That poor NFL reporter - Page 8

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny

So basically, it's okay to think "Jesus, I want that ass as a hat. If it were filled with nacho cheese I could take it to the ball game." Just don't SAY it.

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny

So basically, it's okay to think "Jesus, I want that ass as a hat. If it were filled with nacho cheese I could take it to the ball game." Just don't SAY it.

Originally Posted by joeypants

To me, an atheist shouting down a Christian/religious-type is just as obnoxious as a Christian trying to get pushy and convert me.

Too many atheists think they get a free pass on that whole "keep it to yourself" thing.

Originally Posted by DaveB

Well, that's you. Personally, I'm not offended when people label me "half-Jewish," because there's a big blank on my dad's side of the family minus that Jewishness - we're not sure exactly where the national origins lie there, and, given the history of the Jews in Europe (not to mention the redefining of eastern European national boundaries, etc.), their location actually isn't as important as their cultural identity - the specific type of "other"ness that characterized their role in society. There's a lot more to Jewish cultural identity than religious identification.

ETA: If anything, WWII should show that Jewishness and Judaism are connected, but discrete, concepts. While it's generally ill-advised to give your opponents the power to define you as a group, it's telling that Hitler didn't give a fuck whether you were an atheist or even converted to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Nabster

His argument does extend to Jewish ethnic identification. And its not just his argument, almost all relevant experts believe this.

You need to read the book before you can say what its arguing. Although its certainly controversial in Israel, but not so controversial amongst the experts. Although, supposedly even Israelis are conceding the potential truth to this. The books makes tons of points. Some are more controversial than others, some are more accepted.

One of the points that most historians and archaelogists agree on is, the children of Israel were never expelled from their land. There is precisely zero evidence to suggest they were expelled. Thus most current day Jews are decendents of converts from Middle Easterners and Eastern Europeans, not from exiles. Theres tons of evidence to back this up. But I won't go into it, get the book.

It claims although impossible to know, the people most biologically related to the original semites would probably be Palestinians. I know its soooo Ironic, and in some ways its not. Its kinda fitting almost.


I have three close Jewish friends. Ones an Israel American, and she basically bit my head off. But the other two bought the book, and love it.

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny

What the hell is this thread about now?

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny

What the hell is this thread about now?

Originally Posted by DaveB

I may not have read the book, but I don't think you read my post.

ETA: I have three close historian friends, and they all say Sand has terrible breath.

Originally Posted by Chris Olson

Well, that's because you're a savage male who can't control his impulses, and that post was wearing really tight jeans. Basically, the post was asking for it, and has no right to complain about the attention.

Originally Posted by Nabster

I did read your post, but in my haste to post I didn't process. I get what you're saying. The thing is, ethnicity in everyday language generally means race.

Originally Posted by DaveB

Ethnicity is often mistaken to refer to race. That doesn't mean the two are analogous; if they were, one would likely be the dominant term. In terms of how much the two necessarily overlap, it depends on the dictionary you're using.

It doesn't matter, anyway, since race is just as conceptually muddled. Regardless, it's ludicrous to say that the African-American experience (for instance) is defined more by genetics than by the unique cultural events and realities that informed it. And so it goes with the Jews.

Why, though? Unless you're trying to make a case for ownership rights to Israel, it's totally not the point.

I'm guessing it depends on whom you're talking to, just as it does with outliers in any ethnic group (depending on the nature of the conversion, certain Orthodox Jews might not even see the converted person as religiously Jewish). Ethnicity can't be objectively defined. Heck, race can't even be objectively defined, unless you go by some sort of universal one-drop rule, which would render most people so multi-ethnic and multi-racial that the distinctions are beyond meaningless.

As mentioned, this is complicated. There are no single definitive answers when it comes to ethnicity.

Originally Posted by RathBandu

It is harsh, but it's absolutely true. Maybe not in that particular thread (the recent run of scandals coming out of the Church reminds me why I left in the first place), but there's a really disgusting bigotry towards people of religious faith on these boards. I'll save from naming specific folks, but if they showed the same contempt for somebody's race that they do for, say, Christians, they'd be hit with the ban hammer faster than you can say Jack Robinson. The intellectually superior tone when it comes to athiests v. religion has become a big turn-off lately.

Originally Posted by Ali

Going through the thread, I think the discussion can be broken down into 2 parts. The first is the circumstances of the incident itself. I think this article needs to be pointed out again, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010091505588, a perspective on the incident from a female sportswriter. It reinforces the fact that (a) the locker room is a workspace and the people in it are and should be treated as professionals, (b) that both reporters (male and women) and football players (or the 200 hundred pound slavering meat monsters some of you seem to think they are) have managed to get along as professionals for a long time now

Originally Posted by Kreeper

Wow, at all the PC pseudo-intellectuals trying to twist the comments in this thread as rape condonement.

Even if you think her attire was professional, apparently her past behavior isn't:

http://www.jemelehill.com/other-fema...casters-part-1

Ines Sainz

Ines is a former Miss Spain, and she works for Mexican television conducting sideline interviews. She’s known for two things: really tight pants and kissing the ball players after interviews.

Also, here's what that fellow female sports reporter said about the woman's behavior -- or at least tried to say, before the network cut her off and never returned to the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6u3adSMUqI

As for the rest, I'll just let you look at these pics and make your own minds up: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...w=1234&bih=704

Originally Posted by Kreeper

Wow, at all the PC pseudo-intellectuals trying to twist the comments in this thread as rape condonement.

Even if you think her attire was professional, apparently her past behavior isn't:

http://www.jemelehill.com/other-fema...casters-part-1

Ines Sainz

Ines is a former Miss Spain, and she works for Mexican television conducting sideline interviews. She’s known for two things: really tight pants and kissing the ball players after interviews.

Also, here's what that fellow female sports reporter said about the woman's behavior -- or at least tried to say, before the network cut her off and never returned to the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6u3adSMUqI

As for the rest, I'll just let you look at these pics and make your own minds up: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...w=1234&bih=704