WCSox

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) Both Hermanson (24 years old) and Politte (26 years old) had some success in the majors in their younger days. Contreras was a stud pitcher for years in Cuba before coming to the majors. Thornton has done nothing in the majors yet and he's 29 already. I really hope that this Thornton dude does something for us, unlike Borchard, but I wouldn't put money on it. Either way, the trade looks like one bust for another unfortunately. Oh, I completely agree. Both Thornton and Borchard appear to be career minor-leaguers. My original point was that we won't be seeing Thornton in a Sox uniform for a couple of years (if ever). That's assuming that he's not out of options. EDIT: If Thornton's competing for a left-handed spot, he'd better show Ozzie some control before the end of the month. Talk about a long-shot.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) Great comparison, lol. Jose Contreras - 34 years old Dustin Hermanson - 33 years old Cliff Politte - 32 years old Twenty nine isn't exactly geriatric.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) Couple years? The dude is 29 years old. Yes, and Roger Clemens is 43. What's your point?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 08:50 AM) His ST numbers don't so-much show a control problem - looks like he got hit around a LOT. Sounds like there is no life in his strikes. Or perhaps his lack of command got him behind in the count all of the time, meaning that he'd have to throw a lot of 2-0 and 3-1 meatballs over the plate. Either way, it sounds like we won't be seeing him in a Sox uniform for a couple of years.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) He will steal the heart of every woman in Chicago who loves bald men Not anymore. He got hair plugs. :headshake

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) Longest Homer in USCF history: Joe Borchard Biggest bust in White Sox history: Joe Borchard Given what we got for him, it appears that Seattle's scouts have been doing their homework.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 08:08 PM) well that's because you're silly. This type of story is pretty classic, and would do well at any time period. Not as silly as somebody who watches "Snakes on a Plane." So, I guess it's just coincidence that movies like Syriana and Jarhead came out during the Iraq War? :rolly If you believe that, I have a bridge over in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) Actually the Bros. had a script written in the early 90s but couldn't get enough people behind it because they hadn't really earned their chops (i.e. the popularity of the Matrix movies) It isn't so much that there is a Hollywoood anti-Bush bias but that they finally got to make the movie they had a working script for. I understand that, but I think that the current political climate also had a lot to do with the funding for this movie. Investors have a more-numerous target market for this picture than they did back in the '90s. The same could be said for Syriana.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) We should make this into a movie. -Yeah but what if people think this parallels the Bush administration? OK, we'll wait 4 years until he's out of office. -But what if another politician who likes big government wins the presidency in 2008? You're right. I'll just set this script aside and we will make it whenever a libertarian candidate takes office AKA NEVER You're right. It's just coincidence that this movie and Syriana were adapted into film format recently. :rolly

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 18, 2006 -> 08:47 AM) It isn't an anti-Bush movie. The source material was written in 1983. The Bros. had wanted to make this flick but couldn't get big investors etc. until after the success of the Matrix movies. For Christ's sake, the guy who wrote the source material was British, so if anything it is more of a commentary on any government that tries to usurp liberty in the name of security -- and how people usually just go along with it. Nobody said that it was an anti-Bush movie. But I'm sure that the current political climate in this country had a lot to do with the timing of its release. The investors are looking to capitalize on the anti-Bush target market, plain and simple. I'm sure that it's a really good flick, but I'm not going to contribute towards Hollywood's anti-Bush campaign. I'll put it on my Nexflix queue sometime next year.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Highest.Grossing.Movie.ever. Not in the red states.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 08:50 PM) fighting to get the UN to get their dicks out of thier asses. no, wait, you are both right. the UN and its rampant and blatent corruption has absolutely nothing to do with the difficulties in confronting iran. its entirely bush's fault. just like every other foreign policy problem in contemporary society. While choosing to force a regime change in Iraq rather than Iran appears questionable (especially with 50/50 hindsight), the UN needs to shoulder some of the burden with regard to policing Iran. If they don't, they'll lose legitimacy and the support of our government.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) Do you see the production of this movie as "glorifying terrorism"? No, but release of this adaptation is obviously targeting the "Bush is a fascist" demographic.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) Maybe once Iowa can beat us, I'll let them talk s*** to me. Your memory doesn't go back very far, does it?

Sorry if this has been discussed recently, but the search feature has been turned off. Does anybody know when MLB Extra Innings will be available and what the cost will be? MLB's web site only has the '05 info up. Anybody know if Comcast is carrying it?

QUOTE(SouthSidePride05 @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 06:28 AM) Does this mean there will be at least 21,500 at every game? Don't they just count the paid attendance? They usually announce the paid attendance. I don't ever recall seeing an attendance figure of less than 9,000 or so at the new ballpark. And I've been to games in bad weather in the late '90s where there literally couldn't have been more than 2,000 people in the entire stadium.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 10:06 PM) No, it's not. Why not? Contreras has been streaky since his days with the Yankees. That said, he'd probably be traded before being demoted to the 'pen.

:rolly

1. Podsednik - .280, 2 HR, 35 RBI, 43 SB, 110 Games 2. Uribe - .275, 20 HR, 68 RBI, Gold Glove 3. Thome - .285, 35 HR, 98 RBI, 125 Games 4. Konerko - .289, 45 HR, 121 RBI, All-Star 5. Dye - .270, 28 HR, 85 RBI 6. Pierzynski - .285, 17 HR, 68 RBI 7. Iguchi - .290, 28 HR, 73 RBI 8. Anderson - .250, 15 HR, 48 RBI 9. Crede - .250, 25 HR, 70 RBI, Gold Glove 1. Buehrle - 18-10, 3.41 ERA, All Star 2. Contreras - 15-10, 3.95 ERA 3. Garcia - 16-11, 3.90 ERA 4. Garland - 14-12, 4.10 ERA 5. Vazquez - 13-14, 4.30 ERA - Cotts - 2.20 ERA, 12 SV - Hermanson - 5.40 ERA in 25 appearances - Politte - 3.80 ERA, 1 SV - McCarthy - 3.20 ERA, 5-1, 1 SV - Jenks - 3.25 ERA, 34 SV Sox go 95-67 and win the division easily. However, they fall in the ALCS.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) What's wrong with it is that you can't use it to back your point UNLESS you agree that all of the bible is literally true. You can't pick and choose which parts are indisputably true and which parts aren't. The fact that not all of the Bible is literally true doesn't change the fact that our Founding Fouthers based many of this country's laws on the Ten Commandments. Like it or not, it's true. Our society was built on Judeo-Christian principles. I don't know it for sure, but I'll bet my left testicle that a significant amount of research on manogamous vs. polygamous marriage has already been carried out. Google it. Google Scholar or Web of Knowledge might point you to more technical information. I have real work to do right now. The use of narcotics isn't "socially acceptable" either, yet millions of people do it openly evey day. Monogamous homosexuality is completely different than polygamy or open marriage. There's no comparison between two people in a committed relationship and two people who are married, but openly intimate with others. There's no inherent jealousy in monogamous gay marriages/civil unions. On the other hand, regardless of what society deems acceptable, polygamous and "open" marriages are inherently flawed because of the jealousy factor. It's something that I believe the vast majority of human beings just can't get around. I was paraphrasing something that you said earlier and my comment in no way infers that I'm anti-homosexual. To insinuate that I am is childish and irresponsible. Good point. But I still don't think that open marriage can survive the test of time. Again, human jealousy will eventually tear such unions apart. Or perhaps human beings who make the committment to live together, share expenses, and have a family aren't equipped to deal with the jealousy that arises from overt infidelity? By the way, this same small counter-culture movement from the '60s legitimized a drug culture that is alive and well today (and that their parents didn't approve of). On the other hand, "free love" didn't make it very far. On religious grounds, I believe that it's inherently immoral. But those are just my personal beliefs. Putting morals aside, I believe that it's inherently flawed and will not work in the long run. A marriage won't last for long when the husband and wife are openly sleeping with other people because, well, jealousy is a motherf***er.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) Most keep the practice quiet. Sure, but friends and family eventually find out. I know that one of my cousins is gay, despite the fact that I've never asked him about his relationships. No problem on my end.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) Again, I did no such thing. You were attempting to use religious texts as evidence that monogamous relationships is what people are "supposed" to be in. What's wrong with that? Religious texts clearly tell us that we shouldn't steal or kill and our laws are founded on Judeo-Christian values. Right, that's for our society to decide. And our society has prohibited murder, theft, and polygamy by law. Marital infidelity is not a crime in most places, but often results in the guilty party paying a lifetime's worth of alimony and child support. Both know vastly more than you or I. I'd "be willing to bet my bottom dollar" that many psychologists and sociologists already have. The concept of "open marriage" isn't exactly a novel one. You're painting with too broad a brush. I know quite a few who are very open about their sexuality. You may know more people involved in open marriages than I do, but "alternative lifestyles" covers a VERY broad range of behavior. I never implied that homosexuality is "wrong". So typical of a liberal to throw out the "prejudice" card. :rolly This has nothing to do with what I think, it has to do with human nature. Sure, I think that sleeping around (even consentually) outside of one's marriage is immoral behavior, but my feelings aren't important. I simply don't believe that the vast majority of human beings could stay committed to a long, loving marriage if both are openly sleeping around. Humans are jealous creatures and don't like "sharing" love with others. Why do you think that the "free love" movement in the '60s died out so quickly? Sure you did: I don't personally know any couples engaged in an open marriage because they're so few in number. And the reason that they're so scarce is that it almost never works in the long run.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) "For the first time in franchise history, the season ticket base will be nearly 21,500 in 2006." What was the season ticket base at this time last year? 10,000? 12,000? I still think that 3 million (37,000/game) is a stretch, but 2.8 million (34,500/game) seems likely.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) That response is completely irrelevant. I never said everything in religious texts is hogwash. No, you just implied that much of it is irrelevant in today's society. Certain core values obviously are not and I believe that monogamous marriage is one of them. That's possible, but it's quite a Malthusian prediction. And we all know how correct Malthus was about everybody starving to death because of the rate of population growth. Like church attendance, the number of people willing to step up to the altar (or willing to put in the effort to make their marriages work) is on the decline. But I don't believe that the core values of either will change. I don't believe that you can have have successful marriage without monogamy and many of the "experts" (Dr. Phil, Dr. Ruth) seem to agree with me. I imagine that people could live together and sleep around openly with some degree of success, but that's not the same thing as marriage. When money and child cutody come into the picture, it's a whole new ballgame. Oh, really? Where do you get YOUR information? :rolly Right, just like homosexuals keep their "practice" private, yet everybody seems to know at least one or two. Zero. Thanks for proving my point.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 05:54 AM) Um, that's really not anything you want to use as proof of your position, because religious texts contain a whole truckload of "rules" that are deemed a bit off by modern standards. Oh, you mean like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"? Yeah, nobody cares what those stupid books say anymore. :rolly Good point, but I also said that "aspects of marriage can and probably will change (such as gay marriage)" in my last post. But I seriously doubt that monogamous marriages will eventually give way to polygamy or "open" marriages. So far, history has proven me correct on that one. Try opening your eyes and looking around.