NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 07:59 AM) All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past? It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate. And I, like FlaSoxxJim, will agree that this is a very important, valid point. ETA: I think jackie was more getting at the point that, because this is true, some people use that fuzziness as license to claim all sorts of unlikely things, which are not proveable.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) Sun-Times has a great article on citations today. Basically they quote to the commanders of two different towns and their views on issuing tickets. In geneva on 23% are issued a ticket for speeding. But in North Chicago 99.9% of the people pulled over were issued a citation. Further illustrating as noted earlier - departments vary widely in their execution of citations.

I find it unlikely that Ozzie, who likes to use offensive subs so often, will choose a 4 man bench and a 7 man bullpen. Also, I don't think Cintron sticks around for 2008.

That piece about the "abusive" fines is really poor journalism, for one very important piece of missing information - what constitutes "abusive"? Is it repeat offenders? Or people going too far over the limit (like 20+ or something)? Unless I missed it, I don't see that mentioned. And by not mentioning it, they paint the picture like this cop was somehow evil in pulling her over (even though she never told him why she was speeding). The reason its important is that, depending on what qualifies, I am actually OK with it. For example... if a person is a repeat offender, like let's say they get 3 or more tickets in a year or something like that... then I am 100% Ok with slapping them with big fines and maybe license suspensions. Why the fines? Because someone who tends to abuse the traffic laws repeatedly is most definitely a bigger cost to the state. They get in more accidents, they heighten risk for other drivers, they use more police time, etc. So in short, depending on the rules of "abusive", I am quite OK with this. And as for the time between I-Pass points... some turnpikes already do that in other states.

Whisler's line so far this year... W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB SO GO/AO AVG 6 11 5.28 24 23 0 0 0 131.1 165 92 77 9 39 65 1.81 .307 Not real good, especially pitching in a pitcher-friendly park. A .307 average against?! And he isn't improving. ERA in last 10 is even higher than his season number. About the only positive so far is his low walk rate. And from what I have read, his velocity just isn't great. Thing is, the guy did hit .289 in his one year of minor league offensive play (low A). Had decent college hitting numbers too. And he hit .309 in that summer exhibition league before being drafted, with good power. So I'm thinking... this organization could use more position player depth, and the signs are that this kid isn't going anywhere as a pitcher (probably). Can we Ankiel him? Put him back on the field, while he still remembers how to hit?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) How so? How much influence do you think he had on President Bush? I'd suggest that Bush had less control than most Presidents do over his own policy - and amazingly, I think that was by his choice. But, I think Rove was only one of a number of strong actors around him that influenced most of his moves pretty heavily.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) Jermaine Dye at 1B Why not have Toby Hall play over there Paulie has played 112 of 117 games so far at 1B. Frankly, 5 games at 1B is not something to worry much about, defenively-speaking, especially with the other problems this team has. And Dye is still a great athlete - I am sure he can handle 5 or 6 games there over a season as needed. More importantly, he can spell Thome a couple days a week so that Thome's back can stay stronger.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) I would like to see them get a RH bat for a role like this. Then with some of the nasty LHP, he can sub for Thome at DH His name is Jermaine Dye, and I think you'll see him DH more often next year for that very purpose. He'd still be a starting OF, but playing a few less games out there, and a few more at DH or 1B.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 02:54 PM) I'd be all for it. Then everyone will know how much I love Kucinich. Yeah, because we don't know that already, bacon boy.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) There is certainly a larger group of atheists, anti-religious posters, than regular Church goers. Certainly the social conservative groups is much smaller than the liberal social group. I tend to avoid these threads, but found an interesting conversation with Jim and stuck around. I think there can be civil discussions, but I agree with PA in some of these threads the gloves come off way to fast and miscommunication is the rule. huh? I believe there are one or maybe two self-described atheists/agnostics in here. There are far more people of some degree of religious faith. On social issues generally though, I'd agree there is a left-lean in the Buster. I think this can be attributed to the large number of fiscally conservative but socially liberal "moderates". Of those moderates, there aren't many (if any) the other way around - conservative on social issues but liberal on business/fiscal/governmental matters. And its certainly true that people get personal and snarky way too fast when it comes to discussion of religion. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) So based on this conversation... and in the interest of SERIOUS debate (not snarkiness, as I am most of the time as are a few others)... how about we review a GOP site and a DEM site a week for issues and debate them? I promise, I'll try to stick to the topics and not get snarky. Thoughts? You mean picking a candidate from each party, and reviewing the material on their sites? So each week, we'd have one GOP candidate highlight thread, and one Dem candidate highlight thread? Sounds excellent. I'd suggest we start with some of the minor ones first, since they might drop out by the time we get done.

QUOTE(knightni @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) Well, Heads. It's not just us who think it. http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail174.html I loves me some strongbad.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) Oh, it's ok. Obama is the Second Coming. Please stop. Seriously.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) I didn't have to imagine very hard. The insults were obvious. The ignorance was even better. The lack of critical reading was the crux of the issue. What I think of people really isn't the issue. It's always been my e-philosophy to make a point to wish people a happy birthday even though I think they're crazy idiots. Just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to go out and get Yuengling and wings afterwards. I think there's an issue of reverse bigotry (that is, there's an unspoken set of opinions you should have) that is silently accepted by the admins of soxtalk... The mostly ignore me, which is fine, but it won't make me stop. I don't think I'm a pariah or a martyr. Just clearly more aware of this issue than others. again: Church Theologians = Scientists = Finite Knowledge + Infinite Pride Reverse bigotry? That's a laugh. Have you not noticed the posters in the Buster that range all over the spectrum? Do you see me or Rex or any other Mod/Admin using that authority to enforce some sort of belief system? Heck, if you want to dissect that... Rex is pretty solidly left, and I'm mildly left, yet if you were to make a list of the regular posters in here, you'd find just as many (if not more) conservatives as liberals. If you'd just stick to the subject, and be willing to have an intelligent discourse (instead of, by your own admission, trying to create problems), you'd find you can take any stance you'd like and probably find some support here. Now, can we go back to the discussion at hand? Because I think we've gone as far as we need to on the subject of you being a victim. If you want to discuss that part further, just PM me (or whomever it is you think has been bigoted towards you).

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) with Mackowiak gone, I'm wondering if you would take a gamble on Erstad for one more season as a backup 1B/ 5th Outfielder? As of right now, I figure top priorities have to be Bullpen, 2B, SS and CF. that being said, is there any money left for the utility backup 1B??? There are so many options better than Erstad for that role, since its clear he can't stay healthy. The backup OF positions are lower priority as you say, and we have multiple in-house options to choose from (Ozuna, Owens or Sweeney if they don't start, Anderson if he looks good in the spring). I suppose it might be nice to have Gload back, but that's isn't going to happen.

Everytime I see an article with Ankiel in it, I think... I hope the Sox do this with Wes Whisler, and do it before he wastes too much more time pitching.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) Obama is in trouble because he is having problems explaining his ideas in 30 second sound bites. I think explained out some of his positions make sense, but broken down for TV news, the Clinton Machine is just making him look terrible. Richardson doesn't have a chance to get any TV time, which means he doesn't have a chance. I think you are dead on, both counts. Obama is clearly at his best when he can actually speak at length, and when he is off the cuff. When he is trying to spew the 30-second bits his staff are feeding him, he loses the natural appeal he brought to the table. Too bad really - the age of the sound byte is killing him. The perfect example was the first debate. He looked unusually stiff and forced in his statements, until he got into a little back-and-forth with Kucinich. Then he suddenly looked, almost, Presidential. And you are also right about Richardson, which drives me nuts. In addition to the sound byte mindset of the media killing Obama and others, you also have the media dumbing down the campaign by filtering out everyone but the 2 front runnners (and, on occasion, Edwards). It means that candidates 4 through 10 have no chance to even be seen and heard.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) Yes, I was mocking them, as I was mocking anyone who believes they're "right" (looking at the creationist) but can't really prove it because in the end you have to take a WHOLE lot of this life on faith...hence the mocking of "knowledge". as for examples, this was fun: I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check! seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check! Again...this is satire. One side says the other side is wrong while they're "right" and vice versa, whilst the "right" side doesn't even agree themselves. This thread was more or less a joke...and the hyperactive evolutionist didn't catch on to that when I said: in other words...I'm not much of a literal creationist, so this doesn't mean very much to me either way in the argument for or against evolution. so in fact: People acting so "right" when their knowledge is in fact so flawed, it makes me laugh. oh the drama. Instead of remembering this thread for the imagined insults you found, I'm thinking some people will remember it for you illustrating what you think of the other posters here. Kind of difficult to engage someone in intelligent discussion or argument when you know the that person is just trying to manufacture some sort of slight.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) Oh, I forgot about the self-proclaimed "trend setter". I hate Edwards more then I do Clinton... and that should tell you something. This is more or less what I meant a few days ago that we disagreed on... all these people bring NOTHING idealogically to the table that is any different then what we have now (in a material sense), and it makes me really sad, because I think any of these people (without regard to party) will not lead us effectively in the future. Looking at the top 4 - Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson - I think you are only 50% right. Clinton and Edwards are pretty worthless, they are definitely retreads, and they are manifestly dishonest. But, like him or not, Obama does in fact bring a new approach and attitude to the table, and he is indeed a new face. And Richardson has, more so than any candidate in either party, a Presidential resume. So I personally think there is some value in those candidates' presence.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) Ok seriously, who has a LEGIT chance of beating her? I say no one as it stands right now. Obama = glory boy who is going to fade like a meteor in our atmosphere. Richardson = a Clinton dog who will get eaten alive the rest of these boobs have no shot... Unfortunately, I think Edwards still has a shot. And while Obama said something he shouldn't have about Pakistan (though I actually agreed with him, it should not have been stated publically), I'd say he still stands a chance as well. Some polls in Iowa and NH show him very close to Clinton.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) Hillary won't be beat by any of the GOP doofus's running. None of them have any guts to take her out politically. I'm not so sure. And there is also still plenty of rumbling on the Dem side about even wanting Hillary to be the candidate. Her negatives are still very, very high, and they fear she will not only alienate moderates, but that she will bring out the conservative vote like no other. I am still not convinced she will be the nominee.

Eh, I don't think its a conspiracy, as much as its a typical DC giveaway. Its a small, sort of weak appeasement to Congress, and even the GOP faithful. And there may be more reasons for it under the hood of course, which may have pushed the deal. In any case, since Rove's biggest roles were getting Bush elected and helping him express a domestic policy... he's not really much use at this point anyway. Might as well send him home.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 08:21 PM) Not having Lucy around seems to have an effect on Gio and Jack. Do we know if Cole Armstrong is a solid game-caller? If he is, hopefully those two will settle down in a start or two, once they get used to each other. Or they could just find a way to promote them both to Charlotte.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) Not really familar with his politics, just wondering then why he cares about the GOP race then.... Well, I was joking around, but I am sure Balta probably does care, as we all should. Someone from one of the two parties will be our next President, and that should matter enough to at least have some interest in the primaries of both parties.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 05:19 PM) Balta, who is your choice from the GOP as of today ? I'm not sure if you are familiar with the poster Balta, but that's kind of like asking Tom Tancredo who his favorite illegal immigrant is.