Hardly, Garth. The NYT is one of the most liberal publications around. Sure, there are others even more extreme, but the Times is so far to the Left that Ted Kennedy has to turn left just to see them.

Ump, are you a regular reader of the New York Times?

It's rather difficult to read the thing when it lines my cat's litter box.

But to answer your question, one does not need to read that thing regularly to know it's a left-wing publication.

Whaddaya mean? I find it "fair and balanced"--just like Fox News, only from a different perspective.

Who cares whether the NYT is a "liberal" or "conservative" or "middle of the road" newspaper? The article stands on its own merits.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, of course, is correct. Instead of attacking the messenger why not read the article and judge it on its content. I'm just amazed that people who don't regularly read a publication are willing to label it as one thing or another. This is part of a larger problem in our society - people are intellectually lazy, do no critical thinking. They're completely happy to let someone else define the debate and place labels on things. You're either a conservative or a liberal. Once that's decided you don't have to think about the issues - just look for the label and you'll know if you can agree of disagree with the subject.

It's a shame but a good majority of the country is content to only hear half the story.

I don't watch FOX News much mainly because I find annoying its flashy "alerts" every time someone in Paducah passes gas, but they're a lot more balanced than the NYT is. The former has several left-wing hosts and commentators and will permit both sides to discuss things. The NYT squelches anyone to their right, which is probably why they have not even endorsed a Republican president in something like 60 years.

The stance or ideological bent of a publication is quite important and relevant because it affects the way they report or write their articles and stories. The Times has a history of being virulently anti-religious (again, I'm not that religious myself, unfortunately), so anything they can get their hands on that would disparage religion in any manner, especially Fundamentalist Christians like Baseball Chapel, is fine with them. (FWIW, I am someone who isn't particularly fond of such Fundamentalist Christians, so it's not like I'm trying to be a pro-Bible thumping evangelist here.)

Hogwash.

The evangelical demographic of which they are part may be a majority in South Carolina and few other areas, but it is not a majority nationwide or in a majority of states.

Traditionally, most Americans have found a vast difference between being solicted by United Way and being proselytized by representatives of a religion they do not share. It is not the same thing at all.

I have never been approached by a religious sect at work. If I were, I would inform them politely that I was content with my faith and not interested. If my employer required me to attend a religious gathering, I'd find my voice very quickly, and another job.

What would you think if they added this at the end of the article; "An unknown source was quoted as saying" I know Josh and he is no good. The guy was always complaining about this and that...yada, yada, yada."

That's where credibility comes into play. If you want to print that a man is no good, then back it up with a name source. The fact that you know this person who wrote this may have credibility in a small circle of people, but it does not lend credibility over the world wide web. Myself, I would not write that someone said that a man is no good. That's slander.

Also, I would never use the NYT to line my bird cage. That's what the LA Times is for.

On a side note: I umpired my first game of the season today. It was a 10 inning scrimmage so some of the real game attitude was missing. It was still great to get back out there.

hmmm... anti-religious?

What does that mean? They are against all religions? Or just some of them? Maybe against just yours?

And why would an anti-religious paper go to the trouble of having a religion editor?

Now.... if they had an an ANTI-religion editor, I could see your point...

The Rule on the Locker Room Door says one thing: No one admitted. My partner(s) and I broke this only once (on seperate occasions) to let our fathers in to our locker room (after a game). There were no other exceptions. If you weren't an umpire or working for the umpire (re: ball boy) you weren't coming in. (PBUC supervisors are umpires).

The suggestion that an umpire should have to be preached to (by a leader of a religion he doesn't believe in) or leave the lockerroom (his office) for even 5 minutes before a game is repulsive.

I admit that I have what I call "umpire OCD". On days when I worked the plate I had to do the same exact thing in the lockerroom during the hour before the game. I was a creature of habit. Too suggest I should have to leave my workspace, and stop my mental preparation for 3 hours of grueling work, so someone can come in and preach something that, frankly, I don't agree with or believe in is ridiculous.

I wonder how many umpires would be defending this if it were Muslim "preachers" seeking "just 5 minutes"? Instead of "baseball chapel" it was "baseball mosque"?

Watch it! Any offensive comments directed toward Allah or his religion can result in serious consequences!

Whatever do you mean??

http://www.betwix.com/ripac/images/g...s%202-8-02.jpg