clyons

I hate sports.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 09:26 PM) Who said that? Hawk? Yes, but I misheard. It was MCL

Yeah, nothing looked "mild" about his grimacing when he was down or how he was carried off.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 09:14 PM) MRI tomorrow however. What do we take from the fact they're calling this 'mild' ? My rule of thumb is always - cant walk off = very bad. I dont know, but "mild strain" certainly sounds better than "tear." Also, was it ACL or MCL? I have a cold and my ears are all messed.

"Mild Strain of ACL" "X-rays Negative" -- That may be the only good news on this very s***ty day.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 08:53 PM) if toronto played in the central they'd be 3 games out, about to be 2. They'd be a lot closer than that, since they'd get to play us more than 8 times.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 04:49 PM) Carter lost to Reagan during the debates, Mondale lost to Reagan during the debates, Clinton beat Bush I during debates, Clinton beat Dole during debates, Gore lost to GW Bush (unbelievable as it may sound that GW could defeat ANYONE in a debate) during the debates. Kerry sucked during the debates, lost. Even if these debate "wins" are true, that certainly doesn't equate to cause and effect with respect to the election victories. That's circular reasoning (at best), and offers no real support for your conclusory assertion. Are you seriously contending that these elections were "close" until the debates decided things? That both of Reagan's landslides were horse races until he verbally bested Carter and Mondale, respectively? That voters were radically undecided about tossing and/or retaining incumbent presidents despite recessionary (Bush I) and robust (Clinton) economies until they heard the candidates reply to verbal queries from Jim Lehrer or Bernard Shaw on a common stage? That's just not accurate. Debates may go a long way towards wooing undecideds, but to say that elections are won or lost during them is a real stretch. And this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue; both history and political science bear this out.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) When I pull back into my driveway I can still be on the clock. It depends on what you do for a living and what your companies policies are. In a lot of telecommuting jobs or people who have to support a home office, the lines between the home and work blur a bit. It requires personal restraint and knowing what is truly you being on the clock. My home office is a full extension of my work office. My work phone moves over to my work phone in my office when I log in at home. My internet is 100% expensed every month. I have expensed some meals at home. Yes its my house, but when you get impacted on your weekend for an unexpected critical issue that takes up 36 hours of your time, I think a 10 dollar meal is more than palatable to ask. I'll try again. I work from home often too, and I charge clients for services I perform wherever I perform them: office, home, hotel, airplane, etc., "On the clock" is "on the clock," I get that. But when I'm home, I have to eat and I have to pay for the food I'm going to eat there anyway. I can't expect my clients to specifically reimburse me for for my dinners (or the gas and electricity I used to cook it, or the mortgage I pay to have the kitchen to cook that dinner in) just because I swap the sports page for their files, before, during, or after my meal. We're not talking about reimbursement for the internet or other work related "equipment" here; were talking per diem expenses for food and shelter, i.e., basic room and board. If your company allows this, consider yourself fortunate; in my experience your employer is extremely generous. But a good auditor would almost certainly urge them to "reform" that practice.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) presidential elections are usually won or lost during the debates Not sure about that; I can only think of two in which the debates are generally acknowledged to have had a significant influence: 1960 (Nixon looking shifty-eyed and sweaty on TV) and 1976 (Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe).

A plea for perspective: The Blue Jays are scorching hot and Burnett seemed (I couldn't watch) plain, flat nasty. This was one of the 60. Let's hope Richard and the offense man up tonight.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) For the most part, we CRUSH average and mediocre pitching and are dominated by good pitching. There are exceptions (Saturday against Lackey, for example), but usually, that is how it works. To be fair, however, that's how it usually works with most teams.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 02:48 PM) I'm pretty convinced that A.J. Burnett is going to no hit us, especially now that he has a lead. cough, cough

I'm pretty sure playoff rosters consist of the 25-man roster as of 8/31, plus anybody on the DL or bereavement lists, etc. as of that date. If somebody from the 25 man gets hurt after 8/31 and is injured at the start of a series, a team can add a sub for that player. Playoff rosters can be reset series by series, subject to the same rules.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2008 -> 10:51 AM) I'm making a business trip tomorrow, and I am on the company dime as soon as I get into my car to MDW. Damn straight, but you and I have to come off of it when we pull back into the driveway.

I travel, but have never sought or received reimbursement for lodging or meals in my own home. My home = my dime. Isn't that the main point of the Post article, that Palin billed tax payers for nights spent at home? I mean, we all have to live and eat somewhere. Not everything can be on the employer's dime. And when your employer is the state, billing taxpayers for the room and board you are going to consume anyway may not be "wrong" in the sense of being illegal or unethical, but it certainly doesn't jibe with an image of reform.

The fact that CQ was only placed in a "soft" cast is somewhat encouraging.

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 8, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) Yeah, but Aparicio was a an excellent defender and base stealer. I know, but that's the problem with these "all-time" lists; you really can't compare defense or other intangibles without having watched guys play, and both these guys were well before our time. I went with Appling not only because of his much higher career average (he also bests Luis with a .399 to .311 career OBP), but also because he played his entire 20-year career in Chicago. Of course, you can't go wrong either way, and if you approach it as if you were putting a true team together instead of a "best of" list, you'd definitely want a burner like Aparicio on there.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 7, 2008 -> 11:27 AM) Mac looked pretty darn good and maybe next year will be in the bullpen helping us out. Now the question about Owens or Getz. Good one, but with Ozzie I am thinking speed wins out every time I agree, so still go with Getz. For a guy whose only baseball skill is speed, Owens is not that fast, and as we saw Saturday night, he is not a good base runner.

If Mark Grace is the best first baseman in the history of Chicago baseball, that fact goes a long way towards explaining why the city has one championship in forever. I know he had a great glove, but being a great defensive first basemen is two cuts above being tallest midget. First base is and always will be a power, offensive position, and the man never hit 20 homers or drove in 100 runs. Overall, Derek Lee is a better firstbaseman than Mark Grace. So are Paulie, Big Frank, Dick Allen, Rafael Palmeiro and Ernie Banks, who was a SS by trade. Nevertheless, I fully expect "Gracie" to win this poll in a landslide. Cubbie love and the recency of his tenure will be hard to overcome.

QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 7, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) Aparicio's better than Appling, I think. Luke's lifetime average was .310; Louie's was .262.

Go out and hoist a couple for me to tonight, ladies and gents.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Sep 6, 2008 -> 08:54 PM) You know, the weird thing about this game is, if they lose I'll be depressed as hell. But its at the point now that if they win, I probably won't feel anywhere near the same level of a high, just more of a general sense of gladness and relief. Anybody get me? I take that back. I'M JACKED!!!!

You know, the weird thing about this game is, if they lose I'll be depressed as hell. But its at the point now that if they win, I probably won't feel anywhere near the same level of a high, just more of a general sense of gladness and relief. Anybody get me?

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Sep 6, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) I need some Miller High Life commercials. I thought that Miller Chill one was a-ok!

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Sep 6, 2008 -> 08:45 PM) Finish him or roll one up baby Man, I'd like to roll one up and finish it myself.