FlaSoxxJim

Hey, Babe, I couldn't help but overhear you were talking about my.... giant burrito.

I watched way too many cartoons back in the day. But, hey, last year was last year...

Shingo!!! Sox Win!!

K!!

Damn, Shingo needs to close this out for his piece of mind and ours.

The original "Catch the Pigeon" Hanna Barberra cartoon was "The Perils of Penelope Pitstop" (which I wrote a song about once and still play on the rare occassions I play out anymore). The same basic premise was carried forward later in the 70's in "Wacky Races" and to a lesser extent in "Laff-A-Lympics." Dick Dastardly and Mutsy and their gang were the bad guys.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ May 4, 2005 -> 11:14 AM) On a sidenote....The US NEEDS TO BUILD MORE REFINERIES. Or... and I know this is a crazy idea... stop the national arguing about an a social security overhaul that's not going to happen anyway and pass some legislation to get auto makers to improve their fuel efficiency.

And amazingly it still doesn't stop some morons from talking about there still being a weak ALC.

Way to go Shingo!

Ah yes, good old Inverness. Lots of crazys over that way. Come to think of it, my wife is from near there... My favorite bit from the story: He would be fun at parties I think.

Crap, looking back at the book I actually think I got some of the details a little bit wrong.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ May 2, 2005 -> 07:02 PM) She is hysterical in most her roles though. The one that always comes to mind is... Frau Bleucher!!! (A horse neighs in the background...) That movie was/is hysterical!!!! (purposely leaving name of the film out) "Zat's right.... He vass my BOYFRIEND!!"

QUOTE(qwerty @ May 2, 2005 -> 05:08 PM) I don't think she is the hottest chick out there but definitely hot. Cloris leachman, now that is hot. Gyeaowwch! That image should be precede with an explicit warning that it may permanently damage the viewer's retinas.

Book report time? Sure, I'll oblige. And don't worry about double checking any of these facts, because I remember the book as if I read it yesterday. The lead character is a guy named Chuck, and he works at a New Jersey Deli for a grouchy old man named Mr. Cacciatore. His wife.... Bernice, yeah that's it, is mad at him because he wants to quit the deli job and pursue his lifelong ambition of becoming a Solid Gold Dancer on television. Somewhere in there somebody's cat dies too, I think.

Happy Happy Go-Go Al!

photoshop phunnies from my friend Bill in Moscow...

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ May 2, 2005 -> 12:25 AM) No love for my Svengoolie sig... SON of Sven, you mean.

QUOTE(Cali @ May 2, 2005 -> 06:08 AM) Kind of off-topic, but sorta on, maybe it's just me, but when actor's portray retarded people all I can think about is that they're just making fun of retarded people. I mean how else can you act like a different kind of person without sort of mocking them at the same time? I get what you're saying, but it's the job of actors to be actors. They're not just mocking the afflicted on the street corner for fun. Actors play different roles all the time, including handicapped roles. I don't think I've really liked Leonardo DiCaprio (sp?) in anything except 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' where he did an outstanding job of playing an autistic kid. What about Dustin Hoffman in 'Rainman'? Or Daniel Day Lewis in 'My Left Foot'... Yes it would be pretty evil to mock someone with cerebral palsy (I think that was Christy's condition) just to be mocking that person, but it's kind of the job of an actor to be able to play all kinds of different roles - even those of handicapped characters. Now, on the other hand, I know I've already punched my ticket to hell by laughing uncontrollably at the Matt Dillon line from Something About Mary where he tries to impress mary by saying, "What I really want to do with my life is work with retards."

Feel the love.

I like that 1929 number. I also must admit that my '59 and my '72 (? - red script) are the freebie park give-aways with the ugly Lite Beer logo on the side. But the red on is signed by future HOFer Josh Paul, so that should up its value considerably...

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 04:00 AM) Just call this a hunch, but if the cyclical nature of these numbers had been reversed, I believe it would have been another point you would have brought into the discussion, showing that "human presence is responsible" for the decrease. The people that would have been pointing to those numbers as an indication that animal populations are not safe sure would want us to believe it. You are probably right, and to be sure large-scale temporal variation in populations is so confounding to ecologists. It's one more level of resolution superimposed on all of the proximate causal mechanisms we can wrap our brains around and it is tough. That's a key treason we don't stop with just a comparison of numbers at time A to time B. In this instance, for example, looking not just at a numerical response but at HOW the habitat is being utilized strongly suggests that the numerical response is occurring despite human impact rather than because of it, since calving grounds have moved into arguably substandard natural areas and away from the human footprint. There's some great detective work that has gone on to tease out the causes for these kinds of population cycles. The textbook example for large mammals is from right up in Alaska and northern BC. In this cse the situation was pretty much what you suggest might happen - ecologists were pinning essentially all the blame for seal and otter density declines on human impacts. Then anthropologists started to dig through centuries-old strata of Inuit middens (garbage mounds basically). They saw that there was good evidence that at least the otter and numbers had gone up and down in somewhat regular cycles during that time in maybe 50-year or so oscillations. When these animals were abundant, their bones were present in teh garbage piles, indicating use by the tribes. When their numbers were too low to effectively exploit, the middens show that the tribes switched over to fish and shellfish. Work has continued and shown that a lot of it was tied into kelp and sea urchin densities at the time. If sea urchins were abundant that meant a good food resource for the otters, resource conflicts for kelps, etc. When urchins were scarce the otter populatiosn tracked those low densities correspondingly. That said, conservation-minded science has rarely had the good fortune of throwing up simply the sets of before- and after- population numbers and have them stick to the wall as far as resource use policy change is concerned. It's usually, 'no, this is not conclusive,' and environmentally dubious policies and practices remain unchanged. In the ANWR case, by contrast, the large caribou numbers are being presented in debate as if they were as a cogent body of evidence supporting no effect or even an enhancement effect of the human footprint on the populations. Worse still, this is being carelessly extrapolated to allow pro-drilling voices to make outlandish claims of no negative impact on ALL ANWR wildlife, when evidence in support of such claims is quite lacking.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 12:30 AM) hahaha... no problem calling you the king of all @#$#@ moonbats Damn straight. You did genuflect when you said that right?

Let's just throw them all out and start over. From now on around here, liberals will simply be referred to as %$*%! moonbats and conservatives will be called *&$%@#! wingnuts and it will be the beautiful beginning of a kinder, gentler SL&P.