BigSqwert

QUOTE(spiderman @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) It was in another forum. /thread

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) I just don't think it's fair to bash people for not being capable of doing things we knew they were not capable of doing, that's all. I wouldn't call grading someone's season a B as bashing.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) 2004-2006 Thome is a .226 hitter against lefties. So he would've gotten an A if he would've just hit .226? We knew he sucked against lefties going into this season. In fact, many of us were crying for a semi-platoon against lefties. I don't see how it's fair to grade Thome hard because he's not "playing up to his capabilities" if we acknowledged preseason that he sucks against lefties. We didn't get Jim Thome because of his ability to hit LHP! Fine. You give him an A and some other people give him a B. Step away from the ledge.

I found this in a user comment on the Trib regarding the debate last night. Can anyone confirm this?

When the heck will we get the Brewers in our park? Sheesh.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) I'm thinking about getting that printed up on T-shirts. Would make for a great stocking stuffer.

Just call in a bomb threat that morning.

I'm betting people who don't like pulp also dislike eating tomatoes....except for ketchup.

Makes me sad to think that if we could have split the season series with the Cubs it might have been the difference between them or the Brewers winning the division.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 11:03 AM) St. Louis with Orlando Pace I could put up there. Who has Houston really lost who's a key guy for them? NOLA has lost a couple guys but I'd say they're no where near the level of the Bears guys except for Deuce. I mean, you're talking about 3+ pro bowlers out, both of your starting CB's, 3/4 of your DB's, and toss Ruben Brown in there while you're at it. Andre Johnson and Ahman Green. Arguably their 2 best offensive weapons.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Except for BigSqwert. He, the mythical beast they call Liberal. I resemble that remark.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) 1974 Time Magazine Article on Global Cooling I'll still stick with the notion that science becomes more precise and accurate over time. I'll have more faith in scientific theory of today than the theories from 33 years ago. Look at the leaps and bounds in computing technology in that time span. We are able to process more information than we could have back then.

I love me some pulp.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) cold winter another cold winter a really cold winter I could do this all day, but if you're on the left and/or for Kucinich I doubt it would change your mind, even if you could suddenly ice skate in your kitchen. This is not meant to bash anyone, just to strongly disagree with the Global Warming theory as it's taught. I didn't make any of this up. It was a period of very harsh winters. In recent years that has changed. I still think that the summer of 1955 remains the hottest summer on record in Chicago. Of course 1988 and 1995 are right up there too. Anyone know Tom Skilling? I'm wondering if you truly understand the global warming issue. Just because "warming" is in the phrase doesn't mean that there can't be blizzards or cold spells in unusual places. Part of the global warming issue is that weather patterns can be altered because of changes in sea temperatures.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm. That's laughable. Ever heard of lobbyists?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) It has been many more times than just the 70's. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 and I am not going to rely on the science of 1895 as a basis of the global warming debate.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) The point is, sometimes things are subjective. However, if it doesn't fit your agenda or way of thinking, it must be biased. With regards to global warming an overwhelming majority of scientists across the globe are in agreement that it is currently taking place. The debate is how severe its effects will be. How many times must this fact be posted in this website?

I don't recall any ice age threats back then either but I won't say they didn't occur. Science tends to get more advanced and accurate with time. I would feel more assurance that the scientific facts of today are more accurate than those from 1970, 1950, 1920, etc. Look at it from a medical standpoint. Would you feel that the advances in medicine are less accurate than what was known in 1960?

If all else fails invest in one of these:

BTW - How did anyone live before the NFL network existed? Life is so much better now.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) Interesting. If participants say it was, but a lawyer investigating says no, which is more reliable? The lawyer! Everyone loves lawyers.

Alpha, sorry to go off on a tangent but your sig is somewhat misleading. It is true that many farmers are hunters but when you look at the big picture factory farms kill billions of livestock annually. That includes chickens, pigs, and cows. I can't imagine the number of animals hunted and killed even remotely comes close to those numbers.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhow...ovefluoride.htm The answer is no, they do not remove fluoride. Ah thanks. I will send that link to a friend that thinks Brita and PUR are worthless. He was under the impression the filters remove fluoride so he only drinks tap water.

I was reading the article in the Trib today about the rise in dental cavities and the effect bottled water (no flouride) has on it. So does anyone know if Brita or PUR water filters also removes the flouride in tap water?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 09:29 AM) I'm not ignorant. I know what my grandparents did for a living very well. Something that my grandparents, and my parents taught me, is that *I* am responsible for ME. I don't count on companies taking care of me. I don't count on government taking care of me. I don't count on my children taking care of me when I'm old (although I would like to think I would raise her in a way that she would WANT to, but it is her choice). I don't count on handouts taking care of me. I have to work my ass off for what I get, and if I don't, I have to find another way to take care of myself. No one is going to do anything but me. If I make a mistake, it's on me, not my government because (dammit no healthcare, no retirement, no (insert entitlement here)). If I choose to scoop s*** on the street for a career, I need to face the consequences of that choice. If I choose to invest in myself and get an education that will make me compete in the business world, then I have made a choice to better myself so I have the skills to compete in the market place. Why is that so damn hard to fathom today? Part of the answer is most people feel ENTITLED to something that's not theirs in the first place. Most of the kids nowadays EXPECT things to be handed to them because they are brought up that way. I am going to do my damndest to make sure my little girl has a work ethic to work hard in life because her hard work will result in being able to take care of herself. I take it you hand deliver mail yourself since you don't use the post office.