FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(MinnySoxFan @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 10:41 PM) This morning on Mike and Mike they were talking about how the Sox could go .500 the rest of the way out and win 94 games. I guess that'd be 95 now. That's pretty dern good. I'm not advocating going .500 for the rest of the season, just pointing out that given that I don't feel that they will start playing at a .500 or lower level anytime soon, we're in a perty good place right now. First off, I knocked on all wood objects within knocking distance... Second of all, HELL YEAH!! To think that .500 ball (and perish the thought!!!) from here on out would still get us 95 wins is astounding. Historians here, correcte me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have only had one 100-win season in team history, and that was championship year 1917. They only had a half-dozen less gemes then compared to now, so it's a pretty comparable situation and will be a memorable feat WHEN (not if) we do it this year. Then again, the 1915 team that we're now being compared to (ie, best out of the gate starts in franchise history) seems to have cooled off quite a bit, since they only ended up with 93 wins and we all know that was not enough to make the playoffs that year. But do I see us cooling off like that in the near future...? HELL NO!!! Dare I say it... well, I did knock on the wood and all... OK, here goes... This is starting to feel like... "The Year"!

Try not to mind the soap operas, and welcome aboard! P.S. Try to do something about that nasty twins habit, too.

NANCY!!! Every game should be Nothing But Nancy Day!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 10:08 AM) He looks just like his mom ZING!!

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 19, 2005 -> 10:53 PM) So are you just assuming that it's all legitimate, or do you know that protecting sources is all he's trying to do? And if the latter, how do you know that? We've seen journalists lie more than once recently. I don't suspect that most journalists do it, but truthfully, I am a LOT more sceptical now about any report involving unattributed quotes, leaked docs, etc. (Even -- especially? -- those produced by our own administration. :headshake ) I would think the reporters would welcome the scrutiny so that their stories might still have an impact on policy. That's one of the big difference between the contents of these memos and some of the other things. Lots of quotes are attributed, and most of the notes detail precicely where they were taken, who was in attendence, etc., eg, the guy who talks about having diner with Condi, the focus of their conversation on Iraq to the exclusion of everything else and the concern of this guy and several others that the US didn't have a clue about post-war planning and didn't seem concerned about it. In this case, protecting the source is more about actually saving the skin of the underlings who leaked the documents. The people at the meetings in question I'm sure can and will be asked to confirm or deny the veracity of the memos. Fortunately, the officials probably will make statements that lend credence to the memos since events transpiring since July 2002 pretty much confirm their concerns (about the lack of a post_Saddam strategy, concerns about the dubious legalitty of the operation in the international view, etc.) were well founded. And for the elected Brit officials in, if they are still trying to hold office, they have to say the right things to semi-appease citizens who were never backers of the war in the way that a slim majority of people in the states were. The truth is that there isn't really anything shocking in the memos; it is well understood that Bush had a hard on for this war and that he was going to get his war one way or another. That he seemingly got his war by bullying allies with whome we share a "special relationship" and by lying to congress and to the American people as to the justifications is probably going to be a more important truth in the long run. Bush isn't going anywhere and even if some hobbled congressional investigation got off the ground the GOP-controlled congress will ensure nothing would come of it. Meanwhile, however, more dubious and unsavory information on how decisions have been made and how things have been mishandled will emerge. In the short haul, hopefully it will all add up to enough to keep American voters from voting for anyone who would continue down the same paths in 2008. In the longer run, it will stand as historical testament to what the Bush II Presedency was about.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) How did we not quote Flaxx's famous post of his child saying "The power of the universe is in my penis!" yet? Cuz I keep laughing my damn ass off at that whenever I remember it. Yep, those immortal word came out of that cute kid sitting in the field in that photo. It didn't take him long to get his priorities in order.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2005 -> 10:29 PM) Oh wow. This is just insane. I know that most of the time I take the opposite stance of you, Kip, but no matter what "political stance" you have, this merry-go-round of trying to bring down governments with doctored letters and the like has to stop. And yes, that includes the government f'ups who do the same thing. It's good to see someone still trying to protect the confidentiality of their sources, even though they know full well that they are going to be scrutinized every which way for it these days. It would be a whole lot easier to expose the source but that's not ethical for the journalist to do. The pushing of the journalists, and the raking of the messengers because it would be easier to not hear/believe the messages is going to blow up in the faces of the folks whose only recourse any more is to discredit the journalists. The journalists are going to bury us in mountains of corroborating evidence on all these stories from here on out because they have been pushed to do it by repeated, often (not always) baseless attempts to discredit them.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 19, 2005 -> 01:06 PM) Are they all being raised Sox fans Hell Yeah!

Happy Father's Day to all the Dads and soon-to-be Dads! Here's my younglings:

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 19, 2005 -> 12:21 AM) Da Beatles. Duh

Have a good one!

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 11:12 PM) I wonder how many of the PETA wackos know that PETA actually kills animals themselves? Or are they OK with it because they do it 'humanely'? Dead is still dead. Most PETA supporters understand that many of the animals they pick up are euthanized, but that doesn't excuse the gross misconduct in this case. And from the report, these employees were not being forthcoming with the local vets and animal control officials as to the fate of the animals. No. It's not ethical.

HELL YEAH!!! AJ I friggin' love you!!! What a way to pull out a win!

QUOTE(techgeekxp @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 06:44 PM) And the answer is The Beatles. The Stones are just behind by 3, so they get 26 points. FlaSoxx, deserting your favorite band doesn't help CONTESTANT SCORE TOTAL RECORD RANK TIME Credepopsup 42 202 3- 1 4 14:23 Kalapse* 42 376 7- 2 1 6:04 FlaSoxxJim 26 326 6- 1 2 14:58 knightni 26 308 4- 3 3 13:43 ScottPodRulez22 26 170 3- 4 6 1:33 Aw, poop.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 01:06 PM) That stuff Hammerhead sent was awesome. I have made so many copies of that for fellow Beatlehead friends it isn't even funny. Here's to Hammer, who has indeed curled my musical toes and lit up my Beatlehead nose.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 11:52 AM) I forgot Lord Douchebag. Come now, Douchebag... tell us just what it is you've been sitting on!

The voices in my head serenade me.

I got onto Ticketmaster at 10:00:01 on the day the Paul tix went on sale with all of my credit card info already logged into a registered account and I got my tix in the first 5 minutes. Since we're taking the kids we hade to settle for the nosebleed seats because your're right, SS, the good seats would set you back a bundle. I made the mistake of not getting tickets the day they went on for the last show (the one you and everybody else still drools over) and I missed it because I could't cough up the scalper prices for them. I saw both of the tours in the 90s that had some of the same band as the last show plus Linda had not gotten sick yet, and they were great shows.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 11:20 AM) Paul McCartney is coming in November. Best concert I have ever seen. I got tickets for Mac in September. I'm taking my kids to see him because they're already pretty hardcore Beatleheads (now how did that happen?) and they'd murder me if they grew up to find out they had a chance to see him perform and I didn't take them.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 01:27 AM) My favorite new word. Thanks Heads Preeeesenting...

That Texsox - he's a real dab hand with gadgets. Gear, Fab, and all that. Hey! Where's the Union Jack smiley when you need it?

QUOTE(bmags @ Jun 18, 2005 -> 02:12 AM) PLUS...you better hope for a tour...because if i'm correct from the last time i read...bands aren't getting a very long set and for pink floyd that would be like 4 songs... Or one Shine On You Crazy Diamond.

QUOTE(YahtzeeSox @ Jun 17, 2005 -> 07:51 PM) I dunno this is kinda me but I don't consider the Final Cut Pink Floyd. But that's just me. And yeah man, Pompeii is one hell of a great movie. I watch it all the time. Compared to the Wall, Final Cut was certainly less monumental, and was very much the Roger show (subtitled 'Roger Water's post-war requiem, that makes sense). But I think Roger's sonwriting is sharp, and I see the album as being a pretty natural extension of Roger's quieter songs on the Wall. Heck, Gunner's Dream and Fletcher Memorial Home could have been standout Waters songs if they were on the Wall. Tell you one thing. I think that album is of more consequence than anything released in teh post-Roger years.

QUOTE(TheDybber @ Jun 17, 2005 -> 05:08 PM) WOW...1000 posts AND first time in QOTM!!! What a great week!!! How about a sweep of the Dodgers to cap it off!

The House is doing this against Bush's will. There's no companion Senate Bill yet, so approval of the full Congress is a ways off at any rate.