Texsox

Airing now on most cable stations. LOL

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) I dunno. I thought they were all good. You just have to have a twisted sense of humor, I guess. They are much better when he is coaching a team I don't care about.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 08:44 AM) Agreed. But most young fans are ignorant to previous eras. It's really sad. I think Qwerty even said Wilt wasn't that good because he dominated white midgets? lol. I could pull up a pretty impressive list of centers Wilt destroyed in his day. Imagine what Wilt would do if he got to go up against the centers of today. Wilt would have some troubles. He'd be hacked much more today. But most nights, he'd have it pretty easy.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 08:20 AM) See some film eh. This reminds me of a bad Dave Wanstedt press conference. Was there ever a good Dave Wanstedt press conference?

The only guy on the court that could guard MJ was MJ. If MJ wasn't such an offensive player, he would have been talked about as the best defensive guard of all time. MJ would have found a way to keep Shaq and Phil around. MJ knew when to keep his ego in check. On the offensive side of the court, Kobe is as close to MJ as I've seen. But as an all-around talent? Nope. Not yet. BTW, the closest to MJ was actually before him. Oscar Robertson, he averaged a triple double during the 1961-62 season. 12.5 RPG 11.4 APG 30.8 PPG Most new fans don't realize what a phenom the Big O was.

The biggest lie I can think of is that Sox fans would never support the Cubs. Eventually, the Cubs would be selling out every game like Boston. Die Hard Sox fans would never cross over, but many more would. IMHO, the Cubs would have had a WS winner by now with the increased payroll am extra million fans would have brought in.

I don't want to be accused of being negative here, but I doubt it. Where is the proof? Just a quick snapshot from last year tells me we have to many high quality pictures already. Maybe if we enlarge the staff, who knows? Although, the current crop does seem pretty good. I'd have to see some film.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:24 PM) my uneduacted guess: no poisoning took place. this happens sometimes. this was not brought on by terrorists, just some s***ty water. And it is Halliburton's responsibility to assure our forces don't drink s***ty water. It looks worse for them when it isn't terrorism, just shoddy controls on the water quality and a possible cover-up. This also highlights the enormous challenge of basically creating small cities with all the infrastructure requirements. It is amazing we can do that as effectivly as we can.

I don't know what newspaper coverage you get but The Monitor and Valley Morning Star had a AP story on their front page almost every day regarding the swifties. They found every angle possible. And the GOP radio network isn't mainstream? We must have different definitions of mainstream. BTW, it seems that during the GRN shows, they also run news stories.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:29 AM) "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Yet we reelected him.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:33 AM) I really wish we could get a candidate from EITHER party that would take a hard line against terrorism, look at the REAL effects of tax cuts, be a fiscal conservative, and steer the government OUT of our day-to-day lives. Where is that type of candidate likely to emerge from? Not from either party. They all want to cut our taxes and give us free stuff. They want to trample on the constitution. They will also attract enemies as fast as they attract supporters. They would probably be very confrontational. I can think of a couple politicians that could pull it off. Some better than others.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 07:07 AM) Good I say. Hopefully he and John McCain breakaway and establish some kind of honest to goodness moderate party. While I like both guys, and of plausable scenarios, that would be a great ticket, I think their time has passed. McCain should have been elected in 2000, but an effective Bush strategy kept him out. I think we need more of a Reagan get tough and kick ass around the world guy. These guys are too soft.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 10:42 AM) That well may have happened. But, at least it wasn't money from the Chinese government. Always back to Clinton. :headshake People talk about how the left is always after Bush, yet years after Clinton left office, some GOPers are still trying to get him I agree with Evil and others, he could have forgotten. I also think that would be the first line of defense.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 11:21 PM) so what is your suggestion as to a solution? let anything go on tv regarless of what market a network is targeting, or censor the hell out of everything? or is your solution somewhere in between? im just wondering what you propose, cause it bothers me when people complain when they have no constructive advice The solution that Rex is talking about is for people to stop thinking there is a vast conspiracy, that all homosexuals are in on, to undermine America, and turn everyone ghay. To understand gay men and women are people like everyone else. What I find funny is we don't seem to care about the sex lives of of heterosexual friends or else we'd hear, Sally, Bob, are you to having sex regularly? I only have friends that have "traditional American values" and I need to know you are having sex 2.1 times per week in the missionary position. You two aren't into anything kinky like anal, bondage, autoerotic, etc.? Who cares what your friends do in the bed room?

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) I'm not really interested in doing it, I prefere a natural debate instead of a set up one, I'm really bad with set up ones for some reason. But wouldn't it be easier if it was in a chat room, that way people wouldn't have as much time to think about stuff and it'd be more like a live debate? Who knows though, I'm not in it so I shouldn't really worry about it. A live chat debate would be a great event.

Do I think there is an evil marketing program designed to recruit homosexuals and expand the numbers? No. Do I think that these programs show homosexuals in a positve light, perhaps even show them as humans like everybody else? Yes. By showing homosexuals in a non sexual way, people won't be so freaked out by having a gay neighbor. That promotes people getting along.

How to Be a Curmudgeon on the Internet Last week in my Times column , I referred to the five-note "Intel Inside" jingle often heard in TV ads. At least a dozen readers e-mailed me to inform me that the jingle is actually four notes, not five. As I've come to expect, some of these readers expressed, ahem, somewhat more anger than the circumstances might have seemed to require. "If you have that much trouble counting on one hand," one wrote, "you shouldn't be reviewing technology. Maybe a four-year-old can help you out next time." I replied to this reader that I'm including the first "ping" in my tally. In that case, there ARE five notes in the jingle, as you can hear here . But my correspondent never wrote back. That, of course, would violate the rules for being an Internet pill, reprinted here in their entirety, courtesy of the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society (PAINS): RULES FOR TROLLS AND PILLS WHEREAS, 95 percent of all the e-mail received by critics and columnists is civil, friendly or respectfully constructive; but WHEREAS, this is the Internet age, and we're all anonymous and can avoid making eye contact forever; and WHEREAS, there's so much information overload, a little heat and drama on your part may be necessary just to be heard above the din; and WHEREAS, many of those who fire off potshots are missing out on some of the best techniques for effective snippiness; THEREFORE let us now post the rules for membership in the Pills of the American Internet Neighborhood Society. 1. Use the strongest language possible. Calling names is always effective, and four-letter words show that you mean business. 2. Having a violent opinion of something doesn't require you to actually try it yourself. After all, plenty of people heatedly object to books they haven't read or movies they haven't seen. Heck, you can imagine perfectly well if something is any good. 3. If it's a positive review that you didn't like, call the reviewer a "fanboy." Do not entertain the notion that the product, service, show, movie, book or restaurant might, in fact, be good. Instead, assume that the reviewer has received payment from the reviewee. Work in the word "shill" if possible. 4. If it's a negative review, call the reviewer a "basher" and describe the review as a "hatchet job." Accuse him of being paid off by the reviewee's *rival*. 5. If it's a mixed review, ignore the passages that balance the argument. Pretend that the entire review is all positive or all negative. Refer to it either as a "rave" or a "slam." 6. If you find a sentence early in the article that rubs you the wrong way, you are by no means obligated to finish reading. Stop right where you are--express your anger while it's still good and hot! What are the odds that the writer is going to say anything else relevant to your point later in the piece, anyway? 7. If the writer responds to your e-mail with evidence that you're wrong (for example, by citing a paragraph that you overlooked), disappear without responding. This is the anonymous Internet; slipping away without consequence or civility is your privilege. 8. Trolling is making a deliberately inflammatory remark, one that you know perfectly well is baloney, just to get a rise out of other people. Trolling is an art. Trolling works just fine for an audience of one (say, a journalist), but of course the real fun is trolling on public bulletin boards where you can get dozens of people screaming at you simultaneously. Comments on religion, politics or Mac-vs.-Windows are always good bets. The talented troll sits back to enjoy the fireworks with a smirk, and never, ever responds to the responses. 9. Don't let generalities slip by. Don't tolerate simplifications for the sake of a non-technical audience. Ignore conditional words like "generally," "usually" and "most." If you read a sentence that says, for example, "The VisionPhone is among the first consumer videophones," cite the reviewer's ignorance and laziness for failing to mention the prototype developed by AT&T for the 1964 World's Fair. Send copies of your note to the publication's publisher and, if possible, its advertisers. And there you have it: the nine habits of highly effective pills. After all: if you're going to be a miserable curmudgeon, you may as well do it up right! Join a discussion of David Pogue's columns. This week's Pogue's Posts blog. Visit David Pogue on the Web at /DavidPogue.com http://www.davidpogue.com.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 06:31 PM) Rex, come on. If this had anything to do with a Republican, it would be front page news the next day. See Tom DeLay. Different circumstances, same point. Kap, come on. The press and the public couldn't get enough of the Lewinsky stuff. The Swifties were everywhere. I can't believe anyone can believe there is this great conspiracy to help the Dems by the media. If you are liberal, you see the media to your right, if you are conservative, you see them to the left. If you are a Sox fan you see everytime they are the #3 story on Sportscenter. Anyone notice the media bias against the Colorado Rockies?

I don't think on a corporate level it is homophobia or "fundamentalist"phobia, it's boycott and negative publicity phobia. Obviously this show would have been fine on Bravo, they have done well with programs that would not necessarily be on Focus on the Families list of great TV, (re: Queer Eye). Other networks would be worried about a potential backlash. But it is just like Spike TV wouldn't want to air the same programming as Oxygen or Lifetime. Rex, we'll disagree on this on in that a homosexual couple winning does "promote" homosexuality, in fact any positive stories do. Sam, we'll disagree, because I don't care that it does.

Jim, In this round, I am allowing each person to state their personal opinion. I am hoping with the question round some differences will emerge. I also picked a question that shouldn't be too hot. The second round will heat up. I'll debate Kap in an exhibition. Someone pick a topic/question.

I guess it depends on how you define "best". If by best you mean albums that millions of people would buy, then this list is pretty damn good. If you mean best by something that only hundreds, even thousands of people would buy, then this isn't a great list. What I find silly is the notion that as soon as millions of people like it, it must suck.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) Hey, wait for me! I guess I'm not loved. I think I forgot to explicitly say I was in. Sorry, I didn't think you wanted in.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) Since the threads are already out there, has the 24 hours started? Yes, but I think we may need to be loose with the first round of posts because I didn't set a starting time.

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is: Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?