NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Look at Nuke's pieces... can you get any more first hand then that? I do take his pieces into account, along with a couple other people I know who spend time over there (one military, one journalist). And I guess I don't see Nuke's saying that one sector is quieter, at night, to be much of an indication. Especially when the other two say it hasn't changed. I want to read that NYT piece you are all referring to, and the salon.com follow up, and see what it says. I'd also be curious to see what the civilian death rates have been doing the last couple months. I haven't seen those numbers lately.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) Billy Krystal was just there and he said that things are getting better! Who? Is that the guy who started the southern version of White Castle or something?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 11:33 AM) No way he should start 08 with the big league team. The way I do it, I start off with Crede @ 3rd and Fields in the OF, and if either Crede struggles or Crede is traded mid-season, then you bring up the better of Anderson/Sweeney when you move Josh back to 3rd. I just can't see how either of Anderson and Sweeney have shown nearly enough to justify starting them off with the big league team next year, nor do I see how either of them would benefit from playing 1 time per week. I think Anderson COULD benefit from playing 2x per week at the major league level. There is more to the learning process than just seeing more pitching. For BA, it seems clear he needs to be around people who can teach him things, and also learn some humility. Being with the big club could do that. But I agree in principle that Sweeney needs playing time, and should start at Charlotte in 2008 (or, if the thing you predict happens, take that OF spot).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Money says we're about to see a link to the Pollack/O'Hanlon piece. I'm not sure I've seen that. But I'd like to (unless Pollack and O'Hanlan are just Bushie hacks).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) You can't clean it up when it's not secure. And by all accounts, it's becoming more and more secure. It's up to them to do what they will with it. By all accounts? I have seen no accounts saying its more secure. IN fact, every story I've read says its pretty much the same old story. Can you provide some "accounts" saying that it is somehow safer or more secure?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) Well, this would be good news. I'm probably still the only one holding out hope for Anderson out of the entire Chicago fan base. Sounds like Guillen might be a bit impressed if BA actually did play in Mexico. If somehow that kid could turn his career around, that would be an enormous help to this team. He can play plus defense in all three OF positions, and has the talent to maybe be able to hit well in the future. Therefore, he does have value. It may be he is a backup OF on the 2008 team. But he would have to play the entire season in Mexico, AND make a show of being early AND late at spring training.

Has anyone else noticed a sudden, dramatic increase in spam email during the last week or so? My email account is becoming almost unmanageable. I must be getting close to 100 a day now.

QUOTE(Sox It To Em @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) Which one of my quotes says that? Sorry, I meant the links, but what I was getting at is the definitions are narrow. They don't cover everything.

I am all for BP trying to make a profit like any other company. But the Clean Water Act is there for a reason - specifically, that some things (our basic health needs) need to take precedence over profit, from a national perspective. It would be NICE if BP was more green, but its not required of them. That is why we have regulations like this in a market economy - because the drive for profit runs counter to the common good in this instance. I put the responsibility here almost entirely with the EPA and the state of Indiana, for chosing to endanger people's health (and the environment) in order for a little financial gain. But that said, I can't boycott the EPA or the state of Indiana. So that seems like maybe a good idea. I am considering doing that to BP. Just one note, to those considering it: its only effective if they know its happening. That means that if you do it on your own... write them a letter as well. If they get enough letters, and/or if some large scale media-covered boycott occurs, then they might take action.

QUOTE(Sox It To Em @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) The word atheism literally means "without theism," hence the privative a. Therefore, one doesn't have to "100% dismiss the concept of god" to be an atheist. An atheist is merely someone who does not believe in a god. You are erroneously limiting the definition of atheism to strong atheism, the positive affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, which is a position a minority of atheists take. I am in the position you describe. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any gods (atheist), but in the event that such a being exists, I think it would be unknowable to us humans (agnostic). It's entirely possible, and indeed quite common, for people who do not believe in gods to be unsure. Of course, I would go as far to say that the majority of people of the position you have described are more likely to be agnostic theists, people who do not claim to be sure of the existence of God, but still believe in one. See: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm and http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnostici.../commitment.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I think you are making it far more black-and-white than it is. By the very definitions you quote, a person who is not sure about God(s), doesn't fit being atheist or theistic. They could be either agnostic or not, depending on their practices. One can be church going and still be unsure. Its grey. Its always not one or the other.

Update. EPA is getting BP execs and a bunch of local folks together to discuss 7 alternative actions for BP to consider, in response to public outcry over the new dumping. EPA still maintains officially that they cannot rescind the permit, which of course is bogus for at least two reasons*. But at least SOMETHING is being done. Hopefully BP volunteers to take some of the recommended courses of action, which include routing some of the pollution through a treatment plant (duh, why not do this more often!), and/or spending money on clean-up efforts in the region. *Two reasons why the EPA's position is manifestly B.S.: 1. The Clean Water Act has a provision specifically PROHIBITING any increase in pollution levels, which this clearly violates (Illinois and Chicago are both promising legal action, using this as grounds) 2. The EPA, I believe, has authority to restrict levels of allowed pollution on specific businesses if it represents an immediate danger. They could elect to use that authority here, if they so chose. OF course they won't, because god forbid we touch big oil.

Debt Help | Mobile Phones | Online Loans | Myspace Comments | Download Hindi movies Dude on Myspace told me to go to the store and get this cool new phone. So I went to the Kwik-E-Mart, bought a used one, and now I've got creditors asking me for money. Thank you, come again.

QUOTE(Sox It To Em @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 09:44 PM) Atheism is merely the absence of theism, not a positive belief in the nonexistence of gods. It is true that some atheists may hold that no gods do or can exist, but this extra step isn't necessary for the "atheist" label to apply. Consequently, everyone is either an atheist or a theist: either one believes in a god (theist) or one does not (atheist). Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief, and is in a separate domain from theism and atheism. An agnostic believes that the existence of gods is unknowable, or inherently unknowable. Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism and is in no way a "third-way" between the two, as commonly perceived. I don't agree at all. A person who is not sure of the presence of a God, but hasn't 100% dismissed it, is agnostic but is also neither theistic or an atheist. And I think nowadays, there are a lot of people in that middle ground.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 03:18 AM) Griffith.. And Sweeney is slowing going down hill. Eh, Sweeney just came off the DL, I wouldn't use the first week back as a judgement. He did have an OF assist. And hey, good to see Heath Phillips getting his 2006 form back. Last 10 games, he is 6-1 with a 2.54 ERA.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 07:52 PM) George W. Bush is responsible for more American deaths than any illegal immigrant. /flame on Much as I detest Dubya, that could probably be said about virtually any President ever.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) Quite frankly, I would rather go with Owens, Fields, and Sweeney, with Anderson as a backup option, in the OF for $1.3 million next year than Juan Uribe at SS for $5.5 mil. Neither is a good idea...but given the dollar figures involved and the ability for the guys in the OF to at least improve...I'd rather go with the youth than another year with Juan. Fix that damn SS spot. QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 04:02 PM) His defense has been average this year, and when you add that to his terrible batting average, he needs to go. I know a certain person who will refute this, but look for the Sox to make a hard run at Tejada this offseason. Hm. Interesting. I agree that he should be replaced, I just didn't see it as a more important move than the OF positions. I guess I also think that finding a strong bat for the OF will be easier than the same at SS, especially if we want a decent defender there.

With all the shortstop talk... am I the only one who thinks that priorities number 1 through 3 are the outfield positions? With shortstop being behind them? Uribe is painful, but he is a stellar defender and does bring some power to the table (as well as a relatively cheap option). I don't want to see him next year, but on a relative basis, the OF scares me a lot more right now.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 02:55 PM) Does this hold true for all the US supervolcanoes? Apparently they are trying, but funding is low.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) You tend to win playoff games with dominant starting pitching, an effective bullpen, solid defense and 3 run homers. Thanks, Earl.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) Yellowstone is what we consider a supervolcano. It sits over a hot spot, a long lived source of volcanism that has produced, within the past 25 million years or so, dozens of monstrous eruptions on the scale of Toba or larger. It has erupted 3 times at hte current site, about 2.0, 1.4, and 0.643 million years ago. The ash cloud from the most recent eruption basically covered the area from Mexico to Washington to Iowa. If it were to erupt on that scale again, it would kill billions. The Ash cloud would have the same effect as a nuclear war; kicking up enourmous amounts of dust and essentially spoiling the harvest for years. Yellowstone is not the only one of these in the world either. It is just the most famous, in part for the hydrothermals, in part because it's in the US and therefore is the best studied. And Yellowstone isn't the only dormant volcano even in the US that has a history of super-eruptions - Jemez is another example. So there are a few, even in our own backyard.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) If he gets out of jail time I'll pitch a fit. This isn't some push-over municipal court - its a federal case, one with a lot of strength. The feds have zero motivation to go easy, and in fact, will likely want to make an example out of him (being high profile).

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) Add three more victims to the illegal murder list. Its a great country isn't it? Illegal kills our citizens after twice receiving bail for two previous crimes. God forbid you ask someone to show proof of residency. Ask the five year old this sick f*** raped. Ask the parents of these three people who were murdered if they care about this a******* rights. We must be sensitive to illegals' rights. Sanctuary country is what we are people. New Jersey should fry this guy ..yesterday. Again... what are you talking about? Source? Link? Or did you witness this crime yourself?

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 11:04 AM) I would assume if you get both, Fields is in LF and Crede at 3B. And that would seem to be ideal, especially if we have a strong defensive CF (Rowand or Hunter or otherwise).

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 10:10 AM) Personally, I would group the spiritual but not religious and the seekers in sort of a no man's land. Not necessarily non-religious, more of a still looking sort of thing. No matter how you qualify the ones in that middle ground, I think its interesting to note that there seems to be close to an even balance or religious/non, or spiritual/non. Especially since some posters (myself included) assumed there would be a landslide to one side or the other.

I'd consider the "still trying to figure it out" group to be like an abstain vote - they aren't religious fully, but they may be involved and doubting. That makes the current count 20 non-religious, 17 religious and 4 undetermined. And the "spiritual more than religious" group is interesting to me. Maybe another poll question should be... do you believe in some sort of God(s), divine power(s), first mover or spiritual presence(s)? I'd be curious to see if that number was as close a call as the religious/non-religious is.