Texsox

The best thing going for Iowa and Misery is on a clear day, and standing on the roof of your house, you just may see Chicago

QUOTE(fathom @ May 3, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) If the A's would give up Harden for Dye and Gio, I'll drive Dye and Gio and thank Jermaine for two historic seasons with the Sox. Dye's going to be gone after this year anyways, and I'll take the chances of Harden staying healthy over Gio doing anything in the majors. Whose choice, Dye or the teams?

Is there an easy way to figure out where spyware is coming from? Everyday I scan and some up with almost the same amount. Besides running a program, then scanning, anyway to find the root?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/05/0...reut/index.html I guess they don't like unbiased, first person, descriptions and accounts.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ May 3, 2007 -> 11:06 AM) (The last one happened. I was in court waiting for my name to be called and there was a guy before me who's wife left him and he had absolutely no idea where she was. Dead, alive, with someone else, whatever...he had no clue.) lucky guy

I guess it also depends on if you are serving up the papers or receiving?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 3, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) They have little trade value at this time. They should have been dealt over the off season to get us anything of value in return. How far do you think they dropped in trade value? 50%

QUOTE(Jimbo @ May 3, 2007 -> 08:59 AM) We sell tickets based upon our 2005 season, goodbye season ticket base if this s*** keeps getting thrown out. We've been a home run team a lot longer than from 2005. I wonder how many times since the Southside Hitmen that we fell out of the upper 25% in homeruns.

Did we become a home run team to win games or sell tickets?

Some articles mentioned the health issues to employees. I also noticed in an article that Hookah bars will be exempt if 80% of their revenues are from the sale of tobacco. I imagine that "cigar bars" would have the same exemption.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 2, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) Tell me how long did it take for the Indians to turn their offense around in 05 when they fired their hitting coach. And it could happen again. Or it could not. We could wind up out of the race as the players struggle to adjust to a new coach. It's a gamble either way. I think the time to change was before Spring training.

It will depend on how the law is written. Private Clubs, for example, still have to follow liquor laws, etc. Some states ban them everywhere. Link

link

How much time do you think it will take a new coach to totally change the entire team's approach?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 2, 2007 -> 11:17 PM) When a player goes bad. Sure its the players fault. When the entire team goes bad. Are all the players bad then. Then again based on the coaches arent at fault. We should of never fired Manuel, Nardi or Von Joshua. Teams go into a slump, using this logic, we should have fired the entire staff in September of '05. Wait, fans here wanted Oz's head then. The change should have been made before spring training.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 2, 2007 -> 11:04 PM) Sure because it was the offense that lead us to victory in 05. It was all those shut out innings that Cooper threw. Don't blame the players it's the coaches fault.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 2, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) If coaches dont mean anything. We would of won in 05 with Manuel, Nardi Contreras and Von Joshua. there was no reason to change then. Coaches dont do a thing, its the players. It's both and I think it's more the players than the coaches. Let's get the hitting coach from 2005 then.

Any thought that Walker thinks it is better to tell the public his guys are OK, while privately working on correcting flaws? It seems like a good coach would keep things positive in public and not embarrass or call out his guys. Why do we invest in players? It's all about the coaches at this level. Hell with the right coaching staff we can take any roster and have them hitting line drives and winning games.

OK, fair enough. I thought I was addressing your question. I believe that the government is allowed to regulate smoking like they do alcohol and other products. There are places where drinking alcohol is allowed, and places that are not. We license and regulate all sorts of businesses. This is no different. Bars are legal but many places have laws against locating one near a school. You can drink inside the bar, but not outside. You can drink inside the bar at 1:59 am but not 2:01 am. All of these are examples of the government regulating when and where a business owner can allow legal activities. I will concede that of all the indoor places to allow smoking, bars would be the first one.

Of course you have the right to swing your arms in public. Smokers are fouling the air, why should their rights trump the non polluter? You are saying that because smoking is legal in some places, it should be legal everywhere. Alcohol is legal, but we regulate where it can be served, how it can be served, etc. Spitting is legal, but we regulate where you can spit. Cell phones are legal, but we restrict where you can use them. I don't see a difference in these laws. If our society didn't demand new laws for new times, we could have shut down national elections after the first congressional congress.

I dropped by mTV and vH1 the other day and didn't recognize the programming. They have strayed a bit from their founding mission.

Anyone know the waste products from corn ethanol production and what is done with them? For example, used cooking oils are used for animal feed, but is also being used for bio-diesel. That has caused some increases in prices also. Even with all our waste in this country, we have been pretty efficient in finding industrial uses for waste products. Sadly, most find their way into the food chain.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ May 2, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) i said reasonable. people have been smoking in bars for a long long time. it has precedent. it's not "outrageous" to have people smoking in bars IMO. but don't support the notion of the "nanny" state protecting me from smoking, drinking, or whatever. yea, i'm one of those crazy idiots that believe in self responsibility. Of course this becomes a "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose" situation. yes, we have been smoking for centuries. We are also just beginning, on that time line, to understand the health ramifications of smoking and second hand smoke. So here is the "my nose" part of the debate. A smoker takes clean air and turns it potentially into a health risk for everyone. Should anyone have the right to alter a basic necessity of life? Whose rights trump the other? The polluters right to smoke, or the non polluters right to keep the air clean? I'm also for personal responsibility. I don't wish to breath polluted air. Why should the polluter be protected?

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ May 2, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) You know what's a really clinical, brutal way to see a game like this? Like I did today, on MLB live. You'd watch the Sox batter come up, watch the pitches scroll by on the bottom of the screen, watch the out get registered. Over and over and over again. Like a bad movie.