Flash Tizzle

Not much of a prediction, but Simon is right--Melissa is definitely gone. Even if she performed well, I believe America would have casted her off. Second choice of mine is Kinnik. Her collagen lip injections have become too much of a distraction--and she butchered her sound. Unless someone absolutely bombs, the remaining contestants will go through the next round. McPhee up next. After that I can turn the channel....

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) Recap | Box Score Ahh, nothing like defeating Oakland.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) LMAO... apologist.. Alllrighty. I don't know what else to politely call people who direct critcism from Bonds and rest it on "crystal clear" reasons for being singled out . None of which actually blame Bonds for his terrible attitude, note his stature as one of the greatest players in MLB, or mention mysterious connections to steroid distributers. I heard on The Score (and I"m not sure whether the SI article mentions it) Bonds left messages on a woman's answering machine where he says if the woman were to disappear, no one would know. During a previous encounter, he allegedly placed his hands around the woman's throat, pressed her head against a wall, and threatened her verbally. This man is not a creation of the media.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) No matter what comes out, I still refuse to accept this statement...if a guy is willing to cheat in 1998, why should I assume he wasn't willing to cheat before that? I agree with you it's difficult to accept Bonds didn't cheat before 1998. From the excerpt I read, he noteable physical growth was tied to the 1998 Sosa/McGwire race. But in his defense, there hasn't been any information released about steroid use before '98.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) Baseball hell.. a bit dramatic, no? He was the best player of this generation pre-steriods. Assuming he started steriods in 1998, as per the "proof", he still would have 3 MVP's, 8 Gold Gloves, 7 All Star games, 7 silver sluggers, and 411 homers. Yeah he probably used the 'roids BUT many other players used as well. Crystal clear Bonds is being singled out for 2 reasons. 1) He's approaching Ruth and Aaron. Ruth more importantly because he is so much bigger than the game. Remember when Aaron broke Ruth's record? and 2) It's Bond's attitude towards the fans and even more importantly the media. They are vultures waiting to pick at his carcass. If he was nicer - ala Mark back when he was using and everyone knew about it but didn't say s*** - this would be a non issue. Can't deny that. My dad and I were talking a few weeks ago about back in '93 when the Phillies won the NL pennant, many players just happened to have career years. Lenny Dykstra was nothing but a platoon outfielder with the Mets in the late 80's. And then he turned into the Incredible Hulk. Darren Daulton was a terrible catcher before he had an incredible 4-5 year run. The list goes on Incaviglia, Hollins, "Wild Thing" Williams, etc. All of these guys had career years just by chance, I don't think so. Bonds will still make the HOF. First ballot I'll bet. This sounds like a response noted Bonds apologist Michael Wilbon would say on PTI. You're limiting the scope of his steroid use, and its possible implications, by suggesting others did as well. Every baseball player referenced within the last paragraph aren't fit to stand within Bonds' shadow. How can you assert anything is "crystal clear" with determing explanations of why Bonds is singled out? Those reasons you listed (Ruth/Media) certaintly contribute to his exclusion, but he brought scrutiny upon himself. HE associated with employees of a company manufacturing chemical inhancements. HE testified in court to unknowingly spreading steroid cream over his shoulders. I'll agree Bonds will likely be a HOF. His numbers, as you've indicated, were tremendous before 1998--when his physical stature ballooned. Where I disagree with you is I don't believe he'll be voted in first ballot. Journalists, former players, etc. casting a vote for Bonds can't possibly ignore all implications.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Sure looks like they have a lot of stuff to back it up. Wow, that's really extensive. More than simply, "Conti testified he delivered steroids to Bonds." I'll have to pick up an issue of this myself. Now begins the attack against the two San Francisco reporters. They must have an agenda, or were treated poorly during the encounters with Bonds, is what we'll hear. Should be an interesting week ahead of us. Too bad this will take away attention from Kirby Puckett.

I don't want to lose to Oakland. Even in Spring Training. But knowing our luck against them, there's going to be a fluke play, umpire call, mysterious weather anamoly which turns the game in favor of Oakland. Beat those scrubs, and if possible, stomp on a few.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) i guess i just see a difference between not liking a film and saying that it's overrated in general... in any case, personally i loved the film. it served its purpose as a biopic and to expect anything else from it would be dumb. you dont think it was worthy of the best picture nomination? Of course there's a difference. For me, personally, I didn't like the film--thus, for the praise it has received, I believe it's overrated. I didn't expect anything besides a portrayal of Ray Charles life. I simply didn't enjoy the film. If I have to spend another couple posts explaining why I dislike the movie, and why I believe it's overrated, I'm going to jump off a building. This is the most time I'll devote to that movie. Was it worthy of best picture nomination? When you put Ray besides other movies created in 2004, it was. Sideways would have been removed in place of Hotel Rwanda if it were my decision.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Mar 7, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) ray overrated? please explain that logic to me. Simple. Aside from Foxx's performance, which he rightfully deserved, I didn't enjoy the movie. What, are you expecting a complex intepretation of the emotions evicted through Ray's troubling life?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 05:18 PM) I'm sure Jenks wasn't throwing 100 MPH after he had that screw inserted into his elbow. And Jenks never had good control in the minors (6.41 walks per 9 innings). So how are the two so different again? Once rehabilitation ended and Jenks began throwing again the velocity never left. Perhaps several MPH, but not to the degree Tucker has endured. If you're looking for tangible proof (because I don't have a link) ask Angel fans. It's understandable to hold out hope he'll return to form, but foolish to expect it by comparing his situation to Jenks.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 05:07 PM) There weren't many expectations for Jenks and look what happened. He stunk with the Angels. There aren't too many lefties who can throw in the high 90's like Tucker (when 100% healthy). Jenks didn't have much control either. Two completely different pitchers. Jenks didn't lose 8 mph off his fastball following elbow surgery. His attitude, not his stuff, was the issue. With Tucker, we're not just dealing with mediocre stuff, but poor location. I don't care if they stick him in Charlotte to pitch. If he regains his strength and develops proper mechanics, then obviously, it's beneficial to our club. But again, I wouldn't count on this happenign.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) I think if he gets his velocity back and works on his location, he could be Jenks Part 2 from the left side. Those are high expectations. Even if magically Tucker's velocity returns to it's previous stature, there's still the problem of locating his pitches. If he can't control a 90 mph fastball, what difference will 96 mph be? More than likely, he'll be another Charlotte scrub if placed there.

Looks like my birthday wish came true. f*** world peace and health. WE FINALLY GOT A WIN!!!!

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) just because there is one weak film nominated, doesnt discount the quality of the other films. 2004 had an extremely good group of films as well. No, but it so happens the years I indicated happened to have one undeserving film, perhaps one excellent film, and the rest were good--but not worthy of winning best picture. Personally, I don't agree with you on 2004. I realize many wine conoisseurs consider Sideways the epitome of comedy, but best picture? Aviator wasn't appealing to me, Finding Netherland was a decent film, Ray is incredibly overrated, Million Dollar Baby was excellent and deserved it's recognition.

Browsing that list, there have been some relatively weak nominations for Best Picture from 2000 onward. Atleast one undeserving film every year. 2005 easily had the most depth since 1998; if you consider every movie within the category to have a legitimate chance of winning the Oscar. Of course the odds were heavily in favor of BBM and Crash, but if any one of the nominations took the award, it would have been understandable.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) What's so conservative about 'Crash'? Nothing. This isn't meant to be a victory for conservatives--just a stunning defeat for those who've continually insisted Brokeback Mountain was a "lock." Including 'Liberal Hollywood' was more of a slight jab at people suggesting the movie industry was ensuring the movie success to push forward a gay agenda. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._best_picture_1 Whether or not anyone deems this a political defeat (which I only did with jest) the above excerpt proves how many deemed BM the oscar favorite. The most recent upset which comes to mind is Shakespeare in Love defeating Saving Private Ryan several years ago.

Liberal Hollywood with a HUUUUGGGGEEE defeat. Crash wins Best Picture.

HAHA, ABC cut out one of the writers from Crash while he was in front of the microphone. You could tell the cast members were pissed off.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 06:26 PM) Why do you think the cop thought he had HIV? He (chief) obviously knew this individual before their encounter. Either he automatically associated the man's sexual orientation with HIV, which is obviously bad, or had misinformation about the man's status-- which is bad as well. Either scenario, action should be taken. I suppose I'm biased in believing a police chief wouldn't allow a homosexual man to die if he didn't legitmately assume the person were HIV positive. If he simply stereotyped, did he assume nothing would occur afterwards? No bloodwork to back up the claims, or testimony from the dead man's friend? Again, I tie this situation to CPR treatment being denied because the man supposedly had the virus. Not because he was gay.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 02:39 AM) Anybody ever seen this movie called "Shakma?" It's about a killer baboon. I saw it once about 10 years ago. I've been looking for it for a while now and can't seem to find it anywhere. Shakma

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 06:03 PM) Except the guy was HIV negative, and the police officer did not do chest compressions. He did nothing. That's a problem, I agree. But in relation to Balta's post, the man's death had nothing to do with him being a homosexual. I'd rather give CPR to the gayest man alive than someone with HIV.

I don't believe the issue here is blatant discrimination against homosexuals. The article never indicated such. It was misinformation on the possible contraction of HIV from mouth to mouth contact. This thread would have been more accurate if it had been entitled "....Cheif Stops CPR On Man Infected With AIDS." Personally, I would have atleast checked the lip/mouth region for open wounds before attempting resuscitation. If he had blood in his mouth, or an obvious gash or wound, I'm sorry--but I'm not going to attempt reviving the person through their mouth. I'd still continue pressing upon the chest, though. Call me vile or dispicable, but if I'm not a medical personnel with actual experience concerning such patients, he would die before I risk HIV infection.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) Since when did the record matter in Spring Training? Some of you guys need to check yourselves. If you guys are this bad already, I can't wait to see how f***ed up PHT is during the season. Who's complaining about the record? I've read perhaps one person specifically mention it.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) I can't quite recall, someone help me. How many pre-season games did the Colts win this season? You can still assess this team, Spring Training or not. Such as our lefty relievers competiting for a roster position. I don't need a 'large sample size' to conclude they're rather mediocre. No one I've read has openly said "We're THE SUCK." It's simple--no one wants to witness their club losing six straight games with average losses seemingly totaling 7 runs per game. I don't care, personally, because it's not as if any of our regular pitchers are giving up 4 spots. Or hitters possessing more than 20 AB's.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) Nice baserunning by Valido. Inning over. 6-3 Diamondbacks. Atleast the score is fairly close...... This must be the mindset of Royals' fans explaining losses.