Texsox

47,000 for me. Sorry

Reddy and Milkman hitting milestones of post counts caused me to look at the top post counts (when the hell did SS2k5 pass 100,000?). Just a really quick calculation, to make 25,000 posts, at just 60 seconds per post, would require over 400 hours. That's not counting any time to read other people's posts.

If you were Brooks Broyer how would you be supporting ticket sales? What is your marketing plan for 2014? Who are you featuring? New promos? New merchandise? New partnerships? For one, I'd be advertising in all the Cuban newspapers and media

Who is being marketed?

It may be too early for this thread, the roster isn't set, but I am wondering what goals the Sox really have for 2014. Forget the marketing bulls*** that they will toss out that the team could win the world series. What are the realistic goals. I am thinking of a couple obvious Develop Abreu Keep Sale healthy Catcher? What else? I'm thinking actual items that the team currently has control over. We could add something like ditching Dunn or other roster type moves. But I think it would be interesting to stick to things that do not rely on other teams and luck.

Guys get reputations. Stuff gets repeated and repeated until people think it's true. Fans grab "inside information" and keep repeating it. I doubt he's anywhere near as bad as people make him out to be, and I'll bet he has mellowed in the past ten years. I'd like to take the time to check who was defending Martin in the NFL thread. How can people defend Martin then rip on AJP?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 8, 2013 -> 12:13 AM) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...tics/?hpt=hp_t3 GOP like Duke have been flaming Newt and Ted Cruz for their positive tributes to Mandela. Well Newt has responded to said critics: Well said, Newt. (first time I've ever said that) The past few years Newt has made a number of statements that I've applauded. I think when politicians are freed up from party matters they can be more like the rest of us. Much more down the middle on most issues.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 07:23 PM) So (humble brag, btw) Ohio State is offering me a funded position into a PhD program there and when I told my dad the good news, the first thing he says is "now you can finally get that tattoo you wanted" Awesome. Toss out some details. It ain't braggin' if you done it.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 07:28 PM) I don't see the problem with the Spaghettio's thing. My guess is complaints follow the idea that you should not profit from tragedy. This looks like an ad for spaghettiOs not a dignified memorial. Most companies just place their name on an iconic image or some more subdued image. Having your mascot smiling in an ad is possibly over the top.

I just got back from the UT-Pan American v. UT- San Antonio game. Even small D1 college hoops is so awesome in person. I'm hoping once our conference schedule kicks in more people will show up to the games.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) Part of the murkyness early for him was that weight lifting in baseball really didn't get going until the mid-80's. Until then weight lifting was considered wrong for players because it caused them to lose flexibility. This is also when steriods started to appear as well. So some of the difficulty was what is the benefits of weights and what was PEDS. It is interesting how weight lifting in all sports came into the spotlight in the 1980s. When I was running in the late 70s and early 80s my coaches would have shot any middle and distance runners they caught lifting weights. Then by the late 1980s milers had some muscle mass in the upper body.

I don't see them advancing without a win against Ghana. I agree it is possible with a tie, but it seems really unlikely. A loss pretty much ends the chances.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) fixed Thank you.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) December 7th. As Duke has taught us. Nothing wrong with the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. They wanted the land and tried to take it. The only difference between European settlers and the Japanese is the European settlers won.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) AmerIndians were no more or less inherently good or evil, though. Some were bloodthirsty, petty tyrants. Some weren't. They're human, just like Europeans or Africans or aborigines or Mongolians or Indians etc. etc. etc. Lumping all of this different groups together under one and then pointing to them as "inherently good" is exactly the dehumanizing thing. Even ostensibly positive stereotypes are damaging when they cause others to overlook the real, actual humanity in people and groups. Again, if it seemed I was using noble savage to describe the Native Americans that was not my intent. I never intended to group anyone together.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 05:18 PM) Sure, that's one way it's deployed. But then, look at how it's being used: tens of millions of people from vastly different cultures getting all lumped together as one for a philosophical argument. Pretty dehumanizing. AmerIndians were no more or less noble or savage than any other wide group of human cultures. Yet in the context that a group in isolation from other humans are inherently good, not evil is positive. I did not believe I was calling Native Americans noble savages, if I left that impression, I am sorry. I was trying to argue that it is possible for humans to not be blood thirsty racists out to take each other's stuff. That it is not an inherent trait.

Really? I've always seen it in the debate of whether humans are inherently good or evil. I've never seen the term used in any other way. I learned something today. Thanks.

I meant damming a river to generate electricity. You are swapping a natural river for a man made lake. Now, I love lakes and I love rivers. So in some cases I could be persuaded that a hydroelectric damn that destroys so much river habitat, while creating lake habitat may retain more beauty than say a wind farm. The wind farms I am seeing are miles and miles of turbines located on top of hills throughout Texas to Wyoming. I can only remember seeing one in farm fields. Whereas a coal or natural gas plant sits on a mile or much less of land, a wind farm goes on for dozens and dozens of square miles. I just do not like the aesthetics. I would not want to live near one.

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) You're right, I should have said "nearly zero". There is some small bit of supplies and regular maintenance required to keep them lubriCated and running. It's similar to how you have to change the transmission fluid in an electric car even though it doesn't use gasoline - it's not 100% down to zero but the operating costs are several orders of magnitude less for similar power generation. The startup cost is high, the operating costs are minimal. Also, I misread your original post. There is a significant amount of fuel energy that is necessary to power any fuel burning plant. But another point to visuals and how we generate power. The only type of plant I believe some would consider as actually increasing beauty would be a hydroelectric dam. The argument could be made that a large mountain lake is more beautiful than a river running free. I would disagree, but I could be persuaded that it is less obnoxious than some of the others. I just really dislike seeing so much natural habitat destroyed.

That is a good point I was not considering in my reply. I was strictly considering the plant. The overall affect causes me to prefer wind to coal. Although I may prefer solar and natural gas to wind.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) Yup. We took it all then gave some back. Its their fault for losing the war. Want the land? Win the war. So I understand, there is nothing wrong in fighting a war to take someone's land. You want it, you have the military strength, so go take it.

Here's your prize. A thread all for you. You asked for a prize, you got it.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 7, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) 20,000! Where's my prize? Congratulations! I remember when 10,000 posts around here was a huge milestone.

In a bit of personal irony I am recalling a debate I had years ago with lowercaserepublican here about Kerouac and if he was a great author or not. LCR offered Nabokov as an example of a great author. I am writing a seminar paper comparing the two as outcasts who wrote road novels about the US.