Steff

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) How long until she seriously hurts herself? More importantly, how soon until she hurts someone else. Hopefully she is stopped before that happens.

QUOTE(juddling @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) you know wher you read stuff like Brit blowing off custody hearings and such stuff, i wonder if, as a celeb,she thinks that she is above the law or if she is reverting to some form of rebellious childhood and really doesn't realize how much trouble she is getting herself into. either way.....it's a sad thing to watch. I thinks it's as Soxy said. A mental breakdown and she really doesn't comprehend the seriousness of the matter in her mental state. There are so many people around her telling her what bad is coming of her actions and she's just not getting it. Definitely not hitting on all cylinders.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) I agree. She's CLEARLY mentally ill. And that's sad. Very. Hopefully a proactive course of treatment can be found for her. Good to hear she wasn't drunk or drugged up though. At least she had sense enough not to impare herself further than she already was/is.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:57 AM) Diapers are not conducive to focus. Anyone watching this little gal will have no choice. You either change her or your ears will start to bleed from the wailing. For something so small, she's got a rather large set of lungs. Something Sox fans all over the land will appreciate in 15 or so years when I retire from the Soxfest Q&A session.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) Steff ... He said it requires focus. C'mon now. She's only 5 weeks old. All he needs to be sure of is that the bottle makes it in her mouth and the diaper into the trash.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) Taking the kid to Haunted Trails. They have a good little deal on NYE - 15 bucks a head for some game tokens, bad pizza, unlimited pop, contests, door prizes. Should be nice. Wow.. I haven't been to that place in over 15 years.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) There are games at 10, 1030, 12, 12, 330, and 730. That's roughly 13 hours of football which requires mental strength, focus, and multiple tvs (I use 3). Hmmm.. this makes you a prime babysitting candidate for NYE.

QUOTE(Brian @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) Was hoping my name would be used for a boy, Steff. Freudian slip? Of course... :rolleyes.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:14 AM) Man, she sure does sleep a lot... Hope things are going well for you, Steff. We are soooo lucky in regards to her sleep habits. She's up to 5 a night on a regular basis. BTW, I sent you an email regarding the x-mas card. Seems no one in your state got our mail.

A few days late - seems to be the norm these days :-) Hope everyone had a nice Christmas.

Good Lord he's almost 2 Briana's!!! Glad everything is good. Can't wait to meet him and see K and the boy.

I hope this isn't too big. I took it with the phone and I can't figure out how to resize it properly. Night 1 at home was uneventful and we even got more sleep than anticipated. She's eating 2 oz every 2 hours and then right back to sleep. Hopefully things continue to run this smooth.

Thanks everyone for all the text messages and calls and posts. She was a few weeks early, but you couldn't tell from anything other than her weight. Thankfully she eats like her mom so she'll be a little fatty in no time. I have a ton of pictures and I'll get a few up asa I get things a bit organized around here. Thanks again!!

QUOTE(Wanne @ Nov 20, 2007 -> 10:20 AM) Can't friggin wait. About 20 min. from my house!!!! http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendal...dbreak1120.html An even further FYI, it's not for '09 unless the Sox find a replacement for their spot in Tucson - which they are tied to until 2012.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 12:57 AM) Does it matter? Let's assume that the Pres. had good intentions. Let's assume (as Tex mentioned) that it was protective, fatherly type advice. Let's assume someone made some kind of crass comment to the Pres. about Mary and he's just trying to look out for her. Let's also assume that this promotion had been in the works for a while. The situation was still mishandled. She's gonna stay for now, take the promotion, the new title, the raise, fatten up her resume and look for something else in the spring. They're also going to put her through some kind of courses and get her certified, so she's gonna use them for that too. It only matters to her. She's staying so apparently she's fine with what and how it went down. Good luck to her. Hopefully it all works out in the wash.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 17, 2007 -> 02:07 AM) Update: Her immediate boss (not the Pres.) let the cat out of the bag. She will be getting a promotion in January. What do you make of it all now? Perhaps she was being prepared for the even more conservative bosses higher up? It's a sad shame that females must maintain a higher level of professionalism in order to make their $.70 on the $1.00 compared to men, but it is what it is. Is she comfortable with that logic or does she feel it's a line?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:37 PM) I am pointing out that, if that's what you meant, your original post (replying to mine) was very misleading. You did not exclude the BALCO testifiers (you said you were "not even specifically referring to" those, which means something different than "not even referring to"), and my post was very specific about the group I was talking about (I even listed them). If you're just saying someone else should do something else -- fine. It's got nothing to do with my post, that's all. Right. Which is why I said I responded in general, which was my mistake, and would not happen again.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 01:18 PM) Umm...no. You said you weren't "specifically referring to the BALCO bunch" -- that doesn't exclude them, it just means, not restricted to those. If you meant to exclude them entirely, then I don't see why you were replying to my post, which very clearly dealt with ONLY those testifying in the BALCO case. What part of "I am not referring to the BALCO bunch" are you not understanding? I've said it several times now, and you have repeated it for me. It is what it is and nothing more. I replied to your post in general because you asked what should others be charged with. My mistake. It will not happen again. And no you did not say anything otherwise, and I did not say you did.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad. That was necessary. :rolleyes

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) I never said I was referring to something Steff said. But there are multiple posts within the thread that make it sound like the feds 'are out to get Bonds', or that he's being charged just because of visibility. Those are what I am referring to. He's being gone after because he lied. Not because he used.. but because he lied about it. As I said a few minutes ago, I would love to see those who have tested positive outside of BALCO gone after. And by not going after them I do believe it will open the door to the race card being played - which I do NOT agree with, BTW.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They've gone after Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Barry Bonds. Seeing some grand conspiracy in all this is pretty silly. Umm.. yes. I understand that. Which is why I am directing my comments, specifically stating so, of going after those NOT involved with BALCO.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) The "water damage" mold ^^^^^. It's not quite that. I can't put my finger on it. And of course no one else can smell it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) What kind? The kind that may come from water in the basement? No nasty water (no pump back up) but clean water from the water heater. The carpet was a little wet in one area back in May. It dried up and we had the carpet cleaned but all of a sudden there is this highly offensive order - that apparently only my super duper pregnancy nose can detect - that is driving me nuts. I am this/close to forcing Jim to rip open the walls to see if something died in there.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) I'm not quite sure what everyone expects the rest to be charged with. The SF Chron story stated that the following players were questioned: Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estalella, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Sheffield and Bonds were the only ones who denied knowingly using steroids. Bonds was charged because there are BALCO records that contradict his testimony. Sheffield probably did perjure himself, but his relationship to Bonds & Anderson seems to have been more informal and fleeting, so there probably isn't much documentation that can be used to charge him. So what should the others be charged with? Use of an illegal substance? And I'm not even specifically referring to the BALCO bunch. Raffy wasn't part of that crew. And neither are any of the others that have tested positive in the past 4 years.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) I agree with Steff... The kiss of death....