lostfan

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) And how many people only doing it because it is 'cool' or 'anti-establishment' will stop? Short term you may have an increase in users, but I think that long term you won't see much of a difference. I believe this as well. Marijuana is not hard to get and the fact that it's illegal isn't stopping people.

Hahaha edit: god dammit I don't know how to get that to post, if someone wants to point out what's wrong with that code be my guest

QUOTE (Wanne @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) Swish is pretty decent at scooping...plus I think has better range...AND can make the throw to second. As for infield/outfield enthusiasm...have you ever played on the infield or pitched. I have...and once on a team that pretty much had the same deadpan demeanor as Paulie...and it was terrible. Not knocking Paulie for it or anything...but it makes a difference IMO...especially with a young guy next to you like Lexi. I dunno, I don't understand this argument. I've played all 3 OF positions, 3B, and 2B. I can honestly say that I never cared what the other players were doing, as long as they were paying attention to the situation and knew what to do (I was the captain in HS). If Bozo the Clown was standing there waiting for my DP throw, it wouldn't have made a difference if it was Ben Stein the game before as long as he catches it or makes his plays. My level of play is going to be the same, I know how to field ground balls, handle a fly ball in a crowd, get in position for a relay, etc.

QUOTE (thedoctor @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:31 PM) in one of his recent mailbags gonzalez mentioned that paulie's lost a lot of weight. edit: it was actually on the radio with coppock this past saturday morning. Well Paulie does have a triple and a SB this year so... (green not necessary)

If you want your balance then how about trading for a player that can score consistently via something other than a jump shot.

I guess this was pretty unexpected, but it makes sense for the Pussies. edit: I didn't think that word was going to make it past the filter, lol

Nah I'm all for legalizing marijuana but even if it was legal, I wouldn't smoke it.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) But what I'm telling you is that a lot of people DO question Obama, and aren't sure, but you can tell the Obamatrons when they stick their antennea up after hearing ANYTHING construed as negative against the "annointed one". It's seriously just almost bizarre. It doesn't happen just on soxtalk. The negativity... is weird... on both sides. I don't discuss politics at work unless it's somehow job-related. But as far as people defending who they're going to vote for, that's pretty normal isn't it? I could blurt out "Bush sucks" at work loud enough for a couple dozen people to hear and I'd probably get swarmed by a couple of Bush-bots. That certainly was the case in 2004 with me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up. Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't. Being at work I'm theoretically too busy to google that

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:34 PM) It's more then just soxtalk, lf. It's water cooler talk all around the country. It's an election year.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) And that's why I suggested a minimum IQ score to vote. The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation against the average voter. -Winstin Churchill (I wonder if that quote is genuine, it appears to be)

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) I did not say that was my reason. Much earlier, at the start of the primary season, I said that Obama v. McCain would be my ideal choice. I like much about both and could at least walk away from the result feeling good. Now 3,000 negative posts later, I've changed my opinion. If his greatest supporters can't find a reason to vote for him, how could I? I sincerely hope you aren't about to categorize tens of millions of people based off what you saw from a handful of posters on Soxtalk.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) really, how did you arrive at that amount? Common sense - how many marijuana smokers do you know who smoke 10+ joints per day for an extended period of time? Your average user isn't Snoop Dogg.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) Just as with tobacco, marijuana smoke contains a lot of bad stuff like carcinogens. but I am still for legalizing marijuana Yeah but the thing is that casual marijuana use (a handful of joints a week) isn't anywhere near the amount your average smoker who pollutes the holy f*** out of their lungs.

If you got cancer from smoking marijuana that must mean you were fried to the point of being functionally retarded every day for like 15 years.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) Not finding a study that confirms or denies something is far different then actually finding a study. Basically all research is funded by someone. So try and imagine who would spend the millions of dollars the research would cost. If they used human subjects, they would need to find someone willing to commit an illegal act, repeatedly, over some time. Another problem with studying pot and cancer is there is no standard propduction. Impurities could be introduced by unregulated producers. Just testing for "pure" ingrediants probably would not be of much significance. So it could be pot does contribute to cancer, it just has never been studied. FWIW, this is all academic so they'd have no reason to lean in one direction or the other.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) No offense but that sounds like some tobacco company type propaganda. Besides how many people could conduct a study of an illegal activity? Sounds kinda shady to me. I don't have the ability to prove it. If I find the guy, I'll ask him to explain it to me again.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 03:13 PM) Haha, that whole rant was funny. A few problems with it: 1) You're ripping Deng for "only being able to do one thing" when the only thing Gordon can do is shoot. Nevermind that Deng is a good mid-range shooter and is light-years better as a finisher (allowing him to shoot for a higher percentage), and contributes at worst average rebounding and defense at the position. 2) You made it sound like Deng dropping the 3's from his arsenal was a bad thing. He hit .5 a game at a 26.5% clip, that's horrendous. He gradually became a much more efficient scorer by eliminating a shot he can't make from his repetoire. Would you really rather have him jacking up shots that he can't make at a respectable rate? 3) You make it sound like the fact that he can "guard" point guards is a good thing. It grossly limits the Bulls' choices with the lineups because he's nothing close to a true PG and can't effectively guard 2-guards. So instead Hinrich gets in foul trouble guarding at a spot he really can't or they have to play him with Hughes or Thabo and drastically hurt the ball-handling. That sounds like a good way to start Rose off too, make him defend at a spot where his size and strength are no longer huge assets. 4) Unless his jumpers are dropping Gordon is totally useless. He can't finish on the drive, he can't defend and he can't handle the ball. He usually can't even score when we really need it because people have figured out that if they trap him he's going to screw up. His game is extremely limited, though he is very good at that one aspect. I wouldn't GIVE Gordon away because they do need his scoring, but giving him that kind of money long-term is asanine and would seriously bite the Bulls in the ass. They have enough pieces to trade that they can bring in another reasonably capable scorer and still deal with it. It's not like this team is terribly likely to go anywhere as currently constructed anyways. I love you

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:06 PM) And how should this make me want to vote for Obama? What in your bolded message should make me want to vote for Obama? Or is this an example of the negative campaign strategies you oppose? The most negative stuff I have seen this campaign are your posts You're basically saying Athomeboy matters as much as John McCain here and therefore they should be held to the same standards of behavior.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good. I'm not a doctor or scientist or anything so I'll admit my knowledge is limited, but we're talking different substances with different circumstances around them.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) I define negative as spending a majority of your time pointing out how the other person is a bad guy then spend the last 5-6 seconds to say how great you are and I prove this message. The last 6 McCain ads / videos have been 100% negative. If the negativity is factually accurate (hi there Hillary Clinton) and isn't an ad hominem character attack (which McCain is starting to descend into lately) I see nothing wrong with it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) Are the health care costs for cancer figured in that? To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) Cindy McCain on the Today Show, May 8, 2008: "What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.” That depends on your definition of "negative." McCain never said he wasn't going to go after Obama on policies and whatnot, and IMO he should. He's been pushing that envelope pretty hard though.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) Um, coaching in the NBA. He's not coaching the Bulls or Ben Gordon. And frankly, I don't care what a coach says about his own players, especially Scott Skiles. He is the guy who would do things like play Ben Wallace all 48 minutes as a "reward" for doing something like scoring 10 points the previous game and let Joakim Noah sit on the bench. I don't want or need him telling me what to think.

I dunno, the way McCain has run his campaign since he won the primaries, I can't even remember why I used to like him anymore. Combine that with the fact that he's changed his position on just about every important issue except the war and this isn't the 2000 version of McCain.