Middle Buffalo

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 13, 2008 -> 09:46 AM) Because deep down, I don't think people really care. The media is trying to blow this up into something bigger than it actually is. People should care. Not everyone needs to care about the way modern ballplayers have messed with the records. Not everyone cares about HR records, etc. However, if you think of the history of baseball and consider that prior to 1990 or so, very few players had prolific HR numbers. The top guys would typically hit 45 homers max. in a given season, and they were paid accordingly. With the advent of the steroid era, more and more players were reaching high HR numbers. They were then paid as HR hitters. As the HR numbers went up and more players were hitting 40+ HRs, they were demanding more money. The end result is that ticket prices went up to support the increased payrolls, which came about as a result of increased numbers, which were the result of illegal performance enhancing drugs. So the loser in all this is the fan. Fans who care about the history of baseball and grew up memorizing statistics, and casual fans who just like to go to the park and watch the game were both impacted by the pervasiveness of steroids and HGH in baseball. Regarding the Mitchell Report, I can't understand why someone like Clemens (who sure seems guilty- though benefits by going up against a less than credible witness) doesn't admit to using HGH. He could say that he used it to recover from assorted injuries and only used it sparingly. He could also say that he read reports that told of the benefits of HGH, and that when he used the substance, it was under the watchful eye of a trainer who was employed by MLB. He could also say that when he used, HGH was not illegal (I think that's the case, but could be wrong). It seems like it wouldn't put into question the last 8 or 9 years of his career. I'm not saying that it would totally clear his name, but it would look much better to say he used only to recover from specific injuries - not to cheat.

Friday, I weighed in a couple pounds lighter. Lost 2 more over the weekend, but might have made a mistake by indulging in a plate of potato salad today. I'll know more tomorrow. Just in case, I'm leaving a plate out on the counter tonight, and I'll eat it tomorrow and shed a few pounds the old fashioned way all day tomorrow.

First trek to the gym today went well. Felt the burn. Probably 2 or 3 dress sizes smaller already, though for consistency, I'll take those measurements in the AM.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) Haha, Hampton is such a clueless retard and it's proven yet again. The whole reason the Giants won was they established pressure with ONLY their front 4 early, then blitzed Brady after he was beaten up and confused to the point where he wasn't getting good reads. The Bears exclusive blitzing, 46 defense for 60 minutes style would have been beaten to a pulp by New England. That's not the Bears fault, it's just how it is, just like the Bears would have killed any of those Packers teams from the 60's. Football players just get bigger and faster and better every year, which is why comparing teams from different eras is stupid and pointless. The 85 Bears were not smaller and slower than today's players. They match up quite well physically with modern players. Go back to the teams from the 70s and 60s, and your argument about the speed/size factor is much better. Basically, as Hampton said, the 85 Bears' strengths were running the ball and pressuring the QB. That plays well into the weaknesses of the 07 Patriots. Who would win? I wouldn't bet against the 85 Bears against any team.

QUOTE(Jimbo's Drinker @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) couldn't hurley be dead??? This flashforward took place before last year's(with Jack's beard etc...) I'm pretty sure Hurley will be burried in a piano case.

South Sider wins "The Big Game." http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...1,2401735.story

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) If this was the original "burritos as big as your head" La Bamba on Green St., then it must have gone and got classy long after my departure. I ate there at least 2x a week for 2 years. Best chorizo burrito I ever had, especially after a night of knocking back a few pints of the blonde in the black skirt (that would be Guinness) at Murphy's. I greatly miss all the great the neighborhood burrito joints in Chicago. Some of them were excellent. A very good taqueria finally opened up down here last year near my work, and I ate there at least weekly until I started this $%@*%! New Year's diet. No. The "EAT" sign was outside truck-stop near the mall. CC talking Mexican food had me thinking La Bamba - which was on Green St, but later relocated a block or so down to 6th St (?) just off Green. Incidently, the owners of La Bamba were from Chicago.

6'2" 220lbs (somehow gained 15lbs in the past few months). Would like to get down to 190 or just a few pounds less. Joined a gym today. Lent diet starts Wednesday. Giving up sweets/soda. Considering giving up meat, but I don't really want to be eating beans and peanut butter constantly to get protein.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 10:27 AM) There's a real good Mexican place in Woodridge on the NE corner of 75th and Woodward. It's called Los Arcos, but the sign above the place simply says Mexican Food. You have me craving a La Bamba burrito. There was a place in Champaign that had a sign that was visible from quite a distance that said "EAT." The simplicity and directness of the sign always made me want to "eat" there. For months we talked about going there - it took some time because the place looked like a dump. Finally, we worked up the courage to go in, and to our great disappointment, the place had some class and was kind of costly. We decided to take our money elsewhere. Probably went Stackin' at Homestretch.

I went to hang up my flag today, and I checked the handy "Flag Holiday" brochure that came with the flag. To my surprise, today is not a flag holiday. Not sure if the brochure is out-dated, but I only bought the flag a few years ago. I hung up the flag anyway. In honor of MLK, it was well hung.

QUOTE(ottawa_sox @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) The conversation was taped by Roger and presented by Roger and his lawyer. If MacNamee said "You know you did it!", do you think the tape might have been edited for our ears? MacNamee is as contrite as possible because he spilled the beans to save his ass. He was looking to crucify himself to appease the great Rocket. I don't know why they played the tape. It proves nothing. Roger's squirming says it all Sure. Also, if I was Clemens, I wouldn't have been so composed during the phone call. He's obviously mad, but he's very monotone the entire time. It's like he's saying, "Listen, I need you to retract what you said, I just can't say it. Are you too dumb to understand that I need you to lie for me?" Clemens is a fiery guy, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have been SCREAMING at MacNamee if MacNamee had lied. Guilty.

QUOTE(Brian @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 08:03 PM) Can Clemens tape the conversation without MacNamee knowing? I'm not sure now. Is it possible that Clemens isn't lying? MacNamee never refutes anything Clemens said in the phone conversation. I would have expected him to say, "You know you did it!" or something. I still don't believe Clemens, but I'm less sure now.

I missed it. Any good? I heard previews on the radio. I love when Mick Wallace asked him if he ever used, and Clemens said, "No." Wallace, "Swear?" Clemens, "Swear." What, are they 10 years old?

She's really unlucky that she's manic and has money (and, therefore, the enablers that come with that in Hollywood). Mix that with drug/alcohol abuse, not good. Basically, there's no stopping her until she hits rock bottom. I don't think having reporters and photographers following her helps much either.

I would bet Kevin Federline's considerable fortune that Britney has some manic-depressive issues. I actually feel really sad for her. And I'm pretty heartless when it comes to celebs.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 12:43 AM) Yeah, but it does show how awful the BCS bowls are at picking teams. The only thing the Bowl commitees care about is the gate. They rotate the order that they pick every year, and they always want teams that bring fans. The game is secondary - sadly.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) The USC front 7 is as good as I've EVER seen at the college level, but their secondary was atrocious. Taylor Mays is really just an OLB playing safety, and the rest of their rotation was very mediocre. Receivers were open all night, Illinois should have thrown the ball way more, although admittedly it's hard to because their front 7 gets to the QB so fast. I'd say they have 5 future NFL pro bowlers in their front 7, just ridiculous. And you just can't see me on Joe McKnight being this scary Reggie Bush type with what Vontae did to him, and he was held on check other than the fluke lateral play. The biggest problem yesterday was the Illinois LB's and safties are just too slow to cover a team with lots of fast personnel like USC, which is why I appreciate guys like J Leman and Mitchell and Harrison and Sanders and Steele et al, but they'll be replaced by guys with much better speed and that's a good sign. Basically, the Illinois offense wasn't out of it's league (it's offensive coordinator just was in the 1st half), but the Illinois defense was WAY out of it's league. 21-10 game - Illini fumble inside the 10yd line going in for a score. USC goes down the field, and on a pass into the endzone, Illinois is called for interference putting the ball on the 2yd line. USC scores the next play. Am I the only one who thinks that Illinois was screwed on the interference call? The USC receiver was slanting accross the middle, and the Illini DB was coming forward. The Illini DB made contact, but he was going for the ball, and ultimately it was intercepted by Illinois. Doesn't a DB have as much right to the ball if it's in the air, and he's making a play on the ball? I'm an Illinois fan, so maybe I'm biased, but I really think that play was the beginning of the end. Ultimately, I think Illinois loses, but it would have been a different game entirely.

I got the Wii for my kids for Christmas. We only have one game so far (not sure of the title - rabbid rabbits or something). It comes with a sports bundle (tennis, bowling, golf, boxing, and baseball). I haven't played much, but I did manage to hit a 606ft HR on the baseball practice, and I hit the heavy bag a little this morning. My arms need a break.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) And our government will fix all your sarcasm too. I take medicine for it already. Seems to work pretty well.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) This'll be a blanket response to you and the others who questioned my "parasite" comment. First, they break the law the moment they cross the border. That makes them criminals from that moment on. Second, many of them steal people's identities or falsify a new one. That makes them criminals twice over. Third, and this one really eats me alive, the amnesty crowd goes on and on about the "contribution to society" these parasites make. Of course they leave out the fact that whatever the pittance they pay in taxes while here is dwarfed by the amount of money states must spend on services for the parasites. Every time they visit the emergency room, every time they put one of their criminal children ( yes they too are criminals too once they cross the border ) in public school, every time one of them hits another driver with their POS 1980 Chevy ( you think these bastards have insurance? HAH! ).....etc.....etc.....etc..... they cost you and me and everyone else money. This runs in the tens of billions of dollars a year nationwide. Fourth, we are also laying out a god awful amount of money to house illegal aliens who commit further crimes after they arrive here. All of this madness is because of politicians who are too weak to deal with the problem, or are co-opted by business interests looking for cheap labor, or are pandering to the Mexican community for votes. Its a total disgrace how the government allows this to go on day after day and year after year. Santo, to answer you specifically on "American parasites", I have no love lost for them either. I've gone on and on in this forum about how much I hate the safety hammock.....er I mean safety net that is the American welfare state. I totally agree. Illegal immigrants are the biggest problem facing the US today - and not at all an election year issue meant to distract voters. We've finally balanced the trillion dollar deficit, our health care system is in the best shape it's ever been, the formerly decaying infrastructure has been repaired with much hard work, the war in Iraq has been a resounding success (money well spent), and the President's approval rating is reflected in these successes. America has never claimed to be the land of opportunity. America has never made an effort to bring freedoms to people from other lands. America is the land of the free, home of the brave. Just stay the hell out.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/22/immigrant...e.ap/index.html This is some really good news. It shows what can be accomplished when you drain the swamps ( employers that hire illegals ) that these parasites flock to when they come here. Can't wait to see all the Americans displaced by illegals get their landscaping and fast food jobs back. Finally, I can order a burger in English.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) I like the Wii choice because it gets him up off the couch more. I'd also suggest at some point getting him a "real" tennis raquet or golf club and head outside and play. You mean go outside and play? What, is this the 1950's?

QUOTE(knightni @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 09:16 PM) If you are considering a PS2, why not a Wii? He seems to like Nintendo characters from his DS; wouldn't a Wii be a natural progression? PS: My cousin's 4 year-old nephew kicked my ass in Wii Sports last Thanksgiving. Well, for starters, a Wii is twice as expensive. But, really, I don't know too much about modern video games (haven't played at all since Sega NHL '94 - in 1994). I just want to know if the games on the Wii are going to be too complicated for an 8,6 and 4 year old. I know my son has played PS2, but not Wii. Sounds like something he can handle. I'll be quite the hero if I get it for him. I hear Santa will get the credit, though. Thanks to all for the input. What games would you recommend for starters on the Wii?

My 8 year old son wants a Wii. Is he too young? Would he be satisfied with just getting a PS2? He only has a Nintendo DS right now, but I'm considering a Wii.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 11:29 AM) Interesting that the SI article doesn't say anything about Prince Albert. Check to see if they refer to a "Joey Belle" in the article.