NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) Heh, the football team kicked some serious ass when tornados hit. Coincidence? I think not. Anywho, here's the storm track for the second tornado last fall. I'm kinda a tornadoy guy, so I find this stuff neat. That line looks just about right for that alley. Tornados are kewl. Scorpions were kewl yesterday. Tornados are kewl today.

I wonder what material financial effect the Cubs have on TribCo? According to Forbes' list last year, I think the Cubs were marginally profitable (gross at maybe 2% or something), but Forbes has to make some guess work to get those numbers because baseball clubs are so weird with their financials. If the Cubs don't make money for the Trib in coming years, they'll sell them. If the Cubs contribute significant net income, then they will likely keep them. The conflict of interest card won't come into play in the reality of things - if it did, they wouldn't have bought the team to begin with. But if/when the Trib DOES sell the team, I guarantee they will cite that as a reason, and it will be total B.S. to placate Cubs fans.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) They never told me this in 206. (My dad went here and told me damn near everyone takes Agron 206 for some reason). The tornado during the Colorado football game tracked over western and northwestern Ames. The places that got f***ed up last night were in western Ames. However, the one the week of the Iowa game was right on campus, an F1. NS, you and any others that are familiar with the campus, the one that went over campus started northwest of the College of Design, went over like MacKay Hall and Gilman Hall, and ended up in between Agronomy Hall and the tennis courts south of the Forker Building. Sounds about right. Like I said, the line goes from west of town to north of town, scraping the western and northwestern parts of town. Seems to be a pattern. I didn't know about the one actually hit campus, though - news to me.

I lived in Ames for 5 years. As the meteorologists at ISU have pointed out, there are lots of "mini" tornado alleys. Small areas that tend to get hit, while others nearby do not. One of those mini-alleys is a SW-NE line that starts on the western edge of Ames, and proceeds NE to cross between Ames and Story City. That nasty one that hit last fall followed that route, I believe.

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 31, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Well if we look at it closely, we have McCarthy in the Hermanson role. Boone Logan is in the Marte role. Thornton is in the Vizcaino role. Jenks, Cotts, and Politte have the same roles. No denying they are pretty green in the pen. I think this post covers it - and it tells me that the pen isn't all that bad. Thornton seems to be making progress and I like his chances of being better than Viz. Logan is of course a question mark, but so far, he looks one heck of a lot better than Marte. And McCarthy is better than the semi-healthy Hermanson. Plus, as was pointed out, our 5th starter will eat more innings, we have great coaches and catchers, and Thornton and Logan have a lot of raw talent. So... seems to me the pen looks about as good as it did last year. I am more worried about Pods' health than I am about this bullpen.

OK I can't help it. Here are some other interesting pieces of trivia about scorpions that are, as far as I now, true... --You can freeze a scorpion in a block of ice, thaw it out later, and it will survive (some scientist actually did this) --Scorpions can have anywhere from zero to 18 eyes, and some scorpions have types of vision that include heat-sensing, and someting akin to sonar. --Scorpions have live babies and body hair, more like mammals than arachnids --A male scorpion actually has to detach his... organ... and walk the female onto it in order to mate --Scorpions lock claws and tails and "dance" prior to mating --Up until recently, it was thought that scorpions were probably the first animal of its size to live permanently out of the water. They have changed little since then. --For future reference, the way to tell the more poisonous subspecies of scorpion from less, the most reliable method is that the ones with thin claws and tails are usually more poisonous. The ones with thicker limbs are likely less poisonous. --Most scorpions are not deadly to humans --As an anecdotal story... I have a relative in Phoenix who came home one day to find a scorpion running around frantically in a ceiling lamp fixture. It was probably built into the house. Anyway, he turned on the light to the highest setting and let the thing basically fry there for a few days. After this, he took down the fixture and dumped the husk of a body into the sink to flush it down the drain (why he chose that method I do not know). As soon as it hit the sink and came in contact with water, the thing woke up and started running around again. So there you go. I am sure you are all thrilled to know that much useless information about scorpions.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) I have to try this now I actually wrote a fairly in-depth paper on scorpions a long while back. No seriously, I did. How is that for nerdy? Anyway, the impression I got is that any of those myths about scorpions going mad and stinging themselves to death was just that - a myth. For one thing, they aren't effected that way by their own poison. Scorpions that attack each other kill each other by methods other than venom. And for another thing, one thing that IS true about scorpions, is that virtually no known pesticide works on them. If you call an exterminator in AZ, NM, TX or other places they are common, they will tell you there is no way to kill them off chemically. Scorpions are kewl.

Hopefully, Pods just needs to work this thing out of his muscles and its no biggie. But I have my doubts. He has looked tenative on the basepaths this spring, and hasn't been able to shake this thing. Pods being out for any length of time at the beginning of the season (or any other significant part of the season) scares me more than the soft bullpen right now.

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) Sorry, OT: But there is a right to travel. Traveling by automobile is a facilitation of this. Driving, as you say, is a legal priviledge. However, in a legal sense, the only actual reason you would need for a "license" for "driving" is if you are directly making profit from the driving. I'm not just talking about going to work in your car, but people who actually make money for driving such as cab drivers or truck drivers. The "driver's license" and you and I have come to know it, is actually a sham. Thank the insurance companies. It is somewhat of a necessary evil to ensure a semblance of safe travel on the road, but it's been gone about all underhandedly. But that is neither here nor there in regards to the smoking legislation. Continue the smoking debate! You are mistaken. Driving is a legal priviledge. It has nothing to do with "making a profit" (I assume you actually meant something about driving for work anyway, not profit, since I see no logical connection between profit and driving). It is a regulated activity, and the state has the right to revoke said priviledge any time it chooses. Therefore, it is not a right at all, but a priviledge. You have a right to travel within a state (which cannot be revoked unless you are in jail), but no right to do so by car. As for how this connects to smoking, I am not sure if the analogy is accurate. Seems like a different setting, though there are similarities. But I honestly don't know how the laws about public health effect smoking legislation.

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 09:55 AM) Ok, legal privilege. If I smoked I'd have the legal privilege to smoke. But just like driving, there are certain places I can't do it. Inside the ballpark, for instance. Yes, I suppose driving inside the park would be problematic.

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) Yes smokers have a legal right to smoke and this legislation is a law that mandates where smokers can exercise that right. My drivers lisence gives me a legal right to drive but if I drive on the sidewalk I get in trouble. It's all about the public good. Actually, to be clear, there is no such thing as a right to drive. Driving is a legal priviledge, subject to government conditions. Smoking as an activity is not per se regulated the same way driving is, but there are definitely laws conditioning the activity, so I am not sure about that being a right either - kind of a grey area.

Being an ex-smoker (haven't had one in almost 6 years), I am conflicted on this. I selfishly will enjoy the lack of secondhand smoke, and I don't feel too bad for smokers having to go out on the ramps, even having been one. But, I personally believe that individual businesses and organizations should make the decision on allowing or not allowing smoking on their property - not the government. Smoking is legal. Because so many people despise second hand smoke, many establishments will be non-smoking by choice anyway, and the consumers can vote with their money that way. My .02.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) Maybe not, I was just trying to think of a place that was nationwide. The principle is the same, just because a place serves alcohol, should everyone have a right to be drunk? Just asking. I get uneasy when we tell the police to not enforce a law. I'd rather get rid of the law. Police fail to enforce laws all the time - they have to makechoices, unless you want a cop on every corner. And I am more suggesting that the laws are enforced differentyl.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 11:35 AM) But what about Pizza Hut? Pizza Hut sells alcohol?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 05:43 PM) Yes, scum of the earth. Bandwagoners make me sick. I feel you on the kids, though. That "scum of the earth" bought you your 2006 Sox. And how do you expect the Sox to build their fan base? Winning does that. If you never pick up new fans, you won't have this kind of team again.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) However, if there is a law against being drunk in public, and it applies to places that serve alchohol, like bars, restaurants, and sporting events, how can we criticize police for enforcing the law? Shouldn't the response be; we need to change the laws to allow being drunk in bars? I feel pretty good about criticizing this - the police cannot enforce every law all the time, so choices are made. I think that better choices could be made here that would give better results AND provide better public service AND foster amity between cops and communities instead of stirring up frustration.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 09:25 PM) Uh....Please explain, I'd love to hear this. I know this was directed at samclemens, but since he and i appear to be the only ones here that have no Twins love, I'd like to interject... The Twins won 83 games last year. As far as positive changes go, the only one i see is Hunter being healthy. Are there others I missed? Seems like all their other moves are just filling hole with no real improvement (speaking mostly about position players here). Their pitching will be very good again, but do you think it will be better? Their lineup, Hunter's return aside, looks worse to me. So my question is, what changes did they make that make you think they will improve so dramatically? Its entirely possible i have missed some changes they made, but I'd like to hear them.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 29, 2006 -> 07:52 AM) The Rainbow coalition today announced that human lampreys would be added to their list of protected minorities.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 09:12 PM) Let's see, we still have drive thru liquor stores (Ice Houses) Don't even have to get out of the car. Ron White "I got a DUI, it was a b.s. arrest. They were targeting every car driving on that sidewalk. That's profiling and that's wrong. You can still buy singles and most stores down here have paper bags sized to cover the can perfectly. They will have a big ol' tub of ice and the beer at the checkout. I lost a brother to a drunk driver. I wish they had been at softball city in Hainsville that night cracking down. I have little tolerance for the selfish, idiotic jerks who drive drunk. But I also have little tolerance for lazy, privacy-invading law enforcement. There are much more effective and less invasive ways to reduce DUIs, if the cops would just be willing to put safety above their egos. See my posted suggestion.

If it makes you feel better, I beat you to 33 by about 3 months. Happy B-Day, Kap. Here's to many more 'buster arguments!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 28, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Well, I'm playing catch up, but no surprise, y'all know what a big Dubya supporter I am, and I applaud his guest worker proposal. I wish there was a mechanism for citizenship after the six year program, but it's a giant step in the right direction. I'm all for a guest worker program. One of the few Bush proposals in the last few years that I agreed with. Its too bad that the moderate, reasonable idea on this has been destroyed by the extremist elements (racist nationalists on one hand, people trying to argue that illegal immigration is somehow OK on the other).

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 06:15 PM) Twins are my pick to win it if we don't. Twins will be lucky to finish third. They look terrible. I don't think they will play .500 ball.

QUOTE(Winning Ugly @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 06:12 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview06/ne...e=06expertpicks This is unreal. Only Rogers has the Sox repeating, while several writers has the TWINS winning the Central. WTF ARE THEY SMOKING?!?!?!? Phil also picks Paulie and Mark for MVP and Cy Young of the AL, respectively. I like having his last name. :finger to all the other momos. Only one person, Neyer, picked the Twins to win the Central. 8 of 13 have the Sox winning the Central, 9 of 13 have us going to the playoffs. But I must say, I don't get the Indians love. Every indication, to me, says they will likely be worse this year instead of better. Their offseason was not good. And I am very surprised that only Rogers has the Sox even making the WS, even though it seems in nearly every way, the Sox are a better team this year than last year.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 04:48 PM) A lot of the new fans are season ticketholders only because that was the price they had to pay for WS tickets. There are more tickets available now on the season ticket exchange than there were at anytime last year, except for maybe the playoffs when they were putting ridiculous prices up to see if anyone would bite. If the Sox don't repeat, there is no doubt every person on the waiting list will have an opportunity next year for tickets with postseason priviledges. No doubt. I think thats definitely a big chunk. And some of those are serious Sox fans who wanted to go to the postseason, and some are scalpers. Just wanted to point out that there are a lot of different people causing the increase in ticket sales, and they aren't all the bandwagon jumping new fans that some people get upset about.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Mar 27, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) Don't get me wrong--I'm not being sour grapes because now the Sox have crowds, I'm just saying WOW--there did all these people COME from? Just because people are coming to more games now, that doesn't necessarily mean they are new fans. In some cases, they are Sox fans who go to a few games when they are losing, and a whole bunch of games when they are winning. As has been said here before, Sox fans show up when there is a winning product on the field. Just something to keep in mind. And besides, if you don't get new fans sometime... you run out of fans.