Flash Tizzle

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.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10...t-was-usoc.html I find it hilarious IOC members schemed against Chicago. They were never going to give us the opportunity to compete with Rio.

I noticed reading the comments on other website that a local media outlet (ABC7) suggested all contracts were already awarded for construction work prior to the announcement of the games. I don't know how common of a practice this is, but does that sound right to anyone? I suppose since all the details were already set up and finalized it wouldn't be an issue, but it just seems strange to me that seven years before the games were to be set in Chicago winning bids had already been accepted.

How ridiculously over the top is this 2012 preview? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSMWxb8KUI Yet, somehow I can't resist the urge to watch it.

http://www.breitbart.tv/pandemonium-in-the...s-olympics-bid/ Someone PLEASE post any youtube video of the Channel 2 anchor's reaction if you find it. It's far better than the video above.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Good ol' Ritchie.... http://chetchitchat.wordpress.com/ I hope people realize that quote, and that entire blog, is a joke. I don't want to ruin the fun, but many will come on here and assume he said that.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) 1st round - Madrid 28 Rio 26 Tokyo 22 Chicago 18 2nd round - Rio 46 Madrid 29 Tokyo 20 Final - Rio 66 Madrid 32 We wouldn't have stood a chance.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) Apparently the South American countries finally ganged together and voted for Rio because they all wanted Rio to get it simply because they've never had it. With that said South American countries vote US. Europe is our biggest competition when it comes to things like this. They weren't going to vote for the US. So Rio went with the strategy, if we don't get it, f*** it, we don't care who gets it. They took a chance, and it worked out big time. If they didn't take that chance, Tokyo would've been eliminated first, so those votes would've went to Chicago, then, Madrid would've been next who would've gone either way. South America didn't want to take the chance of that and they knew everyone would not vote US in the first round since they're voting for themselves. So South America stood united for once and voted for Rio. Keep in mind, the US only probably got votes from Canada and Mexico. Chicago basically came to the gunfight with a pencil. WGN suggested Asia knowingly banded together for Tokyo to avoid a 1st round defeat. More of a, "we'll vote for you in the 1st round, but not after," type of sentiment. It's not corroborated or anything, but certainly not unrealistic to expect. Our three votes wouldn't stand a chance in the 1st round if everyone is banding together for someone else.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) My theory on the reasons for the elimination, in order of scale (not saying I agree with them, BTW): --Generalized anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world --Weak internal support in Chicago (better than Tokyo's, but well under Rio and Madrid) --Rio's strong need and strong passion for the bid --Bad final presentation that had no focus, no passion, no REASONS why they wanted the games --Concerns over US security and visa issues due to new regulations --Concerns over Chicago's financials (I think this got addressed as time went on, not so much a big deal) --Brevity of Obama's visit I viewed a significant portion of the final presentation, and while I can't compare it to other candidate cities (because I didn't view them), the central theme behind Chicago's presentation appeared to be this -- "Come to Chicago, we're diverse! Here are a bunch of colored people doing things!!!!" Too much sentiment (ie, story of a young black male overcoming adversity) rather than discussing what the games will mean to the city. I didn't find the purpose in featuring individual people.

I wish I was in Rio right now. I'd so be getting laid.

This will be the symbolic, beginning of the end for Daley. I can forsee something like he'll win his next re-election, just because the competition is nonexistent, then four years after (if he's still alive), there will be some running mate that takes him down. Of course, it won't be the games alone that doom him; it'll just be that one moment people look at and think, "support for him really began to decline." I really don't think many people were braced for the possibility they'd lose. It's almost like thinking, well, Obama AND Oprah are going; how can we possibly lose?!

But....I thought Obama would swoon them over with his charm?! I guess Chicago 2016 was change no one believed in. I have to say, I would have enjoyed the event here; but it is hilarious viewing everyone's reaction. Channel 2 had a clip of their news anchor, and the look of shock on his face was HILARIOUS. It'll no doubt be making its way around late night news outlets.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) I used to love the Olympics when I was a kid. Now they really don't interest me much. The only thing that gives me any reason to hope that Chicago gets the games is the possibility of federal funds to fix things like public transportation which is really horrible right now. The way I see it though, even if the CTA received billions they would blow it and while the system might be alright when the Olympics came, it probably wouldn't be finished until days before the games started and weeks after they ended slow zones would reappear, half hour waits to get on to jammed trains would reappear and when politicians tell you there is very little chance taxpayers will foot the bill for anything, call me crazy, but I just know these games that mean so little to me would wind up costing me a pretty penny and I don't even intend to go to any events. In fact, the prices they are talking about pretty much take out most of the population. I noticed figures like $2,000+ dollars to attend the opening ceremonies. Atleast I have the benefit of watching Boxing at UIC , which should be available to me for free since I'm an alumni.

I've had a drastic change in attitude towards the Olympics here in Chicago the past few weeks. I'm still concerned about corruption within the bidding process (rich companies becoming richer) for 2016 related construction projects, and the wrong people being hired for said jobs (clout babies), but it's probably inevitable. Of course all construction will be ready for the opening ceremonies, but I expect the projects to be dragged on for the longest amount of time, for the highest amount of costs. Has anyone seen the federally funded road construction projects around the south suburbs extending along Harlem Avenue? Does anyone else notice how long it's taking these people to work on a small section of road? I swear to God, there's an area half a block North of Southwest Highway and Harlem Avenue in Palos Hills that has been under construction for over a month. They have everyone merge into one lane, and it's causing massive delays; yet I haven't seen anyone out there in weeks. It's almost as if they're purposely trying to extend the amount of time it takes to complete it. This is the type of problems I can forsee happening with the Olympics. However, even with these problems (which are more an inconvenience than anything which personally affects me) I'm hoping Chicago wins. Also, from a selfish perspective, I'd like to think if I have a family seven years from now I can take them to view the sites. Seven years is a LONG time to hold a grudge against something that hasn't happened yet. And it's not exactly a decision we can change our minds on. I'd much rather have it here and regret it than the alternative.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 06:00 PM) I know what you are saying, but what if we were in this race and maybe looking at post season and Buerhle was already finished? He has the off season to recover and I think he wanted to pitch anyway. As ineffective as he has been, or maybe inconsistent is a better word, Buerhle is still a competitor Sure, that'd be a dilemma if we were in it; but we're not. I suppose it's a good sign that he has already hit 86mph. I don't think he exceeded 84 the entire last game.

We're going to regret throwing out Buehrle for another game if his last start is any indication. He was obviously laboring through the game, with only a modest 81-83mph fastball and a high 70's looping curveball to show for his effort.

These lists will traditionally have discussions of "this movie should have been included," or "this one wasn't that bad," and for me (having seen only a handful), I can say there's NO f***ING WAY "One Missed Call" is the second worst movie of the last ten years. I actually thought it was good, and I'd consider myself in Kid Gleason territory when it comes to horror movies.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:34 PM) 9 out of every 10 Hollywood horror films anymore are cr@ppy retreads of somebody else's past successes. How long are these filmmakers going to get away with such an absolute lack of creativity? I've been resigned to this reality for awhile. Honestly, it used to irritate the hell out of me. I remember thinking, "How can anyone touch Dawn of the Dead?" and ended up pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately, this is an aberration; I'd tend go to agree with your 9/10 Hollywood remakes are atrocious. All of these franchises (Halloween, FT13th, NOES) have built in fanbases that extend back 20+ years. There's much less risk involved with recreating a horror classic than attempting to cash in with an original idea. As long as people continue giving these companies money, they'll continue churning out the crap. If you want quality films, it seems that what's happening more and more is they'll be showcased at some horror/independent move festival and receive a generous amount of buzz, only to rot away for several years until their DVD release. It's frustrating for people like myself that read horror forums and here of this amazing film, but no one knows when the hell it's going to be available for rental. Here's a movie that should reinvigorate your faith in the business -- it's called "Trick R Treat." This is one of those films that has been known about for quite awhile. It's being released on DVD October 6th, and reviews for it have been overwhelmingly favorable. People whose opinions I trust have been labeling it a movie you'll probably find yourself watching at Halloween for years to come. That, for me, is the perfect description of a horror movie. I'm actually excited to watch it.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:26 PM) I'll update the draft status every 5 games or so till the season ends but if Oakland wins tonight, we will the 12th and only 1.5 games back I believe of the 10th spot. Detroit's coming to town so we'll have a good chance of capturing that 10th spot. After that, I'd like to see us throw out a Sunday lineup three straight games in the Cleveland series

QUOTE (elgonzo4sox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:22 PM) Some of you people might be happier being Pirates fans: "Stop trying to win because it's hopeless, dump everyone, and bring in a bunch of kids." Whatever happened to "Win or Die Trying"? You can still try and win with a bunch of kids. And it's not as if the entire team would be substituted. For one, Buehrle NEVER would have pitched tonight. He looked like s*** velocity wise, and the results proved it because he was throwing spicey meatballs up at the plate. Didn't someone realize it before he took the mound that he wasn't anywhere near 100%? That's one example. Another may be putting Flowers in a few games at catcher. Yes, Pierzynski is having a good year; but instead of f***ing Castro lets try and place someone at the position who has a career with this team. I also wouldn't mind Dye sitting, but of course, his game today pretty much guarantees he will play until the season ends.

QUOTE (elgonzo4sox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) MLB.com is going to have to modify their Gameday pitch strike zone feature so that when the ump blows a called strike call (like the 2nd strike on AJ), it shows the ball being somewhere close to the zone. Well, they did show it being closer to the plate than it actually was. Where they have pitch four (the strikeout) is about how far out from the plate pitch three was. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?g...mp;mode=gameday