Elktonnick

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right. Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth… "There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes. "Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves. "Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

Absolutes are never correct. LOL And of course one can say that with absolute certainty!

You may not have caught his post game interview but he was working on his change. He said he threw it around 15 times. One wouldn't expect his velocity to be up now in any case.

That's the first I've seen of his obit. And they think Paplebon was great. Paps couldn't hold Radatz's you know what in his day. I saw him pitch. We were sitting in Center field and you could hear the pop in the catchers glove way out there like I'd never heard before or since.

Forgot about Kinder and Mike Forneiles. But Radatz was a flamethrower. If you look at his stats you can see why he flamed out. He threw 157 innings one year. If they managed him the way they did Paps he'd have lasted a lot longer. In his day he was more dominant than Papelbon considering the teams he played on and those he had to pitch against.

It is possible that we both could be right if you think about it. Gilhooy could have got it from Mantle. I know he popularized it. Radatz is a monster kind of thing. I don't recall the exact quote. I do recall the exact quote about the pluperfect game. Gilhooy was a force in those days.

He was called the "monster". He was the Red Sox first great closer but he pitched more than one innining his stats in the early sixties were tremendous. John Gilhooy the iconic Boston sportwriter of the old Boston Record once wrote that Radatz was the pitcher most likely to throw a "pluperfect" game. I remember the column well. And as I recall it was he who first stuck the nick name monster on Dick Radatz who was also called Moose. But Monster stuck. Gilhooy was legendary for his fights with Ted Williams who tried to get Gilhooy banned from the clubhouse in the fifties. Gilhooy in the early fifties got into a famous feud with another sportwriter for the old Boston American which was the morning paper also owned by the Hearst Corp which owned the Record. Every day they would insult and jab one another. The other writer was named Shantz I think. Anyway some years later Shirley Povitch the hall of fame babeball writer of the Washington Post revealed that Gilhooy and Shantz were the same person. It was all a stunt by the Hearst Corp to sell papers.

Not true! Some of the greatest nicknames were given by the great sport writers. It is in another sport but the Galloping Ghost and the Four Horseman come to mind. You know who gave Dick Radatz his nickname don't you?

If they think it's bad now it used to be a lot worse years ago, the "Werewolves" of right field didn't earn that moniker because they were sprinkling rose petals on Jackie Jensen. They would have called Drew a lot worse than "Nancy".

Nicknames have been a part of baseball since the year dot and not just complimentary ones. Leo "the Lip", Eddie "the Brat", "Shoeless "Joe, "Dizzy" and "Daffy" Dean etc, were hardly complimentary. The Big Diva is hardly out of line or inconsistent with that tradition.

This year will be no different then any other when it comes to the intensity of the media coverage. Boston always has had the most intrusive baseball coverage with the possible exception of New York. The internet, the cable nets and sports talk radio just ups the ante a bit. You still have the beat reporters but you also have ESPN, NESN and CSNE beat reporters competing with the Herald, Globe and the Provdence and Hartford papers.

To me that is the beauty of baseball. It is a mirror image more than any other sport of our society and culture. Every great social and cultural event in our society over the past hundred and twenty years is reflected in MLB. That's why it is the greatest game.

This is true however with one possible exception. Come September if the Sox go into a losing stretch someone will bring it up again. It is in the nature of the beast. Besides this is the Boston Red Sox. Red Sox fans savor the memories of their disappointments as much as their victories. To prove that just ask any real red sox fan what's Bucky Dent's middle name. You all know the answer. It like the line from Pritzzi's honor. "We forget nothing! We forgive nothing!";)

As the father of five daughters, I can honestly say it is always distracting until you walk them down the aisle on their wedding day. and then the grand kids come!