vandy125

You rock Gavin!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 6, 2008 -> 08:41 AM) Mannnn, you did not just compare a baseball locker room to Iraq. There's so many reasons that's ridiculous. Sure did go to an extreme there However, how about the point of knowing what the environment is like that you are reporting in? You can't say that this is now my workplace since I am reporting here and must be subject to these rules. Part of the job is going into these environments.

I see the whole thing as kind of a frat type of incident, but one thing I wonder is the men's lockerroom of a baseball team really a reporter's workplace? If you are going to subject that to those types of considerations, then you need to do that for every place a reporter goes to get information on a story. A reporter in Iraq isn't going to think , "goodness, they really need to make this workplace better for me." Get over it. You are writing stories from a men's locker room. You should have some sort of understanding of what that environment is like.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 5, 2008 -> 03:48 PM) This is Chicago. We play 16". Figured as much (although I have played 12" in Chicago before). I love 16"

I could probably make the trip from Iowa for the July 19th one. This would be 16 inch, right? We only got 12 inch out here.

This is hard to watch.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 2, 2008 -> 06:47 AM) Yes it should, but there will be more than few who can't see past the 6 championships in a team sport for individual greatness. That is who I would put at number 1, and I really am not sure who you are talking about right now. I actually decided not to send a list in on this one because I think I am too young and do not have a good idea at all about former greats that I have not seen.

Sorry to hear about that Heads. I have done it a couple of times and like has already been said, there is hardly anything to it. The funeral director will let you know what to do. It is their job to make sure everything goes smoothly.

Simply awesome

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 25, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) I can't believe that no one likes Coming To America or Dodgeball. I'm pretty sure that I had Dodgeball in my list. If not, oops!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) It loses A LOT on TV because it is pretty well censored to eliminate lots of the unpleasentries that were in the orginal. That does not surprise me at all. Spaceballs was the same way.

Good luck Rex! Great to see people doing this!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 25, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) I think the age of BS has something to do with its rank, especially when you look at all of the "new" movies on the list. I seriously consider it, by far, the greatest comedy of all time, and its not even close. The one liners, the double entres and the suble genius that is Mel Brooks really shown through in that movie. I think I have seen it at least 100 times over the years, and it never gets old. That's another movie that didn't make my list. I'm sure its funny, but I've never gotten around to seeing the full thing. It's one of those movies that I always catch bits and pieces of on TV. I usually don't feel like renting it because I know that it will be on TV, but I never actually catch the whole thing on TV. It's kind of a weird cycle that I have with certain movies and this is one of those movies.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) I read an article this morning (can't remember where) in which Ozzie basically came out and said that he had a bad game manager-wise last night. Here's the article: Ozzie's Comments

Nice job knight!

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Apr 24, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I don't know a baseball bat? Honestly...I'd shut the f***in door, block the bottom of it and call the po po. Be like I heard someone 'rattling' around in my office? HELP!!!!!!!!!!!! Heck, a nice long 2x4, golf club, hockey stick, or something like that would work too. There are a lot of things that you could use. I wouldn't be getting that close to it with a knife.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 04:16 PM) The oil companies' argument is something to the effect of "we need to use those subsidies to invest in infrastructure" or something like that. I don't remember what the exact argument was, it was actually pretty logical but the American public is not really trying to hear that right now. I kind of feel like a hypocrite whenever I criticize Big Oil because I own about 40-ish shares of BP Not buying it when we keep hearing about record profits that they are making (not just for themselves, but records as far as any company is considered).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 03:57 PM) It was on today. I forgot how amazing Hoffman is in the movie. Haven't seen it, and that is why it was not on my list. Looks like I should sometime.

QUOTE (NUKE @ Apr 23, 2008 -> 07:56 AM) You mean PC collides with nanny state. I think we should introduce a bill that says if you get hit by a car because you weren't looking where you were going or dart into traffic then you should pay the repair cost to the car. When I heard about this, it was because of blind people who were attempting to cross the street, but were unable to hear the cars at all (I didn't read the article about the bill, but I'm guessing that it has similar reasons).

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 21, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) The list votes caused the ranking. So, if it is #42, it is because you all voted it low on your lists. Or completely forgot about it like myself...

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) The majority of the scientific community has pretty much dismissed Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, just as it has rejected Dembski's argument of specified complexity. They are the cornerstones of ID, but they are largely considered as either pseudoscience (IC) or mathematically unsound (SC). Modern biologists disregard macromutation as a major evolutionary force, instead believing that even very tightly integrated and complex structures like the textbook examples of the vertebrate eye, viper envenomation apparatus, etc., evolved through accumulated small changes. Behe's IC argument is arguing a position that evoultionary biologists moved away from 30 years or so ago. Eh, I'm not too surprised. I wouldn't know about your claim of it being 30 years or so ago considering some of the examples that I have seen, but it did make my point a bit about pushing the sciences to back up its claims. I know that you are more read up about this kind of thing. Just like any argument causes you to really back up your thoughts and positions, so does this. And, that is the point in looking at other people's views and trying to see things through their eyes.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 11:01 AM) Can you give an example? Sure, just off the top of my head, how about Michael Behe's book called Darwin's Black Box. In there he talked about several examples of what he considered to be things that were irreducibly complex. By that, it is meant that there are parts of organisms that are too complex, where their parts are too intertwined for that part to have come about due to natural selection. If you take any of the parts away, the rest of the parts are useless. Anyhow, his critiques and critiques like his have led to some good research being done on how that would be possible in the examples that he talked about. Sure, some of those things may have been discovered with time, but it, IMO, pushed that area of research. I'm not sure if something has been found for all of his examples, but IIRC, some of them have. So, some of our knowledge has been filled by that push.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 20, 2008 -> 07:36 AM) The comparison between people closed to the idea of seeing this film versus, for example, Gore's film, only works if you are willing to fully equate the reasons behind the close-mindedness. That is, you have to be willing to hold the positions of the climate-change naysayers and ID naysayers as equally valid. Maybe me and the National Science Foundation, AAAS, etc., are just a bunch of close-minded curmudgeons, but if ID has zero scientific merit then a movie pushing ID isn't going to change that. I would say that many scientists are closed-minded to ID as a philosophy, not as a scientific method. I really think that the ID philosophy can add a lot to the wonder of what the sciences are discovering. It is amazing to me as a person who believes in an ID all of the amazing little complexities that we have not only discovered, but are still discovering. I do not think that you need to say that evolution is wrong and needs to be thrown out, nor do I think that any of the scientific discoveries need to be thrown out. It really adds to the wonder of what science is showing us and is my personal belief. It also allows for some discrimination of all of the data that we see. Are we measuring, reading, and gaining all of our understanding with a preformed view that everything has to be natural (therefore leading us to certain conclusions), or are we open to saying that this is the best, natural explanation we can give and there are places that it honestly falls short right now? I don't think that there is an open look at where the natural explanation so far falls short, where it needs to improve. This is probably one of the best things that ID has done for science, it has pointed to some holes, which has lead to scientific exploration and even more discoveries (filling some of those holes in knowledge). Here is what I think about the close-mindedness. People will believe what they want to believe, and it is the exact same thing about both films. Many people do not want to change their lives or their beliefs that all is good with the world and that we are not messing it up at all. So, they are completely close-minded to Al Gore's film. In the same way, there are many who do not want to change their lives or their beliefs that there is no external control, influence, or design to what we have around us. So, they are also completely close-minded to this type of a film and to a completely open look at where naturalism has not yet told us everything.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 19, 2008 -> 10:47 PM) Are you saying that it is impossible to judge a movie without seeing it? Or that the many people who have seen it are not reporting on it accurately? That is going to an extreme there. Anyone can judge a movie without seeing it. But, it does follow that those who have seen it will have a more accurate report on it than someone who has just "read" about it. I am in the later category and would therefore not be able to give a very accurate report on it. I'm seeing a good amount of discussion and was wondering if someone has seen it because, yes, I would value their opinions about it more. The same seemed to be thought with those other films. Your opinion was more valued if you had actually seen the movies and you were seen as more open-minded.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 19, 2008 -> 10:32 PM) The content of the movie is already well-known. It has been reviewed extensively. Now, wasn't that exactly what I was talking about? Have you seen it? I have not (didn't see the other ones I talked about either. I am one close-minded bastage). I'm wondering if we have any first-handed accounts of it and what you thought.