iamshack

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) Yeah i'm terrified of what it will be. 10 hours a day does not seem normal, even for really hot days. You may want to take a look at this

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 01:44 PM) Random question - for those that can track it, how long do your AC units run on a given day? We got a Nest last fall and it worked great at keeping the house at my set temp all through the winter. Now we're using it for the first time to cool the house and i'm questioning if I have an AC issue. For the last week or two, my AC has been running between 10 and 13 hours a day. Other than the one 73 degree day we had when i turned the AC off, the rest of the time it's been in the high 80's, low 90's, so I expect the thing to work a lot more than if it was 79-80. I've never been able to track how long the system has been on before, so I have no idea if this is normal or not. It seems like a lot. This thing rarely shuts off. It constantly runs until it gets dark out. And the other thing is i have it set at 72 but i'm not confident it will get any cooler. I set it to 69 once and after an hour it only got to 71. I've cleared all the returns. I checked every vent and i'm getting cold air throughout the house. The humidity in the house is way down, so I know it's working, it just doesn't seem to be working efficiently. I keep thinking maybe there's something wrong with the unit, but why would I be getting cold air if the AC wasn't work right? And i'm getting plenty of airflow so it's not the fan. Maybe this is normal? Is this part of the Nest tech that forces my system to run more economically (running it longer means less start/stop time?) Any guesses? Have you checked your ductwork? My parents had this issue and they had some ductwork that had collapsed in their attic and so it was drawing very hot air and struggling to keep up. But yeah, I suppose it could also be Nest's algorithm...

QUOTE (CB2.0 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:54 PM) I'm lost - What "asset" are you talking about? The one we had in April and then cut loose and had a $15M bonfire over? Or, the $3M one we had for 11 starts, cut loose, and ate. Maybe you mean this $27M one we have now (and will have for 2 more years) that has given up as many runs as the former except in 50 less innings and 8 fewer starts? That "asset"? Yeah, I was talking about Danks and then Shields. Look, don't kill the messenger, I didn't want him either. But we have him now, and we are responsible for $27 million or whatever. It makes no sense to dump him now before trying to fix him a bit more. Again, if we were still leading the division you'd say bury him in the bullpen or something, but what do we really have to lose at this point?

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 12:33 PM) Why not? Admit you made a mistake and move on. Also, for everyone who suggests "no team would take Shields," what does it say that we took him? It was a terrible move from the beginning. Nearly every move made last offseason and extending into this season has been terrible That would be a poor use of resources at this point. It is one thing when you're trying to maintain a playoff position and you've tried a number of different things with an asset to no avail; it's quite another when you're at the bottom of the league and you've only had the asset for one month.

Everyone saw this coming. People that do other things for a living and casually pay attention to baseball saw this coming. What did Erik Johnson do to this FO and why do they believe someone's name entitles them to $9m/per while guys making 5% of that are deemed useless almost immediately. This was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The workday over, a cold beer in my hand, and a Mob Boss pizza from PizzaRock cooking as I type...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 04:56 PM) Guess he went into that press conference (pre-game) deliberately trying to make national news by getting Ventura to blow his top...which of course just doesn't ever happen. As far as the topic, as to Southsider2k5, they're definitely going to have to outscore the Red Sox in Fenway. Not sure about the pitching match-ups, but the Indians are already excited to get a series with the Sox and not have to face Chris Sale. They happen to do pretty well against Sale as well, don't they?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:01 PM) It's not just the way they play though, if it was then we would never interview the players, never care what charities they are a part of, care what they dress, etc. You may not care about all of this stuff but there's a reason it gets so much publicity, because people do care what they players do outside of the field/court/stadium. Fair enough, but then isn't considering a player's "on-field" value even more hypocritical then completely ignoring the off-field flaws altogether? Michael Jordan was said to be a massive jerkoff. John F Kennedy was an all-time womanizer. People seem to ignore the character flaws when it is convenient for them.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) Snark is the worst oppression of all. Indeed. Bring on Jose and Ryan!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) Shack, I wish I could be as nonjudgmental as you. You are just so above the fray. Please teach us your ways. Is there a difference between being opinionated and judgmental? I guess I think there is, but perhaps I am wrong. But honestly, for a guy that rails at all times against the oppression of others, you certainly can be a snarky jerk to others at the drop of a hat.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:40 PM) Yes, if an actor was exposed for something terrible then I would avoid them for the most part. Not saying I would 100% boycott as I'm sure there would be things that would entice me to watch something they are in but for the most part I would avoid their work. I don't understand why that's such a crazy position. I dunno, I mean I get that we are all human, but when you say you watch sports for entertainment, one would assume that means because the way they play the sport is entertaining to you. Very rarely, if ever, do these character flaws or terrible deeds manifest themselves in any way on the field. Therefore, it doesn't particularly impact the entertainment value in my mind. In terms of entertainment, I am much more impacted by a player just plain sucking at their sport than if the guy is a dick in his personal life.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:48 PM) He was DFAd today. They were judgmental and decided not to employ someone who beat his wife so bad she had to go to the hospital. I always find it humorous how the bleeding heart folks so often are the first to get snarky with everyone else, completely blind to the hypocrisy.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:30 PM) Shack you have a problem with people on this board judging what people spend money on but you are now judging posters for not wanting wifebeaters and cheaters on the team...come on man, you're better than that. Oh come on Russ, could you possibly pull together two more bizarre examples into one comparison? I'm not meaning to judge anyone. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to judge these guys' personal lives. Who knows what these guys do off the field. All we know is what they do on the field. I suppose if you are saying I am judgmental for encouraging others to not be judgmental, then...well I guess you got me there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:28 PM) Braun has a bad back, bad ethics, and a very large contract. But he's still a valuable middle of the lineup run producer. He's always been a bit injury-prone, but nothing too significant. Get Milwaukee to pay half his salary and get it done.

QUOTE (FT35 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:20 PM) To some extent, you're correct. However, REAL men should not cheer for men who beat women. There's no place for that. I believe in forgiveness, but also think they have lost the privilege to be cheered for. Well, there's no place for a lot of horrifying s*** women do to men too, but I don't want to send this one to the filibuster, so I'll leave it there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) If you really want to look at it that way, Jose Reyes hasn't been that good anyway. Which is why I prefer Braun, if we are going to throw caution to the wind in terms of character references

Oh who gives a s***? These guys aren't your friends. We are men, who cheer for other men in silly outfits to play a game against other men in silly outfits. You aren't endorsing their character or their behavior off the field by cheering for them to win a game.

Give me Braun.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) You got very lucky. My buddy and I were in Vegas for his bachelor party and we went to a strip club with 25 guys and everybody knew it was his bachelor party. He told everybody he would run out of the club and leave everybody for the night if they called him on stage. We've been to too many bachelor parties where the bachelor goes up to the stage. They've ruined guy's clothes, stripped him to his underwear and ripped up clothes. Painted people all over with lipstick. Like I said one guy got beat pretty badly with his belt. My buddy's bachelor party was amazing since everybody agreed to not call him to the stage. We all spent a fortune. Several married guys were gone for the night in the back room with the strippers, spending thousands. I always thought how stupid that is. To pay a strippper a couple thousand bucks is insane but I've seen it done. At my buddy's party I told him if he had to sprint out the door I'd meet him and we'd take a cab to another strip club or go back to gambling if we had to. I told him not to worry I wouldn't let him get tied up and whipped by strippers. Oh man you have a way with the written word, my friend. I've actually been to one bachelor party like this...it was in a barn on my friend's farm. I think 2 strippers came and busted out the drills and dildos, and did quite a number on the bachelor. Not my thing.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 11:52 AM) What the f*** greg. Oh man I am laughing my ass off.

Just go get Braun already.

So far, they've got deposits on season tickets for like 12,000 seats or something. Should be fun to watch.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 08:17 AM) Yahoo maybe but I don't think Google came along until a couple years later. Yeah, must have been Yahoo.

I was a pretty early adapter, probably because the rise of the internet also coincided with me getting ready to graduate from HS, go away to college, etc. I remember using Netcom to be able to get online, circa 1993/4/5 and chat with friends, etc. I remember being in my dorm room in the Fall of '95 and doing Google and Yahoo searches and there being hardly any hits. When I first began dial-up in my home, I was told by the phone company (I believe it was Ameritech) that the dial-in number was local. Low and behold, a bill came from AT&T for like $1600 in long distance charges. My mother was not pleased about me always being "online." Anyways, luckily, AT&T was awesome and dropped all the charges to the long-distance number AOL used to dial-in. I'll always have a soft spot for AT&T for bailing me out of that mess.

FIRE THE MANAGER