BMac Attack

CREEEEDEEEEE!

How 'bout that bullpen, eh? Sweet Christ.

Gotta love those plucky lil' Royals. btw - I will never complain about Hawk after casually listening to the Royals telecast.

Charlotte's a nice city. Like it a lot. BA's playing like he does too.

Ack - disgusting.

Paulie has got to be bottoming out pretty soon. This is just silly.

I gotta tell you, guys, I've been pretty impressed with Erstad's speed today.

Danks is gonna get ROCKED when some balls start falling fair, and they're pretty close - making me nervous.

Good to see Mark picking up where he left off. Sweet Jesus.

Holy crap Aardsma showing composure out there. Shades of Duque haha.

It's so good to see Game Threads again... it's felt like forever.

Pretty good tonight. I agree with you guys saying Michael/Dwight were too over the top again this episode. The Roy/Roy's brother scene where they trash the bar was actually very funny though - you watch his brother just walk over to the bar and smash the stool, and then they go nuts - no dialogue exchanged. Plus, I think it's about time Jim gets his ass whupped - he's kind of a pansy of late, in my opinion. The "Jim look" over at the camera for everything gets old. Maybe Roy coming after him will snap him out of it and he'll find that balance between smart-ass and whiny again. Two best moments: Jan's "dying star" talking head Creed's fake ID business

Great episode. The business school scene was one of those unbearably uncomfortable Michael scenes that worked so well in the first and second seasons, and that have started to get out of hand (ex. Phyllis' wedding). This one was more on the right track. Also, to the people talking about US/UK Office: having watched both and gotten into both at the same time, there's no question in my mind the US version is better. Better characters overall, and they're certainly easier to be sympathetic to. British "Jim" is a wimp, British "Pam" lacks that whole lack of self-confidence issue thing that makes US Pam so endearing, etc. The US show is better thought out in terms of the characters, I think, because they got to see what worked and what didn't.

Speaking of the inevitable Dugout - I don't know, that was the weirdest thing I've ever read.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) -The opening video Amen - I'm so pathetic, I've YouTubed that thing like four times this winter.

Great episode, the last few have been really good. This one was a little bit off the wall, but the Franklin character cracked me up. Doesn't it seem like all the ever do now is have parties, though? I mean, seriously, it's a party every week, you wonder if they ever do any work.

You're right, perhaps that's a bit of an overreaction on my part, I didn't really back it up. I think I'm mostly biased just because I've got firsthand experience seeing Tiger play so many times and seeing how everybody just folds around the guy. Looking at the majors though, I think when you compare golf and tennis you must take into account longeivity of careers. Golf has an absurdly long window of opportunity for someone to remain in contention; looking at other golfers one could say that Tiger at 31 is just entering his prime, and can even be competitive long past his prime (a la Nicklaus circa 1986). Nearly all competent PGA golfers play until they're 50, and the great ones play in majors and occasionally make a run past that. He will not be retiring at 35, as is pretty old for a tennis player. Federer in my opinion almost certainly will win five more majors, giving him the most all-time, and if he continues this pace it would be conceivable to beat the women's record too, a long time down the road. But has he done it everywhere, like Woods? I don't think he's ever won the French, and Tiger has the Career Slam and has for a while, beating the best on every type of course. The other point you bring up is Nadal - someone who can be proven to be a consistent foil and challenger to Federer, at least on clay. I don't think Tiger really has anyone that can say they can challenge him and best him on a consistent basis. In his sport, he is peerless, and it almost feels like someone "escapes" with a win from Tiger, rather than wins it outright, when the man is in contention. Nadal can beat Federer, on occasion. Tiger first must beat himself for anybody to have much of a chance. That's what I consider real dominance. On the other hand, when you look at major win percentage, etc., Federer makes a very convincing case - .322, while Tiger's is around .240, I would say. So I'd concede it's very close. However, I think when you take into account what I've said above, as well as some of the differences between the sports that don't translate well (seeded tennis tournaments that make life easier for the #1 early on vs. an open-field format with many more players having a chance to win in golf), I give the edge to Tiger. Sorry this is so long, it's actually just a very interesting topic for me.

Federer is good and all, and I really enjoy watching the guy play. But I don't think there should be any question who is the most dominant athlete currently playing any sport - it's Tiger by a mile, and I don't like to admit that, given that it doesn't make golf very fun to watch sometimes. But facts are facts.

I think it also makes a difference if you're calling on a land-line phone (which is likely to wake other people in the house up) versus a cell phone. I really don't care when people call my cell phone, but if they wake everyone else in the house up, then that's grounds to be pissed.

That's northern New England for you. They're just weird up here.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 29, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) I remember reading a few things about this and that some people claimed the entire illness is a mental illness. Still it was something that no doubt had an effect on him and his family (I never remember reading a follow-up to see if they were able to get past it). Wow that is the oddest thing I have ever heard of - and here I was just thinking he sucked, and being so glad after he was dumped off to Florida. Apparently it's called Morgellon's Disease, which is being investigated by the CDC (per Wikipedia)? Poor guy, he's either sick or really mentally messed up.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 07:47 PM) I like this team.a Erstad will help. Good attitude. Can play many places and he should light a fire under Anderson. Crede continues to play for big money. Buehrle needs to bounce back to get the contract he wants. We improved the bullpen -- which sucked for long stretches of last season without Hermie, Politte and Cotts doing anything. I think Vaz is going to have a BIG year. Just a hunch. But he has the ability. Second year with Coop should help him. Toby Hall is a plus. We've got as much reason to be optimistic as the Twinkies -- who lost Santana and Radke. The Tigers will be good, but it's tough to stay motivated after everybody pats you on the back all winter. Plust that extra month should hurt their bullpen, which already has to replace Jamie Walker. The team that worries me the most is Cleveland. I think they will be much improved -- if they stay healthy. Sorry do you mean Liriano, or are there multiple Santanas, like a non-pitcher?

When you talk about "trading for missing pieces" I'm totally with you, and I think it's going to have to be done. The problem is given the way Kenny's been addressing things lately (i.e. in small ways) I don't think we can fill all the holes this team has - and there are quite a few, which I won't list because everyone's been doing that already. There are some sure things on this 2006 squad - 6 of the 8 position players I think will come through like they usually do, and I don't see the pitching being so s***ty again. It's just replacing the holes that are hurting the most, and to do that I think we're going to have to wait and do it on the fly. We don't have to be perfect; when you look at the absolute crap that made it into the postseason last year and won, I like our chances once we get there. It's just the getting there.

It's certainly a very interesting video. At first, I thought she might have had Asperger Syndrome (high-functioning autism with the possibility of verbalization), but the difficulty with muscle control, and once I realized the explanation was computer-based, etc. lead me to believe otherwise. I'd like to believe it, as it's certainly very inspiring to see someone with autism be able to express themselves like this. However, quite frankly with the complicated sentence structure as well as the fact that she's not speaking herself, this seems something like facilitated communication, which was huge in the early '90s for this kind of thing. Autistic people were writing unbelievable stuff, poetry even, with complex vocabulary and appreciation of meter, and identifying people who had sexually abused them when they were thought retarted (as an appreciable percentage of people with autism also are). However, when they did double-blind testing for the courts to see how reliable the communication was without the facilitator guiding the person physically or being able to see what the person was typing, it just didn't hold up the scrutiny. I'm not sure if this isn't more of the same kind of thing. So, it's really cool and thanks for posting it, but I have my doubts as to what's actually being presented, even though I'd agree with some of the stuff the person is saying. Like to hear your thoughts.

I've got a friend who named her dog Maggs (before his namesake left town), and I always enjoyed yelling at Maggs to get off the couch, etc. It was cathartic. So, that's my vote.