Fish Fry

that's right. You're entitled to your beliefs, but IMO that's just crazy.

Ok let me start over b/c youve misinterpreted me from the beginning. What Im saying is that the comment that Fritz made about nigerians and swedes can be interpreted as an inherent biological superiority argument which states that swedes are a perfected form of nigerians. Not unless you want to interpret it that way. I found no such argument in what Fritz was saying. It was perfectly valid and what is being taught in many history and anthropology classes - the first humans came from Africa and the characteristics of Scandanavians evolved from humans adapting to the harsh climates of the north. Evolution isn't always about creating inherently superior beings. It's about creating superior beings for the given environment in which those beings exist. Your interpretation is taking the environment completely out of it (which is equivalent to Hitler's "master race" stance), and while I know you weren't trying to argue for that; I just had trouble understanding how you came to that conclusion.

that's the thing, he didn't come to be. he was always there. So, let me get this straight - you have trouble believing that the universe has always existed (which would be consistent with the scientific principle of matter never being created nor destroyed), but you don't have trouble believing some big guy in the sky has been here forever and wasn't, himself, created?

*sigh* this frustrates me. Not paticularly this issue but the whole confederate thing. I live far enough west of DC to be in an area where there are tons of confederate flags and whatnot. And I go to school in a small town in North Carolina. I don't get it. Why keep the confederate flag. What is it supporting? I don't even think they could really say what it supports anymore besides the "south". A guy I work with at my church is insane. I have worked with him two days and so far he has told me: 1. Lincoln was worse than Hitler 2. Roosevelt was a communist and ruined the US dollar. 3. Tons of racist statements not to mention arguing with me over why women should not vote. I just let him go on his rants because I really don't want to argue with someone like that but seriously how can anyone believe to the heart these kinds of things. It is just confusing to me, but whatever floats their boat I guess. We all can have varying opinions but such ignorance makes me sad. 643596[/snapback] His heart is in the right place on 1 and 2, hes just exagerrating. His heart is in the right place in comparing Lincoln to Hitler and calling Roosevelt a communist??? You're just as loopy as that guy is.

which lots of things do i relate with communism that have nothing to do with it? Just last week, you related the imperialist overtones of the movie "Hero" with communism; when it had nothing to do with it. 643394[/snapback] And what if I saw the same thing? Then you're just as off your rocker.

Science has largely been atheist in the recent century.? I think it may become more deist, at least recognizing God created the universe. How is science going to become deist, when it can't prove the existence of god? Science can't become deist anymore than it can become Smurfist.

Praying is the key word. Many people do pray to the govt, not on their knees at their bedside but they rely on govt aid so much its the same as faith in god. So my previous statement applies How is it the same? The government provides tangible aid that god does not. People who rely on the government have been given a real reason to do so.

The problem is that I'm not arguing that. I'm asking for clarification on a point and saying that something evlved from something else is a biological superiority argument. And if Fritz is someone who agrees with the African motherland theory then the swedes evolution from the nigerians is a hard hitting biological superiority argument similar to what hitler advocated Why is the swedes evolution from the nigerians a "biological superiority" argument? Hitler advocated inherent superiority, not conditional superiority.

"Remedy" by The Black Crowes. And keep your lovin' to yourself.

I'd do this deal in a second.

One more Would you Do This,? Ben Sheets and Jenkins for Castillo and Burnett? If Milwaukee ate half of Jenkins' contract, absolutely.

True enough about the vitamine C, but the turnip's ability to analyze and connect notions is still near zero. One cannot connect when no connection exists and no connection can be made, grasshopper.

I realize you HAVE to be right so I'm not going to continue this. Yet, you keep responding. It would be helpful if you actually read what other people wrote and stopped trying to convince yourself you're right. As usual. I'm reading what you're writing, and drawing parallels outside of the particular matter of Millar vs. Encarnacion to address the meat of your argument; which you keep avoiding. I'll put it to you as bluntly as I can without any analogies or parallels, if someone does something that is really stupid, yet everything turns out roses in spite of said stupidity, does it make what that person did any less stupid? That's basically what this boils down to. At this point you're arguing with yourself because your points, no matter how flawed, have nothing to do with your original comments that the FO were "idiots" and your post "indisputable". The facts that Millar is better than Encarnacion is indisputable. The numbers are there. Also, if paying a lesser player more money isn't idiotic then there is no such thing as an idiotic personnel move. Now you're using some ridiculous Agon/A-Rod thing...does it ever stop? So, you agree how ridiculous your argument sounds.

You can come up with all the assinine examples you want to convince yourself you're right but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The example has everything to do with the issue at hand. Your contention is that the Marlins won because they kept Encarnacion instead of Millar despite the fact that Millar is a better player. You could also take that exact same argument and say the Marlins couldn't have won in 2003 if A-Rod was their SS instead of A-Gon. It's a ridiculous argument. That's a hell of a stretch to make, just like it's a stretch to say that a particular dollar was responsible for someone winning the lottery over any other dollar. Just because someone does something stupid and has it turn out well through luck doesn't mean that it still wasn't stupid. It wasn't "idiocy" to trade Millar and other people, with differing points of view, can in fact "dispute" in a credible manner what you posted. You missed the point. They traded a better player who was a lifer in the organization and signed a lesser player for more money, and that's not idiocy?

If you like Final Fantasy-type RPGs, I say get it now.? It's incredible. 643392[/snapback] Isn't it a card game? That battle system is card-based, but it's not really a card game. It's more an RPG with an interesting twist on the battle system.

I disputed your comment that the organization were "idiots" for jettisoning Millar, not whether Encarnacion or Millar had the better stats and further that your post was, in your words, "indisputable". So, let's say you have a brand new Porsche Cayenne. It's legally yours and you sell it to someone for $1.00, and you took that $1.00 you got from selling the SUV and bought a lottery ticket; and that ticket wins the lottery, does it make you less of an idiot for selling a $60K+ SUV for $1.00?

Only to those with the imagination and analytical powers of a turnip.? :plain Turnips are an excellent source of vitamin C. www.truestarhealth.com/Notes/1982006.html

Debating with a person totally convinced that he and only he is right all of the time is an impossible task so I'm not going to even try. There's no point in trying, because you don't have any facts to back up your observations. Can you honestly tell me that the defensive improvements from Encarnacion in RF would even come close to the huge offensive advantage Millar provided? But I have do have the following observations, none of them based on stats or comparing the performance of one player versus another or one type of team built for speed, defense and pitching vs a team of bashers with a handy DH position for players who can't play defense. So, one player turns a team from an all defensive team to a no defense team? You're not making sense now. Even a pitching and defense team needs people that can hit the ball. This isn't the '60s or the '80s anymore. You contention is that management were idiots for attempting to trade Kevin Millar to Japan (ultimately seeing him land in Beantown through the skulduggery of Henry, Epstein and company) and yet because of that move the Marlins wound up winning the World Series in 2003. How can you make that leap? Encarnacion was either benched or ineffective for much of the playoffs, so if anything the guy was ancillary to the Marlins winning the Series. That's like saying, because the Marlins didn't sign Vlad Guerrero last offseason and they did sign Todd Hollandsworth that the Marlins wouldn't have won the series with Guerrero. Having jettisoned their number one malcontent, a player who continually spoke badly of ownership from the day they arrived in 2002, a player whose defensive play consistently turned otherwise sure outs into doubles with regularity, was in my mind absolutely the kind of thing winning teams do. I'm sure most of it came from the fact that ownership thought so little of his contributions that they couldn't offer him a measly $2 million/year considering how well he performed for the team over the years. Can you blame the guy? Your comparison of Encarnacion vs Millar's stats ignores several points, most importantly the resultant moves the Fish were able to make on the way to their championship, most notably the emergence of Miguel Cabrera and the signing of Mark Redman. Had Millar stayed, unless you believe he would have displaced Derrek Lee at first, he would have continued to play the outfield, poorly, and there would have been no urgency to bring Miggy up from the minors. For all we know, Cabrera may never have come up in 2002 because if you start to play out the scenario, not hiring Hollandsworth, his mid-season injury wouldn't have happened as a member of the Marlins. If Millar were still here slogging around in leftfield, because Encarnacion was going to be in right no matter what, for all we know, Cabrera might not still be a Fish and in fact one could construct a scenario where he, instead of Adrian Gonzalez would have been traded for either Urbina or Conine as the Marlins pushed to make acquisitions to aid in their run at the playoffs. Where would this team be then? That is a possibility. Although, another scenario could've been that the Marlins got tired of Encarnacion's anemic OF offense in and decided to bench Encarnacion (like Jack did in the playoffs) and call up Cabrera to see if he could give the team a shot in the arm. I don't think anyone could see any scenario where Cabrera got traded instead of Adrian Gonzalez. Cabrera was a much better prospect. Or quite possibly, the Marlins could've kept Millar, let Encarnacion go, still signed Hollandsworth and still had to bring up Cabrera. I want to get back to the malcontent thing as it relates to Mr. Millar. Can anyone imagine the daily tirades and feeding of the media with negative comments when Torborg was fired if Millar were still around? The clubhouse troubles he would have created? The disruption? We saw and heard enough of it in 2002 when Dempster and Floyd were traded to know how he would acted when Trader Jack was hired. There's a difference between getting upset over the team giving up on the season and being upset over a change in managers. I find it difficult to see Millar causing that much of a stink over the hire of an experience manager like McKeon. Usually in those situations, veteran players cause a ruckus when an inexperienced coach is hired mid-season, not when pedigreed coaches are brought in. You can spend all day comparing apples and oranges the way most statheads do ignoring their other facets of the game to be considered. You can call the FO idiots all you want but the fact is by removing Millar from the lineup they strengthened the team on the field and off. And it should be noted that even having won a World Series (finally), the Red Sox now wish to dispense with Mr. Millar's services by trading him away. Doesn't that tell you something? It doesn't tell me anything. After winning the World Series, the Marlins didn't wish to offer I-Rod a decent contract, and he went on to have another teriffic year. Is it Rodriguez' fault that the FO didn't want to deal with him fairly? I guess here is where you say, "If the FO had kept Pudge, the Marlins wouldn't have been able to contend this year, because this year's team was built around weak offense up the middle and a shoddy bullpen; keeping Pudge would've messed that formula up." I could go on and on but it all boils down to this - did the Marlins win without Kevin Millar? The answer is "indisputably" yes. Which has nothing to do with Millar being better than Encarnacion. Would Millar have been riding the pine in the playoffs like Enc? Probably not.

(regarding Millar) "...it's an indisputable fact that the Marlins were idiots for letting Millar go." 643739[/snapback] I dispute that. With what?

Sox are gonna eat his salary just to rid themselves of him. He needs a pressure free new start. You guys could give that to him. I say git 'er done.

If we kept Millar then we'd have had no Mark Redman,? Come seasons end would Millar be in RF over Cabrera?? or maybe he'd have made the throw from LF to Pudge to beat the Giants? There was no reason to even keep Encarnacion. Millar was a much better player. 643299[/snapback] I think you've had way too much eggnog this holiday season :beer :beer :beer 643304[/snapback] This is a matter of opinion. But this is what the marlins felt in 02-03, enc is younger, much better defensively considering hes a real OFer, he can steal bases, has pop in his bat, and a lot of potential. Keeping enc over millar was a no brainer This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Kevin Millar 03 - .276/.348/.472 04 - .297/.383/.474 Juan Encarnacion 03 - .270/.313/.446 04 - .236/.299/.405 If you compared their 3 years prior to the decision to keep Encarnacion over Millar, the numbers are even more lopsided in Millar's favor. The stolen base argument is also really weak. Over the past 2 years, Enc has swiped a grand total of 24 bases in 291 games played. That's real Ricky Henderson-like there. :thumbdown Encarnacion never displayed any potential to be anything other than average. Even his "breakout" 1/2 season in Cincy amounted to a whopping .277/.330/.474 while playing in a park that hugely favored hitters. Add to the fact that Millar has been getting paid a lot less than Encarnacion over the past 2 season and it's an indisputable fact that the Marlins were idiots for letting Millar go.

Surprisingly enough, the Great American Ballpark played as a big-time pitchers park. Read 'em and weep from baseball-reference.com: Ballpark: Great American Ball Park (ballparks.com) Attendance: 2,287,250 (12th out of 16) Park Factor: Batting - 92/Pitching - 93 (over 100 favors batters) It just shows to go ya' how bad Cincy's pitching was last year and how incredible their hitting was.

How do they have this much money? More importantly, why haven't the Marlins swooped in and signed this guy already?

"The Exorcist" features a priest and had religious themes in it, but it still has nothing to do with this dicussion. Indeed - the Excorcist is/was fiction. The survey I referenced was real. Yeah, real irrelevant.

Oh, I get it now. :lol