Flash Tizzle

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) The Blue Angels are loud. My house will never be the same... until next year this time. Although this year, they are really loud because I think they're flying lower then normal because of the clouds. Yeah, I can relate to that. A few years ago during the Air and Water show one of the Blue Angels, obviously flying to Chicago, flew so low to the ground that I thought a plane was about to crash into our neighborhood. It was an unbelievably loud roar. After it passed I looked out the window and watched it ascend rapidly, as about five neighbors exited their house probably wondering what the hell just happened.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 22, 2009 -> 04:36 PM) This is the first I've heard the question posed to UIC if they were world class university. Haha yeah. I go to UIC and love it there, but it's not a world class university. Of course that phrase itself is intentionally vague for marketing purposes, but I'd think that to be a worldclass university you'd need instant recognition. And the only world recognition UIC would receive would be from people mistaking it for U of C. Good article though, Pratt. I look forward to your feature on the Criminology department. I have a feeling it'll be nowhere near the gloom of the Political Science Department.

I really enjoyed Adventureland. It had more depth than I expected. Kristen Stewart's character was done very well, too. Not that I care for her as an actress, but how they wrote her was true to life. In the movie, she came on strong to Eisenberg in the beginning, then quickly backed off. When he began seeing Lisa P suddenly she had interest again (ie, "I don't want to lose you"); but her interest wasn't genuine. This was evidenced by her continuing to see Reynolds character. It's a perfect comparison to real life and how some, not all, girls are pulled between emotions. And yes, I was duped by the commercials to believe it was a comedy. With Mottola as writer I almost expected blatant 80's references. You know, the kind written by someone trying too hard to convince us of the time period. For example: "Whoa man, this is the 1980's, look at all the crazy things going on with our hair! This fashion and music will live on forever!" This wasn't an issue.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 05:19 PM) CNN Breaking News Twitter: Sheriff reports that the 6-year-old boy who released the balloon in Colorado has been found alive at home. Hahaha. How was this not known five minutes after the search began? This kid must be awesome at hide and seek.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 05:05 PM) Because I got one after the first non warning ticket I received for it, and was in an accident and when my car was repaired, they not only lost the plate but they also didnt put a bracket for it. Without buying a new bumper or monstrosity of a bracket it wouldnt go on without being screwed straight into the panel and Im not gonna do that. The engineers simply werent thinking about Illinois traffic laws when they designed the car. I just keep the accident report in my car and so far havent had any problems yet. Well, that's a damn good explanation.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) Here is the picture showing a mass falling from the balloon they think... It must not be anything because if they know who sent the picture (which they do, since it's being credited to a woman on CNN), then what the hell is taking so long to find out? Go to her house, find where she stood, and coordinate the area from there. I don't know what's around the lady's house, maybe there's a forest or body of water near by, but it's just too difficult to tell from a small smudge.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 04:45 PM) I dont have a front plate either, nor will I. I also tint my windows which is also something that I get tickets for. It's strange that people wouldn't be willing to buy front plates. Is it just that you don't want people reading it as you drive? For the inconvenience it will cause with the police, I would think having a plate on the front of your car wouldn't be a big deal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 15, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) As a general rule, anything less than 5 MPH over won't hold up in court, because it is considered within the margin of error of the radar device. So if I were you, I'd go to court and simply say you were doing 25 according to your speedometer, and you think the radar may have gotten it wrong. I'd be shocked if you didn't get off, or get probation or the like at least. If the officer testifies to calibrating the radar gun after the traffic stop with a metal prong (I don't know the exact name for the object, but it's shaped like a 'Y' and vibrates if struck hard enough) that excuse won't work. The object I'm referring to vibrates at a certain speed, and if the radar gun matches that reading there won't be much he can do. Anyways, I recall reading an abstract of a study conducted several years ago on the margin of error with radar guns, and it's only an issue when the speed is above 150mph. Personally, I wouldn't go to court just to fight a ticket for speeding five miles an hour above the limit. Steve, another problem here is you're just not speeding five miles an hour above the limit; but you're doing so under less than ideal conditions. It has been raining all day around Palos, and I can only imagine it's been the same in Lombard. So even if the judge believes there's a margin of error with the radar gun, he still may believe you were driving too fast for conditions.

As far as events that affected MY life, I'd say Columbine tops everything. I was in 8th grade when it happened, and it immediately changed the previously unquestioned safety you felt within schools. Suddenly, the thought of dying within a classroom was real. You treated people differently than before because, who knows, they may have it out for you. You sat in classrooms thinking of escape routes if gunshots echoed through the hallways. I'll never forget, on the one year anniversary of Columbine it was a terrible day outside. The skies looked dark green. I'd say 30% of the school didn't show up because someone wrote an anonymous note highlighting the Columbine anniversary saying it may happen again at our school. My parents still sent me. First period, a classroom next door was showing a video while we were completing a worksheet. Suddenly, you hear a bell ring and -- no exaggeration -- everyone in that room immediately perks up. Even the teacher. I remember a girl near me had this look of fear on her face. I'm sure I did as well. Well, a few seconds afterwards we realized it was the video and continued on with work. All throughout the day everyone was on edge. Eventually everything was back to normal, but even September 11th didn't match the fear I felt after Columbine. It was probably because, one, I was older; and two, the method of attacks (airplanes) weren't very connected to my life.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10...nedy-lanes.html Are people held accountable when incidents such as this happen? It's a major inconvenience, and certainly one that shouldn't have happened. I have several clout relatives in road construction (one for a company in Chicago that would have benefited greatly from the Olympics), and I haven't met one that said there's any accountability in the job. If they screw up, they're only paid more to make up for their problems. You wonder, where's the motivation to do quality work?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 05:13 PM) So who else agrees the anna paquin segment in trick r treat was brutal? It didn't tie in to anything else and was just plain boring. While watching I figured this was the segment you were referring to last week. It did tie in at the end with the serial killer neighbor, but even then, it just wasn't very entertaining. My reaction was more of, "Oh, so that's what they meant. I'm glad this part is over.'

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 12, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) Trick 'R Treat was a 3/5. Capitalism: A Love Story was a 4/5. I'd probably give it a similar rating. There I was, having been looking forward to watching Trick R Treat for years, and after viewing it I felt indifferent. I kind of regret telling Flasox several pages earlier that it would renew his faith in the horror business. It's enjoyable (and I have to admit there were several twists I didn't expect), but it's place to me is more of a film you and your drunk buddies watch. Not this 'horror classic' as people have put it.

I was rooting for that Twins fan to scale the wall. He was so close.

Minnesota is probably better off walking Rodriguez, anyway.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 11, 2009 -> 08:51 PM) I can't decide what was the worse baserunning play, Gomez the other night getting caught off 2nd and directly costing them at least 1 run, or the Punto play which turned 1st and 3rd, 0 out into man on 1st, 1 out tonight. I know the Punto one came in perhaps the worst spot possible though, and now the Twins are 3 outs away from elimination against Rivera. I'd say Punto's was worst because Friday's play, at least for me, is reflective of Gomez -- he'll always be aggressive, even to the point of over running a base and directly costing his team a run. Nick Punto is a 31 year old veteran player who shouldn't have let his emotions get control of him in that situation.

Nice job Mauer mwhahaahawhah.

I just finished watching Inglorious Basterds. I haven't been this disappointed from a movie in quite awhile. I know this discussion was had near the films theatrical release, but honestly, did anyone feel unsettled in numerous scenes because it just seemed to drag on for too long? It has become his trademark. A perfect example of this would be the scene where "Bear Jew" was inside the cave banging his bat, intimidating the Nazi soldier. It wasn't building suspense in my mind. I was just thinking, "get out of the f***ing cave already!" The entire tavern scene was excruciating to sit through, as well. And yes, because I can anticipate the replies, I knew the trailers misguided the public into believing it was an action flick revolving around Pitt's character. I had already known much of what happened, I just have to admit, it didn't live up to the standards I hold for Tarantino. I didn't really think much of the dialogue, or the characters (aside from the woman who owned the theater), and I certaintly didn't care for the action or suspense. I can't knock everyone's appreciation for this movie. There are probably countless fans (many on this board) who can articulate their appreciation for the movie. Fine. But what I feel is too many Quentin Tarantino fan-boys are praising this movie because he's involved. It' reminds me of the Boondock Saints fan base, where honoring the movie has become a cult all in itself.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Both movies pulled from multiple different sci-fi books of the same theme. Not sure which did which. Forget the tech and methodology. Point is, the theme has been done, and done badly, so no one wants to touch it. At least for now. But you never know. They're always stuck in that bind of seeking an original story, yet having to produce a profitable disaster flick that appeals to a large audience. What comes out of that mix is 2012. I'd like to see a disaster movie that focuses more on the aftermath. If The Road is successful I guarantee you'll see more to follow. That is the interesting part for me, not what everyone does leading up to the disaster but how everyone reacts afterward. Even with 2012, a part of me would be interested in knowing how the hell do people live ordinary lives after such a ridiculous set of disasters?

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 08:43 PM) Not Ozzie's best effort in putting him back out there for the 8th IMO Why not? He was cruising. However, Garcia's last start showed that he still has the power to manipulate Guillen into having him pitch another inning. That's what irritated me about his time in Chicago. He could give up a run, get out of a bases loaded jam, have 100 pitches, and would go out the next inning only to give up a few runs.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 05:47 PM) Jacoby Ellsbury and Matt Garza were available when Broadway was picked. Some called Broadway a safe pick. I prefer stupid pick myself. Same with McCullough. I'd like to see the Sox release him and get all that bad karma out of the system. Hey, believe me, no one has criticized the minor league system more than I have. I wasn't a fan of either pitcher when they were drafted. It shouldn't have taken years upon years of draft failures for someone to realize a change in philosophy was needed, but if Broadway and McCulloch have one legacy to me it's how they represent the old way of player development. At some moment, Williams and company realized if you don't take any risks (including paying overslot), you're not going to end up with much in return. I use Nevin Griffith as an example. Even if he doesn't amount to anything, atleast the risk was taken in the 2nd round of the 2007 draft with someone who was definitely raw; yet had great potential. I'll take that pick everytime. It's not as if our safe picks amounted to anything, anyways.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) Flash, that girl sounds like a major tease. In the end, would she be worth it? Nope. I learned a long time ago to graciously accept rejection. One of my buddies wanted me to text her that I'm sorry, but I already apologized once. I'm done with that. It was just mind boggling because I had never seen a girl put so much effort into me, only to change face so quickly. And it wasn't as if we were right next to my friends when I tried to kiss her. We were at the end of the bar by ourselves. It just so happened at that moment everyone had their attention towards us. My bartender friend suggested today that I was taking it too fast with her (which she probably told him to say), but that's the type of excuse someone says if they're interested in someone as a girlfriend/boyfriend. And she sure as hell didn't give off that impression. I think, talking to my friend, she just used that as an excuse to put me down easy. That way, maybe she thinks I'll contact her in the future and continue feeding her ego. It's better giving me that impression than the alternative of "I just wanted to have the attention of a guy tonight." Unless of course she wants it in the end. Then I'll do whatever is necessary.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Seems like a very dumb reason to take a guy in the first round. To you and Dick, I'm not agreeing with it. I'm listing it among the possible reasons he was signed. Certaintly, if they believed he was the best player available, yet still didn't have much hope of him becoming more than a 5th starter, they'd still sign him. This, mind you, was during the White Sox phase of avoiding risk. Royce Ring was drafted #18 overall in 2002 for a $1.6 million dollar bonus, only to be traded a little more than a year later for Roberto Alomar. They probably knew from day one what they had in him and what they planned on doing.

So, last night my friends all meet up with someone we know who bartends, and there at the bar is this awesome girl who's an old friend of the bartender we know. Cute, nice personality, and all over my shiznit. What's best is she's not even from around the area. So, I'm thinking maybe one night stand. And she's giving me all the hints that she's interested in hooking up too. After leaving the first bar we decide the night must continue and decided to visit a 4am dive. On the way there she calls me twice to make sure I'm still going. So I show up, and the flirting is ratcheted up a notch. Now it's basically, in so many words, "mama wants some dick." So at one point we're talking, only to be interrupted with silence as we're gazing into each others eyes. She wraps her arms around my waist, and as I move in to kiss her.....she turns her head away. My friends were DYING laughing. I played it off cool, but deep down I was pissed. After that it was like a light switch and her personality turned off. She was probably embarrassed for the both of us. Really, I don't know if I was only a self esteem boost or if I ruined it by attempting a kiss her at that moment. You'd have to be there to know the full scale of this girl flirting. It wasn't just me misreading her. Whatever the reason, basically, I don't think I can call this girl again. If she contacts me, cool; otherwise, she can have a nice life.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 01:39 AM) Then why did they take him in the first round? To fool other teams into wanting him in a trade? 1. Sign ability 2. Pitched well at Texas Christian late in the season against formidable opponents 3. Relatively "safe" in projections. Or atleast we thought. No one labeled him an injury risk. 4. To fool other teams into wanting him in a trade. This sentiment was usually associated with someone saying, "He'll pitch well in the minors, then Williams can include him a in a trade."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 06:07 PM) So this gets more interesting. According to this article on the Trib site, the word they are hearing from IOC folks over there is that two big reasons for the shaft of Chicago are not about Chicago at all: one is IOC being pissed at the USOC, the other is Rio manuevering to convince people in an "anybody but Chicago" campaign. So, Chicago got screwed by politics they can't control on one hand, but also got out electioned on the other. Also of note, many of the IOC members were themselves shocked to see Chicago go out in the first round. Interesting. I'm sure we could interview every committee member and they'd all say they were shocked Chicago was eliminated in the 1st round. A secret ballot allows you to be on everyone's good graces afterward.