yankees228

Emmz, in response to me or Divinity?

Sure, but that doesn't counter my point that we shouldn't speak as if Pettitte blew the whistle on Clemens. So, just to be clear, essentially you guys (the ones who think Pettitte is wrong by offering up evidence on Clemens) think that Pettitte should have lied to the congressional committee.

a700, you're acting as if Pettitte blew the whistle on Clemens. He was already named and a great deal of proof supplied by his former trainer (and others) was already on the table. Pettitte simply added another small piece of evidence, hardly a 'make or break' thing for Clemens.

Yeah, well as level headed as I am, there are a variety of public figures that I can legitimately say I hate. Few people, if any, are above hating anybody. So on that, I completely agree.

I don't mean to jump in the middle of this, but the part about hating teams interests me. Like J_E, I don't really hate any teams. I root against the Red Sox, but only because their lack of success is almost always a positive for the Yankees. But I don't hate them, and I actually like a good deal of their players, namely Lester, Ortiz, Drew, and Bard. I don't entirely echo J_E's feelings though. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else because I don't hate any teams, nor I do I find those actions 'pointless and retarded'. I fully understand that one of the enjoyable parts of sports is not only rooting for your favorite team, but rooting against the ones that you dislike.

And to get back on topic, a very poor start for the Knicks tonight in a relatively important game. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise with the Knicks' interior defense, but of course tonight is the night when Elton Brand plays like the Clippers version.

The first statement suggests that a person doesn't necessarily have to directly affect you for hatred towards that person to be justified. The second statement suggests that hate for someone is only justified if they've done something directly to you. Those statements don't appear to be speaking to the idea that hate needs to be justified, but rather when it's reasonable to justify hate. Your intent may have been different, but that's just the way it reads. Responding to the credit card comment, the discussion didn't seem to center around whether or not you need to know that person, but rather that person needs to have done you some type of harm. And when the conversation shifted is debatable, but you were the one to introduce the idea that in order to have hatred towards a person, that person needs to have done you harm. To me, that seems like the turning point. But we really aren't arguing over much, as we're no longer debating the point of the discussion, and we're instead talking about whether my response to your point was justified. Seems a bit silly, which I helped to perpetuate. On the other hand, if you want to respond I'll continue to engage you in conversation - an unfortunate consequence of having no plans tonight lol.

A lot of it will come down to how the Celtics older roster holds up through the entire regular season and two rounds of playoffs (assuming they meet the Heat in the ECF). The younger and more athletic Heat might have the advantage come late May and early June. Aside from that, it's a very interesting matchup to break down, but there should be plenty of time for that come the playoffs.

Well we knew Robbie was unlikely to sign another extension buying out more of his FA years, so this is pretty inconsequential in my opinion.

Two early season games are hardly proof that the Celtics will roll over the Heat in the playoffs.

My post, and the subsequent extreme example, was relevant because of this comment. "But i believe that for "hatred" to exist towards someone else they should have done something directly to you to justify that hatred." EDIT: And, in your above post, you qualified your statement, to include humanity.

And this, in my opinion, is due to the fact that a person's actions can be so horrible that you hate them for what they've done to others or society as a whole.

So for the sake of discussion, lets take this to extreme examples. What would you tell someone who hated Hitler, despite not losing any relatives in the Holocaust?

Haha, thanks ital. There's just no reason to take these things personally.

Dipre, do you think, in all circumstances, you have to know someone personally to hate them?

Well, I understand that one of them will be in the rotation, which is why I said 'or' instead of 'and'. Even if it's Garcia that makes the rotation, which is far from a guarantee, I don't think we can discount the possibility that Mitre can provide Wakefield-like production as a replacement starting pitcher.

The bolded part is what interests me. I absolutely agree in most cases, especially when it pertains to sports. There is not a single professional athlete that I hate, and there are few that I even dislike. However, I don't completely agree that you can't hate someone you don't know as a person. There are a few people that I don't know personally that I hate because of their actions.

I agree with most of this, except for the part about capable replacements. Why does Tim Wakefield fall into that category but Freddy Garcia or Sergio Mitre don't?

It won't help much, but I wonder if they'll bring in Kevin Millwood now.

As expected, Pettitte reached his official decision prior to Spring Training. This sucks.