NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 07:26 PM) anyone see the teaser trailer for The Last Airbender? I am interested to see if Shyamalan can pull it off, I wonder if he can do anything with material that is not his own. I didn't know that was Shyamalan. I've said for a while now, I think he's a fantastic DIRECTOR - and needed to get away from his own writing. He had been slated at one point to maybe do a couple of the Potter movies, which i think would have been a nice fit, but that didn't work. I may have to see this Airbender thing now.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) Does anybody happen to know of a queen size mattress/boxspring will fit in a minivan? I love this post.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) It calls those outcomes into question because it calls the character of these scientists into question. If they'd talk about doing something like that via email, who's to say they didn't do other things that were never logged or in writing anywhere? If they never did anything like this in the first place, nobody would be talking about it is my point. The fact this happened is casting doubt into everything they accomplished, whether it should or not. It's tainted now. You can make excuses and say they were "being human", but in the arena of science, there is no excuse for this, on any level. It is dramatic for that very reason. I don't particularly disagree with any of your individual points here - I think you are right about them. I just don't find it to be the earth-shattering discovery that its being made out to be. There is a unison chorus of thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific pieces all saying that, yes, the climate is changing with a rapidity and consequence that we need to heed, and yes, there is SOME EXTENT of human causality (how much is, of course, up for debate). So I am supposed to believe that is all B.S. because some scientists were snarky about FOIA requests in an email?

Actually, wait, let me alter that - in this case, they didn't even fail to publish (I just looked back at one of the articles with quotes). They published properly - they were just debating in an email about not filling an FOI request. Still bad, mind you, but nothing nearly as dramatic as you are putting it. This doesn't effect outcomes.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) Wanting to hide their base data is THE glaring example of that bold text. In science, you simply do not ever do this...no, you don't even CONSIDER doing it. Doing so casts doubt on everything you've spent time to study, this is counter to the point of science. I think you and I have different understandings of "hide". I don't mean "don't include" or "don't use" or "selectively use" - I mean, you publish a paper, you show your methods and data, and "oops" I didn't put this one chart of my base data in there. Its bad methodology, bad report writing, and it makes me question their motives. It is not "counter to the point of science". Now, if by "hide", they really did mean they just chose to manipulate their data to remove certain aspects that didn't fit their theorem - then yes, I agree with you.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 12, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) The AP. Hahah. That may have meant something a few years ago...but they're ruined their reputation as have many other "news" organizations. Syndicated to NBC no less. Sounds like tailor made spin doctoring, all because of some douchebag scientists that broke all the rules that make science what it is. The fact that any of this went on in the scientific community is disturbing, and a few articles from the AP doesn't dismiss that. That's the beauty of science, it's not petty. The fact that this even happened raises questions -- questions that should have never existed. If you want to prove something, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you don't go about it like this. And they should have known better. They set this data back years by doing this, because now people have reasons to call it to question -- despite the AP finding nothing "wrong". Show me any example of the bolded in the leaked documents. Because I haven't seen anything like that. As I said, the one disturbing thing to me is that these guys wanted to hide their base data. Heck, I don't know if they even DID hide it, but it bugs me they wanted to. But I saw nothing at all as dramatic as you are trying to make this.

Five AP Reporters scoured the million words' worth of leaked emails and papers. They found pettiness, conduct bordering on unprofessional, rivalry, and suggestions of keeping data away from disagreeing parties. What they did not find, was any shred of evidence of any fraud, or anything illegal, or anything that would suggest actions which fundamentally changed any scientific outcomes. So basically, they found the scientists are human, and often petty and competitive, but not outright fraudulent. Article, from AP, syndicated to NBC. It still disturbs me that data was being kept away from the public eye - but aside from that, the rest appears to be just noise. There certainly is no smoking gun here, nor is there anything to lead anyone logically to believe outcomes were manipulated.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) Cubs picked up Mota from the Nationals for cash. Heh. How much cash? I wonder if WAS made out on the deal.

Cowley is terrible, but he did get the scoop on this one, he was right, and deserves some credit for it.

Very nice. Pitching staff, as it stands right now, looks awfully good (assuming Putz is healthy). I hope they manage to keep DJ around though. This increases the chances of trading Jenks and/or Linebrink, but I still don't think either is all that likely, which seems good to me (at least in Jenks' case).

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) House passes financial rules overhaul, letting feds break up big, risky companies I want to see more about this before passing judgement, but lets start with the fact that the writer needs to do some fact- checking: Newsflash - OTC = Over The Counter, as in, not traded or listed on an exchange or controlled by a clearing house. It is therefore not possible to own a stake in an OTC market or clearinghouse, because no such thing exists. If you trade a swap in a cleared, templated environment, its no longer OTC. Depending on the actual verbiage of the law, the House may have written a law that does exactly nothing (this particular part of it).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) Poster put out by the Senate Dems today showing press releases from the future Majority Leader's office. So basically, he is saying, change nothing. Expand means disaster, cut means disaster. This is really not a surprise, considering the Congressional GOP has made a mantra out of "do nothing".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) He doesn't directly link them but there's a citation at the top; the center on budget and policy priorities, which I'd define as a liberal think tank. That's a cite within the article. Where did the article come from?

Furthermore, this article is basically saying that the $600B increase in spending is Bush's fault, because its necessary to combat a recession they blame on him. Doesn't really make any sense. So while idiots like Beck are obviously off in space trying to say that Obama is what has caused the problem, its equally ridiculous to say it was Bush's fault.

Source? Also, while I agree in general that much of this is not Obama's fault at all, I think its a bit much to put the recession on Bush. I think the blame for the current defiticts can be spread around to a lot of people.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) bacon flavored.......whatever. For my B-Day, my sister gave me two tickets to a Beer and Bacon Tasting and a bar on the north side.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) But wasn't that all due to the same injury? I just thought by performing how he was before getting hurt at that age was a very good sign. He has a very projectable frame as well. I believe its one injury, yes, but a 1.5 year injury hiatus is usually not a good sign. Means the injury or surgery was pretty serious stuff. Don't get me wrong, I am not writing the guy off. I am just telling you why he has dropped off everyone's top prospect lists.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) So is this the last day of the winter meetings? People start leaving Indy at around noon today, right? So I guess it's safe to say that the White Sox come away with nothing this year. Bummer. You don't usually get a whole ton of trades during the meeting, but you do often get some after, which probably got started during the meetings. Patience, my friend.

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) White Sox get $24,000 from having two pitchers selected in the Minor League phase of the Rule 5 Draft per merkin Thread in FutureSox on this topic (minor league portion).

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 09:29 AM) So Jose Martinez has fallen so far he doesn't even appear in the mentions at the end anymore? He has missed a ton of time to injury. Played half a season in Kanny in 2008, and missed all of 2009. He'll turn 22 in 2010, in A Ball. He's got a steep ladder to climb at this point.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) Wow. That Mota one was under everyone's radar. Never heard of him. He pitched his second year in the DSL, as a 22 year old. He did put up some nice numbers: 1.81 ERA, sub-1 WHIP, 80 K vs 19 BB in 89 IP. Basically all as a starter. But its kind of surprising that someone would spend $12,000 on a 22 year old DSL repeater.

Lujan was acquired in the Rule V draft by the New York Mets. Closing AAP.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 12:37 AM) Here is Sickle's Top 20. *Albeit subject to change of course* I might have thought better of it if he had spelled Trayce Thompson's name correctly before bashing him. Seriously though, seems like a decent list. I tend to disagree on depth - I think the system lacks position player depth, but I see a fairly significant bulk of pitching talent in the low to mid-levels.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) 1) Roswell was just a "weather balloon" 2) While it might explain the spiral to an extent, it doesnt really explain the blue light connecting the spiral tot he ground. The spiral does not touch the ground, any more than a rainbow does. What motivation would there be to lie about this? A missile lauch is something I'd rather cover up, more than some weird light where a gov't could just say "no idea".

Failed Missile Test...