NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 08:33 AM) Are you sure there's no 90 shilling in Chicago, well, sorry you would know. They have a good stock of it in Missouri. Oi, i didn't think I' ever pine/respect the products of Missouri when I first got there. Not a bad state everyone. O'Dells said (last I checked, a few months ago) they don't distribute to IL. I suppose its possible some shop in Chicago orders some directly and re-sells it, but I haven't seen it yet.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 08:00 AM) I don't think that's what we are saying is better. But by trying to get all of it, the understanding of the decisions behind the war and the timeline of it, his focus was too broad and he was not the key player in any of the major stories of the time, even with his unprecedented access. Who cares if he was a key player? He's a journalist - by nature he's not a key player, and if he had been, that actually would make things more biased, probably. Better he wasn't.

I tought I was a beer snob... until I read this thread and realized that I am nothing on the beer snobbery scale, and the beer knowledge scale for that matter. I'll just throw a name out there, that I don't think I've seen discussed in here yet... 90 Shilling, by O'Dells (Colorado). Fave beer ever. Nectar of the Gods. Unfortunately, they don't ship outside CO and some nearby states, because they don't put preservatives in the beer whatsoever - the only way to get it elsewhere is to order it online. Anyone ever had it?

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 07:33 PM) Which ones would you add to the 40-man though, JPN? Most of those guys won't get claimed by anyone anyway, not even in the minor league phase. And I know you like David Cook, but you know the Sox don't, so wouldn't you rather see him get an opportunity elsewhere? Cook and Wassermann are both guys who, IMO, could be major league players - just not here. So I'd like to see both of them get a shot elsewhere.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 09:26 PM) The big problem is...what people say is not equal to fact. Playing stenographer doesn't take that in to account. That's how we got "Bush at war", that's how we got Bush's war, that's how we've gotten this whole mess that is our current media. I think you are missing the point of his writing, entirely. He is delivering information - quotes and statements from the horse's mouth included. His job is to get as much fact as he can, not make suppositions - this is why "Bush at War" was such an excellent book. If you didn't like it (and I suspect that's because it was not entirely negative against BushCo), I can understand, but it makes no snese to me to say that getting information from the people making those decisions is somehow less factual than the 100% guesswork that people outside that circle did.

Dems have the open tent and some opposing viewpoints are allowed - also means they can't do solid coalitions as well as the GOP. GOP has become racked-in walk-the-line-or-else, which means they can move better as a full group on issues, but it also means they automatically end up guttered in the far wing of their party, as we see now. Its the good and bad of each.

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) Good, postponed...thats what you get for stealing my thread when I won lat night...2 hours before gametime money!!! LOL I specifically didn't start a game thread, I only posted the lineup at 3pm. Someone else made it into the gamethread.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) What is that mechanical change you speak of? Literally falling to his knees after getting blown away by 88-90 mile an hour fastballs seems to myself that he is incompetent of playing at the major league level, versus him just having just a small flaw in his mechanics. Fields has not done anything even remotely noteworthy in two full seasons, between both the majors and the minors, and he is only getting older, tick tick, tick tock. You hit the nail on the head, fields has done very little if anything to adjust. Fields especially, and maybe the organization also, cannot grasp that the only way to know longer make the same mistake, is to accept that you are doing something wrong in the first place. Considering fields is only hurting the team due to being a glaring hole offensively and defensively, while continually regressing, it seems like an easy choice to cut our losses. It's more than time to put the burden that is josh fields on someone else. Defensively I agree, and yes he has regressed at the plate, in a way. Watch his swing. His entire problem, as far as I can see is his bat load. Instead of bringing the hands straight back then swinging, he pumps the hands down, then up, then goes into his swing. I've seen him NOT do that at times, and he can catch up to fastballs just fine that way - but its not his natural motion. His regression isn't because he has regressed as a hitter - its because pitchers figured out that he can't catch up to pitches due to that flaw. That is my read on his swing. He's gone in any case. But I also think that if he can adjust his bat load, he could very well be a serious power hitter in the majors. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion on it. Since he hasn't done that yet, I am not sure he can or will make the adjustment - that remains to be seen.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) Real ugly. Cannot wait until fields, wise, and lillibridge are entirely out of this organization. They all do nothing but disgust me. Pretty pissed they are all out there again tonight, as none of them serve a purpose for the future. The sox will probably score 10 tonight. I still think Fields is one mechanical change away from being a good hitter. He just seems unable to change that one thing, for whatever reason. I can't remember the last time I saw a hitter struggle where you could clearly see one, specific, mechanical thing, that is so obviously causing them a problem, and yet the player can't adjust. I agree on Wise and Lillibridge though, and Fields won't be with the org in 2010 either I'm fairly certain.

According to Gonzales... Sox's lineup: Pods lf, Beckham 3b, KOTSAY dh, RIOS cf, Fields 1b, Wise rf, Flowers c, Nix 2b, Lillibridge ss, Torres p Isn't that two nights in a row with AJ and Dye sitting? Maybe one of those two was the "TV" guy, if not both.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 02:40 PM) Gates doesn't seem to be on board with that. With which?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 02:26 PM) But the U.S. could use these puppies: http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php...amp;pageId=8123 You know, I was going to throw this thought out there, related to your post... Is it possible that the US taking out Iran's nuke facilities may actually be better for everyone involved, than letting Israel do it? The US could do it more effectively and more easily in a shorter period of time, and not have to use nukes. The regional powers outside Iran don't have the capability to attack the US directly in response. Israel remains protected, and if they were attacked, could act in self-defense. The US has many ways to attack without using anyone else's airspace. Now of course, I am not advocating this path. I am just saying, if Israel is about to do it anyway, and we can't stop them (or won't), then oddly enough, it might be a better tactic as a last resort to step in and do it ourselves. I am hoping we don't get there - that economic sanctions and other pressures, coupled with internally-driven regime change in Iran, help Iran stay away from building nukes, so that none of this is necessary. But we'll see.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) It would have to be a sustained, all-out assault over a pretty decent period of time. That's one of the three I was getting at. And no way they could do that via the air without some of these countries getting in the way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) If Israel wanted to fly a direct, one time, mission over its neighbors to bomb a facility in Iran, I really don't think anything short of a lucky shot would stop them. A direct, one-time mission with a small number of aircraft won't work. That would probably not even take out the nuke facility, and would certainly have no chance of taking out Iran's long range response capabilities, which they would then use. Even if just to take out the two nuke facilities, which are hardened and underground, the Israelis have three options: nukes, a larger and broader conventional attack and hope you get it all, or a combined ground and air assault. All three of those possibilities are problematic. But, as I said earlier, I think Israel will probably strike, because they will feel they have to. So I am at a loss as to how they may go about this. Now that I think of it, I believe they may take an entirely different approach on this. They may actually do it fully on the ground. In any case, as I've been saying, the whole thing looks ugly no matter what. And if Israel does do an air strike, they will likely get shot up pretty good on the way there and back, and/or after the fact, by other countries.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) so with baseball, this eliminates the ability of say you and I to create a "professional" baseball league? No, it prevents us from starting an MLB team without their approval, or from starting a league or team and then going after MLB in court for unfair collusion in business practices. It also has major impact on player contracts and the players' union.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) I've never had the privilege of going into an actual Belgian chocolate shop, but the Belgian stuff that makes it out this way is darn good. Still, nothing beats plain old Hershey Special Dark as far as the PERFECT compliment to a fresh (current year's vintage) Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale. New Belgium's 1554 Black Ale combined with any high quality dark chocolate. You'll thank me later.

Post #1 updated again.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) this. and he lost major relevancy with me over this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...bby/index2.html I guess I don't see what to blame him for there. He may in fact be a raging asshole, I don't know, I just know he's better at his job than most folks I have seen try to write about recent political figures or administrations.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) Woodward's problem is that he has become the prime example of a "Villager". He's no longer interested in getting beyond the story that people are willing to tell him and pissing people off in the process...he's traded away that behavior in exchange for access. There's not necessarily anything wrong with being a high level stenographer, those people should exist and do serve a purpose. And Woodward gets some interesting stuff when there is legitimate conflict occurring between the people he's interviewing, But there's just way too many of them today who aren't trying to get beyond what they're told. I don't agree with your view here at all. I much prefer we get more people delivering fact, and fewer people injecting their opinions. I'd rather make my own.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) LINK Sheep led by a maniac. Fantastic.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) - Collection of Major League Baseball Teams - Collection of Health Insurance Companies And with baseball, there is at least some legal logic there. MLB as seen as similar to a holding company with partner-owned business units (teams). But with the insurance companies, I don't get it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:17 AM) Woodward has been an awful journalist for a decade, however. I fully disagree, based on his books and the few articles I have read, but I admit I have not read a ton of his paper stuff.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) I really don't think that any of those countries could stop Israel from doing anything if Israel decided that it had to be done. That is not true at all - all those countries have significant AA defense systems, and air forces. There is a HUGE difference between a quick 20 mile incursion into Syria and back out before a response can come, and a 1500 mile each way sortie like we are talking about here. I think you are seriously underestimating the abilities of these countries. These are not Iraq after the Gulf War wipeout. The question is more about will than ability.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) Burdie should be eligible too: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/p...id=burdie001cha 4 years to evaluate him, began his career at 20 in 2006. The DSL counts too, right? The rules just say "evaluate" so it should. He was still in our system then. I didn't see the DSL where I looked, so I missed that, but as a foreign signee I am not sure how that works. So, maybe?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) Well he's kind of right, the Saudis don't really like Iran. That's plausible. I think they like Israel a lot less. Something else to consider here - the only way Israel has of doing this military thing in Iran is with air power. How will they get there? They can bomb Syria because they can get there without crossing anyone else's airspace. The onyl way to do that to Iran is to go all the way around the Arabian penninsula to get there - impractical in fuel use and also would make it likely they'd be detected very early on. And I don't see any of Jordan, Syria, Iraq*, Saudi Arabia or Turkey allowing them to do it. * Depends on the state of the Iraqi government at that time