southsider2k5

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 9, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) Does Sharpton have a job to be fired from? Anyway, I will say that the Mormon Church has definitely been known to have serious problems with racism. Its grounded in their beliefs from the Book of Mormon (read about the 13th tribe, or whatever it was called, I forget now). Those with darker skin are seen in that text as being aligned with evil. For people wondering if Romney being Mormon is relevant or not, I'd suggest doing some some research on the LDS. Lots of great things have come out of that organization, but also, some very scary things. For the scary, read Under the Banner of Heaven. Make your own call. I will say this - I think being a Mormon is much, much more important in itself in terms of expectations of that person, then if Romney was a Christian of some sort, a Jew, or even a Muslim. Not necessarily in terms of good or bad - just very prescient as a view into his psyche. I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying there?

QUOTE(fathom @ May 9, 2007 -> 09:03 AM) It was one inning aided in large part by a terrible throwing error. Yes, AJP, Iguchi, and Crede all finally put on nice contact swings. Besides that one inning though, the offense was atrocious. I agree with you though, compared to other games this season, that inning was an offensive explosion. Why is it that anytime the Sox take advantage of a mistake, it is instantly discounted, but when another team does it, its just something that good teams do? That's a part of the game.

Score more runs than the White Sox... it works everytime.

QUOTE(fathom @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:57 AM) Well, Garcia is at the 90 mph mark right now, so he made a gross error in judgement if he didn't think Garcia would be healthy enough to pitch in the majors this year. When KW made the Garcia trade, he had no clue that the McCarthy trade would occur. He's even said as much. The simple point I'm making is that the Garcia trade, in regards to the people who we acquired, won't do s*** to help the team in 2007. Ah, now see hindsight is a different story, because then we can introduce the Danks/McCarthy/Massett deal into the equation. If you want to look at it at that moment, we have to look at the deal at that moment. At that moment, Garcia had gone from a mid 90's pitcher to a mid 80's pitcher, who had to come up with a trick pitch to even be respectable. Brandon McCarthy was pretty universally accepted to be a better pitcher than Garcia at that time, so how is putting McCarthy into the rotation for Garcia, while getting two high level prospects, making the team worse in 2007 at that time? You can argue that Kenny Williams was wrong, but you can't call him a liar. Its a pretty reasonable assumption to feel that Brandon McCarthy would pitch better than Freddy Garcia in 2007, at that time, and its even more so when you add Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez to that mix, as potential candidates if Bmac hadn't have succeeded.

I love the "I was misunderstood" card he is playing. Even if his explanation, he makes sure to downgrade mormons as different then him. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/rom...n.ap/index.html

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) Why cant he play everday while Pods is out. So far he doesnt look overmatched. He goes deep into the count, and puts the bat on the ball. His defense is good and his arm is great. He can play everday until Pods comes back. Thome has no impact on this kid getting ABs. That can't be true. Just ask anyone, no one from the Sox minor leagues can come up and hit right away....

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:33 AM) This makes no sense. So the kid who has been giving us quality ABs and has shown more plate presence than anyone on our .207 light hitting attack. We send him down, keep crappy Terrero. How about getting a clue, while prancer is out actually seeing what you have in this kid. So when Thome comes up its back to the crappy Mack/Ozuna no defense no hitting platoon. If Sweeney was going to play everyday, I would want Sweeney up here. If he is not going to play, send him down.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 9, 2007 -> 08:21 AM) I'm sure Iguchi, Aardsma, Sisco, Masset and yes even Guillen contributed. But it was 4-1 bottom of 8 when MMac was on the mound, and when his batters were done, it was 4-4. That's the ballgame right there. I agree with this right here. This was the hole punched in the side of the ship... The rest was just window dressing.

QUOTE(The Critic @ May 8, 2007 -> 07:46 AM) Wings eliminate San Jose, winning 2-0 last night. They move on to face Anaheim in the West Finals. GO WINGS!!! Damn I hate Detroit an awful lot more than usual lately

QUOTE(knightni @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) Psst Steve. It's "paltry". Grinders don't spellcheck!

QUOTE(fathom @ May 9, 2007 -> 07:24 AM) Danks has nothing to do with the Garcia trade. He could have very well believed that with Garcia struggling to hit the 85 mph mark, that we would be better with Gavin Floyd in the rotation. If you want to discount the McCarthy trade completely, you could also say Kenny thought we would be a better team with McCarthy in the rotation over Garcia. How is either one of those a lie? Its a subjective opinion that you don't agree with.

Yeah, now these were the over-reaction type threads I had been missing!

QUOTE(fathom @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) He missed one start! Flat out, KW lied when he said he wouldn't trade Garcia unless it improved this team for 2007. He failed! Danks is starting instead of Garcia, and to me so far at least, it is looking like the Sox are better for it.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 8, 2007 -> 11:11 PM) Javy was only at 107 and was dealing. I know 107 might be a little too much, but he should have at least started the 8th, and if he got up around the 120 mark, then taken out. OK now that is just hilarious. It wasn't too long ago that everyone would have been screaming because Ozzie didn't take Vaz out after the 5th inning, now he is supposed to let him go over 110 pitches? LMAO.

And to top it off, the whining threads are boring with a capital ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Lets get back to the good old days of over-reactionary threads! Dump Joe Crede, get Vinny Castilla! From Jan 2k4, the decline of Mark Buehrle At least be entertaining!

I'd still prefer the Scooby Doo ending with Phyillis Diller as the smoke monster who would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky kids.

Could their be a late surprise entry for the elections... on the Democratic side? http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22145-2807r.htm

QUOTE(Jim Spencer @ May 8, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) 1st win for Danks I'll drink to that I'd love to see Danks get his beer shower, but then again, why would they waste beer? Can't they use something crappy that no one minds getting poured out... Like say Zima?

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) Our cars introduce known cancer-causing agents into the environment everyday, and it IS tolerated to certain sustainable levels. So I feel we should ban cars, too...because I shouldn't have to breath their exhaust because I choose to ride bikes. Oh wait...that's different, right, because you don't agree with it? Just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't make it right or wrong. Nobody is forcing you to go to a privatly owned bar/establishment, just as nobody is forcing employees to have to work at one. These are weak sauce arguements. Right. Work somewhere else. Pollution standards on cars are regulated by the local, state, and federal governments. Bad choice of arguement if you want to say legal things shouldn't be regulated. I guess we should get rid of all of the regulations that make business run safely then? No pollution controls on steelmills, no protections against unsafe working conditions for people etc? After all they chose to work there. Heck while we are at it, let's put asbestos back into schools, along with lead paint, because people choose to go to school, right. Talk about a weak arguement. OSHA regulated OSHA regulated The right to swing your arms, ends at the tip of my nose. Nah, your arguement has bigger holes than the Titanic. That's why people disagree with you. So are you taking your ball and going home now? Then by all means disagree, but don't get mad when people don't agree with you.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it. You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now. And even if it is "your business" you still have provide reasonable working conditions to your employees. Introducing known cancer-causing agents into the enviornment isn't tolerated anywhere else, I don't know why smoking is supposed to be different.

QUOTE(BearSox @ May 7, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) He lives in a hole in my basement now... he won't put the lotion in the basket though. He has other purposes for the lotion...

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:22 AM) Actually, I find it weird that the question we are discussing was on a college exam. I've never taken a college exam where it didn't require you to explain the answer you give. I am guessing this was on a high school test. I can't imagine a college professor writing that bad of a test question.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ May 8, 2007 -> 08:14 AM) But the question was open ended...and although a weak dollar isnt always a negative, in some cases...it is. So in response to the question, "What is a negative effect of foreign trade?", a weaker dollar isn't wrong, simply because the question never asked for any explaination. If the question was re-worded, "What is a negative effect of foreign trade and why?" Then he or she would have to give reasons why they find the weaker dollar negative, but as worded, that answer isn't wrong, simply because that question can be answered in 50000 ways and none of them would be wrong. I guess I am still in the old Harshbarger (an old college prof of mine) mode of answering questions, where you give the best answer, not necesarily a "correct answer". A weak dollar as a negative isn't the best answer, because there are a lot of positives to it as well. I guess it depends on who you are trying to educate. If you want to try to give that answer in a high school intro class, you might be able to get away with it, depending on how much the teacher hates his life. In college, they would mark it wrong everytime.

24 out of 27 days have been up days, the best streak since, drumroll please, 1927!

Isn't that kind of a personal question? Not that there's anything wrong with that...