lostfan

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:42 PM) Remember, you're actually talking to a geologist here. The full process of generating oil takes literally tens of millions of years, because you have to start off with carbon rich sediment, compact it, bury it, de-water it, and move it down deep enough that it starts giving off oil. But, once the sediment (we call it kerogen) reaches the temperature and pressure conditions that it starts to give off hydrocarbons, it doesn't do so in one big burp...it releases it in small amounts in a continuous process. The oil that is generated will usually flow out through the rocks after generation and if it happens to find somewhere where it can pool, it does so and we wind up with a good, usable oil source. There are rocks right now that are generating small amounts of oil and that oil is migrating upwards to current reservoirs. The amount of oil being generated today from rocks that were buried a couple million years ago is non-zero. But it's no where near what we're burning during a day. So we're not talking about movement up from super-deep reservoirs or anything...actual generation is happening right now. But, the only reason why we're able to have a petroleum based economy like we do is that several hundred million years of daily production has pooled in certain geologically favorable areas, like the areas overlying the former Tethys seaway. That bolded part made me laugh. In any case, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that based off the premise of the original post, it's safe to assume that BearSox was not talking about all that and that it's still laughable. If we were to use up all the oil that can be drilled, right now, the global economy is shot to s*** for a few million more years.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) I love the Beckham pick, and am excited to watch his progress, but you can't base your FA signings around a guy that has never playing an inning of professional baseball at any level. You just can't do it. At this point in time, the most action Beckham is going to see this season is about 40 AB's with Kanny or W-S. You can't go into the off-season and think "Well, we really don't need a FA 2B-SS because we have Beckham in the wings". Can't do it. Also, for the same reason, you don't draft for your MLB roster's need. The buffer between the draft and actually playing is so long that doing that would be stupid. It amuses me how many people think doing things like that is a good idea.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 04:35 PM) Actually, technically I will agree with him here. There is continual generation of oil happening on earth. There are a few fields where they limit the rate that they're pumping it, so that as its being generated, it's keeping the volume of the field fairly constant. But the amount being generated is dramatically less than what we use in a normal day. If you're talking about the seeping upwards of oil from super-deep reserves, that's something else, but the process of actually forming oil takes like a million years. So yeah technically oil is "renewable" but not in any practical way.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) Yes, he profiles closer to Mike Cameron (strikeouts, power numbers and defensively, minus the arm) than Soriano/Bonds, but I don't think any GM in baseball would consider him anywhere to be in the same league talent-wise as Uribe...which is why Jose Guillen keeps getting huge contracts over and over again, despite his many character issues...or why players like Josh Hamilton and Milton Bradley inevitably find homes. Would KW trade Quentin to get Chris Young straight up today? Of course not, but he'd think about it, because CF is a more important position to fill than LF, it always has been, or the White Sox and about 20 other MLB teams would have an easier time finding starters who can play the position (arm/range) and also put up 20 homers per season while hitting at least .270 with 15-20 stolen bases. I would not trade a middle of the rotation starter for a "talented" player that may or may not reach his peak, but in any case is hitting in the .220s with a OBP barely at .300 with > 1000 MLB plate appearances. If he was a rookie that's one thing, but in his second year with no improvement, not so much.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) now that is simply bulls***. The earth makes oil and it's not going to stop one day because it feels like it. Now, we might use a lot of it up and the supply will be low, but I f***ing guarantee you that there would still be oil in the earth. It is crazy stupid to think that one day there will be no oil. We need to work on finding an alternative to oil, but a true alternative to oil is probably at least 100 years away, and that's if we're lucky. In fact, odds are there is probably no replacement for oil. Oil isn't just used for gas and cars. Oil is used in the production of plastic, cosmetics, computers. Pretty much everything we use today is made from oil. Do you know how long it takes for the earth to make oil? If it could make oil fast, there wouldn't even be much to talk about. This is something you should have learned in the 4th grade.

Earthquakes and hurricanes are natural, nothing to be afraid of. Cyanide is also produced naturally. edit: normally I'm not a snarky poster but I couldn't resist

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 04:15 PM) It is cliche when you go back and look throughout the planetary history of dieoffs. They are fairly common. Huh? That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying if we aren't careful, our way of living may eventually make the planet uninhabitable, etc. And I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking about simple things like running out of arable land and so on.

The biggest threat to humanity is humanity. This may sound cliche but something like 99% of species that have ever existed on this planet have gone extinct and one day humans will be gone too unless we figure out a smarter way to live here. Yes, we can f*** it up for ourselves and it wouldn't be that hard to do it either. And even if someone thinks all of this is bulls***, we are eventually going to run out of oil, so going single-mindedly after drilling domestically as if it's going to fix things by itself doesn't make any sense. Nobody is going to take it seriously either as long as they're getting their fix (i.e. as long as they get cheap oil).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) No "REALISTIC" options...sure, Owens and Anderson and Wise all MIGHT be better than Swisher or Griffey (you can argue their relative merits, with Anderson being overrated by some still), but none of them are going to play 4-6 times per week in CF in August and September for a contending White Sox team, barring a major injury. QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) Anything else that is said beyond that is gibberish as it would only be in response to something that was never said.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) You tell me then why Anderson and Wise are options in cf? They are never going to play; Oz will never consider playing them except in the eighth or in a spot start so why would you call them OPTIONS?? They are not options in centerfield. For about the 4th time in the last 30 minutes from the chorus of 3 posters who have said this, this doesn't match with what you originally said. You didn't specify CFs who would be considered everyday starters. That is totally different from not having anybody who can play CF at all. Anything else that is said beyond that is gibberish as it would only be in response to something that was never said.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) Every Cubs player except Derek Lee and Zambrano (Lee seems very genuine and Z is just a gamer who loves to play) Every Twins player (although I respect the M and M's) I have no reason to dislike Fukudome. edit: or Soto, really

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) What don't you understand? Wise and BA are not going to start or do anything except play once a week or come in the late innings. We have no good defensive everyday options in cf right now. You think they are going to play over Swish or Griffey?? That may be what you meant, but that's certainly not what you said.

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 02:31 PM) Swisher's been better than advertised though. There were serious doubts before the season started on whether or not he could handle CF and if Owens was going to have to play there, and for the most part, he's answered those questions. I'm not sure what his RZR is however. Next season, I think getting an upgrade at CF, and moving Swisher to 1B is an option, if you can trade Konerko. Otherwise, keep Swish at CF, and upgrade at either 2B/SS, 3B and the back of the rotation and bullpen. Swisher is about a league average CF though, IMO. If you were to use the posts on this board as a guide though you'd think he was Barry Bonds out there. He is not a plus defender, but none of our starting OFs are really (Quentin has a cannon arm but he's pretty meh out there at times).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) You stated that we have no good defensive options in CF. I think BA and Wise are pretty solid defenders. I just noticed your reply after I typed mine. Yeah. We have 2 good defensive options in CF, one is really good.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) Swisher is not a good CF either. I trust the opinions of those who've watched Griffey and say he's terrible out there. There are no good defensive options in cf right now. What?

QUOTE (jenks45monster @ Aug 4, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) Swisher is "CLEARLY" a better defensive option in CF? This is news to me. How many gold gloves does Griffey have? 10? What about Swisher? None. No, Griffey is not the Seattle Griffey we all know and remember, but he is still better than Swish. Swisher has better range at this point in Griffey's career but Griffey can still be a far superior in CF. Do you think Swisher's puss arm even compares to Griffey's? Did you see the catch Griff made in CF the other day (Saturday, I think)? I really don't see why you'd want to move Dye to DH or Thome to 1B either. Dye is 34 compared to Thome who is 37( Thome turns 38 on August 27th). You obviously wouldn't want a guy as old as Thome out there trying to put up solid D. He can't move like he used to. Dye on the hand, has a great arm in RF, and has shown us that he can play Gold Glove caliber defense( He actually has 1 Gold Glove). Please explain your reasoning. Is this a serious post? You're using Griffey's 10 Gold Gloves that he's gotten at various points a while back over a 20-year MLB career to talk about the caliber fielder he is right now, today? Really?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) Rodney was far from bad last night. Last night maybe, but generally speaking Rodney f***ing sucks. Tigers fans hate him almost as much as they hated Grilli.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) To ptatc and thedoctor, agree to disagree. I am more a believer that, with the age of our players and lack of depth in our farm system, we should look to rebuild if we don't find the promised land again this year. I felt this way last year, and so far it seems like I was definitely wrong. But, the team is definitely getting older and I don't see that solving itself. Sooner or later it will probably have to be done, and that might just be my own opinion. And again, let me clarify that I'm not talking about a total rebuild, but more of sacrificing a couple of years to dump the older players, replace them with younger guys that may need some time to adjust, and keep the young guys we already have (Buehrle, Jenks, Quentin, Ramirez, Swisher, etc.). Which of the "old guys" are you going to dump, and how are you going to do it? And how will you justify dumping Jermaine Dye?

BTW I just want to note that since we started the new Dem and Republican threads the general level of conversation/back and forth is much better than it was before.

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) How about a better code of conduct for the NFL's players first? You want Goodell to start summarily executing players or something? How could he be any harsher?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 01:53 PM) The University of Chicago made the definition of the loop to be the boundaries of the chicago river to the north and west in 1920. QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) It's all semantics really and it depends on who you ask and how they define it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 12:17 PM) Lemont has a big Citgo refinery. It smells bad sometimes if you're right next to it, but other than that it isn't bad. On the other hand, the old Texaco site down the street in Lockport was a Superfund site until recently. I mean in mass. Like they would have in Kuwait.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) The "Loop" has been defined as the central business district since 1920, which is everything inside of the river boundries, so yes, it is in the loop. Pre-1920 it would have not been. The "West Loop" is the business district just past the river to the highway, and beyond that to Ashland, which is a residential area, is called the west loop gate. http://www.chicagohome.com/NHDetails.cfm?NH_ID=27 This lists the boundaries as 45E (Wabash), 300S (Jackson I think, without looking at a map), 200 W (Wells) and 200N (Lake). (I didn't notice until after I typed this that the site has the street names right next to it, lol). Technically the Sears Tower, Michigan Avenue, and Grant Park are not a part of the Loop proper. It's all semantics really and it depends on who you ask and how they define it. If you define it as the literal area where it got its name from, then it's the definition I gave which is a tiny area. If you define it colloquially as the heart of downtown, to include Grant Park, then it's everything inside the river and the lake which would be more or less the whole skyline.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) I think coverage like that is on the editors. I wouldn't have guessed that so long ago, but these stories continue to get front page, so its the editors that like it. s*** must sell. Grosses me out. did you hear they are changing the format of the Chicago Tribune to be more tabloid-y? Hurray! I used to be a loyal CST reader but I just can't do it anymore.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Aug 6, 2008 -> 12:56 PM) or if they write the wrong thing, their hand will get cut off. Yeah... they're writing for their people, and their image. But for me, it feels like I'm being talked down to. I always wonder if they know I'm thinking that while I read their articles.