Steff

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) I just talked with my rep yesterday about this (we ask every year to upgrade from 27 game plan to full season in our current location). Upgrades are expected to be done in December and/or January. According to our new rep (Natalie), renewals are already at 92%, and that's just from the postseason ticket buyers. That number will go up with some who didn't do postseason but still may renew. Then they go into new plan requests. So basically, upgrades will be hard to come by this offseason. But definitely contact your rep and see what you can do. Not that it matters - because from the threat I'm sure everyone bought them - but if you didn't buy postseason you lost your seats so there won't be any additional renewals from those folks.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 05:16 AM) What if he still gave Jerry the f***in' ball? "Jerry, I saved this f***in' thing for you, asshole. You god damned cheap Jew. Konerko rules!" Next day: 5 years, $60 million I'm going to guess that PK is not a disgusting ignorant racist and wouldn't say something like this. But in the event he did, I doubt that "next day" thing would happen.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 06:58 PM) But they do get a bigger share of the pool (overall) if they're selling a higher percentage of caps than say, every team but the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox? It's split exactly evenly? I can't remember. I do know they of course don't have to share the profits of merchandise/hats sold at US Cellular, but those in-stadium purchases now probably amount to a tiny overall percentage of the worldwide sales of White Sox hats/caps. It's a small world these days. I bought my last fitted New Era Sox cap in Hong Kong. IIRC it is divided equally. Every year the Yanks (and the like) end up writing a check to offset their incredible profits (which includes everything from tv deals to merchandise and everything in between I believe). In the past teams like Tampa and Pittsburgh have cashed in big time on MLB's revenue sharing plan. With that in mind, it would make sense that anything that is MLB licensed is in that group no matter where it's bought/sold. The popularity again will be nice. The Sox were crazy popular in the '90's among rappers wearing their hats in all their videos.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) Alaska hot springs here I come. LMAO!! Jim wants to borrow her

Yayyy for the new rescued puppy!!!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) Natalie Portman was in a pirate movie? Oops.. meant that Kinghtly gal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:58 AM) Is there such thing as a size -2? That would be disturbing. Yep and it's gross. Natalie Portman in between the 2 Pirate's movies was pretty close.

".. we will name him Sparkles..."

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:49 AM) Yeah. It just fit her weird. The kids looked adorable though. At least with Michelle we can look forward to four years with less twin sets and pearls! I think she has the potential to be a Jackie-O type style icon. As long as she avoids dresses like she wore Tuesday. Agree completely.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:49 AM) She obviously works out... so does her husband, but she still looks like she could beat his ass. Ever looked at her arms? She could definitely take him down.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) I loved the runway version but I thought Michelle looked matronly. She's too pretty to wear icky dresses. You gotta be a -2 to wear that thing. The contrast made her look fat which she definitely is not!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I think all the focus here on students, which was most of that part listed, is being short-sighted. There was also these gems there. 1) Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, 2) Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55 So, even after you get out of school, it seems like he wants free labor for life. Anybody here in their 30's or 40's with 2 or 3 kids and a job have 50 - 100 extra hours to spare? Give up one of those silly bowling leagues and you'll be all set. LOL

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:36 AM) And if she hated the idea she could decide not to participate since it's voluntary. 3pts!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:33 AM) What on earth is wrong with #2? It's not free labor for the government, it's service for any number of possible things in communities, or wherever. My 80 year old mother in law would say nothing. She's bored out of her mind and would LOVE this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) This isn't an official proposal or bill or anything, so I think analyzing every word just doesn't matter too much at this point. That.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) But you said you had no problem with requiring community service. I'm saying requiring it is fine as long as elitism is not not going to effect the implementation of said service. I did and I don't. If you CHOOSE to take advantage of this program you will be required to perform CS. I'm sorry but I can't be any more clear. And I understand what you said just fine and simply diagree and find it a bit premature at this stage of it's life to resolve problems that have yet to occur. As I said earlier, agree to disagree. Please.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) k... right... but as a college student even 50 hours/semester would be a huge pain in the ass - much less 100. right now, i take what's called theatre practicum - backstage, crew stuff - and we have to do 50 hours worth over the semester. it's pretty time consuming. and to have to add ANOTHER fifty on top of that would be insane. I don't think you have to worry about this. And going forward I would guess students will know what they have to do and be able to plan accordingly.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) If the rich folks don't need this type of thing and are able to opt out of it, then they are given a choice. If the poor folks decide that they want to opt out of it, and not accept the assitance in return, then they should be given that choice as well. If you are going to require the needy to perform comm service, then you should require the rich to also. But then, you'd have the bleeding hearts saying that the rich shouldn't get assistance because they don't need it. But, is their service any less valuable than their not so fortunate counterparts? I'm not requiring anyone to do anything. This is a CLEAR matter of choice. It's got nothing to do with the rich or the poor. If you take advantage of this program you do community service regardless of how rich or poor you are. I never said anything about anyone or their service being any more or less valuable than anyone else. You brought up the elitism.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) If you don't look at the potential for elitism and unfairness being part of the equation, then you just have blinders on. GWB's "military service" was major liberal attack point, but he still served his country. I call it looking at the glass half full rather than wearing blinders. Though I do realize that CS service for someone going to Yale (I know it's a stretch cause those "rich folks" probably wouldn't need this kind of thing) and someone going to IU would probably be different, but not because of elitism or unfairness but simply because of logistics and ability and probably many other factors which isn't unfairness.. it's life. IMO

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) Well, after reading your response and considering it, I can't totally disagree any further. Required community service can turn into a lifetime of volunteerism. If Obama's girls are required to serve in the same way Joe the plumber's kids are, then this could be a good thing. However, if Obama's girls get the cushy "community service" and Joe's kids have to enlist in the military then it's not. I like the however. This is a plan not even fertilized yet and you're calling out the short end of the stick - as if giving back has one but that's a matter of personal opinion. We agree to disagree.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) ETA: Quite the opposite, I said that income should not be used as a determinant for requiring or not requiring this sort of thing. And thank God for that. I don't care how "rich" I am my kid(s) will be applying for any and all assistance they qualify for just as I did.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Huh? Where are you getting that from? I think you should re-read my post. I said nothing about handouts. ETA: Quite the opposite, I said that income should not be used as a determinant for requiring or not requiring this sort of thing. Your response to Yas got a bit mixed up in the college convo. I got confused for a sec there also.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:26 AM) But Steff, if its a requirement, and we will do this in return whether you think that is fair or not, it is not a choice. And I said I am ok with it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) With the insane increase in the cost of college tuition I'm curious why you would think that. Well that was much nicer than the response I had all typed out.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) There is still that word at the beginning ... Require. Not sure this is really an option. Cause requiring them to give back would be terrible? As a parent even with the word.. gasp... "require" I'm fine with this. JMO