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 0.5742 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.
.
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
(but of course they hate us for our freedoms)
This probably happens a lot here with all the anonymous BBTF handles, but most just let it go.
Of course, they are not fools.
And neither is the US State Dept. or the CIA. If we 'uns can cipher this out, it's pretty damn obvious. It's all a snow job.
The US (and Isreal) know the Iranians are trying to go nuclear - and probably know within a 18 month window when this will be - but they know they don't really have the political will or capital to stop it. And stopping it FOR REALS means many 100,000s of boots on the ground in a country nearly as rugged as Afghanistan with a population twice as big and a better industrial/technology base.
From Iran's perspective - what they want exactly is to on the surface appear to be complying (so that the US/NATO can lie less brazenly to their fear-the-nuclear-brown-man populous) while covertly making it seem that their weapons development is a forgone conclusion WITH the added constraint of trying to spend as little hard currency as possible (since the weapons of course, will never be used) - This is the USSR "missile gap" strategy that Iraq attempted a little too strongly, underestimating the "one free swing at neutral power of your choice" the NeoCons got in after 9/11.
If you'd told me in 1978 that I'd hear about the election of the Pope-after-next via a BBTF comment, I would have stared blankly into the future :)
They've spent too much time recently focusing on preparations for the WBC. Less Punto, more Papam!
Not quite. He is of Italian descent. He's clearly eligible for the Italy WBC team.
More seriously, I think a Jesuit is always a pretty solid pick.
The Jesuits have historically discouraged their members from accepting ecclesiastic office.
They were founded for education and evangelization. There has certainly been tension with some national Churches, probably because they pledge special loyalty to the Pope, and historically in Europe, the Church in France and Spain tended to have divided loyalties between the King and the Pope.
There's always tension between religious orders and "secular" diocesan clergy. The local clergy never like it when a religious is made bishop instead of "one of their own". It's kind of an insult to the local clergy that none of them are good enough.
As cardinal, Bergoglio became known for personal humility, doctrinal conservatism and a commitment to social justice. A simple lifestyle contributed to his reputation for humility. He lived in a small apartment, rather than in the palatial bishop's residence. He gave up his chauffeured limousine in favor of public transportation, and he reportedly cooked his own meals.
I think the nature of the conclave makes it hard for a young candidate. Most don't make Cardinal until their sixties, and it takes a while to become well known among the other Cardinals; they don't get together all that often.
It takes unique circumstance for a younger Cardinal to be well known enough to get 2/3 of the vote. John Paul II had the advantage of the earlier conclave in 1979 to become known among the other Cardinals.
He must have really cleaned up in the dance competition.
It's also possible to eventually replace optic fibres with directional, non-material vehicles to get the atoms from one place to another.
Poor Andrew Cuomo. He rushed to the scene to mug for the cameras and the damn Catholics went and hired a new Pope.
Good thing the cardinals dodged that bullet, huh?
Some guy shot set his house on fire, shot up a car wash, shot up a barbershop, four dead, two in critical condition, currently in standoff with SWAT in the middle of our little nowhere in rural New York.
Poor Andrew Cuomo. He rushed to the scene to mug for the cameras and the damn Catholics went and hired a new Pope.
I doubt you're far, I expect to see you show up at his next appearance in Mohawk and give him what for.
I'm going to call him Pope Psycho
Jesuits have historically been a bit more focused on the Church's mission of helping and educating the poor. They are not shy about reminding people in the Church of this fact, and it tends to annoy people.
I, for one, am pretty darn excited about this selection. He definitely has flaws, but he's at the least focused on the people of the Church, rather than the clergy. Still pretty conservative on marriage/women/homosexuality, but a definite step forward.
In this spirit, I'd like to call back to page 2...
I was in a meeting yesterday where someone put an apostrophe in the wrong place (employee's when they meant employees') and one person asked about the rule. No problem, I explained it. Then they asked about names ending in "S" and I was able to tell them that doing "Charles'" is an older form, not as commonly used, not recommended by many style guides, but AP still uses it so they could expect to see it in newspapers, etc.
Made me look like a genius. Or a freak, I'm not sure which. Got quite a few "How do you know that stuff?" I did not mention that I picked it up on a baseball site during work hours.
849-Comment from 'Pope'
To be fair His Eminence is just the Pope of us Gregs, not the Pope.
I really hope that all Gregs on this site make sure to come to this thread and affirm their allegiance to Greg Pope. We're off to a good start.
It's bad enough that I can't really Google myself because of the name.
This is both feature and bug. My name is very easy to Google, just a couple of me world wide.
There's actually another Dan Szymborski out there, in Illinois or Michigan. I assume we're related (but don't know how), but I've decided that he's my arch-nemesis.
I understand the confusion between s's and s' but cannot fathom why so many folks -- even some folks here -- would write "employee's" when referring to multiple people.
It is understood that workers are owned by there employer and the possesive is an attempt to note that and fight back against the MAN! Or not.
Dear Mister Language Person: What is the purpose of the apostrophe?
A. The apostrophe is used mainly in hand-lettered small- business signs to alert the reader that an "S" is coming up at the end of a word, as in: WE DO NOT EXCEPT PERSONAL CHECK'S, or: NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ITEM'S. Another important grammar concept to bear in mind when creating hand-lettered small- business signs is that you should put quotation marks around random words for decoration, as in "TRY" OUR HOT DOG'S, or even TRY "OUR" HOT DOG'S.
My only living namesake I'm aware of is a competitive beard-grower. I keep hoping there'll be a beardathon in the Bay Area & he shows up.
For years, googling my last name turned up page after page of me, but online pseudonyms and lack of real world accomplishment pretty much wiped that out. (Not that that stuff was interesting, but who knows if a prospective employer would hate baseball or my other pursuits.)
I have two doppelgangers, one used to be a geology professor, but has now turned to the darkside and works for an Oil Company
the other one very well may be the oldest living Catholic Priest in the US (if not the world)
As far as I know, we've never been seen in the same room at the same time.
I've also gotten at least two phone calls over the last few years asking if I'm a certain music teacher. (The only thing I've ever played is the stereo.)
1st two hits are both my facebook page related (meh)
hits three and four are my portrait as a 19th century baseball playing fox
hit five is stat page in the Scarborough Adult Baseball League (which for some reason has a baseball card of Don Mossi as my bio shot)
hit six is my stat page in the British Baseball Federation
EDIT: Actually Alben Koebel who played 89 games in the Class D Ohio State League over 1941-1942 is a better fit.
There are thousands of me.
Link
Yeah, there are 2 or fewer of me. There are fewer than 117 of my last name, which I think is the lowest default setting, all probably related.
I got 117 of my last name as well.
And 1 or fewer of me! As I'm not American I assume that means that one is not me.
Misrlou, my kids have a made-up last name, formed by smooshing together my wife's and my last names. I'm extremely confident nobody else has their last name. That name got the same "117 or fewer" message.
No, when I lived in Eastern Europe, I discovered the word swoboda means freedom. I am a mets fan and always thought Swoboda was a cool name. Actually in Ball Four, Joe Morgan talks about how it should be a superstar name. Of course, he wasn't that good.
In terms of books, I was thinking more of 1984, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery. My last name is Cox, actually.
Vseukrayinske obyednannia Svoboda not so much.
In The Devil's Alternative, Ukranian freedom fighters take over a supertanker in the North sea, and demand their breatheran be released or else they will blow up the ship. The leader called himself Svoboda, which he claimed meant freedom.
But what, other than the images, in those 10 pages of links, wasn't me? Well, somewhere on the third or fourth page, there was a player card from some league of Sim Dynasty Baseball for a fictional catcher with my name, a brief career in the 1970's, deceased some time in the 1990's. Could one of you guys have been using my name?
I would say that is everyone, but most democrats support that stuff with or without knowing someone personally. I mean I am glad he has decided to move to the side of light on 1 issue at least. Maybe it is the politics of it, you need a family member to "provide cover" for your support, otherwise you get voted out of office or something.
Edit: References to me take up almost the whole first page of Google results (after telling Google I really did type my last name correctly, no I don't want to search the other more common spelling). There are some dead guys mixed in also, probably ancestors.
I've heard this criticism a lot and, while I understand it, having a lot of disagreement with these church doctrines, I don't get it because there was NO WAY a pope would be elected who was going to say being gay is fine and women should be priests and divorce is cool and everyone should be given 5000 condoms. It just isn't going to happen.
For one thing, the people electing popes are old, conservative men.
For a second, for every "liberal" Catholic in the west there are a two conservatives in the west and a dozen conservatives in the developing world. Hold a straight up democratic election involving every Catholic on the planet on these issues that the US focuses on and the liberal side loses in a landslide of epic proportions.
But the church still wields a lot of influence and is in position to do a lot of good (and bad). If they elect a thoughtful, non-corrupt, intellectual who can clean house in the Vatican, I'm pretty cool if he still thinks women shouldn't be priests.
If you want the Catholic Church to hold different views on the issues described above, what you really want is a different church. If you live in the US you are, of course, free to find one. They're out there. Although, I'll be honest, my first thought attending mass with my wife (who is/was Catholic at the time) is that, wow, this church is really liberal (when compared to the protestant churches in middle America I was raised in).
For me, the selection was cool as it could be simply because NPR fumbled as badly as they did. They seemed completely unprepared for his election. Which seems odd if he was a key contender last time. The announcement came during Talk of the Nation and neither the host nor the reporter they went to seemed to have any clue to any fact about the guy except he was from Argentina. The reporter eventually just punted and said she'd go do some research (which was a nice, honest admission for what had been obvious for 30 seconds - that she hadn't a clue who he was).
There are over 7500 people with my name. I suspect 20 years ago there were a lot more.
Only 7 with my wife's name. If she had taken my name, there would be 21000 of her. A factor of 3000 with one name change.
My last name is, like, 150 years old - was changed prior to immigration from Olsen. There's a California wing I've never met and a few people in Norway, but otherwise, I know 'em all.
That's interesting - I hadn't researched it but I had seen him get press this time as well.
I watched the announcement on CNN and they were just as clueless. As the Cardinal (don't remember his name or title) told the crowd, there was about 45 seconds of near silence from the talking heads. Some paper shuffling and some muffled whispers is all.
Lets see what they say if we mix some name types:
There are 2 people in the U.S. named Mohammed McMahon.
There are 3 people in the U.S. named Mohammed Schwartz.
With a sample of two, it seems to me that they don't do much correlation, but I think I'd like to meet those guys if they exist.
There are supposedly 19 people with my exact name, which seems about right.
I mean, I agree with you here. It's still disappointing because I feel like the Church is wrong on those issues. Those issues are pretty much why I am not a practicing Catholic. FYIW, I don't lump divorce in there. I find the Catholic teaching on Divorce okay.
No doubt. However, the Catholic church is not a democratic institution. The Church is way out in front on issues like the Death Penalty, social justice and other things. Death Penalty would also lose in an election. Respecting gay people's choice on who they want to love is not an issue that is subject to majority belief. (I'm not saying that you hold those views, just pointing out my feelings on it.)
As far as joining another church ... I'm not a big fan of most protestant dogma. Anything with predetermination is out. Anglicans are out--it's hard to get into religions founded based on one man's need to get off.
Well, Henry was indeed a womanizer, but he didn't need the church's blessing to sleep with another woman. He was doing plenty of that on his own. What he needed was the Church's blessing to marry another woman who was more likely to give him a legitimate male heir, his country having recently come out of 100 years of turmoil and bloodshed as a result of murky dynastic succession. And under different circumstances, the church would have readily given it's sanction, but for the political wranglings of another monarch, Charles V. Under the circumstances, Henry did the right and proper thing for his country, and eventually gave them the Tudor successor they needed, though not without a few bumps in the road.
Anyway, I read howmanyofme's FAQ. They do assume first and last name independence.
***
If you're comfortable elaborating on what you do or don't want in a church, tshipman, I'd listen...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main