clyons

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 26, 2008 -> 08:50 PM) Well f*** my ass. I'm thankful for your kind offer (not really). I'm thankful that for the first time ever, the Sox beat the Twins in a head-to-head pennant race.

Consider this. Most seem to agree that Weis has recruited better than Willingham ever did. In theory, this means that Weis' recruits had at least the potential to be the better players, and thus comprise the better teams. However, to this point, Willingham and Weis have compiled virtually identical records, at least by percentage. Arguably, Weis' record has been compiled against slightly inferior opponents. Inarguably, he has had the better (though younger) players. Ty couldn't win with a young Brady Quinn or Jeff [however you spell it]. Weis hasn't won with a young Clausen or Tate. Given the foregoing, who was/has been the better Notre Dame coach? Is there really any difference? And no fair counting Washington against Ty or predicting what Charlie could do next year.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 26, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) True http://www.bensmovies.bravehost.com/ haven't updated that in a LONG time The person below me got laid in the past 24 hours. (self serving does not count) False (Dammit). The person below me is married.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 26, 2008 -> 09:19 AM) Neither Amonte nor Chelios were involved in the trashing of rooms. Thanks, Steve. I now feel retroactively better about my team. Not necessarily USA hockey, but at least the Hawks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 26, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) Everything I have ever read about LBJ is that he was a power hungry and dirty SOB. I've read the same things. That said, I personally find the theories that speak of his involvement to be ludicrous, and I know of absolutely nothing (save theoretical conjecture and one highly ambiguous "wink") that even remotely points to his actual complicity in murder. Its one thing to have a theory about motive; Its another thing entirely to have evidence of guilt.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 26, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) He was the captain, he was NOT one of the vandals. Jeremy Roenick and Keith Tkachuk were the main vandals, and when finding out they destroyed their hotel room(s), Chelios PERSONALLY PAID FOR THE DAMAGES because he felt responsible as team captain. The guy is nothing but a class act, and I feel his #7 should hang in the rafters. My bad then. Maybe I have him confused with JR; I thought there was some kind of Blackhawk connection to the actual trashing, but I guess JR was already gone then.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 09:28 PM) I think it's pretty dumb that IU blew up their entire Basketball program and put themselves 2-3 years away from contention and the NCAA still didnt think it was enough. It probably goes without saying, but what was really dumb was this hiring itself. You could have smelled Kelvin's stench in Bloomington all the way from Norman, but IU chose to hold its nose. This was a panicky, desperate hire made as an unneccessarry overaction and hoped for quick fix to Mike Davis' tenure, and was completely out of character for that university. There are some parallels to ND hiring Charlie Weis as an overreaction to Willingham, except, of course, that Weis didn't come with a lengthy NCAA rap sheet.

Its been a difficult year for many, but all of us still have many things to be thankful for. Safe journeys to all who are travelling.

In a way, I see Cheli almost like an AJ, except I think Cheli was a better at hockey than AJ is at baseball. I loved him as a Blackhawk, but hated to see him go to the Wings, and would have booed him when he brought the Cup to the Cell this Summer, if I was there. I lost a lot of respect for Cheli after his Olympic team trashed their hotel rooms after the games in Nagano, Japan (I think it was). IIRC, he was either captain of that team, or reports made him out to be one of the main vandals. That might be unfair of me to single him out (that whole team was an embarassment for their actions and play) but oh well. We don't need him now, especially with Wiz coming back to the D-line in a couple weeks. And taking the C away from Toewes would be a horrible idea, imo.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 01:20 PM) I'd honestly rather have Bailey than Edwin Jackson. Me too.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 25, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) You don't "have to believe" the magic bullet theory to believe there was 1 shooter. More likely, the timing issue was a matter of incorrect forensic investigation. True, but it is still troubling that the magic bullet theory is part of the "official" Warren Commission explanation, based upon underlying forensic evidence that, if incorrect, was still largely accepted without question. The WC left itself open to second guessing that has only fueled conspiracy theories, instead of putting them to rest. I realize there are rational explanations for the "magic" bullet, as well as "back and to the left," but not all of them are simple or absolutely clear. Ultimately, however, they are still simpler than most of the convoluted conspiracies.

I am a lot less inclined to believe in a conspiracy than I used to be, although my visit to Dealey Plaza a few years ago didn't have much of an effect on my opinion. Stone's JFK movie was interesting entertainment, but from everything I have read and seen, Jim Garrison (the Kevin Costner character)'s particular conspiracy theory has been completely debunked, and even amongst most die-hard conspiracy theorists, Garrison is regarded as somewhat of a nutjob. There are, however, two points made in that movie that are hard for me to ignore: 1) the Warren Commission's "magic bullet" theory (hilariously lampooned in "Seinfeld") is just plain difficult to swallow; and 2) the Zapruder film does seem to show JFK's head snapping "back and to the left," "back and to the left," "back and to the left." To accept Oswald as the lone gunman, one must not only buy into the "magic bullet" theory, but conclude that JFK's "back and to the left" head movement was some type of spasm. I understand that the latter is medically possible, but on film, it certainly does look like the result of a forward hit from the direction of the grassy knoll or triple underpass. On the other hand, that the assasination was some form of "coup" perpetuated by our military inductrial complex, or a "revenge" hit by Castro and/or the mafia seems to require even more of a stretch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) What about places like Curves that clearly discriminate based on gender? As ridiculous as it sounds, if there's a weirdo hellbent on joining, he could probably state a claim. Hell, the EEOC initiated a class action gender claim against Hooters a few years ago, after a weirdo claimed he couldn't get hired as a waiter. IIRC, the EEOC ultimately dropped the case after Hooters mounted an ingenious PR campaign that called the agency out on its misplaced priorities.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) So all they had to do was let them register, and then fail to provide them with same sex dates as their software wasn't designed for that, and all would be fine? If the software decided that 'John' was compatible with 'Jane' and sent him that info, or decided that eh didn't match anyone and told him that, could they still have been sued? Of course they could have been "sued." You can sue anybody for anything these days. As to whether they could be sued "successfully," that depends (how about that for a lawyerly answer). Ultimately, if they had at least let him register, it would come down to a question of fact as to whether John was rejected for legitimate or illegal reasons. That can be more readily defended; a per se rule of exclusion is much, much harder. These cases have mixed burdens of proof. A Plaintiff has the burden of proving discrimination, but the defendant has the burden of articulating a legitmate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. John says "I wasn't matched because I'm gay;" the site says, "no, its because you're a loser." Usually, a jury has to decide who is telling the truth. I defend employment cases. There, a plaintiff says: "You didn't hire me because I'm [fill in the blank]." We say: "No its because you're a loser." Sometimes those cases can be thrown out before they even get to the jury, if the employer can show that it also rejected other people outside the plaintiff's protected class who it also deemed losers for similar reasons. However, an employer with a policy of per se exclusion is almost certainly toast.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) There is a site that's strictly for people making $100K a year or something along those lines. There's another site that you have to be consider "hot" to get on. There are Jewish singles and Catholic singles sites. I really don't think it's against the law. There are viable options for everyone on the internet. It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet). The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are. The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice." Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 09:52 AM) it's not really the same situation as forced segregation. it is basically (from what i can tell) a dating service geared towards evangelical straight couples. this whole case is fairly suspect. the fact is that dating services that cater to certain ethnic groups is not anything hateful, illegal, or out of the ordinary. jewish americans, hispanics, and african-americans have similar services. I don't write 'em, I just fight 'em (the EEO laws, that is). The fact that it isn't really the same as "forced segregation" has nothing to do with it. Neither does the fact that its not "hateful." Very few commercial entities can lawfully exclude others based solely upon protected characteristics. There are tons of cases just as silly as this one fought every day. Believe me, they help feed and clothe my kids.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 23, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) Trade Dye for Jackson and Iwamura. Iwamura leads off, plays 2b or 3b. I can't see the Rays giving up Iwamura. I'd think they'd be sending us pitching and maybe an outfield prospect.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it). Yes; they can legally reject a person because he or she is a dork, but not because of their legally protected characteristics; Its not a perfect analogy, but the situation would be similar to a "gay" bar refusing admittance to straight clientele. Sexual orientation isn't quite on the same legal footing as race, ethnicity, religion, and other protected classes, but the issues are similar to those that used to come up with lunch counters refusing service to Blacks in the 60's.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) I would like to hear the legal reasoning on this one. The courts have ruled that private organizations (like the Boy Scouts) can discriminate against gays and atheists in the past. I assume its because eharmony is an internet site that makes money for its hosts. This places it in "interstate commerce" and distinguishes it from a true private, non-profit like the Scouts. There also may be isses under the various telecommunications laws. As to the argument that they have "their own" dating sites, "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 50 years ago. Not defending, just responding.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 06:59 AM) Criminal. It's not up to him to decide what gets delivered. If his medical problems made it too difficult to do his job, he should go get them taken care of or get off the route. The fact that it was junk mail is irrelevant - he was deciding what got delivered to its intended destination. Sorry if I misplaced my sense of humor on this one. Agreed.

Markets up following reports that NY Fed Bank president Timothy Geithner will become Treasury Secretary.

QUOTE (sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 09:01 PM) any reason I should wait until after black friday to get my tv? I'm going LG 32" 32LG30. Solid reviews and I think I can get it for less than 500. I'm concerned that sales for BF are going to suck and in response retailers are going to cut major prices. thoughts? I think the best time to buy TVs is right before the Super Bowl (in store lingo, the "Big Game in January"), when merchants try to lure people to spend their gift cards and holiday cash. The deals should be even better this year after lower than usual holiday spending.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) Remember complete sentences This seems to have been forgotten. When I was four, I got a table shaped like a turtle for Christmas.

Appears to be a downsizing thing. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towert...downey-dep.html I will miss him. I thought his "lists" were pretty funny, and he seemed pretty Sox-friendly.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 08:58 AM) Don't forget El Duque the reliever in 2005. Yeah, I'm embarassed I didn't mention him. "HOCUS POCUS SAYS HERNANDEZ" -- That inning was unbelievable.