Texsox

April 15th is closer than you think.

Looking at the Frank HoF thread and the Konerko hitting 34 to pass Frank on the All-Time Sox HR list and wondering . . . Remember, Frank would have to play the field or pitch hit.

QUOTE (Brian26 @ Jan 13, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) I'm not disagreeing with you, but Glavine's career happened to coincide with an Atlanta Braves' run where they were the best team in baseball cumulatively over a 12-year period. If Glavine isn't pitching on the Braves for those years, he has many fewer wins and probably never would have reached 300. True. But we run into the chicken and egg debate. Are teams with future hall of fame players more likely to win a lot of games?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) I wish I had a spare $25k. I was thinking the same thing, although I'm not certain with $25k to blow if I would pick a ring.

i wonder if you can be such an average pitcher and rack up 300 wins, why more non hall of fame pitchers haven't managed to do that? It seems pretty easy. Just look at the list of average players with similar stats. You'd think a few more of them would have over at least 200 wins.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) I think voters wanting to make a point will make Thomas a 90%+ first ballot guy. He seems to be the representative of the "he did it the right way, clean" crowd. Agreed. The sad thing will be if they also do an about face on any of the guys that were passed this year. I'd dislike seeing him go in alongside Sosa or Bonds. I would see some writers making certain Frank enters ahead of those guys. I just realized he's about the first player I really have cared about being in the Hall.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 08:36 PM) Does it really matter whose it is? A WS ring is a WS ring. I wouldn't care if it was a beer vendor's ring. It would to a collector. Would you rather have a beer vendors ring or Konerko's ring?

1366 x 768 on my laptop

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 6, 2013 -> 07:03 AM) Cheers my friend. She was born on Friday and is sleeping right next to me at the hospital right now. Life is good. Congratulations!

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 05:48 PM) I absolutely agree that people should be able to put things down for 15 minutes, but that's not the point. If the FAA said everyone should have to sit still with their eyes closed the entire flight for the safety of the plane, does that make it OK? Or would you question it because it doesn't make sense, and want a reason for it? If it was THAT big of a deal, as someone mentioned, they'd go around and turn them all off, confiscate them, or not let them on the plane at all. I'm pretty sure plenty of people stop using their device, but just throw it in the pocket in front of them, etc. I believe a better example would be if they told you that you could not take nail files, water bottles, shampoo, shaving cream, or 1/8" or longer pen knife blades would you question it? Would you question it is they they asked you to take your shoes off before boarding the plan, stuff like that. If the FAA said that a terrorist could bring down the plane with an iPad, we'd give them up from takeoff to landing. Silly isn't it? We easily accept greater restrictions to possibly prevent a random act of human horror, but fight much smaller restrictions that might prevent a random act of electronic malfunction.

read less and watch more reality TV so I can relate to my literature students.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) The only people hurt by this are not government, though we will all feel much pain (for no reason). Who do you think you are sticking it to? Continuing to borrow limitless amunts of money is actually doing the sticking. But it only sticks people who actually pay taxes. It's about not sticking it to future generations. It's about not borrowing money to give us s***. The economy is based on borrowed money, that doesn't last forever. But most of America starts crying like petulant children at the supermarket checkout.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 2, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) Hell I consider myself a regular poster and I'm only at 10k! Just craziness. I'm glad you said regular and not normal, there are no normal posters around here.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) They should do it like "Whose Line is it Anyways?" If they want to filibuster, the rest of Congress draws ideas out of a hat and the speaker must speak (or do improvisational comedy) on that topic. Awesome idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 1, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) If the Mayans were so smart, why didn't they stop the Spanish? no one expects the Spanish inquisition

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:38 AM) So apparently there is no risk that the ipads which pilots use in the cockpit can't malfunction. It would seem easier to determine that the pilot,s iPad is malfunctioning when it is the only one turned on. Funny we gave up nail clippers and water to fly but not iPads and cell phones.

There is actually a nice follow up to that article from an opposing viewpoint. I rarely read comments but it was the first one and caught my eye. I don't mind a few minutes of turning off my electronics.

If only other money was coming into the treasury than what is borrowed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?" The idea is unworkable I know, but most of the time they start reading the phone book or other such nonsense. perhaps they must speak on the bill they are tying to prevent going to a phone?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:20 AM) And if you start suing sperm donors, you are going to scare off a lot of them, taking away families only chances at natural childbirth. I support the exclusion for fertilization that go through recognized medical channels. I believe we should scare off situations like this. Would you allow a contract between a wife and a husband when he does not want kids but will agree only if he would not be responsible for child support if they break up? How would that be different than using a sperm donor?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 09:13 AM) They had legal documents drawn up at the time of the donation. This isn't a grey thing. It is pretty black or white. The intent was never there for this man to be involved in the child process past his donation. You can draw up any contract you like but if it is contrary to the law it isn't valid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent. Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:58 AM) why couldn't the donor have a contract drawn up and notarized at the time of donation? Generally because the right to support is the child's and the child isn't there to agree. The entire child support system is to assure the child has adequate support. It isn't "for" the parent. Of course there is an exception for donors that are done through recognized channels. Another situation I am aware of is a couple I know married after the husband had a vasectomy. At the time she didn't think she wanted kids. Later she did. He did not, but eventually agreed. They used a sperm donor. Later, since they were married when the child was conceived, he was responsible for child support, same as if the child was adopted.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:51 AM) No he didn't. He knowingly allowed someone else to father a child. If you instituted a system which put sperm and egg donors on the hook for kids, you could cripple the cottage industry which allows people who are unable to conceive children on their own. Did you miss where this did not happen with any medical oversight? I agree that for anonymous donations or ones that are conducted through established legal medical channels the sperm or egg donor should not be held responsible. This is different. When you recognize fertilization that occurs outside of established medical procedures then you force women to argue that there was sex involved to receive support. Any dead beat dad could say he just donated the sperm and that the woman later, without his consent, self fertilized. That is a dangerous precedent.