Also, in the Annals of Why Professional Athletes Wear Cups, Unless They Are Insane.
Right next to Josias Manzanillo. Who was Josias Manzanillo, you ask?
Well, on April 8, 1997:
The Mariners were ahead 12-8 in the seventh, a large but hardly secure lead, not against Cleveland and not the way Seattle had been pitching.
Manzanillo ran in to get the final two outs in the inning. Then in the eighth, with Jim Thome on third, Manny Ramirez ripped a ball up the middle.
It hit Manzanillo in the crotch so hard it knocked him off the mound. He scrambled after the ball, had a shot at Ramirez at first, but turned instead toward home and threw a strike to Dan Wilson to get Thome.
Then he collapsed on the AstroTurf, in a silently supine position as his teammates rushed to see if he was still alive, let alone productive.
After they realized he would live, they urged him to get up and run back to the dugout.
"You need to run off the field," appealed Ken Griffey Jr. "The crowd is just going to love it; they'll go nuts."
And he did. And then he spent three days walking around with a ruptured testicle before the excruciating pain finally got him to a doctor, where they removed said gonad.
Let me recap:
- Hit by line drive in the meat and two veg
- Ruptured testicle
- HE STILL MAKES THE PLAY TO END THE INNING
- HE WALKS AROUND FOR THREE DAYS IN EXCRUCIATING PAIN THINKING IT'LL WEAR OFF
- Has testicle removed, continues MLB career.
Josias Manzanillo is the poster child for wearing a cup.
Yay bon bon!
Why do I continue to check the tropics? Maybe it wouldn't look so bad if I knew more, but it doesn't look like fair weather ahead for my area. [link]
Yay, bon bon, glad to hear it.
okay, so I was watching an old Daily Show last night. I think it's from Monday. Anyway, for the Evolution/Shmevolution debate they had one guy explaining Intelligent Design, and he used Mount Rushmore as his example of something you look at and can tell, just by looking, that some kind of intelligence was behind it.
Wuh huh?
Um. I'm confused. How does that example support his point. The intelligence behind Mount Rushmore is human, not divine.
Um. I'm confused. How does that example support his point. The intelligence behind Mount Rushmore is human, not divine.
Well, I think he's saying that you can look at animals and humans and what-not and tell that there's some kind of intelligence behind it. A variation on the "intelligent watchmaker" or whatever that was called.
Dumb.
Yeah, and I look at the human female reproductive system and *definitely* see the workings of blind chance.
But then why use a human work of art as his example? I mean, it's not like he said he was making an analogy.
But then why use a human work of art as his example?
Because he's not counting on his audience thinking too critically about what he's saying.
Same goes for his "It could be an Intelligent Designer with really poor attention to detail" response to JS's "But what about my scrotum?" challenge.
