TheLeviathan

Given their offensive production and pitching this year, their record now is a far more accurate indicator of their play than what it was last week.

Well, yeah, we just haven't talked about it around here yet,

Or I could get really depressing and talk about it in regards to Diamond too...

So, you mean we can't have a bottom half offense and a bottom half starting pitching staff and stay above .500?

Alright, I think I can say it definitively now: It's not the weather, this sideline girl just cannot string multiple sentences together without falling all over herself. It's painful and someone may need to show her some mercy and minimize how often they spotlight her.

While that is encouraging about helping get our offense off the life support....it's scary as hell to think about how much worse our pitching staff could get if weather is suppressing offense right now.

You sure it's not Delmonzie?

There are worse things they could do with their money.

On purpose in case any of the spin doctors for the team wanted to attack the idea. I could see doing this for Mauer or another very important part of the team....but a damn backup OF? DL him immediately when he can't play and get things figured out. I'd hate to see someone quantify the Twin's medical staff on correct injury diagnoses. It'd probably make Drew Butera's hitting look like Mauer.

So an injury to a roleplayer that needs 15-16 weeks to recover and we still took 3 weeks to DL him and figure out the situation was worse than we thought. I'm glad it was "only" three weeks this time...but jesus, this is getting old.

Well, at least this year we only had him limping around on the major league roster for 2-3 weeks instead of 2-3 months before he was diagnosed with "needs surgery and will miss significant time" Huzzah improvement!

Well...he ain't getting any younger. And Pelfrey/Hernandez ain't getting any better. I don't understand why he's not here. Especially if the GM seems to think he's ready to go.

Berardino may be the only reason I know the Pioneer Press exists. He almost makes it worthwhile to subscribe. For opinion, I go hot and cold on Reusse and on Mackey.

Luckily, Brock is as good at hitting the ban button as some posters are about sensing sarcasm.

And there it is - you picked procreation specifically to push out the group you don't want to include. Your principle is to exclude SSM and you now back off your claims when push comes to shove. Not two posts ago you talked "impossibility" and now its about "mostly". That's embarrassing. Just say nothing. Its better than changing your argument to save face. The answer is yes. There is nothing about "a marriage between more than two people" that precludes any of your premises. There is nothing that is contrary to the nature of that. You were actually using that idea properly, but now you back off it when it doesn't work for your argument. How convenient. You don't get to apply cultural tendencies - polygamy, definitionally, does not violate any premise in its nature. None. Thanks for playing though, if you hadn't been so pretentious about your own logical certainty I'd let it slide. BUt you chose the playing field, don't scurry and whine when your own game fails you.

Brock isn't the Czar of us anymore...quit kissing up.

Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own. Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.

I'm done on this after this post. Your argument is boxed and you refuse to see it. It's boxed by your own arguments. These are all your opinions of polygamy, they have nothing to do with the idea that polygamy (the marriage of more than two people) "can" do to fit your premise. None of what you stated proves that these are "impossible" for polygamist. The fact - the truth - is that it CAN do all of those things. You cannot prove it false. Not to mention you are presupposing polygamy is only a male with a harem, I've never said anything about that. Your definition, as stated, is not "false" for polygamy. Not any moreso than it would be for hetero couples that can't get pregnant or the elderly. You made the terms about "can" they do this so that homosexuals would fail a few of them. In your words - you defined it as such to make some of your definition was "impossible" for homosexual couples. Strictly (truthfully) speaking - none of those conditions are "impossible" for a polygamist marriage. Well, polygamists don't fail your premises. They "can", it is not "impossible" - your argument fails to exclude them. So either you accept the consequences of your argument or you amend it. There is no wiggle out. And this is far from nitpicking - this is taking your argument and applying it. I'm undermining your intentions with it to show that this argument is only crafted to suppress gay marriage. (If you remember, you threw the same gauntlet at Brock) If you had a principled argument, you'd accept the consequences - which include polygamy being worthy of fostering.

"Arent well met" is as irrelevant as it was when the challenge of infertile couples was laid on you. I believe you said the "principle" of the definition is that they "can" regardless of whether they actually do. You are using the same sorts of arguments you already said don't apply on "principle". Please don't play weasels games...either your argument is bunk or you have a logical retort.

I just realized...none of this is necessary. You have already rejected such charges when dealing with the infertile or elderly. There is nothing that gets you out of the box that polygamy "can" (using your term in your manner) offer all of those conditions. Incestuous couples "can" too (though you might be able to wiggle out of that just a bit) So, with that argument thoroughly in a box, I happily welcome you to the group of us saying we don't have to stick with just "traditional marriage" anymore! I argue we allow SSM, you argue for polygamy....tomato, tom(ah)to in this club!

Well, that's easy to stop doing it when you stop posting it. If anything, the real fault is the three pages it took for you to make YOUR points and not rely on Keys' circular rant.

Then "traditional marriage", as you have so defined it, didn't existi as far back as you have repeatedly claimed. So why the distinction? In fact, I'd argue your definition is incredibly infantile in western culture to keep using phrases like that. Well, you don't think so or you know it wasn't? Since at least two of your 4 relevant premises are so recent, why such resistance to another change? Hell, one could argue men taking a more prominent parenting role in the last 100-200 years was every bit as risky to some as gay marriage is to you now If it's true that masculine identity is essential, why not double it up? Explaining your reasoning to your premise is helpful. Um, if your premise wasn't happening for thousands of years, it's relevant. Marriages weren't helping transform healthy sexual adults for thousands of years because they were selling them off, giving them away, etc. the moment they became sexualized. It was never part of marriage and yet you are using it as a premise. And I would argue you're using it as a premise to conveniently further your agenda, not because it has any true value or relevance to marriage. None of this defeats my charge. You have presented nothing here that indicates polygamy is any more questionable than your average heterosexual marriage. Any threat that exists in polygamy, exists in heterosexual marriages. In fact, there are far higher divorce rates in average heterosexual marriages, making their ability to meet 2-3 perhaps MORE dubious than polygamous ones. Your further points are just speculation. Whose to say there wouldn't be situations in which one woman would marry multiple men? In fact, reverse polygamy is probably more ideal than traditional marriage according to your criteria. . You said marriage dictates progeny obligations. It does not. At all.

You may be right. But no one here is arguing that. What the future brings as far as the outcome of homosexual parenting is a bridge we can cross when we come to it. Though, personally, I don't see equality as a bad thing in and of itself. In this situation or any other.

That's good to hear jim. I like to think that if the new CB wasn't the way it was, we'd spend heavily overseas and in the draft....though I have my doubts about that too. I hope they are waiting for some future "right time to strike" - I just have so little reason to believe it's going to happen. It's pessimism I'm not proud of, but can't shake.

I chuckled, not sure if you're serious or not...but either way I chuckled!