jackie hayes

Go knuckler go!!!!!

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 10:39 PM) Looking back, it's been funny bad for a few weeks now. Maybe so, but this is the first time I've been able to laugh while watching the game. So ugly, fitting.

It just got funny bad.

QUOTE(Felix @ Sep 21, 2006 -> 10:04 PM) Thats more Paulie's fault than Uribe's, but just my opinion. Eh, that's the whole mental/physical mistake thing. Paulie made a bad throw. Spiff happens, okay. Uribe had time to get him, but he was just dumb.

Hey, nice play. Wait, I have an idea...

Well, might as well ask the question. The optimistic scenario requires that we sweep the Twins, go 5-3 in the rest, while the Twins go 3-5. Those Royals gotta get REALLY resurgent. The way we've played over the 2nd half, even 90 wins feels like blind optimism.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Sep 20, 2006 -> 09:30 PM) Twins have taken the lead F you, Craig Hansen.

A's Cards Padres Dodgers Minny Mets Detroit Yanks I wouldn't mind if the Phillies sneak in, though.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 02:09 AM) Consider it a very conservative, slightly pessimistic projection. What did I say again -- 180 IP, 4.60 ERA? And someone is actually complaining that that's not good enough, from a first full-time year starter? I'm not as optimistic as R44 -- I can't see Brandon putting up a sub-4 ERA. If I were to range it like PECOTA's Percentile thingy, I'd go... 90th - 3.80 ERA, 200 IP 75th - 4.15 ERA, 190 IP 50th - 4.50 ERA, 180 IP 25th - 4.80, 175 IP 10th - 5.15, 170 IP QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 19, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) As for 2007...? I think he'll be a 4.50-4.75 pitcher, right around league average, having stretches where he is good, and other stretches where he gets hit hard because he loses his 'changeup' feel for a bit. Agree with the percentiles. I just thought that 4.50 as a floor was too pessimistic. Good young pitchers struggle. Just look at where Cain and Hamels were after 75 innings pitched. He has very good stuff, has shown great control in the minors, good control in the majors. There's no way he's going anywhere, thank Kenny.

Brandon pitched badly down the stretch this year, no doubt. But the guy owns a great history for strikeouts and control. His major league k/bb numbers are really pretty good, considering his experience. I worry that seeing Liriano, Verlander, and Weaver debut in one year has spoiled everyone's appetite. (Not to mention Johnson, Sanchez, Cain, Hamels, Hill, Olsen...) Great post, Keith. The numbers you put up for 2007, are those just guesses, or projections? Just cuz I'd guess the better end of that range to be the middle, off the top of my head.

At least once we get mathematically eliminated, definitely. I'd especially love to see that Anderson kid we drafted a few years back, get him a few ml hacks to help his development.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 10:49 PM) Really? Do tell. Name another season in the last 20 years or so (other than the '94 season) that was as dissapoiting as this. The 2006 Chicago-area spelling bee season left me shaking my head.

Kalapse on the 2006 Sox: QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 08:57 PM) It doesn't even feel like a swift kick to the crotch. I trusted this team, I felt safe with this team, I thought they'd never do a thing to harm me, I opened up to them and let them see the real me. Then the 2nd half came along and the Sox took my trust and used it against me. Frankly, I feel violated.

I don't care about the division anymore, I'm just looking at our closest competition. And this puts us 4 back in the wc, right?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) Elim # is 12, we both have 14 left. It could happen. 9-5 us, 6-8 them. Or 10-4 & 7-7. It's not likely, but I'll hold onto that yet. I know who they're playing, yes. But the last time they played KC they lost the series 1-2. But the Sox better get on a fishing run. Nevermind... We f***ing suck. 13 left, 4 back, f'n a.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) Every post you have made in this thread has misquoted me. I didn't call anyone stupid. I called HIS STATEMENT dumb... because it was. It was poorly thought out, and someone in his position needs to know the consequences of that type of thing, even if its someone else's quote. The fact that it was someone else's words doesn't magically make it OK for others to say, anyone more than it makes it automatically not OK. But the context, and know his weak attempt at an apology, make it even worse. If he had quoted it and was then referring to the rift, then it would make sense. In the sense he used it in, looking at the rest of the speech around it, it was not a positive in any way. Of course he knows more about Islam, and all major religions, than all of us here combined. That should go without saying. But that does nothing to alleviate the problems caused by his statement. An additional thought... I have been reading about the apology. On the one hand, I was glad to see him make a specific distinction between the quote and his beliefs. That is good. But his apology for "the reaction" is of course no apology at all. In fact, its putting blame elsewhere. I just wish this leader of people would have the courage to stand up and say he made a mistake. I'm tired of leaders who equate stubbornness with strength, when the opposite it true. Bull. It is definitely "OK" to quote someone else, no matter how offensive. If you don't say, 'I think this is a good statement...' then it shouldn't be perceived as your view. It doesn't matter that "it was not a positive in any way." It was simply a statement of fact, and was therefore neutral. Btw, I haven't misquoted s***. That's the same lame excuse that posters here use when they say, 'That post was the most puerile, moronic piece of s***-toast stupidity I've ever been disgusted to hear, but that's not meant to apply to you, I'm sure you're a wonderful, uncannily intelligent individual.' Not to mention, you also said that he "did" something "dumb" (and distinguished that from what he "said"). You talk about misquoting after saying that I claim some words never existed? That's f'n hilarious...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2006 -> 10:06 AM) Making yet another attempt to make this about a side issue isn't helping your arguments. The Constantinople thing is miniscule in importance, which is what my thought was upon reading about it. And your quote about it from the article, as with the rest of the article, makes it clear that it was just not a big deal. I am puzzled why you keep pointing it out. Benedict did and said something really dumb. Your response is "he didn't say that". If you cannot acknowldge the existence of these words, there is little point in discussing this with you. As for context, I didn't see that quote in the positive light you seem to you. Your saying it was there to examine attitudes within Christianity makes it seem he was trying to delve into the hatred between the two religions, and find some way to address it - which sure sounds good, doesn't it? Except I don't see that. I see instead a subtle attempt to further cleave the two parties and justify the actions of one side. "Existence of these words"? Christ, yes, obviously the words exist, that's obviously not my point. It's not HIS statement. I can quote someone in an academic context and not have it be identified with MY beliefs. How hard is this for you to understand? Have you read the entire speech? No, he's not trying to address any such "hatred". He's not addressing Islam or the divide betwen religions or cultures. He's speaking from a Christian perspective to Christians. The use of the quote is twofold -- First, to set up one Christian's response to violence and reason, as he is to explore the natural Christian response to these throughout the rest of the speech. Second, to demonstrate that this is not a universal response -- the Emperor's objection to Islam is based on a misunderstanding of its basic philosophy, one which may be natural for someone with a 'Greek' outlook, but is not in any sense necessary. As for Constantinople, you initially said that noone cared at all, not that it was only a minor issue. But however small you think it is, it's still interesting that such a ridiculous objection even gets mentioned. Finally, whatever you think of the Catholic Church in general, and however often you shout out "stupid!", if you would ever have looked at his record, you would see that he has been quite interested in learning about Islam and undoubtedly knows a great deal more about it than any non-Muslims on this board. He will certainly be more willing to emphasize the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam, something that many predicted about his papacy from the start. But to say he's "stupid" is laughable.

Elim # is 12, we both have 14 left. It could happen. 9-5 us, 6-8 them. Or 10-4 & 7-7. It's not likely, but I'll hold onto that yet. I know who they're playing, yes. But the last time they played KC they lost the series 1-2. But the Sox better get on a fishing run.

JOEY. GATHRIGHT. HOMERED. I spiff you not.

I hate relying on other teams sucking royally. Elim # is 13. We have 14 games left, Minny has 14 + the one going on now, down by 1 early in the 2nd. C'mon, CC.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 03:56 PM) Or perhaps somebody needs to tell them that their decision to burn churches to the ground just proves Benedict's point. That wasn't his point at all, actually.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) Constantinople is a side bar here. Its a small, unimportant piece of the issue. It isn't what people are upset about. And before you say it, I do not defend the absurd comparisions to Hitler, or the violent reprisals that may come. This is not cause for such things. As for the main issue, the use of that quotation, it was callous and stupid on his part, plain and simple. And I can see exactly why it might make people angry. Given some of our past discussions, I am not surprised that you would not. You and I see the conflict in the Middle East differently. I don't suspect we can have much other positive discussion on this. Hmm... Mind elaborating? If you mean that I don't take any slights to Islam seriously, then perhaps you can explain why, between the two of us, I was the only one who took the time to read enough to know that the reference to Constantinople is an issue to some. Benedict voiced absolutely no support for the quote, but you simply assume that he endorsed it full-bore. ("...the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence.") He didn't say that, he didn't "essentially" say that, it was coincidental to the entire purpose of the talk. He didn't use the quote approvingly, as in, 'here's a reliable guy who supports me in my Christojihad against Islam', but as a jumping off point for examining attitudes within Christianity. But it will be misread as forcefully as possible, because some people find anger useful.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) Me thinks you failed to actually read the quote which caused the controversy. I don't think anyone gives a damn about Constantinople versus Istanbul. Read it again. The problematic quote from Benedict is: "The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" If you can't see how that would be insulting towards Islam, or how coming from the Pope that might get their cackles up, then you know little of religion. And for the record, this to me is nothing like the whole cartoon controversy. That one was silly, IMO. This is the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence. And considering he was referring to actions around the Crusades, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black. Me thinks I read the whole speech, actually. And other articles which mentioned anger over the use of Constantinople. An AP article: Apparently we should talk about the Aztecs' wonderful city, Mexico City. He quoted someone, calls the statement "brusque" (at least, that's the English version), and points out that the source of the quote is certainly doctoring the dialogue to make himself look good. Beyond that, he doesn't judge the statement one way or another, perhaps because the speech has nothing to do with Islam or the accuracy of the quote. He's discussing the role of reason in Christianity, and uses the Emperor's quote as a jumping-off point -- the Emperor assumes that reason must be consonant with God; while understandable coming from someone with a 'Greek' outlook, is this something that we as Christians generally accept? If I quote something without endorsement or criticism, in the midst of a philosophical discussion, that implies that I hold the same views? By what logic? He's "saying" nothing about Islam. What he did was forget that he's no longer an academic, and must color every clause with all the requisite pieties, or else some demagogue f*** will inevitably compare him to Hitler.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2006 -> 11:51 AM) I know what this conflict needs. I think it would be terrific if the Pope through some gas on the fire AND invoke Middle Aged philosophy... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_...pope_muslims_11 Nice. Very helpful. What objection there is to his remarks has been blown absurdly out of proportion by opportunistic politicians. Comparing Pope B to Hitler is one of the stupidest remarks I've seen in years. Getting upset because he used "Constantinople" instead of "Istanbul" while referring to the city when it was called "Constantinople" is just f'n laughable. He quotes the passage to set up his discussion of reason in Christianity, and the part that everyone's in a tizzy over he describes as "brusque". Not exactly a ringing endorsement. This whole controversy is garbage.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Sep 14, 2006 -> 06:11 PM) Damn you. I so had that one.