CubinNY

I suppose I could ask you the same question, but I will try not to insult your intelligence. Be that as it may, you are absolutely unequivally and tottally incorrect. Part of the scientific method includes the practice of objective observation and measurement. For example, some scientist a long, long time ago in a country far, far away discovered that water boils at 100 degrees C or 210 degrees F at sea level. Get a thermometer and try it yourself. If you go to a higher altitude it will even boil at a lower temp. I guess one could say that science has disproved that water boils at any other temp besides 100, but then again that is an ass backwards way to look at things, isn't it? Science is fun ---------------- Post script> Maybe prove is the wrong word. From now on let's use the word demonstrate. Again, if a physcial thing cannot (as in impossible to) be measured in some way, shape, or form it a metaphysical sertitude that it does not exist.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers. And Einstein, Newton, Neil Bohr, and on down the line of physiscists and hard scientists. As much as you are knowledgeable. You cannot disprove something just because you cannot measure it. You have no more fact to back up your position than I do. Whatever, I suggest you ask a physics professor what they think about things that by definition CANNOT BE MEASURED. He or she will laugh you out of the room. It is not about disproving anything it is about proving something. I don't need to disprove that chemistry exista, that is a logical impossiblity. The burden of proof is on those that say it does exist. Just becuase someone says it is so does not make it so. In my field (science) we have a saying, "In God we trust. All others must have data."

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent. LOL. And if we humans and our rudimentary understanding of the universe can measure it, it is non-existent? What a pathetic notion. Some people want to believe they can quantify everything because it makes them feel secure in their knowledge of their own existence. However nothing is as certain as the fact that most of what we believe to be true today will likely be contradicted by something later. We don't know everything, or even close to it. Most competant scientists will be the first to tell you this. And as I said, history is rife with things that were said not to exist because there was no proof, only to be later proven. And that trend will only continue. And no, believing we can measure all that exists is the height of arrogance and ignorance, not to mention the hallmark of a narrow and frightened mind. Great minds like Einstein, Newton, Socrates and others all professed this to be true. Saying you know something exists that hasn't been proven is wrong. Saying it doesn't exist because we haven't found a way to measure it is equally wrong. Saying you can't say one way or the other is the right place to be, even if that makes you uncomfortable. "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates That's really all I have to say on this issue. If you want to be the consummate skeptic, then so be it. Just remember that total skepticism is as extreme a position as a blind believer. So you cannot back up your statement with facts. That's kind of what I thought. You and Socrates are quite the pair of deep thinkers.

It's truly amazing how many things said could not be measured at one time that have been proven to exist later. Saying that something that cannot be measured does not exist is the height of ignorance and arrogance. Could you enlighten me? Name three physical things that "people" said cannot be measured. ----------------- If you cannot measure something how do you know it exists? You don't. There is a difference between not being able to measure someithg because we don't have the technology and the "intagible" that cannot be measured. The height of ignorance and arrogance is a belief in the non-existent.

If something cannot be measured it does not exist. Love can be measured, crudely, so let's not go down that road. Chemistry is a nonexistent mistress of winning. Charley Finely's A's of the 1970s hated each other by and large and Won a WS. Forget chemistry.

NorthsieAvenger, Let's see the list of charecter assisinations 1. Farns 2. Jenks 3. Patterson 4. Rodriguez You certianly seem to have a handle on the "bad guys" in baseball. Just one more thing, I thought you said you didn't do this type of thing very often? :^o

The Cubs already have a pretty decent lead off hitter in Walker. Unfortunately the Cubs don't know it. So they will go after Juan "slappy" Pierre. Whopie!! My only hope is they make him wear his hat bill forward not cocked to the side.

So you are thinking it is a coincedence that the only two "moneyballers" besides Bean were let go/walked away? I'm not saying it's not but I find it interesting. The Gary Hughes' of the world hate the stat heads.

With Depodesta being fired and Epstine quiting have the old guard dinosaurs won the battle against the stat geek know-it-alls? Will baseball ever warm up to anything new? Thoughts?

Gammons is almost never right about such things, but those two signings would be huge.

Barrett has very little discipline whatsoever. IsoD of .069. .069 is pretty good. it is? I thougth .100 was good, anything else higher was great. Something like .069 would be like scoring a D on a test. I could be wrong. Adding on to what MPrior said, very few hitters have a .100+ IsoD. Off the top of my head I'd guess that there's fewer than one per team. Just a quick look at the ESPN website shows that many (I'm guessing 30 or 40 have an IsoD. over .100. But this stuff is new to me so I'll take your word for it. Let's move on. I don't like the Rusch signing. Anyone else?

Barrett has very little discipline whatsoever. IsoD of .069. .069 is pretty good. it is? I thougth .100 was good, anything else higher was great. Something like .069 would be like scoring a D on a test. I could be wrong.

Barrett has very little discipline whatsoever. IsoD of .069.

I regret it already.

And the offense still stunk. I hope the light goes on for Hendry and Dusty soon.

Signing Rusch makes it an unfortunate necessity because of the DL we can always add a pitcher after Wood goes on it. Now, with Rusch here you know the 12man staff will be here because we cant stick our 6th SP in the minors. Wasn't Rusch quoted as saying he wanted to be a SP next year regardless of where he went? I'd have to find the article but I am almost certain that quote became the subject of a thread here. I don't think it was direct quote. I think it was more of a gist from one of the sports writers.

No, the Cubs have enough startingpitching. They NEED to improve the offense and bullpen.

You must have been watching a different Cubs team from the one I watched. Dubios never got a shot. Dusty tried to pick spots for Dubios to be successful, like batting him against Wakefield so Hollandsworth wouldn't lose his eye against a tough knuckleballer. Every single time Dubios stepped to the plate he was batting for a job. An o-fer and he was done for a week. I cannot imagine what that must be like for a 26 year old rookie. Dubios was set up for failure from spring training.

How can you possibly say that? The cubs replaced Sosa and Alou with Burnitz and Hollandsworth. They did nothing to upgrade the bullpen and Maddux was a year older. They did nothing to upgrade the bench. Hendry had a terrible offseason. It looked promising for fourth place to me.

My thoughts: This is a bad signing. Hendry is too loyal, paying players for past performance rather than future probability. He could have let Rusch go or excersize his option then traded him. Mitre or Hill would have posted similar numbers, IMO. I wonder how much this has to do with the walking DL that is Wood. I believe Rusch will be a starter. The Cubs don't need another six inning pitcher with Maddux still pitching. This means the BP will be taxed even more. I beleive Hill/Williams/Mitre or a combination of 2 will be dealt. I also believe they will go on to have a better career than Rusch if not a longer one. The offseason has not gotten off to a very good begining.

And the feeling I get with Corey is that he is content at where he is at, with his baseball career. I thought you didn't normally make such acusations. Every freaking post is some sort of pop-psychology nonsense. Have you ever met Patterson or Jenks, or Farnsworth?

That makes three of us. When I saw the highlights on ESPN this morning I thought, "you know what, the palyers don't really care who they play for. It is th fans who care. The White Sox fans must be overjoyed. I feel like crap. And worse I don't think the present administration of the Cubs will do anything to change that." Don't fear the reaper.

Bump. JR, the sun will come up.

I'd take that deal too.

Are you kidding me? The Cubs make out like an Indian trader on that deal. Beltran played 1/2 of the year with a bad quad. And looper is a prety decent reliever, not great, but not terrible. I do that deal and try not to laugh too hard at Omar while congratulating him on getting manny and corey.