Soxbadger

Save me jebus! And I disagree that the Simpsons has not been good over the last decade. Cant argue taste though.

I think the catcher lost it for a split second and panicked. The reason why I dont think its intentional is the reaction of the catcher as the ball squirts away and the runner moves from second to third. If you are going to intentionally hit an umpire and let a ball get past you, you know that you are going to have to get ready to get it and try and throw out the runner. Also odd time to do it when there is a runner on 2nd.

I wouldnt do that trade. Wade is to much of an unknown commodity, cant risk the future on an injured superstar. For all we know Wade will never get back to his former level, and we traded a potentially better younger player for him. If the Bulls get Wade it has to be at an extreme discount (number 1 selection is not a huge discount especially considering Beasley and Rose are head and shoulders the best in the class and Beasley arguably would have gone over Durant last year as well) and it has to involve the Bulls getting the 2 pick in this years draft. Now I have no problem with them sending a few things plus the 1, but they have to get back Wade and the 2. Beasley + Wade is what I would want.

Odd statement. First of all students generally are not at the age where their performances begins to decline (ie Konerko, Dye, Thome). Most students are still in their "peak" years of performance. Second of all, Dye's states some what improved since he went to the Sox. Thome is on the decline but hes 37, age and injury were bound to catch up with him. Konerko had a season like this in 2003, he clearly is just a player who is prone to long/bad slumps, Cabrera historically also has had his fair share of bad seasons, Uribe being Uribe. AJP doing better, CQ doing better, Crede doing career average. So of all the starting players it only leaves Swisher whos hitting is major shock and could potentially be attributed to the batting coach. Im not going to blame the bad hitting on a coach, when its obviously the players that are on the decline. In fact every Sox hitter (outside of Swisher) who is doing bad is on the wrong side of 30. Who knows whats going on the in the clubhouse, all I can say is the younger hitters who are more likely to listen to a coach have been been seemingly improving, so its hard to say that its equivalent to honor roll students failing. Especially as that discounts what CQ has done becoming one of the most consistent offensive players on the team.

Maybe thats because they were leaving some space for this up and comer Walter Johnson? Nice article ;p

I can remember when L.Woods was Bones. And I make anything that is basically self contained and only involves the oven. I used to make things like chicken parm, but it starts to take more time than Im willing. Plus Grubhub rocks everyones world for late night ordering.

Well the hardest part of the Triple Crown is the Belmont Stakes. Derby and Preakness are both shorter races so I believe there are more horses who have completed that 2/3 of the Triple Crown as compared to winning the Derby and Belmont, or Preakness and Belmont. I really havent read much about Brown, or seen his race times so not sure if the longer distance will bother him.

Rivals has Jon Budmayr QB from Marian Central committing to Wisconsin.

Donny your out of your element.

Northside, He didnt know that would happen when he was testifying before the Grand Jury. The govt told him that the transcripts were to be sealed. It was only later that the transcripts were revealed. Texsox, I dont think that Bonds should have to follow the rules in this instance. But then again I am against the entire Grand Jury system so thats just my personal opinion. I dont believe that Grand Juries do what they are supposed to, they are supposed to make it so that people arent accused of crimes until they have sufficient evidence. The problem is that now people think of a Grand Jury as just a precursor to conviction. They dont realize that a Grand Jury Indictment can use hearsay evidence, that Bonds could not present exculpatory evidence, that cross examination is not allowed. But once again, that is my own personal opinion of the Grand Jury. The entire point of the Grand Jury is to prevent people from being accused of crimes before their is sufficient evidence, in this case all the Grand Jury has done is allowed people to be accused of crimes without having the chance to defend themselves. Jackie, Whats sad is you continue to make arguments Ive never said: Where did I say the govt released the transcripts? There was a leak, the govt could have stopped it. They could have prevented the book from being published, or at worst they could have asked for a restraining order preventing the sections of the grand jury testimony from being released. The United States govt did nothing, doing nothing is the same as acquiescing to conduct. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGPRO4RVR3.DTL Just so you cant say I dont know the facts I linked the article where it clearly says that an attorney leaked it. If you can find me any information on the govt trying to prevent the release of the grand jury transcripts that would be great. But all i can find is where they after the fact they decide to prosecute. /shrugs Once again, I dont believe that a grand jury is ever fair to some one who is testifying. If there is a serious concern of a leak and you tell something that is self incriminating you may never get another chance to undo that damage. You can argue all day and night, but no one is going to change my opinion on the fairness of a grand jury and that Bonds should have had 5th amendment protection. Unless you have an argument for why he didnt deserve 5th amendment protection? (Outside of it was a grand jury proceeding and those are the rules.)

Well because I dont agree with Grand Jury's. The entire premise of the Grand Jury is that it is supposed to be secret, so secret that the information is never to be seen by the public. Because of the "secretiveness" you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment protection of not incriminating yourself. Thus Bonds was in a catch-22. He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished. Or, he could deny it, and let the govt prove him wrong. Its easy to say that "Oh if only he told the truth." But that simply does not assess the situation of a grand jury and being forced to testify without 5th amendment protection. The facts are the govt promised that it would be secret, the only reason you dont get 5th amendment protection is because it should be secret. So please dont say that I defended perjury, I attacked the Grand Jury proceeding and showed that it is no longer "secret" and therefore Bonds should have had 5th amendment protections. If Bonds pleads the 5th, he never is charged with perjury either. Just he is not allowed to plead the 5th in a grand jury proceeding, if he does not testify he can be sent to jail. The only reason that our judicial system allows this is because grand juries are supposed to be entirely sealed and secret. /shrugs But maybe people on the board think its fair that Bonds was forced to testify, promised that no matter what nothing he said would ever be released to the public and then have the transcripts released. To me, that just goes against our entire judicial system and process. If the govt makes a deal predicated on a fact, and that fact is not true, then they should not be able to hold the other party to that same deal. Now, if the transcripts are never released and Bonds perjured, it would be an entirely different fact pattern. But as the facts are, he was right that the testimony would not be kept secret, and therefore right in his refusal to play by their rules. Why should Bonds have to follow the rules when the govt doesnt?

No its because the govt gave Bonds immunity and he refused to play their game. He didnt believe that the grand jury testimony would be secret, and therefore if he told the truth it would be leaked. The govt promised Barry that it would be secret and there would be no way anything said could be revealed. Funny how that worked, I swear there was some book of shadows thing.

Who is Abaddon? Perhaps this article can explain what the name could possibly mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaddon

Okay so here is my theory on Locke/Richard and the selection thing: Did anyone get the weird Dali Lama reincarnation vibe? If anyone watches King of the Hill, there is a episode where they think Bobby is the Dali Lama. Monks from Tibet come and give him items to select from, only one of those items actually belonged to the Dali Lama. It is the idea that the Dali Lama is reincarnated and therefore he would know which item "belonged to him." I felt the test Richard gave was the exact same idea, that Locke was a reincarnated version of something and Richard wanted Locke to pick the item that had belonged to his former self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama It is interesting that Locke and Benjamin would be right about the same age, so perhaps they were both chosen as likely successors, just no one was sure which one. (Then there is the whole black rock white rock that was in the first season that has never reappeared and the whole backgammon connection.)

Its actually the exact opposite. Every one of these witnesses has personal knowledge of the situation and therefore could be called to the stand to testify. Hearsay is when some one from Cedric's boat tells ME (a person who was not on the boat and has no personal knowledge) what happened, and I respond with: I heard that the police beat up Cedric Benson. The terms, "I heard", "He said" etc are easy indicators of hearsay. Hearsay is inadmissible in court because it is considered unreliable. And im not 100% sure but I believe we tell our clients not to blow as well.

And I said this is what the league would do as soon as it came out that Goodell destroyed the tapes. Any "new" evidence he would claim to have already seen and destroyed. It is impossible to prove anything because Goodell already covered it up. Hence why Arlen Spectorm, an ex district attorney who knows how you are supposed to handle evidence in an investigation, was questioning why he destroyed it. The only reason you destroy evidence is to cover it up. Whats done is done, Goodell cares more about players who are going to strip clubs off the field than he does about cheating on the field. Thats his legacy.

I thought Massett pitched last night?

Gotta give them respect for playing well today. I was at last nights game and Im absolutely dragging at work today. On the other hand it was hilarious how much the twins fans were cheering in the 9th, I kept telling them why not save some of those runs for tomorrow.

Itd have to be some really exotic flavors (train wreck, purple kush) etc. And even then i dont really see many people eating it. Odd item.

I think that Floyd not going for k's and instead letting hitters get themselves out has been one reason why hes doing better. Instead of trying to make perfect pitches, he makes good pitches.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3385156 By the way he refused to take the breathalyzer (its your right to refuse but then they just give you penalties like 6 month suspension of license.)

Your answer was good enough for me. It just proves that there have in fact been successful no hitters when a defensive replacement was used.

Kalapse, I assume that is only the list of managers who did it successfully? Or is that the list including games where the no no was broken in the 9th? Because that last stat is probably harder to find.

I think part of the reason Gavin has been doing better is that he has been pitching to contact and at the same time not giving in and throwing a pitch down the middle. Not many balls were hard hit, and as long as thats the case they can keep putting them in play.

Where did I say they were assholes? I said that they have a tendency to believe that they are right. I have that exact same tendency. The only difference I cant beat the crap out of you if I think that you are a "threat." Well here is the story I see (granted based on a lot of assumptions but none the less when I piece the story together.) A bunch of african americans on a boat in the middle of an upper class white area. Police pull up and see open alcohol. Police see a large man who is giving them trouble. Police thinking that he is drunk decide to take him down before the threat escalates. If Benson looked like Ross Perot do I think this story would be here, no. The problem is that no one will ever know the truth, without a breathalyzer (sp) there just is no concrete evidence he was drunk. From my past experience with how quickly police are willing to escalate encounters with skinny non threatening white people I can only assume how they respond to large imposing african americans in Texas. I could be wrong, but I give people the benefit of guilty until proven innocent, because i generally feel police take the approach of arrest everyone let god sort them out.