FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Aug 12, 2005 -> 02:35 PM) Milkman...one of your best posts ever Genius is right Baby you’re a rich man Baby you’re a rich man Baby you’re a rich man too You keep all your money in a big brown bag inside a zoo What a thing to do Baby you’re a rich man Baby you’re a rich man Baby you’re a rich man too... That's Aboz' favorite Beatle track, if I recall correctly. Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9.....

QUOTE(bmags @ Aug 12, 2005 -> 12:46 PM) BRIAN WILSON...Jerry Garcia was NOT that great of a songwriter...he has his moments, but their music did not rely on their lyrics Robert Hunter was the Dead's lyricist, very much in the vein of John/Taupin. Mad props to Brian Wilson though. John and Paul get my nod for top dogs in the rock songwriting arena, but honerable mentions must include: – Elvis Costello – Aimee Mann – Carole King – Andy Partridge (xtc.) – Zappa – Todd Rundgren I'm thinking primarily of the lyrical content of their songs, but none of these guys are slouches in the musical composition side of things either.

QUOTE(winodj @ Aug 12, 2005 -> 08:10 AM) Btw, I don't think of myself as normal or not... Don't worry. We don't think of you as normal either. I did note, however, that Ozzie did at least show some restraint by not saying, 'Here, this is my friend. He's a COFFEE TABLE LICKER!!

I love this guy! He almost makes me think it's OK to come out with my own little guilty secret. Oh, what the hell... WANG CHUNG ROCKS MY WORLD!!!!! There. it's finally out there. Free at last, free at last, Wang Chung Tonight, I'm Free at Last.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 12, 2005 -> 07:41 AM) I loved the Muppets, and it's nice to see his 50th getting coverage. But seriously, the Muppets died with Henson. The voices aren't as good anymore, and the movies have been pretty poor. I have heard terrible things about this new one. For men, it is as painful listening to Kermit as it is listening to Bugs Bunny and gang with no Blanc. Ugh, Mel's kid did the voices horribly. warner had a better replacement in mind too, as you probably know, but the gig went to Blanc's kid. In total agreement that the Mupppet spark flickered out when Jim died (of friggin' pneumonia, of all things), but I think that has more to do with the corporate gobbling up of the franchise by the Mouse than by a lack of creativity on Henson's son's part. Dinosaurs, for example, was quite well done and that was all Brian. The Disney thing really chaps my arse because I'm a huge fan of the purist Disney stuff (the traditional animation) when the creative juices are flowing. Not just the old stuff either, I think that with a few notable exceptions (Atlantis, Treasure Planet) Disney's trad animation releases have been high quality since Great Mouse Detective and Little Mermaid, so that's a pretty good run after hitting a rough patch with drek like Black Calderon and Oliver and Company prior to that. But the Disney/ABC/ESPN corporate juggernaut franchise acquisition stuff just blows. Muppets is a hot comodity - buy it. Lyric Street Records is hot - buy it. Nickelodeon's "Doug" is hot - buy it. Mirimax, Baby Einstein company, Fox Family, Saban - buy 'em all. Meantime, the beancounters run everything and there's not enough creativity to drive all of that. Nor is there much concern for creativity so long as they're the only game in town. The result is homoginzation and dilution of all of it, and Disney ends up not paying attention to core capabilities and endes up shooting themselves in the foot by closing one of the two trad animation studios.

QUOTE(Benson&Rexage @ Aug 12, 2005 -> 12:00 AM) I'm the only one on here who has answered the question. It is not natural. Get two men together. Can they reproduce? NO! There is your answer. It is not natural! and abortion in wrong except for rape. So vote for Kerry again so the Democrats can never have power again. O Bamma is 08 I heard Billy Ocean is gay.

From another board:

QUOTE(3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 11:17 PM) Who cares if it's normal or not? I don't care if someone is or not, but I don't get why they have to flaunt it when they are. Gay pride flags, stickers, parades and the Gay Games? What, are homosexuals banned from the Olympics? It's almost as they are craving attention, and don't tell me they do it because they are discrimnated against. The ones I have encountered are hypocrites who are discriminatory of people who don't dress a way that they like. I have heard some gay people compare gay pride groups to the NAACP where I almost punched them in the face. Gay people don't go through half of what blacks did, and blacks, and a thing like skin color that can't be changed is what used to hurt them. No one will ask you if you are gay on a job interview or college application. I don't care about gay people, but I don't see why everyone has to come out and say "WE SUPPORT YOU!", just live your life with whoever you want and live life like the rest of us if you don't want controversy. They sure love the benefits the government gives them that they take advantage of, but then crap all over the current adminstration with every chance possible, that bothers me. There is nothing stopping you from moving to Canada where gay marriage is legal. [/rant] I'm not sure what government benefits you have in mind that gays are taking advantage of. The "benefit" of being singled out for consideration in a possible marriage ban amendment? The "benefit" of not having to worry about adopting or being a foster parent in most states? The "benefit" of not being able to access to death benefits of your partner under public pension programs and the federal social security system? The "benefit" of self-identified gays to be denied the right to serve in the armed services? Please expound on the government benefits the damn gays are abusing. Based on your post, I also gather you think gayness is something that can be readily changed, as opposed to skin color. Well, I know Michael Jackson is now whiter than me. And I know there is no evidence supporting reparative or healing and prayer techniques for "fixing" gay people. In fact, the founders of one of the ministries established specifically to 'heal' homosexuals later described their programm as ineffective and conceded that "not one person was healed." As far as 'just living your life like the rest of us if you don't want controversy'... There wouldn't be organizations like the NAACP (which you seem to support) if there were not people willing to be controversial in demanding civil rights reform for blacks. Discrimination based on sexuality will not change unless the discrimination is pointed out and aggressively fought. That is, by definition, controversial and confrontational.

It's not often you see a guy that green have the blues that bad. --Rowlf the Dog Happy 50th, Mr. Frog.

I'm going to take wino's sage advice and bow out, but first. Sleepy, about homosexuality being normal if not normative. At an estimated 2-10% (admittedly Kinsey's 10% is probably high, but 2% is likely an underestimate based on the reluctance of respondents to answer honestly), I'd say it occurs in the population too much to be considered aberrant (sp?). I don't know that that is any kind of "proof." But consider that there are more gays than there are genius-level IQs out there. If you consider being really smart just something to be expected withing some portion of the population, should you not consider homosexuality the same way? Fireworks, I would challenge the assertion that there are significantly more lefties or redheads than homosexuals in the general population, even we go with the lower estimates. The occurence of hypertactyly and albinism on teh other hand is a couple of orders of magnitude less frequent. Polydactyly occurs in less than 4 out of 10,000 live births while the most common form of albinism occurs in about 1 in 4,000 black burths and in only 1 in 15,000 white births. Lefties, on teh other hand, make up around 10% of the population, so that is within the same order of magnitude of even a low (2%) estimate of the gay population. Done now. Ozzie was stupid, let it rest, Go White Sox.

QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 07:43 PM) It is a fact that homosexual behavior is not the norm, it is a fact that it has been frowned upon by societies around the world, and it is a fact that religions consider it a sin. Homosexuality is normal, although it is not normative. Longshot's noting of lefties and redheads demonstrates the problem with your 50%=normal threshold, as would genius-level IQ, being very tall or very short, etc. All of those traits may fall out toward the edges of theor respective attribute bell curves, but they are nonetheless traits that can be readily encountered within the population at large. As for religion, some condemn hemosexuality while others do not. There is certainly no hard and fast rule to affirm that homosexuality is a sin according to all religions. This week in Orlando, one of the largest Lutheran conventions is going to be busy debating whether gay churchmembers should be ordained. Hopefully the vote goes that way if it comes to a vote. Your comment about slave ownership is instructive here. Owning slaves was something that was considered acceptable 200 years ago but today we can clearly see it is unjust and immoral. Hopefully it will not be too many generations from now when the majority of people see that condemnation of others based on sexuality is similarly unjust.

QUOTE(3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 01:56 PM) I don't get how a homosexual would be offended, the word is now a forbidden fruit? You have to be one to use it? Teens and friends in general use these terms with no thought of the gay community. Morrisey would understand if he had friends It's the equating of homosexuals as being child molesters that is most ignotant and alarming... aside from the fact that Ozzie can't figure out that those are not the kind of cracks to make in a dugout full of reporters. :headshake

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 08:38 AM) This thread is reading more like the "Catch All" thread than it is the "Post of the Month" thread. So say something funny already...

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 11, 2005 -> 07:24 AM) Off the record means a source will give you information and tell you it cannot be attributed to him directly and is "off the record". Ozzie did not do that. It was a remark made in public in front of a bunch of reporters. Ozzies an idiot for thinking he wouldn't be quoted. People are quoted all the time in situations that are not formal press conferences. It doesn't matter if the person the remark is made to isn't offended, if the other people in attendance are, and the public in general could be, the Manager of the White Sox should show some public relations skills and avoid that. The entire organization should be building the fan base, not doing things to alienate a portion of it. As always, a voice of reason. Ozzie's an adult and he is the most visible face of the Sox organization. Why say stupid s*** in public (did the article say 30! media people were present?) that you have to know is going to come back and bite you?

Have a great one!

Congrats!

It certainly is strange. I always hope the spouse/parent/etc. is on the level whhen one of these tragedies is reported, and they almost always end up being the culprits. But I'll reserve judgement until the coroner's report comes out.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2005 -> 07:32 AM) With all due respect... Oh please. These countries have been trying to get their hands on nuclear weaponry for decades. Agreed. So let's make it easier for some of them by bringing in some cute li'l bunker busting nukes that will end up getting away from us some way or another. If we're losing track of billions of dollars at a time as well as munitions from supposedly secuired stockpiles, why not bring 'em some completed nuclear devices as well? The GWOT is making the US and the world decidedly less safe, despite testaments to the contrary by the "willful blind" of the administration. Our misguided nuclear ambitions and clear threats that we're ready and willing to use nukes on our enemies is not making us any safer in that arena either. Hopefully we'll see more dispondent insiders like ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer indicate what they really think: "Rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq." The recent AP piece "Experts Fear Endless Terror War" did a good job of at least trying to cure spell it out. "An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear." The article continues, "Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through US foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the US leadership's 'willful blindness' to what needs to be done: withdraw the US military from the Mideast, end 'unqualified support' for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state 'tyrannies.'" The point about ending unqualified support for Israel is likely a key to averting the next world war.

QUOTE(juddling @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 03:27 PM) (sidenote: Who the hell is going to buy these books anyways???) juddling More people will buy those books than bought Jackson's last album.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) I'm sorry Jim... I didn't mean to inferr they'd be up by then. I meant get started production. Lockheed Martin and Litton Laser are driving hard to get them to move faster but you are right, they are dragging their feet. My other uncle works for Lockheed.. do you know folks there? Small world if you knew him. No, nobody at Lockheed. I had a friend who worked fro EG&G but he's been gone from there for a few years. Most of my Space center gossip comes from some friends who work at KSC in Dynamac - the environmental arm of on-site operations.

No matter what happens canadians must remain steadfast and united in one thing: Always making fun of the Newfies!

Happy Birthdays, y'all.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) According to my uncle who works for NASA via a general contractor who has hands in the new development (going on since 1998) they are much closer than is reported. When the last one blew up the firm he works for logged 80+ hour work weeks to get them a design that they could take to the government with the possibility of being in production in 2005. That obviously didn't work out so well. Don't kill the messenger... I'd love to believe that was a realistic timeline, but I just highly doubt it. I read a story that ran just a week ago that indicated they had not even picked a final design from among the competing firms, and a bunch of insiders were outright calling Lockheed's leading plan stupid. If they picked a plan and awarded a contract today, I'd still say 2007-2008 for unmanned flights was very optimistic, let alone manned flights. I just wish the scramjet technology had been realized. Bringing the cost of getting a vehicle into orbit down to $100 per pound instead of $1,000 a pound would have been huge. Hopefully it will happen in the next next generation.

All of this nuclear ambition being played out during the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is apparently only stunning and thoroughly depressing to me. Our President has done more in the last 5 years to fan the nuclear aspirations of rogue states than I would have believed possible. In the wake of the Cold War, we should be continuing on a path of global arms reduction, and not considering adding 'tactical nukes,' "bunker busters," etc. to our military arsenal. These "low yield" devices will be capable of taking out 10 square city blocks. Very tactical. And for all the fear we have about nukes getting into the wrong hands, do we really think that bringing low yield nukes into the enemy's backyard (where they can be delivered via Howitzer) is a good idea? In the wake of the Cold War, our president should not be threatening rogue states with either pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear first strike, and teh NeoCons shouldn't be floating the idea of nuking Mecca as a possible retaliation against the sane Muslim world if we decidethey haven't done enough to destroy their insane brethren. Of course it's all about the NeoCon dream of Full Spectrum Dominance - being able to crush any and every potential adversary on the planet (pretty much everybody), either as part of a coalition or unilaterally. And somehow we are surprised by the nuclear ambitions of rogue states. This is not what we should be to the world. And trying to get there is going to bankrupt us. We're pretty much conceding the economic war to China - except that we will heve the ability to bomb them to rubble if we decide they deserve it. Maybe that's the plan? Having succesfully emerged from the shadows of a world in which we all understood the realities of mutually assured destrustion as kids, we are now egging the world on to get back to that state.

QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 11:59 AM) Excellent. The foam issue apparently can't be resolved and while the "fix" in space was a success by definition, the risk of them having to do repairs in space is high. IMO, there is a good chance of more tragedy with this current fleet. The good news is the new birds are pretty close to production. It's just the funding that seems to be an issue. If they got the $$ I think it would be closer to '07.. but who knows. No way, absolutely not, even under the bast scenarios. There are still several competing designes for the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) - none of which is going to try to utilize the scramjet technology that they were goping for. Unmanned tests flights might start on a prototype CEV by 2008, but that's pretty unlikely. As early as January of this year, they were saying 2015 would be the earliest for a manned launch. To give an idea of how far behind the 8-ball designers are on this, consider that in 2002-2003 there was only a $17 million R&D investment in next-gen shuttle designs. Compared to the more than $400 million it costs to put the shuttles up each time, that was peanuts. And this was after Bush announced the mission to Mars plans. Apparently, we were waiting for the new vehicle to build itself. To be fair, the 2015 target was in place at the time we thought the current fleet would be servicable until 2010. The 5 year gap in manned flights seems to be bad planning, but that was what they thought they could manage. And most of the leading plans go back to putting a manned capsule on top of the boosters ala' Apollo/Gemini/Mercury, and having the capsule land via parachute like the historic manned missions as well. The upside of returninbh to thet design is that the capsule will be out of the way of any debris that breaks off the rockets, but the down-side is that we've pretty much given up on the reusable vehicle model. Not that I fault that stance, given that reusability never came close to being cost effective (let alone safe) with the current fleet.