MrRain422

Blackhawk

I knew you were going to say something about that. ;-) It's not sour grapes or anything, it's just the best example of how the best team doesn't always win in the post-season. The Cards were a much better team in the previous several years than they were last season, and didn't win. So there you go.

Tricky - "Ponderosa" The Buzzcocks - "Everybody's Happy Nowadays" Yo La Tengo - "Alyda" Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Tear" The Velvet Underground - "Love Makes You Feel Ten Feet Tall" (demo) fIREHOSE - "Making The Freeway" The Replacements - "Hangin Downtown" The Sights - "It'd Be Nice (To Have You Around)" Glenn Kotche - "Reductions Or Limitations" Nirvana - "Downer"

The band has never said anything like that.

yep

The only other sport that I even sort of obsess over is college football, and my team's season is already over, so I may as well stay focused on my Tigers.

no

Game one of the doubleheader is looking pretty bad so far.

I'm trying to keep the faith as well. This series against Texas is going to be way more important than it should be. I'd peg the Tigers at about a 35% chance of making the playoffs at this point. The loss of Bonderman hurts, but I'll be watching til the end.

Yep. Making the playoffs is the hard part. Once the post-season comes though, whatever team is hot is going to win it, whether they are the best team in the post-season or not. Example: last season.

I respect the guy. He seems to really have principles that don't waiver for political expediency. But I disagree with him on too many vital issues. He's a respectable man with real scruples, but I could never, ever vote for him.

The numbers are a record of what has happened on the field. They are the best way to measure what has happened on the field, plain and simple. Dismissing them makes no sense at all. The Yankees pitching has been inconsistent this year. It's their offense that has put them in playoff position. Sure, their pitching could settle down and make them a force down the stretch, but if they had identical pitching but with the offense of the Royals, they'd be near the bottom of the division. In fact, the Royals team ERA is almost identical. So what's the difference in their records? The fact th

I was going to get into that, but I figured you'd take care of it.

fuck

I don't think anyone's posts about games have been ignored or anything.

But why is the one making a greater impact? Because he is already an awesome player. Again, the crux of the argument seems to be that Bonds committed a worse misdeed because he is a better player.

I didn't say that it was. I just said that having a prescription means squat, as a lot of those who do have them got them illegally. More importantly, the reason we're talking about Ankiel isn't because he had a prescription for HGH, it's because he bought HGH from a facility that was distributing it illegally. In that context, the prescription is, again, unimportant.

I can understand why the emotional response is stronger when it's someone breaking records. But some people have been very forgiving of less-than-great players who cheated, and absolutely ruthless with Bonds. The moral transgression is identical. Sure, people are going to care more when it's a big name, but the reasoning given for villifying Bonds is often in direct conflict with the things said about lesser players who did the exact same thing. You stated outright that Bonds cheating and Ankiel cheating are not the same. What is different about it other than that Bonds has been far mo

The reason his name came up is because he was sent HGH by a facility that is being investigated for illegally distributing HGH. The whole "his doctor prescribed it" business is nonsense. A lot of the guys caught up in it have presciptions -- prescriptions that they obtained illegally. That's the whole point. And the argument that he only did it before MLB banned it doesn't hold water either, unless you also want to excuse Bonds, Canseco, McGwire, etc., as their documented use was all before MLB banned steroids and HGH also. I'm not even going to go into the anecdotal stuff, as every pla

It's only cheating if you were already really good to begin with. The people have spoken.

My back is pretty nasty right now.

Well, my hypothetical is really a lot more relevent to arguments from a position that is much more strongly anti-abortion than yours (I threw it out there as a general query, not specifically to you). A lot of the anti-choice arguments stem from the viewpoint that life begins when the egg is fertilized, and that a zygote/fetus is a human life. If this position is strictly followed, then it's a pretty complicated question to answer (and really, the answer should probably be to save the petri dish, as 12 lives would be more valuable than one). And yet whenever I've posed the question to stric

That's not true though. If you dispute the idea of a 'sliding scale of existence' (I think this term is an oversimplification, but for the sake of argument), then those embryos should be exactly as worthy of being saved as the baby, maybe moreso since there are 12 of them.

No one answered my question either.

Okay, you're in a burning building. On one end of it is a human baby. On the other end of it is a petri dish with a dozen human embryos. You only have enough time to grab one of them and leave before the building collapses on you. What do you do?