RockRaines

QUOTE(TLAK @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) On offense they subtracted 1577 AB, 393 H, 52 HR and 208 RBI. They added 719 AB, 181 H, 17 HR and 90 RBI. A banner year from Thome (.207 BA in 2005) and better production from Anderson (.179 BA in 2005) might balance this but it's a stretch to assume they will improve on it. There truly is nothing like comparing the stats of injury-shortened seasons.

QUOTE(Sox1422 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:19 AM) That's what I am looking for as well. me too

Great debate by the way fellas. Kept it civil and reasonable. No $1000 bets or anything.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) Didn't they bring it back down to 18 when they had the draft? Anyways as most people probably know, it's the states that decide what the drinking age is. If they haven't lower than 21 they won't get Federal funding for highways and roads. Oxford Ohio has a law where you can drink when you are 18 if you are within arms reach of your parents.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 03:53 PM) LOL, we know you like em young. You know it, but im not exactly an old man. Plus, they were legal.

QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) Right on, next time they sign a probation agreement they should read the conditions before they have their fun. Or just give me a call, and come over.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 02:41 PM) It wouldn't be so bad if not for the stupid left side on and off ramps.. You know how much I hate those. Can you imaine that city planner's meeting? Umm yeah I has this idea. Lets make the freeway exits on the left side, and then eliminate a lane when they exit. It wont hurt traffic flow to have people constantly merging to the right.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 02:54 PM) Salute Your Shorts The one thing I learned from that show. A giraffe's tongue is black.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) It used to be. As bad as it still is.. it's 1000000 times better then it was. You got that right sista. Althought it really just moved the traffic down a little bit. Its still better.

The strangler isnt on that list huh?

wow, Mr Wizard was tha s***.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 09:31 PM)

Heeeeeeyyyy Duuuuuuuuude

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) man, the last time i had a quick hit i just couldn't stop coughing. Give me I call, I can upgrade it.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) I'm 20 and I've never dranking a full can of beer before, I've only had sips which was a long long time ago. I've only had wine in church and have never even tasted anything else. I don't feel sorry for them one bit, 21 does mean 21. I can wait another 8 months, it's not a big deal to me. I did go to a few parties that served beer and other stuff but I always sad no and people were cool with that. I know some have a hard time with peer pressure and it's understandable, but I never did. I think a good number of the people who drink underage do it just because they're underage. I had my first beer when I was in Amsterdam before i was a freshman. I drank at parties throughout high school, including dances, prom, special occasions. I had a great time with great friends, I would do it again in a heartbeat. I also graduated near the top of my class, played 3 sports and was a member of many clubs and an assistant in the dean's office. I went to a great college, drank with my fraternity brothers, friends, and sometimes professors. I didnt turn 21 until I was a senior, and I definatley didnt drink just because it was against the law. I had a really great time drinking socially and bonding with my friends. I would love to go back and experience college again, as it is truly the best time of your life. I now have a great job, am a homeowner, car owner, and a reputable member of society. I feel like my in my path I have chosen to be myself and make the most of everything i have done. There are two sides to every coin.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Slightly different situation. You were RESPONSIBLE. You didn't show up to the prom s***faced. Yes.. you were still wrong. Who knows if it was different or not? Fact is, I still had a GREAT time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) Of course we can play "what ifs". If we couldn't, there wouldn't be DUI laws, and drunk drivers wouldn't be arrested until they hurt someone. There are all sorts of laws on the books to prevent dangerous activities because of the likelihood of something bad happening as a result. That's a "what if". We might as well wrap our children in bubble wrap before they leave the house, because something bad could happen to them then as well. Thats also a what-if

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) They didnt drink one time and get caught, they got caught twice, and they shoved it in the law's face. I love how you like to point out that it is a victimless crime BECAUSE someone didnt get hurt, but you refuse to admit that alcohol COULD get these kids killed. What would have happened if these kids would have gotten through prom without getting caught, went to a post prom party at one of their houses, partied some more, and then drove home and plowed into a tree? Wouldnt be so victimless then, would it? You cant even begin to determine what these cops prevented, because you are so hell bent on trying to prove that these cops and the judge were somehow sore-asses and mean and carried vendettas because they followed the law. You cant play what ifs in this situation. We drank at our after prom party, and we stayed at a place where there was no driving, with adults nearby in case of emergency. Nobody got hurt, and everyone had a great time. Were we still wrong?

Steff good facts and links. Def good research. But alot of those points as well are from skewed statistics. Of course alcohol plays a part in many bad deeds that are committed, as well as many injuries. But you have to consider the type of person that was drinking in that situation. There is alot of factors that contribute to many of those examples, and being that they were mostly taking off of a anti-alcohol site, you have to consider the source of the research.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) I'm not confused at all. I totally understand. First of all, the University calls the Chief "a symbol" not "a mascot." And doc, I know what you are saying about the academics of the school. You are absolutely right, a change would mean nothing in regards to the learning or research at the school. And my fondest memories of the U of I aren't the Chief. But, it was a part of it. I didn't miss a football game in 4 years. Everytime the Chief came out, all of us cheered as loud as we could and I would get goosebumps, in fact, I still do. Then, as we sang the Alma Mater, we (the students and alumni and anyone else that was there) were all one. It wasn't the Chief. It wasn't the games. It was being there with friends and the college experience all together. And the Chief is a big part of that experience. It's hard for people to let that go. Rock, since you didn't go there, it's hard for you to truly say what that feels like. Maybe you think it's a silly tradition, or hostile, or abusive, or racist, or whatever, but I fondly remember the Chief as a way to bring everyone at the U of I together for 5 minutes, no matter color, race, creed, anything. When we were all cheering at halftime, we were all Illini. I understand that I did not go there, but I shared the same experience of losing my mascot. Whether its symbol, whatever, it still if offensive to someone. I understand tht you have personal connection to it, but weigh what you said. You are saying that the chief was a large part of the crowd's connection, or the game day spirit of football. Is that really more important than someone else's culture? Do you think your college experience would have been just as rich without a dancing Indian during halftime? I believe it would have, and going forward, I do not even think that many incoming students will miss a beat.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 3, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) as a u of i grad, i tied none of my great memories and great times at illinois to the chief. to me, if you are an alum and are going to withhold your support for the university because it had to change it's mascot, that's just sad. i went to illinois for a great education, and i am satisfied i received it. the chief part of it was irrelevant to me, just like i'm sure an animal would be irrelevant to me if that's what our mascot was. i understand traditions and such, but losing the chief will change nothing about the university. it won't change how classes are taught, what faculty are brought into the school, or the level of education you can get there. that is what is really important, not whether or not some guy does a dance at halftime of a football game. Great post Doc. Those are my sentiments exactly after having my own school change our mascot. Illinois isnt even changing their name or anything. I had to adjust to the damn RedHawks. But I will tell you this, as much as my parents, relative, and older alums miss the Redskin name, the new generations have picked up on the new mascot and are beginning new traditions. My school was founded in 1809, and tradition is rich. But the insignificance of a football or basketball mascot is extremely apparent in the big picture.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) The University no longer uses the Chief on any school sponsored t-shirts or logos. Only bootlegged items are sold with the Chief on them. It's not that I'm using FSU or Central Michigan or Utah as an example. But, just because the tribes say "ok" doesn't mean it's not "hostile and abusive." Or vice versa. What I'm saying is, if it's hostile and abusive here, it's hostile and abusive everywhere. And the "ok" shouldn't be the deciding factor. What scares me is that this will start a slippery slope. I think you are confused about the issue at hand. Its the chief and not the name of the school. The tribes of those schools said its ok to use their name as the mascot. The issue at hand is the degrading chief constume, imagery and the halftime dance.

MB JG PK

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 09:31 PM) You didnt read the article. Their initial punishment was to be told by the judge to knock it off and that was it, they were let go. They werent thrown in jail until the second time they were caught ( that part where they drank, posted pics on the web, and then cursed the judge who was lenient with them the 1st time). I know that. But I believe the initial reaction was also harsh, on his side, and the schools.

Well so basically its the "it was a law they broke it, they should be punished" vs "We break small laws everyday like jaywalking, copying dvd's, copyright laws (Kyle), and drinking is one of those in some situations." I just think that the initial punishment was a bit harsh considering what i have seen in the same circumstance, and at the time, that was really harsh. And the kids were retarded for that website, and they deserve to be CAUGHT for underage drinking due to their stupidity. But at the same time, I dont think it deseved jail time.