people believe. That way, they can actually respect their beliefs through understanding. We usually get the lip service of "I respect whatever it is you believe." How is that even possible without even knowing what it is?

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) meanwhile, Gavin Floyd will be one of the biggest joke acquisitions ever. Wow, nice thread hijack. Do you have anything to say about the current topic?

My bad. I just joined. I didn't realize I was put in this league.

If Anderson is not out there to start out this year, I will be upset (unless there are some trades that dramatically change things).

These are pretty funny.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) Oh f***ing great. Another Rowand thread. Well, my day's ruined. Thanks Sun Times. How about the rest of you? ^^^^^^^^ Totally agree. The love affair with Rowand is nauseating now. This will be my only post in this thread because I want to see it disappear. Rowand is NOT coming back to the White Sox. We got another grinder player, and his name is Erstad. IMO, there is absolutely no point or reason for Rowand with Erstad around.

One of the reasons it makes me upset is because I like the set up that I have. I have DISH satellite, and it has been real good for me. I'm not switching over to DTV because of Bud Selig. That is ridiculous that in the age of flexibility, they are taking options away.

Does anyone even find those commercials funny? I change the channel whenever they come on.

This is crap. Just like the exclusive rights with the baseball game. They are just making it harder to follow your team because they are looking at the $$$$ they need to pay for ridiculous salaries.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) Actually Vandy, it was started as two separate threads, in the biased threads. I believe the GOP thread was started to call Gore a douche, at least that was the first post over there, which is fine and why we have those two threads started. After they were merged and anyone tried to move it away from character assassination to the message of the movie, it went back to calling Gore names. Perhaps it was because scientists on the board were defending him and economic and business people were attacking him. That appears to be the problem with merging the two threads. The GOP wants to keep talking about Gore, and the other thread wants to talk about his film. Since I answered your question about the environment, can we all get back to calling Goracle a douche?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) I keep trying to discuss the environment, y'all prefer to debate Goracle's usage. So I keep asking, are conservatives 100% happy with the environment? Do we need to make any changes to our consumption? Are the steps that are outlined in the movie harmful to the environment? Should we reject the steps that the movie outlines because our environment will be harmed? And who is/are the conservative leaders on environmental issues? Of course the environment isn't as important as restoring Conservatives to power. So let it go Kap. The rest of us did when we realized that Al Gore was the single most threatening environmental challenge facing conservatives. Not water quality, not air quality, but Al Gore. What a wonderful world conservatives live in. It has been said before by a few conservatives already (I believe), but I will say it again as a conservative. I agree completely with Al Gore's environmental message. We do need to act on it. I wish that the messenger got all of his ducks in a row before putting out such a message. That is what the debate is on. This thread was started to talk about the Goracle and his lifestyle. It is not debating about his message. I agree with his message, but everytime we try to talk about the messenger, we get shoved back onto the other track and get questions like, "So, since you don't like the Goracle, you must hate the environment?". Give me a break.

The rain/sleet/snow/blizzard is now circling around where I am at in Des Moines. It is very weird. Everywhere else appears to be getting nailed, but not Des Moines (yet).

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Feb 28, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) Yeah, Flash posted these here. So, let's see. Yankees win division, Red Sox get the Wild card, Cubs win division, Angels win division, and Twins win division. Have I seen these predictions before...? The only thing missing is the Braves winning their division. What a load of crap.