SpringfieldFan

Ahh, thanks for clearing it up. See, the deal is that I haven't visited the SL&P forum until this year (and I normally steer very clear of any politics talk). Anyway, I am happy to realize that not only are Sox fans intelligent, but are rather entertaining, too SFF

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Sep 13, 2005 -> 08:08 AM) I bet that b**** helped Georgie boy stir up the waters in the gulf too. These Bushies are really something else. If they're not creating natural disasters to rid the country of black people and make money for their friends companies, then they are starting unjust, illegal and immoral wars to make money for their friends companies. Impeach Bush now!! This is where, in the new spirit of Soxtalk, I just take a deep breath and quietly back out of this thread...

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Sep 9, 2005 -> 10:13 PM) Ok Figgins is gonna try and steal here. Oh well he stole. Well we will have our guy Pods do the ... uh Pods? Pods?!

Bobby Jenks: "The Hammer" "The Presence"

How about a little Herp Albert gameshow sounding version http://dot.kelder.net/~jones/popcorn/mp3/2...herb_albert.mp3 Surfing version anyone? http://dot.kelder.net/~jones/popcorn/mp3/1...le_spankers.mp3 Ok, I will stop now... SFF

QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Sep 9, 2005 -> 11:48 AM) Disco Sucks Yeah I guess you are right, but I am just not cool enough yet to listen to Pantera and Metallica.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Sep 9, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) Could it be "Popcorn" by Hot Butter? A goofy 70's song. That's what came to mind when you described it. Yes, that's it! Thanks so much for helping me out! My little three year old will get a thrill just dancing around the living room to it. I know its a corny (pardon the pun) piece of fluff, but there is just something about it. You know, I think it is the one tune that probably sounds just as authentic in MIDI format, although that may or may not be a compliment! http://dot.kelder.net/~jones/popcorn/mp3/1972/hot_butter.mp3 (dang, I didn't know this song had so many versions...) SFF

Hey, folks. I would appreciate some help placing a song that they queue up every so often at the Cell. I am not very musically saavy so it is hard for me to describe, but it is stuck in my head and I would really like to know what it is. It seems to me to be more of a beat then a song and the best I can describe it is that is begins by sounding kind of like bubbles popping or water dripping. It goes kind of like "bum BUM bum bum-bum bum, bum BUM bum bum-bum bum...". Does anyone recognize what song I am talking about? If not perhaps you could list the songs you know are played regularly and I could look them each up until I recognize it. SFF

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:42 PM) Love and do what you will.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:33 PM) It's not discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help." It IS discriminatory to DENY a loving couple the right to a legal wedded union with all it's rights, priveleges, and protections solely on the basis of sexual orienttation. It's a sacrifice to do a lot of things. The sacrifice for children deserves and gets plenty (I'm a father of two, btw. It gets you a federal tax credit that nonparents (even gay nonparents) don't receive. Above and beyond that, it also gives you the love of a child, and the unique joy of being a parent. But being a parent is (ideally) a choice. For gay couples that choice may be achieved through adoption, in which case they too should be lagally entitled to the tax credit. Your second paragraph about seeing the need to hold family based marriage to a high standard IS based on (or at least in keeping with) your religious leanings. Ditto for your feelings on contraception cheapening the institution. There is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely nothing wrong with holding those personal viewpointst (I'm a recovering Catholic going on 20 years). But, again, it is a subjective viewpoint not universally shared, and should not be a basis for laws dictating who should be allowed to enjoy the right to marriage. I think we might start going in circle here, so I will defer. I appreciate your points, as I can see where you are coming from. I just with it were easier for people to see the reason for the "religion" based views in logic and by evidence, but it is a very murky muddy issue and often just comes down to faith. I just hope I am not seen as a hate-monger, homophobe, radical, or whatever other terms are used. Hopefully my position will be seen as one held with a thought and caring and a desire for the best for everyone. Peace!

QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:22 PM) now here's where the REAL impasse is. you say they're not intentionally going against nature, but neither are homosexuals. in my and many many medical professionals opinions, homosexuality is genetic. it is something you're born with. thats the impasse. and it's what this whole debate boils down to. i have many gay friends. they tell me they didn't CHOOSE to be gay, and i think they would know. especially in a climate where to be gay is to be ridiculed and ostracized, why would ANYONE CHOOSE to be gay? wanna talk can o' worms? Choosing to act is different then choosing to be, but I don't want to go any further into that can of worms. We have all heard the arguments many times before and they get ugly. I would rather just defer the argument then rehash all that...

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 04:02 PM) True that, we've been down this road before. But, what the heck. "Cab Driver, once more round the bend." Any way you slice it, this is what it comes down to: Denying rights and privileges to a group of law abiding, tax-paying US citizens because of their sexual orientation, based on a non-universally held interpretation of religious dictum is discriminatory. It is a sacrifice to have and raise kids. How is it discriminatory to give a married man and women some "help" in that noble pursuit but not to a couple that won't have that burden? By the logic, I would assume the rights and priveleges reserved for married couples should be given to all co-inhabitants, and single people as well. Again, I think the sacrifice for children deserves something. Besides, I don't think you need to look at religion to see why it is important to hold family based marriage to a high standard and recognize the harm to society that results when its value isn't understood.

I knew this would come up. The basic nature of man and women is procreation. When sterile man and woman are "married" it does not compromise that nature because their actions are still in accord with it and they are not intentionally going against nature. In fact, we would also most likely understand that they would wish to have a family if they could. It seems pretty clear. Now regarding a man and women who choose not to be married without children: well, I believe that a marriage should be open to children and that contraception does a disservice to the value of marriage and we lose as a result. I believe marriage (sex) must include the openness to new life. If sex and life are intentionally separated, that damages us and confuses things... again.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) ya know, people do that when they're not married too... called sex... and then they're like "oh s*** now we have a kid"... but do they always get married? no. and if they DO get married, that kinda devalues the term then doesnt it Yep, it sure does. I 100% agree. Sex and marriage are (should be) inseperable. Sex is part of the definition of marriage and when used outside of marriage, it cheapens it and is likely to cause problems. Again, I think it goes back to the need to have a clear understanding of what marriage truly means. Same sex marriages isn't going to help that.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 03:22 PM) And herein lies the impasse. Setting aside the notion of marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc., same sex marriages cheapening the institution is a purely subjective belief. Agreat many people not too long ago believed interracial marriages did the same thing, but we have largely matured past that point as a society. I fully expect we will do the same here, but the timeframe remains to be seen. I can agree about the subjectivity of it. Regarding interracial marriages: I see it differently. Different races were seen as less valueable human lives, which is always an immoral viewpoint. Basing marriage on that is clearly wrong. However, nobody sees gays as less then human, at least not right thinking people. Also, having a child and raising it under a male and female influence is possible with mixed couples; not with same-sex couples. I appreciate your point, but I just don't think the premises here are the same. SFF

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 8, 2005 -> 02:57 PM) I still don't understand how the importance, sanctity, uniqueness, etc., of your marriage would be at all affected by allowing same-sex marriages, but I appreciate your sharing your perspective. You are right, mine wouldn't. However, the next generation, and the one after that...would not (as easily) realize what family-based marriage really offers, why it is important, and why it is indespensible to society. Society, and young people especially, are already having a hard enough time seeing how valuable life and family committment is. I became a parent three years ago and until then I didn't fully appreciate what it was all about. I had to trust my church, parents, and role models. That is a really hard trust to maintain when the rest of society, and sometimes political climate, just screams the opposite. Not everyone even has the benefit of responsible role models, so it becomes even more important for certain values to be as self-evident as possible. I don't mean to say all our kids will turn gay, but the lack of respect for the value of human lives in this gratfication age cannot be healthy, and cannot lead to real happiness. SFF

Caution: Conservative and Religious viewpoints below: I would like to respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the marriage definition will, or should, evolve beyond the religious-based understanding. That implies marriage is merely what we choose to make it. I think our current definition of marriage is based on fundamental truths which you cannot evolve from without devaluing it: "Marriage" means man and woman coming together with the purpose of producing and nurturing children. That is the "thing" that marriage is defining. What conservatives like me desire is for that "thing" (producing and raising kids) to be uniquely defined and respected as the most valuable function of our society. In fact, from a religious perspective, human life is priceless since our bodies are in God's image. We share the responsibility of creating life with God himself, so it makes sense that the human race is best served when we follow that natural design. "Marriage" as we define it now, is special. If you open the term "marriage" to same-sex couples, then you redefine the term and the uniqeness of the institution as we understand it is diminished, if not lost. There is then no way to refer to the value of male/female marriage uniquely or in a way that celebrates its special purpose. It all gets confused and we can lose sight of what marriage is truly meant to give us. I guess the counter-argument might be "what about married couples who choose to stay childless". Well, I am catholic so you probably guess where I would take that argument, lol. Could we just invent a new term for same-sex unions but confer them all the perks of marriages? I suppose so, but I think that the entitilements married couples get are how we "subsidize" the value of bringing new life into the world and nurturing it. Simply put: its worth paying for. Same-sex unions don't provide as much value. Isn't it ironic how conservative thought works? Its desire here is for us to be willing to pay so society as a whole benefits. It almost seems liberal. Also, the rational here isn't the suppression of a "disgusting or immoral" lifestyle. Whether that is or isn't true, the whole goal of "protecting marriage" is the respect and elevation of the value of traditional marriages. I hope that gives some rational on why folks like me feel there is a stake in the same-sex controversy. It isn't the most clear explanation, I admit, but hopefully it suggests that we really don't just intend to suppress people's private actions, judge them, or hate them... SFF

Sure, try Brandon as a reliever, but... Just promise me that if he is dominent in the pen that he won't be considered "too valuable" a reliever to be used as a starter again (i.e. the "Cotts" theorem). SFF

Dare I say it, but shall we hope Scott will be wearing two new rings next spring training? SFF

Well, I guess he finally got off the island. I just hope he doesn't get stuck on some small cloud between here and the pearly gates. Seriously, Godspeed Bob

Young with three more hits, three runs, a SB, and a ribbie. Sorry for what could have been for you guys in Cincy - well no, I'm not.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2005 @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 07:15 AM) Who cares about the other teams. Most of them aren't playing for anything anyway. We need a shot in the arm from someone. I'm thinking Brian Anderson. To be real simple about this, if: Opponent defeats Chisox Then doesn't is stand to reason that: Opponent + AAA secret weapon defeats Chisox + AAA secret weapon In other words what good is this shot in the arm if it doesn't leverage you against anyone else, regardless of if you "care" about them or not?

I would like to believe the callups will provide the Sox a spark to help them surge through the last month and pull away from Cleveland and the others. But... Don't all the other teams now have their "sparks" too, and thus it is all really a zero-net-gain? SFF

I am at work and can't see the game. Tell me, what is Hawk's mood right now? What is he saying? SFF

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 03:42 PM) This might be the best post I've seen on here in a long time. Concise, and 100 pct accurate. Our slumps starts at the top, and that's with Ozzie. Has Ozzie ever owned up to making a bad decision? Ever? SFF