StrangeSox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) Gosh I hope not. I think Obama can do a LOT better then Edwards, if that time comes. I really don't see what Edwards would bring to Obama's campaign. His biggest knock is his lack of experience, and Edwards doesn't have any more than he does.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2008 -> 10:39 PM) If that 1% was the only percent that was INFORMED about the candidates and issues, then that's all good. If the people can't take enough time to inform themselves about the candidates and at least some of the issues, I would rather they stay home. No, that's not good, that's really, really sad if only 1% of the population is informed enough to vote in a Presidential primary.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:26 PM) again, why cant rich people be nice? why can't rich people help the poor? his wealth has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything. There's nothing wrong with being succesful and helping the poor. It just seems extremely patronizing/ dishonest/ pandering when you try to be "just like them" by eating at McDonalds on your 30th anniversary while you live in a 28,000 sq. ft. home.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 31, 2007 -> 05:40 PM) Alright, cool it down a bit you two. John Edwards' hipocrisy does not make him Satan, nor does Obama's drug experimentation make him nothing more than a coke dealer. Back on a more political note... I'll amend my earlier analysis to say that Edwards needs to win Iowa to have a chance - because of the financial collar around his neck. The only candidates that could survive losing Iowa are Hillary (who is fine as long as she is Top 3 and close), and Obama (who has a small chance if he stays very close in Iowa, because of his strength in NH and SC). Which of the Republicans have taken public funds? ie who would have a massive advantage over Edwards in the general?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 11:37 PM) I hate them as much as I hate the BSA. Hopefully this comes us, and this guy makes the RIAA pays his court costs, etc. You hate the Boy Scouts of America?!?!! Seriously though, the RIAA can go straight to hell.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 30, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Any good statistician would tell you it is both. Obviously the sample size value does tend to go down after some certain point of ridicolousness - the error margin is a boundary condition at zero. But if the typical 500-700 respondants are used and generate an error margin of 3 to 4 percent, then the 300 people in some other poll will probably have a much higher margin of error - one that makes the poll a lot less valid. Margin of error calculation isn't too complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

The problem with making environmental a state-by-state issue is that what you allow to happen in Indiana can have a great impact on what goes on in Illinois, even if Illinois laws are much more strict. On a lot of issues, I'd agree that the federal government is too big/ powerful, but not this one.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 03:23 AM) Did you know that Oil companies go TO the government and ask for more strict environment laws? Why? Because the oil companies WANT them to be more strict. Why? Because more strict laws make it HARDER for NEW companies to get started financially. Then the CURRENT companies can price-fix with OPEC, etc. There should be no FEDERAL government laws on the environment, etc. They help CREATE monopolies - the very thing they try to avoid. That right there is ridiculous. Companies would absolutely destroy the environment if it weren't for environmental regulations.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 08:53 PM) So now the US is supposed to protect every politician in the world who requests protection? Great. 4 trillion dollar deficit here we come! WOOHOO! Agree with this 100%. Protecting her isn't the US's responsibility.

QUOTE(spawn @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 12:53 PM) No kidding. I find it amusing KW gets the blame because the players he brought in didn't do their jobs. He gets blame for bringing in bad players or expecting players to do things they haven't done before or in a very long time. His bullpen last year consisted of a bunch of guys who threw hard but couldn't throw strikes. He knew that when he got them, so, when they don't throw strikes, he gets some of the blame. 2/3's of his OF consisted of "grinders" who were light-hitting and constantly injured. He gets some of the blame for having such a disaster of an OF. When someone like Buerhle, Konerko, or Dye have an off year, that's not on the GM. You expect your top players to produce. But when you bring in bad pieces, you get the blame for bad performances.

Yeah, that was crazy. I just happened to be watching last night.

How about he's mediocre but I'm willing to see how his 2008 team plays?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) So you've actually heard DJ without Hawk? Because I heard him do a national game last year with someone else, and I have to say, I thought he sounded pretty good. I think Hawk is what destroys DJ, really. Those two just have zero chemistry of any kind. He always sounded good with Blackjack and on the Fox saturday games.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) That is fantastic to see. I've been believing more and more, as I read further into it, that a distributed-model solar array is the best, cheapest and most stable way to get off fossil fuels. At a far cheaper price for the panels themselves, people will start using them at home left and right (and businesses will do the same). Suddenly, roof space becomes energy-producing space. And as energy companies continue to add differential energy capabilites to their systems (the ability for users to contribute in energy as credits, then draw when needed), that will only accelerate growth. I have every intention, when we buy our first house, of exploring the possibility of putting panels on. I'll definitely be looking at the same thing. My guess is that retro-fitting will be pretty expensive vs. new construction, though. This is more the reason I have a problem with the CFL rule. It's impact will be relatively minor while the government does nothing to enforce or promote significant change.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) And Balta, you do realize I am NOT saying that Bush won sort of "mandate" with that narrow victory. Not at all, despite his protestations otherwise. Bush had .50 worth of "political capital" but the world wanted a $1.00 Hopefully.

A lot of people don't like the "quality" of light coming from CFL's in certain areas (I don't have a problem but I like softer lighting). They also contain mercury and are a major PITA to dispose of properly. Plus, they don't work with dimmer switches as of yet. Also, CFL's don't work very well in really cold temps, so it'll put you in a tough spot in an unheated garage or shed. People are already buying more and more CFL's, and more are being designed to look nicer and work in just about any application. Seems to me that the market was going that way anyway. I think that's what this hinges on. I don't want the government regulating every little thing down to what lightbulbs I can use in my lamp. I want to save money, so I use CFL's. Incentivise them or discount them as ComEd is doing. Ta-da, the market works!

An interesting part of the new energy bill... http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...ght-bulbs_N.htm I'm all for CFL's, but I don't see why the government should be mandating it.

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:44 PM) Floyd and Danks actually have plus pitches though. that is the thing. Garland doesn't have plus anything. Garland has sustained big league success and two 18 win seasons. I'll take that over Floyd and Danks plus pitches.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) I've seen a lot of people say they liked I Am Legend, but didn't love it. After seeing it, I completely agree. CGI ruins another movie that could've been way better without crappy computer-animated monsters. Agreed 100%. I'm so sick of over-done CGI.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) That hypothetical you suggest, would not qualify as a QS. Your total innings pitched must be 6 or more and your total earned runs allowed must be 3 or fewer to qualify as a quality start. Pitching 6 innings of shut-out ball and then giving up 4 runs in the 7th disqualifies you. Even if you pitched 8 innings, gave up only 2 runs, left 2 on base, and the reliever promptly gave up a homer, you wouldn't get a QS because you are saddled with 2 more earned runs. That was his point. 4ER in 8 or 9 innings pitched it a good outing, but it wouldn't count as a quality start. Would you rather have 3ER in 6 and then your bullpen, or your starter going 9 and giving up 4?

QUOTE(GreenSox @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 08:14 AM) Actually 7 of his last 10 appearances were excellent. Too bad he didn't pitch more - but Ozzie was still wheeling his crappy veteran middle relievers out there in late September (just like he was having ERstad hitting in the 5 hole in late September). Gavin got off to a terrible start, getting slaughtered early - he started the 2nd game of that infamoujs double header against the Tiwns and, like everyone else, was shelled. I don't know if he's a pitcher or not. this is a good year to find out. As for the celings of these guys, I have no idea. But I thought that the point of trading for them is that they had high ceilings (Danks above McCarthy, e.g.) That was the only Sox game I made it to this past season, so my view of Floyd will be forever tainted.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) Official reports are usually not considered "hearsay". (And in this case, it's not just Mitchell -- most of the interviews were witnessed by a team of people.) I've never heard anyone say that everything reported in a newspaper is hearsay. I don't see myself what happened in the stock market, but I don't say that reports that the DJIA went up by X percent is "hearsay". I mean, you could widen the definition to include that, but it would make the word fairly trivial. Hearsay is someone telling you what someone else said. It's hearsay because you cannot clarify the context and meaning with the person who originally said it. There's a difference between reporting verifiable information, such as the DJIA, and reporting what someone told you.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) And additionally, try criticizing the guy from a standpoint which shows a little more realism. Honestly. The way you expect him to comment publicly only happens in Dick Allen Fantasy World. What seemingly ridiculous comments did the Twins, Royals, or Indians GMs make after the Tigers made that trade?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2007 -> 07:04 PM) If his replacements can't pitch that, then just watch as Masset, Sisco, Gio, Egbert, or someone from that whole pot gets called up to pitch those innings. In 2004, we had basically what, 3 starters for 1/2 the year, and we were still at the top of the league in innings pitched. That was 1 of those 5th starter disaster years, and we were still up near the top with the innings pitched by our starters. In 2007, Danks only pitched 2/3 of the Year, Contreras got moved to the Bullpen, Garland had a knot in his shoulder, and we were still at the top of the league in starters innings pitched. Ozzie guillen will give his starting pitchers the innings no matter who they are, how well they're performing, or how well the bullpen is performing. Ok, then lets say that Garland would give you 200 quality innings. Can we count on Danks' quality being the same?

Picture frame with a picture of the two of you in it. Works like a charm.