Saturday, May 25, 2013
Raissman: Could 2013 be last year for John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman on Yankees radio broadcast?
(www.nydailynews.com)
Swan Song for Swingin’ Lovers!?
Read More...The Yankees’ contract with WCBS-AM, another one-year deal, expires following this season. So does Ma and Pa’s one-year contract. While all interested parties are talking about a possible deal, the radio situation is up in the air. CBS wants to remain the Bombers’ radio home and ESPN-98.7 is looking to take those Yankee radio rights away. Some Yankee moles suggest there are other interested outlets, too.
...Last season, we were confident Sterling and ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 5 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 >Bonobos are an example of other animals experiencing pleasure from sex. That and group bisexual orgies.
I'm pretty sure I had Fick as a backup fungible utility warm-body placeholder on one of my fantasy teams during a three-week period when he didn't suck.
IANAscientist but isn't that the purpose of oxytocin, supposedly released during both orgasm and breastfeeding, to bond the mother to her mate and to her child? Also released in males IIRC but I don't have time to browse through my Desmond Morris books right now.
Bonobos are pretty cool. knowing that a close genetic relative also enjoys sex and lives in family groups, raises young for a long time . . . well that certainly seems to indicate that deriving pleasure for sex (I guess the question is do bonobos produce oxytocin?) has some evolutionary basis, as well as a connection to bonding.
I think you misspelled Canadians.
Man am I ever from the wrong part of Canada.
Didn't he also qualify as a catcher (not in the gay sex sense, I suppose ... NTTAWTT) once upon a time? In which case he would've been potentially more useful than otherwise (see also: Barrett, Michael, & Leyritz, Jim).
Fick came up as a catcher and caught 158 games over his career. I had him on my Strat keeper team -- young, lefty catcher who could hit a little. What's not to like? Then you're stuck with a 1B/RF/LF with a 95 OPS+.
Mostly from the bite marks and scratches they inflict on me. I think I have a problem.
So it's your fault. Let this be a lesson to never leave a thread.
Fick could probably have phrased it better, but in the most general case I don't think there's anything wrong with him acknowledging that he would be uncomfortable being in the locker room with a homosexual teammate, purely as a thing unto itself. Fears aren't rational, and accepting that it is a fear (rather than a logical or ethical position) is a good first step. People need to be honest about these things if we're going to ever get past them.
With each other?
You can only have group sex with bonobos in Saskatchewan.
That would actually be worth watching on You Tube.
I lived there for five years and no one told me?
I'm officially no longer telling people that Regina is worth the -46 degrees.
Primate species, I mean. C'mon.
I can point you to some Japanese art.
I agree with this totally. I am uncomfortable around heights. This does not mean I am suggesting glass elevators are somehow wrong or bad, simply I am not 100% comfortable riding in them. Now if I go on about how evil/immoral they are, or how they should all change to suit my comfort or that I should never have to deal with them, then I am being unreasonable.
There is a difference between acknowldging a personal flaw (my discomfort with glass elevators) and suggesting they are somehow bad (thus making the flaw theirs).
EDIT: And no I am not suggesting a perfect equivilence between fear of heights and fear of 'teh gay'.
In the possession, no doubt, of Hideki Matsui.
Greg - you just needed to run through like a dozen hoodrat ####### before you get to the upper enchelon type Saskatchewan bonobo.
I understand what Vlad and BM are getting at, but it is at the point above where my acceptance ends. I don't give a #### how uncomfortable he is, he is talking about a large section of humanity, not spiders or rope bridges, and he needs to grow up and get the hell over it.
A question they should ask these guys is: Assuming all else is equal (playing time, salary, etc.), would you be more comfortable on a losing team with nothing but straight, full-bore heterosexual manly men on your roster, or competing for a World Series ring on a team where two of your best players were out of the closet? Not necessarily flaming, but publicly out gay guys.
Lots of people are uncomfortable around "a large section of humanity". One of my former co-workers can't stand to be around children, and another one is terrified of clowns. If you were forced to share a cubicle with an evangelical Christian who wanted to convert you, would you be entirely comfortable with that?
Furthermore, how do you know that Fick isn't trying to "get the hell over it"? My maternal grandmother was a huge racist, but at the same time she was crossing the street to avoid black people in her neighborhood, she was (slowly, oh so slowly) working her way through an old bell hooks book I had read in college. People are a work in progress.
If you're going to take anything away from this thread, it is the message that snapper has a really, really dismal depressing view of sex and sexuality.
I suppose we can chalk up another scalp for the Catholic Church.
There should be some discrete term to describe the fallacy of attributing to the thinking of Robert Fick far more nuance and subtlety than any evidence has ever suggested capable by Robert Fick. That term should probably be German.
So, Honey BooBoo then.
I agree with this. I just doubt his statements from this podcast were nuanced or considered to this level. Robert Fick has never struck me as a deep thinker. Or even a kiddie pool shallow wader thinker, for that matter.
I've had a woman in my office trying to convert me for the last month. We work together fine. It isn't close to the first time in the past decade, in the past five years. I haven't had a gay man try to convert me since 1998.
Think back yourself - how do these compare in your life, evangelicals trying to convert you vs. gay men trying to convert you?
Furthermore, how do you know that Fick isn't trying to "get the hell over it"?
I don't. If he is, based on what he said about not wanting gay men around in his workplace, I think he should try harder; and more power to him.
I have had people of differing religious faiths (usually evangelical protestants of stripe or another) try to convert me.
The Jehovah's witnesses have been the most annoying, I've been told that the Mormons can be to, but haven't had a problem with them.
The question wasn't whether or not you could "work together fine". It was whether or not that person would make you uncomfortable.
I've had both happen once or twice. I'm not interested, but you can't really blame either for trying.
I am not speaking for Snapper, but as the only other person in this thread who appears to be on his side in this discussion, this statement could not be more wrong. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, within the context of a faithful, loving marriage. I realize that many of you think that it is wonderful outside the context of marriage, but just because we do not, that does not mean that we think that it is dismal and depressing.
The guy with the clown thing would probably have a literal heart attack and die if he had to be that close to a clown of any sort.
There's a local entertainer who performs as Buffo, the World's Strongest Clown. Tears phone books in half, that sort of thing. Anyway, one time my department was out having lunch together, and Buffo walked into the restaurant, and my former co-worker screamed like a little girl and hid under the table. Not kidding.
Unless the marriage in question is between two dudes, or two ladies, I guess. Then they're just filthy sodomites.
Well 'fick' is German for fuck, which brings this whole thread full circle.
And I am going to go with Fickverständnisfehlshluss.
I have never been uncomfortable around any christians, evangelical or otherwise.
If that's how you like to swing, swing it that way brahmin. But as Vlad points out @139, it's unjust to deny gays and lesbians access to that same "wonderful, beautiful thing" just because you are hung up on an outmoded definition of "marriage." Either embrace the idea that loving couples should get married to validate their sexual longing, or accept that sex isn't a marriage-based instinct.
Me neither. But Mormons and Scientologists totally creep me out. I could never share a locker room with Manti T'eo.
Drew 111 walks as a 19 year old?
Well, to be fair, no self respecting gay man would want to be seen in public with a guy with that hair.
To Dmitri Young: Sir! Are you saying that straight guys crack each others' backs in the shower? Clarify, please.
Of course, it's also pretty preachy to imply that sex is only a wonderful, beautiful thing within the context of a faithful and loving relationship when that relationship is officially sanctioned by either God or the government.
Don't have time to catch up to this thread, but just wanted to point out that you're completely misunderstanding me.
I think sex is absolutely wonderful. A great thing.
What I have a dismal view of, is the fallen nature of man. Humans are generally selfish, venal, short-sighted, and prone to doing immoral things because of their "feelings". It is the misuse of sexuality driven by these failings that I find dismal.
Page 3 of 5 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.