Desipio Message Board

Quote from: MAD on February 18, 2009, 09:10:26 AM

Quote from: Jon on February 18, 2009, 09:05:01 AM

Quote from: Andy on February 18, 2009, 09:02:22 AM

If you don't send something in, I'm going to submit one of our shorter podcasts (one that times in around three hours) and Kermit and I will get the job and spend our one inning a game calling you a pussy.

That inning will last at least 75 minutes.

As long as Steve Trachsel comes back to pitch it, it'll be fine.

I think a Kermit/Andy/Santo pairing would be tremendous. I think Kermit and Andy would say something somewhat funny on Opening Day and somewhere in the 7th inning of a September game, you'll hear Santo begin to guffaw, finally grasping the punchline.

BC,

You do realize that you do not completely suck at your job, right? That already makes you an improvement.

Thanks,

T.J. Brown

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine.  I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics.  If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else.  If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.

You're taking quite a leap. Catholics who ordain women priests are not really Catholics. Catholics who disagree with the Church's teachings are Catholics, some of them very prominent Cardinals that the Vatican turns to.

As for transubstantiation, the official doctrine is that while the change in the bread and wine is undetectable, a change has occurred making the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. The matter has not changed. Similarly, I go to Bleed Cubbie Blue and while the computer monitor has not changed as far as matter goes, the monitor is quite different from what it was before I went there.

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox.  It's debilitating.  If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination.  Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.

Methodists embrace predestination?

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest.  That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.

If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'

Intellectual honesty would also recognize that many organized religious denominations have room for disagreements, whether you are talking about Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Sunni Muslims, or Bahai.  And even the most religious have had lingering doubts about their faith. Mother Teresa had persistent doubts and disagreements with the Vatican, but are you going to suggest she's not Catholic?

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on February 17, 2009, 03:59:35 PM
4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc.  But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.

Why isn't there anything persuasive in favor of free will? Why wouldn't God, to use another bad metaphor, swallow His whistle and let us play? If this world is but a test and a dress rehearsal for the next one, why wouldn't He let us figure out how to get things right?

Tank has already articulated a position I agree with far better than I have, but let's repeat it:

Quote

In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.

But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.

I won't argue with your tenet that the bill sucks. It most certainly does. It's populism, and prominent leaders from both parties practice way too much of it.

However, there is room for both religious faith and scientific reason.  Countless theologians with greater intellectual heft than I possess have grappled with the conflict of Faith and Reason, so I will refrain. One thing I believe: the scientific research we do has given us the power to do great things on a scale unimaginable even 50 years ago. It has also given us the power to do some evil (or at least harmful) things on a greater scale. If God gave us free will as I believe and is testing our ability to do the most good with the abilities we have as I believe, then advancing science is doing the work of God.

Quote from: Tank on February 17, 2009, 09:51:51 AM

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 17, 2009, 08:52:17 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 16, 2009, 10:37:54 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Maybe in retrospect, Jindal isn't doing quite the right thing. But at the same time, there isn't a law mandating a certain religion or prohibiting a certain one.

No, but this law may well serve to help flush an already fucked public school system further down the shitter.

Can you really not see the difference between: (a) the questions of whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or whether Thomas Jefferson personally chose to attend church at one point in his often contradictory life, and (b) a state government, at the urging of a group promoting religious education in public schools, changing their education standards to endorse the compulsory study of explicitly religious non-science as science in science classrooms?

Hell, even the Catholic Church (to which 30% of Louisianans belong, including their governor) all but officially accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, and is generally, if not officially, of the opinion that "intelligent design" (which "isn't science even though it pretends to be") ought to be kept out of science classrooms.

Upon reading that, the Church's opinion is essentially, God created evolution.  Perfect.

Seems to me that, if you believe in a creator God and accept the truth of evolution, this just comes with the territory.

I doubt the Catholics believe in either a remote and limited Newtonian watchmaker God or a pantheistic God who's one-and-the-same with their creation, but between these two poles there's probably still an infinite range of potential theologies compatible with scientific reality.

FWIW... This guy.

This.

And to Tank's response to my comments earlier, thank you. I agree.

Holy shit, does this mean I'm a goddamn Pinko commie now? Nah.

That was fantastic. I feel like I know Rich Harden already. What does Ted Lilly's 25 things look like?

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 16, 2009, 06:05:57 PM
Don't be fooled, guys. 

This whole thing is a twisted plot of Chuck's to get people to actually pay attention to their school board elections.

I know. But you know what's the kicker to all this? He's probably already lost my vote. And my wife's. Sorry Chuck. I sold the house to a gentleman named Yellon.

Let's get this straight. Jindal did not ban creationism from being taught in schools.  Did he require it? Does he have much authority to ban it/force it in schools? I don't know Louisiana law, and I question how much the blogger does either.  Is this something better left to local school boards?  Had Jindal tried banning/requiring creationism to be taught in the schools, would he be subjecting the state to hundreds of lawsuits?

Now if you excuse me, I'm looking for the text of the Stimulus Bill online so I can read it.

So...

Quote# Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
# Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

How's this working out so far?

Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2009, 03:04:22 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 01:34:10 PM

Quote from: Fork on February 11, 2009, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 12:39:48 PM

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on February 11, 2009, 12:12:29 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on February 11, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
This could be fun:  http://www.businessreport.com/archives/daily-report/2009/feb/11/814/

Please let me know if the link doesn't work.  It did for me when I previewed this post.  If it doesn't work, it says that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal will give the GOP's response to President Obama's speech to Congress on February 24.  Just thought it was a bit interesting.

And who says the GOP doesn't exploit minorities.

I think both sides do their fair share.

Yeah, but the GOP does it more of a "Whaddya mean? We've got one RIGHT HERE!!!" way.

Is it any worse that "Look, here's a Greyhound-load full for ya's!"?  It's ridiculous, either way.

Or, you know, electing a president.  But, hey, you got Michael Steele!

This is dumb.

This.

PECOTA doesn't figure in sneak attacks by Houstonians.  Or is a Hurricane going to cost the Assholes 30 games in the standings this year?

Quote from: BH on February 04, 2009, 12:07:54 PM

Quote from: Kermit, B. on February 03, 2009, 11:43:04 AM

Quote from: 5laky on February 03, 2009, 10:08:33 AM
What I love about Michael is how he's a total moron and yet somehow he's the best branch manager in the company and they have to kiss his ass. The economy sucks (not sure if you've been hearing about that. you been hearin about that?) and he's the only one making money for Dunder-Mifflin. He seems to always close his business deals.

I love this show.

That's my favorite part of the show.  Why doesn't Dunder-Mifflin just fire his ridiculous ass?  Because he makes money.  In both the Applebee's episode with Tim Meadows, and the paper convention episode, he closed huge deals despite playing the fool the entire time.  They're clearly trying to cater to Weebs by making it BELIEVABLE that he would keep his job.

Time to get real. How likely is it that a guy who's completely socially inept at all facets of his life be so smooth when it comes to selling paper products? Riddle me that.

Who exactly buys paper products for your company?

The Cubs will be lucky to win 80 games this year. Sorry.

How about Sy's Lanes (formerly Gabby Hartnett's) on Lincoln Ave. in Lincolnwood?

Quote from: CT II on January 28, 2009, 11:08:29 AM

Quote from: butthead on January 28, 2009, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: Oleg on January 28, 2009, 09:27:07 AM

Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2009, 08:40:26 AM

Quote from: Zed on January 18, 2009, 07:02:37 PM
For teh record, I would be interested in a Desipio Bowling extravaganza. 

dress code?

Anyone ever bowl above a hardware store?

I like anything that makes my life easier, so I vote for Lincoln Square Lanes.

In that case, I vote for Wheaton Bowl.

Chuck and I vote for Pinstripes.