Iwritecode

I think even back in 05 or 06 when times were good the rest of MLB had a different view of Ozzie than most Sox fans did. I don't think that view has changed much since then.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) It's a 97. I ran a diagnostic check on it and the only other problem at the moment is the egr valve which should get taken care of with a new engine. Cosmetically it's near flawless, only problem is the "ceiling carpet"(couldn't think of a better word) is hanging a bit. As long as everything else is in good shape, you'll probably be fine. There are a lot of things that don't show up on a diagnostic test (brake lines, shocks, belts, hoses, exhast system, etc...) Especially any original parts that are now 15 years old. Although most of that is normal stuff that you'll have with any car.

What year is it? If you plan on keeping it for another 3 or 4 years and it doesn't have any other major problems then you're probably ok. Just remember that there are about 1,000 other things that can eventually go wrong. I just traded in my 1993 suburban that only had 145,000 miles on it. It ran like a champ but it had a handful of other cosmetic and mechanical problems and I didn't want it to keep nickel and diming me to death.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 01:09 AM) Could be worth a 2nd opinion but from what I've read it sounds like its the engine...Back to the original question, if it is indeed the engine how does $1840 sound for an engine with 66k on it plus a new belt, plugs, and wires sound? Comes with a 6 months parts and labor warranty. The body on it is still practically flawless, and a diagnostic test showed that the only other thing wrong with it is an egr valve which I believe goes away when putting in the new engine. So with that said, and with money tight wouldn't it make sense to just go with the engine with 66k on it rather than dropping that 1840(or less) on another car with 2x the miles and potentially more problems that I don't know about? Sounds about right to me. I think I paid around $1400 for a V6 engine with about 80K miles on it a couple of years ago.

I forgot the Wii U even existed. Even my kids who are constantly playing DS games or PS3 games (and even break out their N64 or GC at times) have zero interest in the Wii U.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) If you are incredibly gifted, then it's perfectly fine. I mean, my passion in life is baseball, specifically playing baseball, but I really can't do that for the rest of my life unless I want to die in 4 months due to lack of food and shelter. Generally, society will provide outlets that allow you to enjoy life while allowing you to also sustain yourself. Sometimes, this is "selling out to the man" and "being told what to do." This. It reminds me of the quote "find something you love to do and you'll never work a day in your life". That's great in theory but it doesn't work for everyone because there are a lot of s***ty jobs out there that need to be done and I doubt they are on many people's list of dream jobs.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) tennis blows When I was a kid I typically had a dozen or more tennis balls laying around somewhere. I would always find them at the park near my house. Some of the best times of my childhood were had by hitting them around my yard with a baseball bat or throwing them onto the sloped roof of my house and catching it. I don't think I used any of them to actually play tennis more than a few times in my whole life.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) Yeah, I don't care so much about the morality of infidelity or divorce, especially when there aren't kids involved. Once you have kids, it's overwhelmingly in the best interest of the kids (assuming one parent is not abusive or a criminal) for the parents to stay together. Making choices that lead away from that path are incredibly selfish. I don't think that's always the case though. If it's a couple that simply can't stand to be in the same room with each other but they are staying together "for the kids" they are creating an incredibly uncomfortable environment. Sometimes it's better for kids to have parents that are seperated but happy rather than two that are staying together but making each other and everyone around them miserable.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 01:44 PM) Nowadays it is much easier to directly contact a girl. In the past, you had to call her house, then her parents would pick up, and you would have to ask them to speak with her. So nerve wracking! Then your parents would complain that you were on the phone when they needed to use it.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) The funny thing to me is that in my case I don't really fear the rejection. I would much prefer a girl just tell me she isn't interested then just start ignoring texts out of the blue after responding to everything almost immediately for a week and a half and apologizing to me in the one instance when she didn't respond to a text immediately. I just hate playing games and uncertainty. I was talking about the fear of rejection when you actually had to work up the courage to physically walk up to her and say "Hi, my name is..." Many people could never get past that. Talking via the internet or text makes it much easier. I would have never met my wife had she not approached me first. I'm better now than I was when I was younger but I'm still very introverted.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) As someone who is old enough to remember the UHF dial on televisions, I'm glad I didn't have to date in today's world. I was bad enough at it as it was, but throw in texting and Facebook and I'd have been even worse and it might have pushed me off the deep end. I have to imagine it's a lot easier today than it was back then. Before we were limited to the people within our physical location. School, hometown, local hang-outs, etc... Now you have the chance to interact with basically anyone that has an internet connection. It also lessens the fear of rejection since your initial contact isn't face-to-face with the other person.

Pick up the phone and give her a call? Or do people not do that anymore? I've been out of the dating game since before cell phones were even popular much less texting.

It's one of the many required shots before they can start school. Or you have to prove that they actually had chicken pox at some point.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 27, 2013 -> 08:26 AM) Someone explain what the f*** this means? Their TV screens keep getting smaller as their parents’ screens grow ever larger. Is it a reference to a tablet? To their phones? That's just brutal. I think it means they watch TV shows on their phones or tablets instead of an actual TV while the parents grew up watching TV on a 13" screen and now have a 72" screen hanging on their wall. I agree that it is poorly worded though.

Number 7 confused me for a second. Then I remembered about the shot. Of my 3 kids, only one was required to get it. The older two (born in 96 and 97) never had to get it. They got chicken pox the old fashioned way. Number 11 doesn't seem right either. Shouldn't it be 3?

This was briefly talked about in another thread on here when it was discussed why MLB hitters can't hit a pitch from Jenny Finch. They literally don't have the years of "data" to know where her pitches are going to end up when she throws them.

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 25, 2013 -> 08:36 PM) When it's the Cubs, I feel pretty confident that they'll f*** it up in the long run This. The last first-rounder they had that really made a major impact for them at the big league level was Mark Prior. And he basically fell into their laps.

Intriguing question. My first thoughts when I read the headline was "no" but I wouldn't be apposed to some sort of scholarship. My daughter gets scholarship money from bowling tournaments all the time and she’s only 12 and has never been on TV.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 19, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) They replaced her character about halfway through. Eh, for a whopping 6 episodes in a single season. After that they just wrote her out of the show completely.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 15, 2013 -> 06:05 PM) They really use the term "star" loosely. I mean she was what, the 10th most important character on that show? Some episodes she didn't even appear in. IIRC, she wasn't even in the series finale. I think Red even made mention of it. Something like "Has anyone seen Laurie lately?"

Link Bottom of the final inning in a tie game with runners on 2nd and 3rd. The pitcher was trying to intentionally walk the batter, but with a 3-0 count he unleashed a wild pitch. Runner comes home to score the winning run. There's some argument in the comments about whether this should be a "walk-off" intentional walk or a "walk-off" wild pitch. I'm curious how the scoring works for this play. Does the pitcher still get charged with a walk?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 8, 2013 -> 04:44 PM) Miata, S2000, BRZ/FR-S (Flat-4, but close enough), C-Class, Z3, 924/944 (RIP)... s*** the new Mustang is going to have a 4 cylinder option again. There's a lot of them. I don’t think any of those would work for somebody looking to fit a carseat in the back. Also RWD sucks in the winter.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 8, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) a RWD car with a peppy straight 4 That’s not a combination I see very often. In my experience, most 4-cylinder cars are FWD.

We broke 30K for Jake Peavy's last start. So the original post that basically said "look Sox fans will show up to boo a cheater but not to cheer for their own team" is just ignorant IMO.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2013 -> 02:29 PM) Slight? That is a 20% difference. It's still only a few extra thousand and you can't say for sure that they were all there because they wanted to boo Arod. They are still below last year's average attendance overall. I'm just saying that I think a legitimately contending team is still a bigger draw than the chance to boo a cheater.