User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3727 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
I know for a fact that JE does not have an attic, Spivey, nor is he a racist or a person that huffs paint (coffee is another story!). However, I can assume by your comment that you do have an attic and that there are apparently a lot of toys in it.
i thought that wearing horns had something to do with your spouse cheating on you
but then again i can't figure out who is or is not jewish because jews come in all colors and races and may look exactly like arabs or like mao tse tung or like yaphet kotto so youneverknow and i still can't tell which White people are supposed to "look jewish" unless they dress like hasidic or are men wearing a yarmulke (and no one has yet explained why females don't wear em)
but i have learned all KINDS of interesting stuff about jews since i started chatting with Youse Peeple on this here board mostly because every person i ever met (except one) before i got here who was jewish is Black. or i should say that i KNEW was jewish because i guess i don't have "jew-dar" and never thought to ask any of the White people i knew, worked for or talked to if they were jewish.
The hell it is.
The hell it is.
So what if she'd said that it made them honorary Johnny Rebs? Would that be okay?
Will that be one mint in your julep or two?
Didnt we already establish in another thread that Mao was the Last Person on Earth Who Could Possibly be Jewish? Or was it Attila?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtetl
Other kinds of Jews (Sephardic Jews, for instance, who come from Spain and Portugal and were expelled during the inquisition) may share a similar religion, but have a fairly distinct culture that is mostly alien to the stereotypical American conception of Jewishness (no Yiddish, for instance). Most Israeli Jews are still, I believe, of Ashkenazi descent but have obviously adopte Middle Eastern cultural characteristics (particularly in terms of food...my grandfather never heard of falafel in his life) and certainly these days many of them look like middle easterners.
Mao might not have been Jewish, but his wall made that Wailing one look like a garden fence.
Are you Daniel Salerno?
If you are, you sure got their attention. But as you (or Salerno) note(s), it was also clear from the restaurant owners' response that they weren't racists at all, but merely civil war history buffs who were clueless about how the Confederate battle flag (which flew alongside the flag of the 54th Massachusetts) would appear to the uninitiated. It wasn't like they were sticking a bunch of Confederate bumper stickers on their delivery trucks.
I also see that the Confederate battle flag was replaced by another Confederate flag (the original Stars and Bars) which doesn't have nearly the symbolic connotations of the one that was objected to. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me.
I also see that the Confederate battle flag was replaced by another Confederate flag (the original Stars and Bars) which doesn't have nearly the symbolic connotations of the one that was objected to. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me.
I agree. That was a good outcome. Two weeks later they took down the Confederate national flag and put the Battle Flag back up. It is now the only flag visible from the street.
"People are complicated."
not on BBTF, they aren't.
So what was the reasoning behind their reversal? I couldn't find any followup story.
Saying that everyone who disagrees with you is emotionally stunted is clear sign of emotional maturity.
Horns on a Jewish person I hadn't heard before, but I'm assuming it could be related to the Renaissance depiction of Moses with horns. It comes from a mistranslation in the Latin bible which said Moses came down off Sinai with a horned face after shooting the #### with God. Turns out it should have been translated as "a radiant face". But horns it was and so statues like Michaelangelo's Moses have little horns on the chap.
The horns of the cuckold I believe is a metaphor common to many cultures around the world and refer to the practice in the deer world of the male part of a couple getting unceremoniously tossed aside when a better male saunters by.
that said
us texans are NOT southerners. or westerners. we are texans.
WJ
i have had the whole ashkenazi/yiddish thing explained to be before. however, it is very difficult for me to see obvious or significant ethnic resemblance between 2 people who are jews. harrison ford doesn't look anything like jerry seinfeld to me. neither one looks anything like scott schoenweis or brad ausmus or kirk douglas. so how i am supposed to "tell" by looking, i'm not real too sure.
ESPECIALLY now that i find out there ain't no horns, just horn dogs, and how that makes jewish men different from any other kind of men i'm not real too sure.
greg UK
i always learn something new from you - very interesting about the pic of moses wearing horns
and i didn't know that wear the horns was gender specific - not sure what they call a female cuckold - probably, Old Bag
Cuckolded women is probably too recent a phenomenon for the same amount of cultural imagery to grow up around it. And by that I of course mean society at large caring about it is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm sure women have been cheated on as long as men have, but for various reasons (mostly the fact that men have ran society for thousands of years in the West, but also the parental certainty issue) men being cuckolded has been a more significant cultural "event".
I'm not sure how the horns would work, but there was (is?) such a thing as a "cuckquean" - essentially a female cuckold. It's a term you see sparsely in the 1500s and 1600s but I'm not sure if I've ever heard it in modern English...maybe I'm just not frequenting the correct websites.
And thank you for the kind words. I'm just glad my area of expertise (disasterously failed relationships, both past and present) comes up so often!
EDIT: I should add that though I have seen "cuckquean" around I'm not entirely sure what associations it carried with it. A cuckold was a considered a bit of an idiot, and someone to scorn and laugh at. "Quean" by itself was a variation on "whore". It wouldn't at all be surprising (and somewhat paradoxical) if cuckolded women were assigned overly sexual characteristics.
Medieval lore sort of expanded on this and claimed cuckoo's slept around a lot.
Medieval Bestiaries are fun to peruse -
Apes always have twins, one of whom the mother loves and one she hates
Beavers often castrate themselves so that hunters do not kill them for their prized testicles
The Onager is a wild ass that predicts all equinoxes and the king castrates all males born into the herd. I'm not sure how all this castrating is happening, I'm assuming through biting, which sounds unpleasant (by castration standards)
And of course, we all know Crocodiles shed tears after eating humans, but did you know that their excrement makes you beautiful if you rub it on your face and wait for your sweat to flush it off?
The only thing I rushed to was to ask, in essence, "why the rush to assume the best?" Not knowing means not knowing, period, which was my only point. I don't think I posted any indictments of Scott; I just questioned some posters who acted like they knew things about this without presenting much basis for it. I appreciate the additional quotes that have since been provided by others (since I was too freakin' lazy to look any of it up myself), and found them quite informative.
FWIW, I have had similar "playful banter" type relationships with several close friends over the years (none of them African American, however). I've called these guys mick and jew-boy and kike and spic, and they've called me dago and guinea and wop. I guess the difference is that we'd all be pretty damned pissed off if any of that made it into print. Good thing none of us ever got famous.
The only thing I rushed to was to ask, in essence, "why the rush to assume the best?"
I'm not rushing to assume anything, other than that Scott's quoted banter with Pie tells us absolutely nothing about him without knowing the full context of their relationship. IOW it's basically a non-story unless you're looking to build some sort of a case against Scott's character.
But I'd guess that'd be because you'd be afraid of having your banter misinterpreted, not because you'd have any reason to be ashamed of it. Harper may simply not be that aware that there's a sizable class of people who seem to live for the moments of being able to pounce on stuff like this. He is only 19, after all.
Generally speaking, the world would be a much better place if people assumed the best by default.
Why is it at all important for people like us to know whether Luke Scott is a racist? It only becomes important when we want to characterize him negatively on the basis of some comments that may or may not be in context.
One of my friends is half-black, and we somewhat regularly refer to him as four-fifths of a person. Another friend paid him a dollar to eat a piece of watermelon last night (because he's a very picky eater). People that know us well know that there's no racist intent, but we wouldn't come off well in print if selectively quoted.
Genetic evidence says the various parts of the Diaspora are closely related to each other and not so much to the surrounding population.
Harper may be wondering what the hell he ever did to warrant being confused with a racist like Luke Scott.
Harper may be wondering what the hell he ever did to warrant being confused with a racist like Luke Scott.
Holy s***, and social embarrassment cubed. The only possible explanation I can think of is that up until recently Harper also had a reputation as a redass, they both hit lefthanded and they both sport facial hair. Of course about a hundred other players also fit that description, but as Srul would say, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
I'd chalk it up to you talking up Harper in a simultaneous thread.
HELL yes. As Jose noted, 4 seconds is an insane amount of time to devote to this 'decision.' Also, I suspect, like Jose, I'd trade either one of them for early-mid 'aughts Francona.
Yes, what could possibly go wrong.
Is that Britain's pre-war joke?
I find a good rule of thumb is to think about the down-side if you're wrong and the person is a jerk. Hypothetically, if Luke Scott turns out to be human scum what has our misplaced assumption cost us?
Obviously when it comes to foreign policy and genocidal dictators there's a bit more of a down-side.
Nothing at all, whereas if you make the opposite mistake you've slandered an innocent person.
Wait, what about how good it feels to be self-righteous?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfvTwv5o1Qs
Or, you know, tolerance of such crypto-racist behaviour enables a societal structure, where e.g. the Trayvon Martin incident becomes possible. But yeah, much easier to go with nothing at all.
I think that's a bit of a stretch.
But yeah, much easier to go with nothing at all.
I'd say it's harder. It's harder to avoid a snap judgment, because we're very conditioned to make quick decisions on partial information, especially when that information is provocative.
Demanding context and accepting that you should not pass judgment with impartial information is the more difficult position. Just like it's harder to accept a system that lets guilty people go free rather than to just accept that the accused are "probably guilty."
Yeah, sentence first, verdict later. That's always a terrific rule. But maybe you should ask Felix Pie why he's soft on Scott's crypto-racism. Or perhaps you could sell him one of those Chico Marx code books so he won't be so confused the next time.
I've actually used Parcheesi in phrases like this, but I have absolutely no idea what it is.
Which leads me to an interesting concept for a show I just found out about - "I've Never Seen Star Wars". Celebrities come on and do things they've managed to avoid all their lives and grade them. Rory McGrath (a British comedian) had somehow managed to have never seen Fawlty Towers (after watching it he thought it was crap). There was also an interesting scene where Nigel Havers was first introduced to the Smiths (he hated it) and demanded that the host explain why people like such drivel.
One of Havers' other tasks was to watch the Simpsons for the first time. I haven't seen that clip but I'd be curious to know his response. For some reason I always love hearing an outsider's perspective on the things I love, even if it is negative. I find it forces me to articulate to myself why it is I like the things I do.
For the pugilism enthusiasts out there, Stephen Fry boxing
Way to completely miss the point. If people had put up with less of Zimmerman's own behaviour, he might not have been out prowling the streets for his imaginary demons in the first place. By never standing up to him, the people in that neighbourhood enabled him. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing:
It's sad that I actually have to spell this out for you.
I do agree with that, but I think the issue is determining what's evil. How much, and what kind of evidence do we need before we're sure enough someone is evil to denounce them? I don't think there's ever an easy answer to that, but in Luke Scott's case I'm not sure we've reached that line yet.
While denouncing evil is noble and good for society as a whole, it does come with a price that has to be considered in any moral calculus.
I need some explanation here. What exactly is a cuckolded woman? I thought a cuckolded man was one who's partner got pregnant by another man and then the cuckolded man raises the child without being aware that it's not his. I guess if he found out he woulds still be cuckolded, but I thought that the tricking was essential to the definition. Obviously that wouldn't work for woman. Unless you're talking about babies switched at birth or something.
i thought that cuckold meant that the cuckolded person was an object of contempt/amusement because the spouse was cheating on them behind their back. if you think of females, think of maria shriver or christie brinkley or even a young and beautiful woman like halle berry or reese witherspoon or uma thurman.
the cuckolded man might could raise another man's child without knowing it is his, but the cuckolded woman would have to put up with her husband having children with another woman. even more humiliating.
but i guess not. sort of like it used to be OK for a man to shoot his wife/sexual partner if he caught them in the act (crime of passion) but it was not ok for a wife to shoot her husband/sexual partner if she caught them in the act
I think the literal connection to the cuckoo is what you describe. However, your wife cheating on you was also sufficient to get labelled a "cuckold". Of course these things vary over time. In the early modern period there was some measure of deception necessary. However, cuckold is used nowadays to describe any infidelity. In fact, those with a cuckold fetish actually watch the infidelity.
As far as I know "cuckquean" used in the 16th and 17th centuries essentially just means a woman who's husband is sleeping around without her knowing.
For the purposes of a society where everything depended on inheritance female infidelity was more dangerous. Since the husband's children by another woman were clearly born outside of marriage they could be easily identified as illegitimate. Female infidelity was almost impossible to identify (and therefore in a sense female fidelity was impossible to prove perfectly). That's essentially the source of the anxiety for men. Add to that the fundamental gender inequality in pre-modern society and that's where you get the infidelity double-standard.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main