almost what i was looking for  


i want someone to really explain to me why a show like gilmore girls talks so fast and why people equate that to being a "smart" show. They say NOTHING quickly. does that make it witty? I flipped by it while Amazing Race was on commercial, and in the two minutes, i got so re-angry at it. The bantering back and forth was so forced and unrealistic. But i bet the writers patted themselves on their collective backs.



I've already commented on how much i love Carlos Delgado for sticking up for what he believes in and not standing for god bless america. That's why it pains me to read that Delagdo, though his agent, has told the O's (and other suitors), that, if asked by the team, he would stand for the song. I can't decide how much this bothers me. One one hand, at least i know he's politically aware and has beliefs that are unselfish. On the other hand, he's really selling out on those beliefs, litterally. As in, "I want a bigger contract, so i have to conform".

Should I hate delgaldo now? Or just chalk it up to yet another example of how having a minority view is not allowed in this country? I'm torn.

And since when do the Baltimore Orioles represent american ideals? From shouting "o's" at the end of the national athem, to trying to block the move of the expos b/c they don't want competition, the o's seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Oh, and reading the primates thread on this issue, i was SHOCKED to see yet another great example of why it's "noble" to refuse to salute the song. I can't believe i missed "seperation of chruch and state". I'll have to make sure to add that to the laundry list.

i'm going to try and do this off of memory  


"worrying about your kids is sanity. and sometimes being that sane can make you nuts."

mind you, this is the quote that they think will suck people in to see their movie. Everytime i hear it, i get angry.

Mouse Gestures  


I was fiddling around with Firefox and found some pretty sweet extensions (plug ins). One of them is called mouse gestures. Basically, you can assign whatever you want to a "gesture" of your mouse. For example, while in firefox, you can have it where a right click plus moving to the left means "back".

we've gotten to the point where the old way to use a mouse is too much work. Fan-Tastic

My mini revolution against page 3:  


1) The article that set me off:

[note, it used to say "no bread for you". After my email, he must have changed it to the correct "no soup for you"]

2) my email: wow, you butchered the most overused and cliched seinfeld line of all time!

Way to exploit the current renewed interest in

Seinfeld (b/c of the dvds) for your own personal gain.
While this article has nothing to do with sports, at
least you'll get a lot of hits riding on their

Next time, though, you may want to take your head out
of your ass and get the quote right. Seriously, even
the biggest mark knows it's "No soup for you". I
believe even my retarded 4 year old nephew can walk
around and say that.

Page 3 is a joke, and you are at the forefront
throwing around screwed up punchlines. Your mom must
be proud.

Happy Thanksgiving,


3) His Response:

Congratulations! You, the anonymous Dennis J., known around the world
"krofatigue," as are officially the winner of the Rudest E-mail Ever.
trust me, you beat some stiff competition over the years.)

The reason? It's Thanksgiving, dude. I missed a word. How bad is your
that things like this inspire such a reaction from you?

My mom must be proud, you say. She is. She raised a son who doesn't
send out
insulting e-mails on Thankgiving because someone made an honest mistake
botching one word out of 3,500. Can't speak for all moms on that,


P.S. C'mon, you're not old enough to have a 4-year-old nephew, are you?
I'm guessing you've got the day off from high school today.

4) My retort


You dismissed my earlier email as a juvenile and unjustified attack of your work; being overly critical of one incorrect word in 35,000. I suppose such a dismissal isn’t to be unexpected as I wasn’t going to go into the depths of why your article is worthy of such ire. However, now that I know you actually read your emails, let me explain:

First, a general assessment of and page 3.

I think it’s a great danger to view things such as your article in isolation. To do so would be to allow virtually anything to seep into society as anything can be justified as “hey, it’s not the end of the world.” However, your article is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with and page 3 (and, to a larger extent, society).

The ONLY motivating factor in society is money. Corporations exist only to generate money. There is no appreciation of the arts, general interest in benefiting society, or even an attempt to put out a quality product. ESPN is clearly the most “important” sports website because it’s the most popular. However, its content is two notches below mediocre. My appreciation of sports has not been increased in the slightest by I can’t even stomach sportscenter. In fact, in an informal poll of “real” sports fans, I have been unable to find a SINGLE PERSON who watches sportscenter on any consistent basis.

Any freshmen who has taken an intro to microeconomics course would argue that if espn isn’t satisfying the demand for sports fans, then another company will step up. However, that is not the case. The hardcore sports fans, of which I am one, will ALWAYS be there. We’ll grumble and complain, but in the end, our love of sports will force us to keep coming back for more. Thus, unfortunately, ESPN is doing the “business appropriate” thing by catering to the casual fair-weather fans. Ratings and revenue are generated by drawing in as many people as possible. Thus, all genres are plagued by the desire of the corporations to suck in the casual fans. Sportscenter has less to do with sports now and more in common with MTV (which doesn’t even play music anymore!).

I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been “tricked” into clicking on an article at only to be bait-and-switched. I can honestly say that I’ve learned absolutely nothing about sports from either the website or the channel. Have you tried watching the NBA show (I forget the name, something about Fastbreak) with Steven A. Smith. It’s a disgrace to sports.

Page 3 is by far the most shockingly blatant example of such exploitation of the “art” of sports. If is insulting to real sports fans, at least Page 3 is upfront with their “screw you, we don’t care what you want” promotion of the “entertainment” side of it.

Page 3 exists SOLELY to keep people “stuck” on as long as possible. It’s all about generating revenue and getting those big bucks from advertisers. It both exploits average people and is insulting to real sports fans who wish to enjoy their hobby and become more intelligent on the subject.

Now, an assessment of your article in particular.

Your article was one of the “most sent stories” for several days. I resisted as long as I could, but in the end, my enjoyment of Seinfeld forced me to click on the link. As soon as I saw “no bread for you”, I realized that my initial reservations were correct. Your “article” (and I use that term loosely) isn’t so much a “writing” as it is a trick to sell advertisements.

Was there an original thought in your article? If so, please point me towards it. All I saw was you riding the coattails of the success of Seinfeld. Here is how your thought process must have went: “hmm, people like Seinfeld. If I write about Seinfeld, people will click on my article.” Well, if your mom is in fact proud of such “work”, then I’m happy both for her and you. But, I refuse to believe that she or you can objectively say that what you do is noble or even something to be proud of. You are a corporate sellout, pure and simple. It requires no intelligence or skill to do what you do. No original thought at all.

I’m sure you consider yourself a “writer”. You are not (well, at least not based on this one article. Perhaps you do real work on the side or something). You collect words and ideas from other people and create money for big business. You are one step above writing out hallmark cards.

I doubt you went to college with the aspirations of writing such mediocre work. Reread your article about Seinfeld and sincerely ask yourself if you are “proud” of it. In your defense of your mistake, you didn’t say “one wrong word in an otherwise intelligent article.” Instead, you pointed to the volume of the article, 35,000 words. Is that how you define your work? By quantity over quality? If so, that’s a shame. And, in addition to its mediocrity and pointlessness, you should also be ashamed of the fact that you exploited someone else’s work. You had nothing to do with Seinfeld, and yet you felt completely comfortable with exploiting it for your own profit. If you had written a review of the show, or somehow had an original thought, then it would have been ok to reference it. However, simply collecting the funny moments under the guise of being sports related and slapping together a nice little bullet point list is NOT original. It’s not even writing.

And seriously, “no bread for you” is more than just a one word mistake. Not all words are created equally in a real writing (that has originality and thought). It’s practically the title of your article, and you butchered it. Yikes.

Ok, I look forward to your defense of your article and/or profession (should you take the time out to actually respond). I’m curious as to how you can justify your work. Perhaps there is something I am missing. And, as for anonymity, my name is Dennis J*********, and I’m far from a High school student.

Have a great day,


"I loved playing football, but the reasons I loved football were just to feed my ego," Williams said. "And any time you feed your ego, it's a one-way street."

What an intelligent thing to say. Unfortunately, it's completly lost on the sports world. That quote gets drowned out by the macho "he let us down", "he's a pot head who is a quitter", "what a flake", etc etc.

This guy is better than you (sports fans). He's above you, and football is beneath him. You need sports to fill a void in your life, but he doesn't.

If i quit my job to do something else, am i "letting everyone down"? Should i choose to come back, i don't see why i would need to "apologize to everyone". Uh, it's my life, i'll come and go as i please. and don't give me a "he left right before training camp". He was talking about leaving for a LONG time and people, selfish people who want to exploit his life for their own perosnal gain, kept trying to convince him to stay.

I wish there was a way to root for Ricky Williams on something other than the football field. I respect him as a human being.

"take off your sunglasses so you'll see better"  


I just got out of bed to write a rant, that's how much that opening line got to me. The amazing race is all about internal conflict among the teams of two, probably to the point of overkill. It may be a little too early to tell, but i'm thinking this show has jumped the shark. Having one heel team yell at each other the whole show is entertaining, having ALL the teams do it is boring.

But anyway, one of the nagging women actually told the guy (i think their team is called "formerly dating") to take off his glasses before a cannoing (sp) competiton so he can see better. Step back and think about that one for a second. She's so presumptuous (sp again) to think that she's in a better position to judge his vision than himself (grammar?) Has anyone had that done to them? I get it all the time and it's the textbook definition of "mind boggling".

You need a coat, it's cold = I'm cold therefore you must be cold.
You need two heaters in your apartment, not one = It was cold when i came into your apartment today. Even though i've never been in your apartment at night when the space heater is running, i'm going to just assume you need two.

oh i wish i could think of the dozens and dozens of examples that I've had to endure. It would make this post more coherent. Needless to say, the line "take off your sunglasses" will forever be embedded in my head now. For a moment, i felt that guy's pain. I knew exactly how he felt. She thought so little of him that she couldn't even trust him to judge his own eyesight!

i wouldn't believe it if i didn't see it with my own eyes  


let me add one tidbit...  


i don't think for one second that artest's actions could be considered "self defense" from a legal standpoint. in theory, he probably broke the law. But i still don't think he should be prosecuted. (and yes, this will open a whole new can of worms since i tend to argue for full enforement of the law)

perception meets reality with the Pacers fight  


I must have watched the replays of the pacers/pistons fight a dozen times at the bar last night (on mute). While I strongly believe the Pacers were in the "right" as much as anyone can be who's involved in a fight, i was expecting the media reaction to be "there goes artest again". Well, much to my relief, the espn crew (i don't know their trademarked name, but the one with steve s. smith), were all in agreement....the fans were the ones out of line.

I'm not sure what the proper reaction is to having a beer/cup/bottle thrown in your face. I don't think i would react by punching the person, but i do know that i'm on the far end of the spectrum. I would expect that the vast majority of people, if that was done on the street, would react the same way Artest did.

The only question, then, becomes whether as a professional athlete, his actions must be judged at a higher standard. I don't think that they do. There's a line when it comes to fans vs. players. As an avid heckler, I DO think it's apart of the game. I know announcers discredit this theory, but i DO think that buying a ticket entitles me to certain liberties at the expense of the players. If all i cared about was watching the game, i could do that at home (for free). When you are in the arena/stadium, you are apart of the game. There's a level of interaction and participation there that warrants some level of heckling.

But here is where the line is drawn: No swearing, no personal references (there are exception to that limitation), and CLEARLY nothing physical.

These athletes are huge celebrities. In what other area of entertainment can you get that close to a celebrity? They allow themselves to be vulnerable to thousands of fanatic, sometimes drunken, fans. At any moment, they can be attacked. And somehow, we ask them to forget about all that and entertain us for 3 hours a night.

If and when a fan crosses a line, the player has the absolute right to defend themselves. And not just on the immediate/direct level. If artest doesn't defend himself against that one detroit fan, perhaps other fans in other arenas will take that as a cue to push the envelope even more.

Security should have done a better job to stop the situation immediately. Artest lacked faith in the security and took it upon himself. Of course there were numerous consequences of going into the stands that Artest didn't account for. And yes, he probably made the situation worse in the immediate (can i end that part of the sentence w/ that word? i can't think of what should follow immediate), but I still don't blame him.

He did what he believed what was right, he did what many others in his situation would do, and most importantly, i think that his actions will have a long term benefit on his, and his peers, safety.

Oh, and detroit is off the list of possible places for our new capital. They deserve their reputation.

- I also didn't like the piston's CEO sayign it all started b/c artest was laying on the table and thus didn't keep the table as a barrior between him in the fans. Like a bottle wouldn't be able to cross that imaginary line.

- I'm officially a pacers fan after this. I can't believe i rooted for the pistons last year.

I refuse to do the press junket / circuit, or whatever it's called  


When an actor is promoting a movie, they'll do something called a junket (i think that's the name, but i could be wrong). Basically, he sits in a chair and gets mini interviews with TONS of local stations all in rapid fire sucession. They all ask the same generic, boring questions, but it's "unique" b/c local reporter johnny lunchpail is asking them.

I would lose my mind within 15 minutes.

I'm dealing with something similar now that i'm "estranged" from my lawschool friends. Instead of seeing these people on a daily basis, it's now much less frequent. In fact, there were some people on saturday that i haven't seen since the bar. Every conversation went like this:

A) what have you been up to for the past two months? How is your job?
B) my job is _____. I do this ______. how about you?
A) my job is also ______. I've been up to _____.
B) [turns to c] So, what have you been up to?

rinse and repeat.

I can't take it. You want to know what i'm up to? try staying in touch with me. My job isn't my life. I'm not going to give 4 recaps a year of my life and still hold onto the pretense that we are still friends. Let it go, it's over.

Tillman was the wind beneath my wings.  


What a hero. He gave up EVERYTHING to defend freedom. He gave up his life for what he believed in. Now, i seriously doubt he spent the time necessary in researching an issue to make sure it was worthy of such a sacrafice, but that doesn't matter. Oh no, with reckless abandon, he grabbed the nearest gun and said "point me in the right direction, sarge."

And of course, the complexity surrounding the issue warrants deep reflection and analysis. All of which can now be captured in a RED BRACELET. Wow, what am i supposed to do with my yellow one now? My mind hurts.

Lastly, i know there were a bunch of other people that gave up their lives for what THEY believed in...but i just can't put my finger on it. Tip of my tongue....something about flying planes....were they heroes?

shouldn't space heaters point up?  


this space heater i have is very strong. But, it's about a foot high. If it was pointed up at an angle, the warmth would at least be directed towards me. As it is now, i'm burning my ankles trying to get close to the heat.

I'm sure these people were thinking "well, heat rises, so it doesn't matter", but clearly this heater is small enough where it can only be effective if it's directly on you. I don't understand why it's not pointed up. Was it designed for midgets?

my apology to english muffins  


I've always been anti-english muffin. I've recently come to the realization that my disdain for them is based entirely on my love affair of bagels. Bagels are the greatest food on earth, and if i could have a bagel a day for the rest of my life, i'd die a happy person. But they are an endangered species now, as the bagel place by my grandmother went out business and i haven't found a suitable replacement. So, in an attempt to fill the void, i try to get into english muffins.

Comparing an english muffin to a bagel is unfair. However, they aren't half bad. Compare them to the lowly piece of toast or even a dry roll, and they are almost "good".

of course, making pizza-english muffins when they raisins in them probably wasn't the best idea in the world.

this is how i planned my saturday night  


I wanted to watch a dvd, but couldn't decide which one. Then i thought "every week, i wind up watching a movie on tv that i own on dvd. It's not as good on tv with the commericals and editing, but i do it anyway just b/c i get sucked in." So, i thought i'd let TNT (or whatever channel i watch movies on), pick the movie for me. Just my luck, they were playing donnie brasco.

Then i got sucked into it (halfway through), and never bothered to put the dvd in.

god i'm lazy.

Support the Cancer Troops  


Why wont the yellow bracelets go away? I can see through people.

The bracelet is the unique status symbol that is intentionally cheap. It's a "look at me, i'm going to wear something cheap b/c i care about the issue." The average person would not feel comfortable wearing this with a real outfit (uh, lawyers at work) if they hadn't first seen celebrites do it. Come on, a yellow bracelet 24/7? Why?

And don't for one second tell me you care about cancer. Do something about it like Race for the cure. Those things actually contribute to fighting the problem. Donating a dollar does not. And, if the bracelet wasn't involved, would you even have donated that dollar? Nope.

The only good thing about the bracelet is that i can immediately spot the marks. It's like they are tagged as conformists. They'll continue to wear these bracelets for a few months and then move onto the next tickle me elmo, beanie baby or other fad.

I don't really have anything to add regarding the yellow magnets currently on cars that "support the troops". It's the same type of thinking, but obviously more dangerous.

i trust my readers...  


to make the connection as to why i'm posting this article. Don't let me down.

Bowling for Columbine  


I wish i could go back in time and watch this movie w/o knowing that so much of the editing led to half-truths and misperceptions. Unfortunately i can't, and thus will never know if my disgust is genuine or the result of being predisposed. That being said, i didn't like the movie.

I can tell Michael Moore feels strongly about the issue. However, i can't tell what the issue is, or, more to the point, what his opinion is. I've got this much down so far: guns are bad, m'kay? Connecting the dots between how, why and what are a bit more complicated.

Facts: The United States has a lot of guns. The United States has a SHOCKINGLY high rate of homicides by gun compared to their peers.

That's about it. Oh, and sometimes crazy people have guns and/or innocent people accidently die by guns.

Moore does an absolutely poor job at making his point. His arguments contradict themselves. He spends a good portion of the movie complaining that America has too many guns and it's too easy to get access to them. He buys a gun at a bank and bullets at Kmart. Ok, that's all well and good, if your argument is that guns = deaths by gun.

Except that's not the case. Later in the movie (well actually sandwiched in the middle of the movie), he argues that the United States has a different that leads to gun homicide. Proof: Canada has 7 million guns among it's 10 million families, yet nobody (or practically nobody) is murdered by gun violence in Canada.

I don't understand how Moore doesn't realize that his Canadian example actually HURTS and contradicts his "too many guns in america" theory. You can't have it both ways. I suppose you could start out with the theory that we have a different mentality and then say that the extra guns don't help. But Moore didn't do that. He made it out like the supply of guns themselves was the problem and that if we limit the guns, we limit the problem.

He also did liberals every a great diservice by pointing to a few pyschos and generalizing that thats' why no american could have guns. 1) This group uses guns. 2) Tim McVeigh was in that group 3) that group having guns is bad. Sorry, that doesn't fly. I'm not going to take the blame for someone else abusing their freedom. I don't know what Moore's views are on the war on drugs, but i bet dollars to donuts (what does that mean anyway?) that he's for decriminalization.
Speaking of the "group", he spent a lot of time showing the milita's in Montana. While I'll grant him the fact that there is probably something "wrong" with their personalities that they live in such fear and feel the need to devote their time to such "preperation", i don't think that they are as danerous as he makes out in the movie. Is it that inconceivable that a group would want to prepare themselves just in case their government fails them? If Moore could have his way, all these Americans wouldn't have guns. But the government still would.

Would moore feel safe in a world where there could be no resistence to the government? I wouldn't. When the sequel to the civil war goes down, i want to make sure we are fully armed.

And finally, what really got me riled up was his accusation that Heston was insensitive to the vicitms of gun violence by going into those towns* (note: i think this was the stuff that was compeltely taken out of context by moore, but don't quote me on that). Heston believes in a cause and as such it's important to protect his cause. Towns that suffer shocking violence (columbine, the 6 year old's death, etc) might be more willing to infringe on Heston's cause. To pass gun control laws, and such and such. That's why it's important for Heston to go to those towns.

And more importantly, isn't it insensitive for Moore to use the victims specifically to get his point across? Do you think moore REALLY cares about the dead 6 year old? No, she's a means to an end. a means to an agenda. When he shows Heston the picture of her (and leaves it on his door step) he's USING the girl. Granted, his message and cause might be more inline with the victim's mother's, but it's still exploitation. Why doesn't Moore show the same restraint that he requests of Heston?

There's more, but i'm tired. Now i remember why i gave up blogging.

fine, i'll give you a pitty rant  


"joey" is bad. really bad. and it boggles my mind that netcop enjoys it. I'm convinced that he is an idiot savant and his one field of expertise is wrestling. All this other tastes are way off.

He loved friends. And not just the good seasons, but all seasons. He throught that Joey and Phoebe were becoming "more developed" as the seasons went on. He's not offended at all by how dumb and one dimensional they became.

I watched the 2nd episode of joey out of morbid curiosity. It was everything i expected, and less. First, as a general aside, everytime i've "had it" with reality shows, I'm reminded just how BAD sitcoms are. I can feel the punchlines coming, and they make me cringe.

The absolute worst joke on the 2nd episode was when we were russo-swerved to learn that joey's friend/neighbor is also the super, and was the one leaving the annoying notes. Now, i figured this out from the very beginning (and i'm by no means patting myself on the back for that one. it was just so obviously the "sitcom-haha-didn't see that" trainwreck that you have to expect). So, generally it's just annoying to watch a dumb character go through all the motions of "discovering" this not so subtle turn of events. And how do you think they solved the mystery of the note writer? Of course, she happened to write down all the hamburger places that she likes for joey. And yes, the handwriting matched.

Now, here's where things got UGLY. Just in case anyone forgot that Joey is the dumbest person on earth, they had to drive the point home just a little bit further. "I got it. That means that the super and jenn {or whatever her name is} must have had the same hand-writing instructor."

I actually got the vodka shudder/twinge after that joke. I felt dirty, but was too lazy to jump in the shower so i continued to watch. I was trying oh so desperately to forget that horrid joke, but, it became a reoccuring joke for the rest of the episode!!! I can't even fathom who thought that would be funny.

Then, i went to netcops page and he liked the joke!

Forget it, i can't go on. Joey is just as bad as friends. This type of "funny" is so disgustingly degrading b/c it's forcing the audience to remove all sense of reality. No human being on earth (or even those quasi-human beings that wander the streets w/o a home or are locked up in the looney bin) would EVER come to the conclusion that two idential handwritings would be the result of a very good handwriting teacher.

They should just go for it all, and give Joey superhero powers.

who is still checking this, and why?  


now that we all have gmail, what would be the point of posting rants here? especially when NOBODY adds comments to the posts?

Steve (Newark)  


Not sure if you are aware of this, but pj and I are fantasy baseball experts. In fact, i'd go so far as to say we are real baseball experts. And it burns us that Steve just doesn't except our word as gospel. He'd rather quote random guys who work for even though they have no idea as to what they are talking about. From a guy who is so distrustful of the regular media, we are perplexed why he continues to rely on them for sports.

Regardless, during an chat, pj and i were posting questions for our own amusement. We might be the only two people in the world to find these funny, and maybe it's a bit weird that we'd use such a huge nationwide forumn for our inside jokes, but we try and post the most markish sports comments from "Steve (Newark)".

I got one in that said something like "why dont you just admit that Brad Wilkerson sucks and you have no idea what you are talking about". The guy disagreed with that statement and went on and on about how grade wilkerson is and how hot he's been (btw, he's one of the two guys that my vodoo worked on).

Now, usually i get a big kick out of getting a question posted. But, this took on a whole new level when i learned that steve read the chat a few days later, saw the guy's answer and FINALLY decided to pick the up guy in his league. he didn't even notice that HE was the one who asked the question!

I'm not sure why i'm taking such pleasure in this, b/c honestly, i am slightly offended that he doesn't respect our opinions enough to admit that we know more than these prorfessionals. The chances of steve reading this chat were so small to begin with. Then, to actually see the question i posted as a joke and take it as seriously is even slimmer. THEN, to not notice it was us writing it. Oh man, it makes all the hours i've wasted posting questions in chats worth it.

bring on the russian women  


so, the united states men's basketball team, the "dream team" if you will, is shooting poorly from behind the arc. How poorly? well, there is only one team shooting at a worse percentage....the russian women!! Uh, that's pretty bad.

oh, and why is the nfl now going to be even stricter in terms of not allowing defensive backs to touch the wide receivers? Did they even watch the games last year? If anything, you should allow MORE contact. I'm sick of teams just tossing the ball up there and hoping to draw a flag. Yes, scoring will be up, but at what cost? It's boring and it's impossible to play defense.


4:30 am  


and i was awaken b/c the movie on tbs was that bad that it was destroying my sub conscious. I think it's called air speed or something. a girl is in an airplane by herself and soemoen on the ground has to talk her down. this is the cheapest set i've ever seen. on the ground, they actually have the walls blacked out so they didn't have to pay for a set. I can't describe it. The guy is sitting next to what looks to be a commodore 128 and it's all black around him.

the itialian looking dude (the bad guy in godfather 3, the father in "the last don) is in this movie. what's he doing in something this bad?

Seacrets Continued  


It's been so long since I wrote about that bar that i can't recapture my anger. Just accept the fact that it was a corny bar that did not deserve the love that it got from part of the group. But, my main problem was that even IF it was the greatest bar in the world, going so many times in a week was just completely unjustified.

We went there on the 2nd night and it was apparent that we'd be making a late week run at it again. I didn't care for that decision, but could accept it, as the first night we were in OC, the place was packed and we assumed that the same would be true the next saturday. So that's 2 nights out of the 7 day week. Completely acceptable, given the circumstances. It's the middle night that came out of nowhere that really irked me and inevitably led to the tainting of the third night.

Without getting into the gory details, suffice to say, there were two "groups" within the house. A lame and annoying catfight basically seperated the house and created uneeded tension. Hanging out with group "A" during the day, I figured i'd might as well go to dinner w/ group A and then hopefully everyone could just meet up at the same bar later in the night. Of course, this meant i'd have to miss out on the greatest of all dinners: the prime rib / seafood buffet. Is there a bigger sacrafice one can make than to give up unlimited hunks of beef? I think not. But, as corny as it sounds, i considered the day to be a bonding experience and wanted to complete it w/ going to dinner with the group. So, as everyone left to gorge themselves at the trough of prime rib freedom, i waited [and waited. and waited. and waited.] for these other people to get ready.
Ok, i think i need a siderant within this rant. It's a combo rant on being late and taking a long time to get ready (maybe i should have written that the other way around). There are few things i find more disgusting, egotistical, and inhumane as spending insane amounts of time to get ready. I can't even fathom the amount of arrogance it takes for someone to sit there and honestly think that it takes them x HOURS to get ready. I hate to break it to you, ladies, but you aren't that important. Your existence does not define the universe. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west regardless of how perfect your mascare looks. What is the point of this vanity? Who are you trying to impress? Trust me, the 20 year old boys would come up to you anyway even if everything wasn't "just so". Any decent guy wouldn't care about the miniscule differences that you spend so much time trying to fix. That leads me to believe that it's not the decent guy you care about impressing, but the male counterpart who equals your shallowness.

Anyway, i could almost tolerate the hours of preperation that nobody cares about IF said people actually started on time. As in, if it takes you three friggin hours to get ready, then start the process three hours before we are supposed to leave!!! But oh no, that would actually require consideration for your fellow man. And that can't happen. No, what actually went on in OC was a select few complaining about "we have to leave early tonight so we can spend a super duper amount of time at Seacrets" and then THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE being the last ones to be ready. Do people not realize this irony?

So anyway, as inevitable as death and taxes, so too is the fact that this group was always late. And this night was no exception. Hmm, maybe i should stop writing in red b/c the mini rant is over. But, to recap, being "late"'when other people are involved shows a complete lack of respect for that person. There's no such thing as a person who is always late. Rather, that person is just someone who refuses to consider other people over themselves. Clocks exist. Figure out how much time you need, and then count backwards from when you need to leave by. It's not brain surgery!

i'm going to stop for now, but i'll be back in a few....

lack of sleep  


does anyone really know what it's like not to sleep? It's a cruel fate. Currently, I'm going through a cycle where I don't have a problem falling asleep, but then i wake up in a panic within 20 minutes. I'm having a reoccuring nightmare that is beyond ridiculous (it's not even "scary" per se). Then i wake up completely confused trying to figure out if i'm in OC or not. I would say no less than 10 times in the past week I've waken up trying to figure out how many people are staying in this room with me. Then i realize it's my apartment in newark. Then i realize said apartment is NOT in OC. Then i realize it's only 20 minutes from when i tried to go to sleep.

This feeling of not quite asleep and not quite awake is brutal. The actual "going" to sleep makes me tired, but then the panicy waking up makes me alert. Or at least quasi alert. I feel too tired to sleep, if that makes sense. I want to dig a hole and crawl into it. Hours mean nothing to me at this point. Next time i look at hte clock, it will be 4 am and i'll think i have the whole day ahead of me. Then it will be 7 pm and i'll wonder where the day went.

I need to win the lottery. I can't exist in a normal 9-5 world.

[and yes, i'm writing this at 11:30 pm. leave me alone]



Before the ocean city trip, i had two concerns: 1) nobody would want to go out and we'd spend the week drinking in the house. and 2) we'd go to a "good" bar the first night, and love it so much that we'd waste the rest of the week going back there.

Now, luckily, OC didn't turn into the debacle that the skiing trip apparently was. The people I went on vacation with actually wanted to enjoy life and such and such. However, on a 7 night trip, we somehow managed to go to this corny bar/club "seacrets" a whopping 4 times!!!

The best way to describe Seacrets was that it was "like Disney World wrapped up in a bar". Why is that the best way to describe it? B/c not only did i say that (as a negative), but someone actually said that as a positive. That's right, apparently people want to go to a bar that reminds them of the cliched corporate interpretation of what a beach bar should look like. It's like going to Italy and looking for an Olive Garden to eat dinner.

It's hard to describe the physical layout of Seacrets, but here it goes. When you first walk in, there is a huge area where bands play. I was mildly impressed with the fact that there were two mini stages for the bands, so as one was finishing the next band could start right away. The corniness factor kicks in immediately, though, when you look down and realize the floor is all sand. Lame. Then, there all fake palm trees under this tent to give the "atmosphere" of a beach bar. The only thing that was missing were the mechanical jamberee bears that we found all so entertaining at eight years of age.

The trickery of Seacrets continued as there were tons of small bars scattered around the pathway. I will fully grant that this "complex" was enormous for a bar/club, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Under no circumstances would anyone go to these little bars scattered around the water. They were litterally a little shack w/ bar stools around it. Oh, actually, people would actually stop at these bars if they were bored out of their minds and wanted to get away from the "seacrets scene". I know b/c Dan and I couldn't wait to leave the niteclub area the first night.

But regardless, the point of these bars was to show off how big the place was w/o actually putting the land to any good use. "oh look at how big this place is, we should spend the entire week here exploring". And by exploring, i mean of course going to the club and dancing there for 4 straight hours.

Ok, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, there was a night club as the "2nd" attraction. It was decent, relatively speaking. There were several very corny gimmicks that certain people just ate up. First, there was confetti that fell down every few minutes. At best it was a mildly entertaining visual the first 20 times it happened. At worst, it was painfully annoying as the stuff got caught on your shirt and fell in your drink. 2nd, there were gigantic balloons that would slowly decend onto the dance floor. This led to the inevitable need to punch the balloons back up in the air. I have to admit that I enjoyed doing this as well. Then again, I'm the type of person who can spin a roll of masking tape up in the air in my apartment for 3 straight hours and not think twice of it.

The final gimmick was by far the most overated. The floor "bounced". The way it was described, you'd think we'd be on a trom-bumb-balino. However, the "bounce" was basically what you would find by walking on those metal doors that lead to basement entrances on the street. Yes there was some give and when the whole crowd did it at once, you could actually feel it. Big deal. Next.

[to be continued. i need to go to school now.]



Is there an athlete worth rooting for more than Carlos Delgaldo? You have to respect anyone who refuses to salute the flag. His political views are so inspiring. But, his greatness is even apparent on the field.

In last night's game, he tried to break up a double play by plowing into Mienkewitz at 2nd base (yes, he was playing 2nd). The redsox were all crying like the girls that they are. Delgaldo just put his head down and walked to the dugout.

Later in the game, when Delgaldo came up again, he got hit. Did he charge the mound? No, he put his head down and ran to first while everyone out went nuts.

Carlos Delgaldo: my hero.

i'm back  


I've been meaning to write something since the bar's been over. I feel bad for all of you who have been checking this site in these past two months. Actually, substitute the word "bad" for "freaked out". What is wrong with you people? I told you I wasn't going to post.

I'll try and think of something to write tonight and post again. I feel like i need to pick something extra rage-inducing to make up for lost time.


am i getting smarter or are managers getting dumber?  


it seems like i can't watch a game without seeing something really dumb.

top of the 9th, giants score three runs off of dotel w/o getting an out. first and second still with no outs. guy bunts them over to 2nd and 3rd. i can live with that.

now you have durham up with one out. i'm already thinking "man, i bet the giants wish they had bonds batting third instead of cleanup."

that's the first mistake. then oakland one ups them by intentionally walking durham!!!

walking the bases loaded....already ranted on that. but now it's twice as bad b/c it gets that much closer to getting bonds up. you should NEVER want bonds up and should do everything you can to avoid it. this game is over, i'm not even bothering to watch.

wow, it was worse than SNL!  


i hemmed and hawed on saturday night whether to write a rant on SNL. it sunk to an even new low in terms of lack of comedic value. I can't even explain how unfunny it was. donald trump was the host. in every skit, he was donald trump. his costume changes consisted of changing his tie. one skit involved "amerosa" getting hit with stuff in the head. for about 5 minutes. with no punchline.

but alas, i chose not to rant on this. i'm just too busy to be wasting my time on rants on tv shows. but, and this is a huge but, what i saw tonight was just mindboggling.

"the casino" is supposed to be a show about two guys who took over a casino and the stuff that goes on with running it. here's the only problem: IT'S FAKE.

something was a little off within 2 minutes of it. the cameras were all in the right place a little too much. then i actually started listenign to the dialogue. it was so corny and fake. i can't really describe how bad it was. There was a "high roller" who was losing tons of money. and when the cards would come up, all of a sudden there was a camera giving an above shot of it. Then at a club, there were about 10 cameras all positioned perfectly to get close up of the people dancing.

everyone needs to see this show. As you are watching it, no that people are sitting there too dumb to realize it's fake.

rapid fire rants  


don't have time for full rants, so i'll just discuss the subjects and you can fill it in yourselves

- not fouling the other team when you are up by 3 is beyond dumb. what's really sad is that i really think that the reason coach's don't do it is b/c they don't want to be second guessed. kobe makes the shot and then lakers win in ot, brown can say "hey, it was a nice (but lucky) shot and we just got out played in OT". If he calls for the foul and (the even less likely scenerio occurs) they lose {those () don't make the sentence flow, i know} then everyone points their finger at brown and says "why did you do that". very sad really

- does everyone realize that the only reason we have 9th inning closers is b/c sutton got hurt in '82. I've read that before, but even joe morgan commented on it recently and i find it mind boggling.

- everyone is talking about how the red's manager is doing a great job, and will probably get the MOY award. they are also talking about the reason for success has been the great team chemistry. I haven't heard this kind of gushing since the '03 royals. BTW, how's the team chemistry there this year?

- roberto's is dead. No more 2 dollar subs. no more 7 dollar pie. new management. I'm both sad for the loss of a dear friend and somewhat pleased with myself b/c i contributed to his death. go figure

- if it wasn't for the 2-1 wednesdays, i would ban carvel. they charge 35 cents for toppings. that's pretty ridiculous, but some of the toppings could be good. what i don't understand is that sprinkles are on that list. can you imagine paying 35 cents for sprinkles. I should hang around outside there and kill any person that orders them. they don't deserve to live.

- gagne for lieber.

- rich harden = craig wilson.

- 6 beers for 20 dollars.

their ignorance forces my hand  


i really don't want to be ranting during these two months, but i couldn't let this one slip by w/o comment.

cubs up 4-1 in the top of the 9th. two outs.

ball hit to center field, alou misjudges it at first, then comes charging in. At the last second he pulls up and gets it on one hop.

the announcer makes a big deal about how great it was that alou at least prevented it from getting by him.


that run means nothing. the cubs need to get one out before giving up three runs. a single is basically as bad as a homer at that point. The only benefit from keeping it in front of him was that with a guy on first, it's possible to get the force out at second.

now, what % of balls in play are of the nature where you can make the out at second but not at first? 3%? it would have to be something like up the middle where the 2nd baseman dives towards the bag to stop it. Very rare.

I imagine that the chance that alou had of catching that ball should he have dove for it is much much higher.

oh, the same announcer then went on to say "i have to keep trying to explain this to baseball fans. outs 25, 26, and 27 are just DIFFERENT than any other out". Yeah, i guess a random bloop single proved that.

2 amazing stats and 1 example of stupidity  


1) before today's game, freddy garcia had received a total of 13 runs of support the entire season.

2) before today's game, no team had recorded a save against the redsox at fenway.

now, while trying to find good reviews of the greatest movie of all time (windy city heat), i've found basically two camps.

A) It can't be real. nobody would actually believe that. it's too over the top.

B) it has to be real. Eddie (is that his name?) can't be in on the joke b/c he's not a good enough actor to pretend to be "real".

as for A), that's not "proof". These people make these statements like it erases all doubt.

It's B) that bothers me more though. Assuming, arguendo, that the "joke is on us" and he's in on the joke, then why on earth would he assume that his bad acting is "real"????? Maybe he really is a good actor. in fact, i imagine playing a bad actor is pretty easy. The cliche that always annoyed me is when people would talk about lisa kudrow and say "oh, it must be tough for her to play dumb b/c she's so smart in real life'. come again? is saying "i don't get it" or "huh" really that hard a concept to master? By that definition, there could be no such thing as acting. litterally, people could only play themselves.

this movie HAS to be real. i think i would cry if i learned otherwise.

why do people keep checking this site?  


are you not aware that i'm studying for two bars?

see you in august!

Warren Sapp is a big ol' meanie  


A good indication of a person's character is how they react when getting punked. Of course they all laugh after they know they were punked, but that's just saving face. Oh no, what i'm focused on is how quickly they become beligerant towards the punker.

to the surprise of no one, sapp became very upset from the very beggining. Obviously, the punker gets more and more ridiculous as the scene goes on. At the beginning, the guy wasn't even THAT bad. It could have easily been "real". And sapp was just so arrogant and pompous towards the guy.

i don't want to go on. i dislike the guy.

offense vs defense  


why is it that i root for defensive teams? on some level, defense is a good sign of "effort" instead of a skill. Of course, all things being equal, i would objectively like to root for a team that is overachieving through effort instead of just being super talented.

but i'm starting to wonder if my obsession with defense is no different than CW's desire to see small ball. To get a Win, you need to score more points than your opponent. that's it.

I'm sitting here watching the pistons destroy the nets, and the announcers keep excusing kidd's horrible shooting with "well, he does so many other things to help them win. he doesn't need to score." Is this true? would we be as accepting as someone who was lights out shooting but couldn't play defense for his life? If not, why not?

Allan houston is terrible at defense. but i don't think it's a lack of effort in his case. He's just not athletic enough. But i hold it against him. I wrongly blame him for his lack of defense. It's a double standard, i know, but i can't stop.

was i watching an ali g skit?  


sportcenter or some espn basketball show, i'm not sure...

dan patrick: "fact or fiction, tonights game will be the last time we see THIS kings team play together"

leiger: "fiction. sure, they might tweak their line up a bit. a role player here or there, but the core will be the same. webber, bibby, stoiakavich (SP) and miller, they aren't going anywhere"

other guy" "i disagree. they've spent tons of money (blah blah blah) and they haven't even made it to the finals. if they don't win this year, i could see webber and/or christie being traded. you at least have to LOOK at trades should they not make it to the finals."

patrick: well, then if they win tonight but then lose to the lakers, will that keep the team together?

leiger: No, this team is going to get broken up if they don't make the finals.


Correlation does not equal causation: example #584  


Moderately interesting news segment on child labor in India. How kids are forced to work like slaves and whatnot while the rich kids go to school.

at the very end, peter jennings says:

"There is hope though, as in the region of _____, where litteracy is nearly 100%, kids don't work as much and stay in school more."

ugh, i'm not getting the sentence exactly right. he was saying that litteracy will save everything. that it will cause kids to work less and instead keep them in school.

now, wouldn't a rational person think, "hmm, if the kids are in school and not working, they will have a higher litteracy rate"

how could peter have it the other way around (and especially have the latter two things independent of each other?)

Am I the last femminist left?  


Susan Hawk is one of those annoying femminists who goes so far over the edge that they actually become sexist. You know the type...she'll go out of her way to say that women are better than men at things, but if someone points to something that a man can do better she starts flipping out. Just as a point of reference, she actually said that it was sexist when she heard someone say that men could beat women at tennis.

Well, this "femminist" became a complete hypocrite last night when she revealed that she got major plastic surgery done. Lipo, eyes, and breasts, just to name a few. First, let me generally say that people who take pride in their "new" look is a bit disturbing in and of itself. She didn't do anything to earn this improved look (not only did she not work out or change her lifestyle, but a tv show PAID for the surgery). Second, and more importantly, this isn't even "her" anymore. There were parts altered (and added!) to her. how can she take pride in this? "hey look at me, i'm not myself anymore". Disgusting.

Now, for the hypocritical part. As a femmonist, i imagine she takes issue with the fact that women are objectified and judged on their looks. As a brute, i imagine she didn't care for this fact. But, now that she's better looking, all of a sudden she enjoys the fact that her looks are important. She relished the applause that she was getting last night. All of a sudden, being objectified is ok b/c she's on the "plus" side of that evaluation.

It just sickens me to no end. There's no such thing as a femmonist anymore (except for me, i guess). There's no such thing as ANYTHING anymore. Magic Johnson becomes a spokesman for AIDS after he gets it. Should we respect him for that? How about caring about something that doesn't directly affect you? How about making a sacrafice for something you believe in. If Susan Hawk really believed that objectification of women is wrong, then when she was offered free breasts she should have said "no thanks, i find it degrading".

I'm tired of so called femmonists who want it both ways. They whine and moan when they affected by the negative stereotypes of women affect them, but seem to have no qualms about using the positive ones to their advantage. These same women who whine and moan about not being able to get equal pay for equal work (or just a general respect in their office) never seem to be able to buy their own drinks or do any type of manual labor. "why do guys always stare at my chest?" - uh probably b/c you wear revealing outfits. Shut up, you sicken me.

dusty baker manages the expos?  


bottom of the eighth, 2 outs, expos up 3-1. Bases loaded and the pitcher spot coming up.

he lets livan hernandez hit.

a hit ENDS the game. instead, livan strikes out and now has to go into the 9th with only a 2 run lead.

steve needs to edit this before i post it  


I could easily have chalked up the recent events to ignorance and moved on. However, it is the ignorance of the ignorance that is inexcusable. The arrogance of the ignorant people in this league is so shocking that I feel as though it’s my duty to try and explain to them why they are so ignorant. So, away we go…

April 20th, circa 10 am – Kush (I don’t even know his first name. That fact will be important later), IM’s me telling me how he’s about to pull off a blockbuster trade with Jen. He does so in a joking manner, and within the bounds of “fun competitive spirit”. Considering that he has the 2nd best team in the league, obviously I do not want his team to get better. So, as I have done before (and as any good gm would do), I try and see if I can offer a better deal to the person he’s about to trade with (in this case, Jen).

April 20th, circa 11 am – My opening line to Jen is along the lines of “I better stop this trade any way I can, even if that means you getting mad at him” I can’t remember the exact wording of it, but it was clearly an opening joke and playing up the same competitive spirit that Kush started the conversations with that morning. I then followed up with something like “If you only knew what he was saying about you, you’d trade with me instead. See, right here he says trading with you is annoying” Yes, I pasted a line. Just like lines were pasted by certain people to my sister where I was calling her a “nerd” or something equally offensive. Had I known that I was dealing with a completely insecure and paranoid person, I wouldn’t have made the initial joke. However, I didn’t, and Jen then demanded to know what was said about her. After attempting to defuse the situation by explaining that it was just joking around and nothing serious, she wouldn’t shut up so I just sent her the rest of the inoffensive lines. After that, she said, “Ok let’s talk trades” and the deal was worked out for chavez/jeter.

April 20th, circa 11:30 am – Kush says “thanks for getting my girlfriend angry at me”. I try to explain to him that it was not intentional and she’s just taking things the wrong way. Jen then IM’s me cursing at me, and saying I was evil and that she never would have done the trade had she been aware of what I was doing to her. I can’t remember her exact wording, but it was shockingly delusional.

Now, I’m going to have to fill in the time between 11 and 11:30 b/c that’s where the ignorance sets in. Here’s what Jen has to believe in order for her side to make sense.

1) She has to assume that her own boyfriend considers her annoying
2) That not only does he think she’s annoying, but that he would share that with people.
3) That he would share that with me, someone he doesn’t even know, has never met, and who’s first name I don’t even know.
4) That I would then take that confidence and break it by telling her.
5) That I would do so in the context of fantasy and try to use it to my fantasy advantage
6) That I would think that it would actually work. And that she would then dislike her current boyfriend and just trade with me.

All of that has to be true in order for her theory to hold water. Here’s a much simpler explanation: I was joking around by sending that line in the exact same way that someone sent similar lines to my sister. Did I go around accusing people of trying to break up my family? No, mainly b/c I’m not a delusional nut who thinks the world revolves around them.

There should be a general competitive spirit that comes with fantasy. You should want to beat other teams. I was trying to enjoy such a spirit when I was trying to block kush’s trade and better my own team. It wasn’t an attempt to get Jen to actually dislike Kush or get mad at him. If the standard by which fantasy decisions are made is “which GM do I like more?” then this league is doomed.

So, whatever, a completely irrational person called me evil and had this conspiracy theory that I was intentionally playing on real emotions to my fantasy benefit. The funny part is that she said that I “admitted” it with my opening line. Call me crazy, but if was really going to try and manipulate someone, I wouldn’t joke about it at the very beginning. “Hey moron, I’m about to do something, get ready.”

But, like I said, I can tolerate ignorance and although Jen was completely wrong about my intentions, I didn’t really care. I know that my integrity remains in tact and that it was a misunderstood joke, not something evil. Then things got ridiculous as she arrogantly IM’s me with “just to let you know, your little scheme did not work and good triumphs over evil.”

And that brings me to:

April 20th 12:49 pm – My trade gets vetoed.

I recently went back to the league settings to make sure the standard for trades was “league vote”. Nowhere in the yahoo constitution does it say the standard is “whiny 20 year old girlfriend is sad, so trade gets vetoed.” If people want to question my integrity, perhaps they shouldn’t abuse their commissioner’s powers. Why was this trade vetoed? Was there a league vote that I was not aware of in those 40 minutes? If so, how many teams vetoed? And what was the standard that they used? It clearly wasn’t based on anything fantasy related, b/c the talent on both sides of the trade was essentially even. Was the trade vetoed b/c I’m a “bad” person? If so, that’s subjective, unethical, and not apart of the fantasy experience. It’s also flat out incorrect.

So, the commissioner abuses his power to make his little girlfriend happy. How sweet. And how unethical. How am I supposed to run my team the way I want when he’s just making decisions on his own personal tastes? Now that I’m “public enemy #1”, I guess I should never expect to even get a trade offered in my direction. Never mind the fact that two players, Chavez, and Jeter, SHOULD have been on my team and no longer were. It was an accepted trade. An accepted trade has to be vetoed by the RULES, not because someone is irrational and misunderstood a joke.

So after this debacle, I pretty much lost all respect for this league (or at least the two parties involved). However, since I only know these people through my sister, I was going to allow the ignorance to go unmentioned just to avoid making waves. But, then the commissioner goes ahead and vetoes another trade involving Jeter. Again, no explanation as to why the trade was vetoed, what teams agreed, or what standard he is using. But guess what happens? Of course, he eventually winds up getting the player (Jeter) who was involved in TWO unfairly vetoed trades.

What’s the point in being in a league where one person can abuse his power and unfairly manipulate the playing field. I was accused of trying to manipulate people, but I think it’s time that others look in the mirror. Jen took such arrogant satisfaction in telling me that the trade was vetoed…that good triumphed over evil. I don’t see how clicking on a button makes anything more right or wrong. Yes, he vetoed a trade, but he was able to do so not because he was “right” but because he was “powerful” in the fantasy sense. He could probably beat me up too, does that make his position anymore right?

Whoever had a problem with my trade (and who knows, maybe people did veto it on their own accord in those 30 minutes and w/o prodding from certain people) did not have a problem from a talent standpoint. I was giving up pedro among other players. In a league where Nomar for Nomo can actually make it through, obviously there doesn’t seem to be a problem with lopsided trades. No, the veto of this trade was done for personal reasons. Thus, it was a compromise of integrity and I find it insulting and disgusting. I have no desire to play in a league where someone can just wield power without any restraints…especially when that person has proven to lack integrity.

If he wants to win so badly, I’m going to help him. I’ll guarantee that every time he plays me, he’ll get a 10-0 win. Then, I’ll just dump whoever into my roster when I’m playing other teams. Even without checking or updating, I should at least get a few cheap wins and ruin other people’s chances.

And for anyone in this league who is going to complain that “I’m ruining it for everyone”, I have a question. Where were you when these other trades were vetoed? Is it fair that certain teams are not allowed to run their teams as they see fit? That certain teams are allowed to trade and others aren’t? That it’s one person who’s allowed to make such decisions.

If people’s stance is “he can do it b/c he has the power, he’s the commish”, then fine. But guess what, I have power to control my team. And until he figures out how to officially kick me out of yahoo, then I’m going to do my best to fight fire with fire.

To anyone not involved in this debacle, I regret any decrease in enjoyment that my participation caused. To Jen, I apologize for upsetting you with my joke, but clearly it was not intentional. Maybe it’s my fault for not appreciating how sensitive people can be. Especially younger people. And for you commish, I’m sorry that you can’t see the error of your ways. You can threaten me with “no future invitations” but why would I want to be in a league where you abuse your powers. Enjoy winning the league. Enjoy, too the fact that you compromised your integrity in doing so. I did nothing intentionally wrong but was punished nonetheless. Really fair.

That is all. Thanks for making me a martyr.

Local ordinance 404.1  


404.1 Personal Cooking Appliances. Personal appliances such as gas or propane camp stove, portable barbecue or hibachi, may be used under the following conditions:
a). Placement in an area that will not scorch, burn or otherwise damage lawns or table tops.
b). Placement in an area at least 30 feet from any flammable material such as grass, weeds, wood chips, brush or buildings.
c). All burning fuel such as wood or charcoal is thoroughly extinguished before being disposed of in an existing fireplace, fire pit or barbecue grill. It is unlawful to dispose of coals in garbage cans or refuse bins.
Looks like from all the research that i did, that it is unsafe to throw coals out in the garbage. This makes sense, as even splashing water on them does not guarantee that they will not remain hot internally. It would be crazy to throw a cig. in the garbage.

The IDEAL way to get rid of coal is either 1) soak them in water for 24 hours and then put them in the garbage, or 2) submerge them in water and then put them in a metal tin sealed tightly. Since neither of these options were available, i feel like the side of the parking lot was the best solution.

but what do i know.

The thin fabric of society is eroding...  


People incorrectly think that their morality only becomes tested when the stakes are high. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's quite likely that when something is big enough, you might do the "right" thing just out of obligation or guilt. Integrity is doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's the little daily activities that trully test what kind of person you are.

With that being said, I think the logical conclusion is that how a person conducts themselves while waiting in line defines their existence as human beings. Recently, i had the unfortunate displeasure of witnessing people completely disregard their fellow man in an attempt to satisfy their own personal greed. Try as they might to justify such horrible behavior, there is simply no justification. Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. These people are part of the problem.

When the bbq was about to start, i immediately got in line. I was in a rush b/c my last class ever was starting in 10 minutes. The line was brutally long and filled up right behind me. Hungry, sitting out in the heat, and watching the clock, the line was obviously annoying. But, what was 100x worse was watching the occassional person forgo the line and just take whatever they wanted. They were so shady about it too, just happening to want to say hello to one of their friends who was at the front of the line. Here's a news flash, in such a limited environment, everyone basically knows everyone. it's the equivelant of when PJ points in one direction right before he hits you with a pillow in a drunken stupor. You can see it coming from a mile away.

Anyway, these line cutters come up with all types of excuses: i was hungry, i couldn't wait in line, everyone is doing, etc etc etc.

Of course, we were all hungry. Wanting something doesn't justify taking something. There are lots of things i want. The question is whether you are entitled to them. And if you don't wait in line, you aren't entitled to it. How is it that these people think they are too good to stand in line? I had a class to get to, while i saw some of these line cutters then sitting out in the sun lazily enjoying their food. But it's the "everyone is doing it" part that really bothers me.

Obbviously, not every one is doing it. Because if they were, there wouldn't be a line. There would be complete chaos. No, just the selfish and inconsiderate people are doing it. And guess what, the people that were going to wait in line see this and get frustrated and maybe they cut as well. Now your decision to cut has not only hurt all the people in line who now have to wait longer, but it has also encouraged other people to act equally inconsiderate. Furthermore, for someone in line to say "everyon is cutting", they are obviously noticing the shadiness of the behavior. Now, maybe it takes a rare person to sit and get so angry that they stew about it for a week and then rant about it in a blog, but i imagine that a "normal" person's view of the world drops just a bit. Maybe down the line said person decides not to go out of their way to help a person. Not to give a horribly cliched "pay it forward" interpretation, but i REFUSE to believe that these encounters with selfish people don't accumulate. Often, we just push it down deep into a little ball, and occassionaly release it by punching out an umpire. I can't imagine caring so little about the people around you that you can "hurt" them for your own personal gain. How can these people be so painfully unware?

So, i waited an extra 2 minutes for my burger. Big deal. But where does it stop? Can you just litter b/c who cares if there's some garbage on the floor? Everyone does it. The garbage can was ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. Look out for number one, i guess. society comes in a distant second.

If i'm a bitter person, it's only b/c for 25 years i've had to endure people cutting me in line.

It's friday, so you know what that means...  


4 chats this morning, 3 of them, i shot blanks. But then, tuna got the first blow in chat #4 with:

Angie (Wayne): Jerry, Do you think Jeter's lack of performance is related to the acquisition of A-Rod, Can Jeter not perform when he's not the media darling of NY?

Jerry Crasnick: (11:07 AM ET ) Angie,

You never know what's inside a guy's head. I know Harold Reynolds thinks his hands are dinged up and that's affecting him. Jeter's the kind of guy who'll just go out and play and not use injuries as an excuse. I have a hard time believing he's struggling because of A-Rod, but he might be hesitant to come out of the lineup because he knows there'll be a huge push for Torre to play A-Rod at short.

[angie's my grandmother btw]

Not to be outdone, i came back with:

James (Australia): If i was going to go to a game solely to heckle players, where should I go? I've had some success in the left field bleachers of yankee stadium, but I want to take my show on the road. Are minor league games too easy? Seems like it would be shooting fish in a barrel.

Jerry Crasnick: (11:15 AM ET ) James,

Since you're planning to come all the way from Australia, I figure you deserve a response. I think Pittsburgh or Montreal would be your best bets, since the stands are generally empty and your voice could more easily be heard. But please, keep the heckling clean and family-oriented.

tuna blew my mind with this one. I couldn't believe how he got inside pj's head and was actually "thinking like him." I later found out that tuna just pasted the paragraph i wrote in my blog about dunn. BTW, take a look at the town PJ is from:

Peter (Neocon): How good will Adam Dunn be this year? Too often, batters are so afraid of striking out that they choke up with two strikes and just try and make contact. That often results in lazy grounders. Adam Dunn is NOT like that. He controls the strike zone, and takes and rakes. Is his approach worth the extra strikeouts?

Jerry Crasnick: (11:26 AM ET ) Peter,

The word in spring training was that the Reds told Chris Chambliss to work with Dunn exclusively and weren't going to clutter up his head with advice from 12 different people. It sure seems to be working so far. If Dunn can hit 40 homers and knock in 120 runs, I think they can live with 150 strikeouts. Thing is, he's second in the National League in walks behind Bonds right now.

I have to pat myself on the back for this question from Maria. Does everyone get the inside joke?

Maria (Caldwell): Can a healthy Nick Johnson and Carl Everett save the struggling Expos? Or is this franchise doomed to go the way of the dinosaur and just fade into extinction?

Jerry Crasnick: (11:35 AM ET ) Maria,

Nick Johnson is really frustrating to watch. It looks like he's going to be one of those guys who's always hurt. I thought Carl Everett was a good pickup, but he just caught a bad break with an injury. The Expos have really overachieved in recent years with limited resources. It's time for baseball to resolve that situation and sell the team. It's not fair to the players, the Montreal fans or the people running the team.

finally, i threw in a "real" question just so i can get people talking about my fantasy guys:

Kenneth (Atlanta): Is john thomson the best kept secret in baseball? If you translate his coors induced numbers from last year to pitcher friendly turner field, it looks like he will be solid. Not to mention the best pitching coach in the game.

Jerry Crasnick: (11:47 AM ET ) Kenneth,

He's definitely suffered from pitching in Denver and Texas, two graveyards for pitchers. I know the scouts have liked his stuff over the years. It looks like another astute move by John Schuerholz.

btw, Neyer is on at 1 pm. I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but tuna came up with what may be the greatest question of all time:

cheeser50: George (Crawford) What's the deal with the suicide squeeze, is it a lost art? Managers don't seem to have a lot of faith that their suicider will make contact.

stupid asian girl wants to play with american survivor  


or however the kill bill quote goes.

this asian girl on survivor is driving me crazy. last week when she called the other players "stupid" for not trying get her in on a plan. uh, here's a plan: there are 5 people trying to get 1 out. as soon as that 1 person loses an immunity challenge, said person is gone. deal with it.

I was thinking about great it would be if pj was on survivor. I realize i told this joke already, but if he was on, he would have shown NO emotion during the videos from his "loved ones'. that would have made for some awkward close ups. then, the letter would have just been spreadsheets from fantasy.

but today would have taken the cake. It would have been great if they picked steve to come to the island on behalf of pj. the look of dismay on pj's face when he realized that they were there for an eating contest (a speed race) would have been PRICELESS.

two homophobic thumbs down  


I was trying to find a quote from the movie sleepers for my paper (yes, i somehow managed to write a paper on godfather last semester and one on sleepers this semester), and i came across a mildly interesting review of the movie by Roger Ebert. He made some good points about how some of the dialogue was cliched, how Father Bobby never explains his decision to lie b/c he can't, and how the code of the streets is similar to the code followed by the mafia. But here's where he loses me:

So what we really have here is a situation in which the pop culture version of the Mafia code, as popularized by the evangelist Mario Puzo and elaborated by his acolytes like Carcaterra, is valued above traditional morality. If you doubt that the movie depends on homophobia to justify its morality, ask yourself: If the boys had been beaten but not sexually molested, would the movie play the same way? Would the priest arrive at the same decision? Would the verdict seem as justified?

correlation does not equal causation. yes, if you remove the rape, the movie plays different. and yes, the rape happened to be man on man (or in this case, man on boy). but that doesn't mean that the increased sensitivity of the viewer makes them homophobic. What if they were little girls who were raped by male prison guards? would we be any less horrified? absolutely not. Rape, for whatever reasons (and that's a whole different rant) is a different TYPE of crime. It just is. It's not just physical anguish but mental as well.

If those kids were just beaten it would have played out as a different movie. But I don't think i'm homophobic for thinking that. I saw the victims as "kids" and not "boys".

He's getting paid to make baseball decisions!!  


Bottom of the 7th, cubs are up 3-1. Guy on first, one out. Maddux up.

Clearly, you pinch hit for greg maddux.

Dusty Baker let's him hit. Actually, he let's him bunt.

Now, Baker is retarded, so i can't expect him to actually grasp the concept that even if you are just looking for one run, the best way to get it is to not play small ball.

but, after maddux fails to move the runner over (guy out at second), he doesn't even pinch run for greg.

If you are going to pull your pitcher (which he after the inning), why have him out there running? he's 1) slow and 2) it's a risk of injury.

And why even have maddux doing the bunting for that matter. even if maddux is the best bunting option, what happens if it goes to two strikes? now you have maddux up there having to (attempt to) hit.

I hate dusty baker.

my hard work on friday  


Dennis (newark): I was at your fight against oquendo and I thought you did a great job. However, when i saw the replay on tv, the announcers were bashing the decision. Why do you think they claimed that?

Chris Byrd: (4:24 PM ET ) I don't know what their problem is. They don't like me. I thought I won too. I got the decision, so it doesn't matter.


Dennis (newark): and i won 40 bucks from my friend on that, if you are ever in brick city, feel free to pick up your end :)

Chris Byrd: (4:27 PM ET ) Dennis, I want it all in nickels!


[this was after he said his favorite meal was hot wings]

Bleu Cheese Dipping Sauce: Hey, where's the love?

Chris Byrd: (4:32 PM ET ) Oh yeah, my bad. All of it, and don't forget the celery and carrots!


[this was after he said he didn't like chris rock]

Dave Chapelle: Do you like me at least?

Chris Byrd: (4:34 PM ET ) Oh yeah. Dave Chapelle, you're the man dawg!


Adam (redbank): If you could get through a fight with little to no effort (say 3rd round knockout, no injuries on your part), how quickly could you turn around and fight again?

Chris Byrd: (4:42 PM ET ) Realistically? A week later.

Chris Byrd: (4:42 PM ET ) Schedule wise ... six weeks.


Elaine (San Diego): Are you saddened by the fact that retired boxers can't stay retired? Why can't they just let go? Money, ego, both?

Chris Byrd: (4:45 PM ET ) Everything. I agree with you Elaine. Stay retired. That's why they call it retirement.


[and this one was for rob neyer]

Spelling Police: That's twice already you made fun of someone for a spelling mistake. At least they can say the names without a huge lisp.

Rob Neyer: (11:28 AM ET ) Actually, the first time was for a grammar mistake. And if my lisp is so huge, then how come I'm on TV and you're not?

A hitter "relief ace"  


ok, as my head was swirling over counters to steve's ridiculous claims (and believe me, that rant will come later) i think i actually came up with a theory that's worthy of primate discussion.

I was thinking about the relief ace, and how one of the few ways a manager can tip the w/l balance in his favor is by proper relief pitcher usage. Well, why doesn't this work for hitting? Namely, with the greatest hitter of all time, Barry Bonds. I think there is a way to maximize his value on an otherwise anemic offense.

First, you have to determine what the optimum amount of playing time is for Barry. CW thinks that an occassional day off will optimize Barry's performance, on many levels in including mental and physical fatigue, general endurance, and risk of injury. For sake of simplicity, say it comes out to 20 games off a season.

Now, those 20 games need to be spread out. I imagine that there are three levels of fatigue for a player like bonds. 1) I'm ready to go skip 2) I can play if you need me, but a day off would be useful and 3) i'm tired, i need a day off. Clearly, you would never rest him at 1, always rest him at 3, and then try to figure out the best times to rest him at 2.

I think CW is making their biggest mistake in how they utilize rest in the 2 zone. I assume that rest in certain situations (after an extra inning game, day game after a night game, etc) is more valuable. Similarly, it's possible that there is a stress that comes with playing in a game that can't be turned off once it's turned on. In other words, playing two games in a row, even if you are removed halfway through, might be more mentally fatiguing than playing one full game and then having a full day's rest. I don't KNOW that this is true, in fact i think it's not true, but it's possible. However, for the purposes of this theory, i'm going to ignore this unmeasurable level of mental stress.

Ok, so getting back to how to use the 20 games off most efficiently. The first thing you have to do is stop looking at is as 20 games. Instead, see it is 180 innings. If you need to rest bonds for 180 innings, what innings would you pick? Obviously the end of blowouts are where you'd pull him for a replacement (and even CW sees this). But what about the BEGINNING of blowouts. Ah, if only we could look back and figure out how to do that. And there's the rub.

Once Bonds gets into the "2 zone" he should be starting the game on the bench. If the game becomes a blowout

(the term blowout can be defined as loosely as a difference of more than 4 runs. Yes, there will be times where a lead of that size can be overcome, but we are trying to maximize the value of bonds' innings and those percentages of "coming back" are rather low)

then bonds can sit the whole game and get his full rest. However, it's likely that the game will not be a blowout. In those cases, you bring Bonds in whenever he has the greatest likelyhood to have the most impact. At some point in the game, one of the Giants' outfielders is going to come up in an "important" situation (bases loaded, 1 out or maybe first and 2nd with 2 outs) That's when you pinch hit Bonds. I don't care if it's the 8th inning or even the 3rd. At that moment, Bonds is going to have a chance to seriously affect the outcome of the game. In a normal, 4 at bat game, Bonds might have 3 baserunners in front of him. I would have to look at the data to get an accurate number, and i'm too lazy. However, if you start him on the bench and wait for the perfect time, you are GUARANTEEING that he will come up in a "rbi situation". If the Giants spread out their outfielders in the lineup, it's very likely that there will be at least one situation like this. If Bonds breaks the game open, you could even then pull him again. If he gets out, you now at least have bonds in the lineup of a close game.

Critics of this new theory will argue that you want bonds in as much as possible. They are missing the fact that Bonds will be playing the same number of innings that he would be in a CW setting. As soon as he gets to "zone 1" you play him non stop. But when he's in zone 2, you'll be getting maximum output from him. CW would have you pick random games to sit him. But what if you pick a game to play him that winds up being 7-0 in your favor by the 3rd inning. Poor choice. Or what about the games where he comes up four times with nobody on base. a "perfect" performance only equates to 4 runs. Bonds will have played 9 innings and only had the potential to create 4 runs. However, in that exact same game, imagine that tucker, batting 7th, came up in 6th inning with the bases loaded. That one at bat has a potential of 4 runs. If you pinch hit Bonds there, he's already matched the original hypo but did so using only 1/9 th of the energy. If he fails, you still have bonds in the lineup of a close game.

There are times when a guy gets a day off but is asked to pinch hit in the 9th. that's "good", but not "great". If he fails, then you can look back at that 2-1 game and think "oh man, maybe one more at bat by Bonds would have put us over the top". It's currently unheard of to pinch hit early in a game, but why not? Pinch hitting bonds in the 5th inning with the bases loaded may have cost you one at bat, but it's saved you 5 innings and plus you are guaranteeing an RBI situation. Plus, you are GUARANTEEING that you will never waste a bonds inning in a "blowout". bonds would only come in if the game was still in doubt and would leave as soon as it isn't.

I really don't see a downside to this usage of bonds. In zone 2, bonds needs rest. If you wind up not playing bonds two or three games in a row b/c the situation never presented itself, then he'll eventually get back to zone 1 in which case you play him. If there's a string of 10 games where he winds up pinch hitting in the third inning b/c the situation called for it, so be it. Eventually things will even out OR at the very least he gets to zone 3 and you sit him for a game. While this is going on, there will be a vast increase in RBI opportunities and his production will go up.

This usage essentially creates the hitters equivlant of the relief-ace. You are putting yourself and your team in a situation where you best hitter has the best/most opportunities to do the things required to win, i.e. creating runs.


I want to fine tune this theory (or at least the writing) so when the opportunity presents itself, i can present it to primer. I think at the very least it would spur some discussion.

so tuna thinks dunn hasn't been good this year.  


Take a look at sportsline's retarded prediction for adam dunn:

It's safe to say that pitchers have figured out how to work Dunn, who has batted a measly .205 since the 2002 All-Star break. He's a selective hitter who knows how to draw a walk, but it's more a result of his being more apt to take a pitch than being able to identify his pitch. Dunn seems like he's swinging entirely defensively, and pitchers are exploiting that weakness, as evidenced by his high strikeout totals. He should be fully healed from a thumb injury that cost him the final six weeks of last season, but needs to display more aggressiveness in the spring before being expected to break out offensively. Dunn has the talent to rack up huge stat totals if he makes the necessary improvements, but right now expect him to be a real drain on your batting average.

in many ways, dunn is the mascot of our team. everyone focused on his low average last year. Yeah it was bad, but guess what, average is the one stat that flucuates the most over the career path of a hitter and it is also very poor at predicting future sucess. call me crazy, but the fact that he had 27 home runs at the age of 23 (roughly) says he knows something about selecting "his pitch". And, the high strike out rate is the exact OPPOSITE of being defensive in your approach. Too often, batters are so afraid of striking out that they choke up with two strikes and just try and make contact. That often results in lazy grounders. Adam Dunn is NOT like that. He controls the strike zone, and takes and rakes.

As for Tuna saying Dunn hasn't been good this year, he must be looking at different stats.

.333/.484/.875 before today (so add 2/2 with 2 runs, a homer, and 2 walks). He's obviously playing above his head, but there's no reason to believe he wont be a stud this season.

Tuna and adam should start an anti-dunn fan club. People like me pj and steve will ride him like the fantasy stud that he is.

Ratings vs. Quality  


First, let me get these two gems out of the way:

23 questions:

5 questions:

Now, for the purpose of this rant...That Cowherd guy was completely missing my point in terms of the "dumbing down" of sportscenter. Here are a few things that I will concede: 1) ratings for sportscenter is up, 2) more ratings = more immediate revenue with advertisers 3) more people currently like this new style over the style that i like.

Ok, but here are my theories.

First and foremost, there is an unfulfilled demand for a real sports show. Although a minority, the "hardcore sports fan" exist, and are fanatical about their hobby. Create a good show, and you'll have a cult following.

As with all cults, this audience would be loyal and long term. Thus, any decrease in current fan base would be offset by long term stability. The problem with the current SC (as with all fads) is that eventually the fair weather fans will move on. Who wants to be a millionaire, wrestling, etc etc. As high as these shows became, they tumbled down equally quick b/c the fans were just trendy.

Does espn really think that people are going to continue to tune in to hear the new catchphrase of the week? At some point, this is going to get stale and the viewers will tune out. Without your core fan base (who will have now moved onto the internet for sports news), espn will be at square one.

In all forms of media, the second you start altering your product to increase public appeal, you are doomed. It's the classic case of the tail wagging the dog. If something is "good" people will find it. But eventually, things meant to be popular will lose it's audience. Pop songs come in strong and fade. Good music is timeless.

I don't think people are fully aware as to how bad sportscenter is. I spend at least 5 hours a day "learning" about sports. and at no point do i feel a need to put on espn, the channel that's DEDICATED to sports. It's not a sports channel anymore. It's MTV, but without the genius that is real world.

Snake Eyes and Back to the Future III  


i was flipping between these medicore movies the other night. They were both very annoying.

Snake eyes opens with a long long "scene" where "everything happens." It's so obviously a gimmick as the director is attempting to throw everything out there in an overwhelming fashion. Then, the rest of the movie is meant to piece everything together. I didn't notice if they never cut away from the camera. if they did, i'll give props to the actors for goign through 15 minutes w/o breaking. but i doubt they did that.

everything else about the scene was just terrible. I don't understand how nicholas cage is considered a good actor. he's terrible in this (and con air). His character is so over the top annoying / obnoxious that it's actually painful to watch this scene. I'll never understand why movies/shows go out of their way to make annoying characters. SNL is the absolute worst at this. there are times where, even though i'm not even watching the show, i will have to put the tv on mute because i can't stomache the sound coming out of the actors. painful.

so we get about 15 minutes of cage playing "obnoxious" way over the top. we could have gotten the point in 2 minutes, but whatever. The rest of the movie, the "plot" if you will, is so unrealistic. A girl is walkign around in a white dress COVERED IN BLOOD and nobody notices. Cage figures out the fight is fixed b/c the guy goes down on a phantom punch (how could nobody else notice this? why didn't the guy just lean in and get hit by the punch?)

The ending is really disgusting though. Girl is locked in a room, cage is going to unlock her, bad guy is following cage to find out where girl is. now, i'll need to look this up, but somehow the door magically changed right at the end, so the bad guy had to try and convince the girl to unlock the door herself. uh, i THOUGHT she was locked in there. Then, apparently, there was another door in this little room of hers that led to the outside. again, if such a door existed, why didn't she just leave? are you telling me that a door that connects the outside world to a casino/arena is going to be locked from the inside?

and THEN, at the perfect moment, a big round metal globe crashes into a truck that crashes into the wall and allows the girl to escape. and somehow, the guys in the truck (cops or emergency workers, i can't remember), KNOW that the bad guy (who was a decorated good guy and leading the investigation), was actually bad and that the girl was good. yeah, b/c i know that if i came onto a scene where the lead investigator is chasing after a random girl, and he has a gun pointed at her and saying "freeze", that the guy is really bad and secretly working to sabatage the investigation. ugh. you have to just accept EVERYTHING this movie throws at you, b/c if you start questioning ANYTHING it all falls apart. Did vince russo direct this?

and as for Back to the future III, i've had this problem for years, but i'll rerant. 1950's emmit brown sends marty into old west to save himself (emmit) from being shot. now, the emmit that was in the old west was the one who left from 1985 who himself was obviously the older version of 1950's emmit. got that?

emmmit lives in the 50's, lives until 1985 and then gets sent back to old west. well, if marty goes back to 1950's and explains to emmit what is going down, then everything should change. this trilogy is ENTIRELY about the space time continumum and how things shouldn't be messed up. But, as soon as 1950's emmit learns of his fate in teh old west, that knowledge should have stayed with him until the 1980's and then gone back with him until the old west. Litterally, just by telling him hte info in 1950, all danger could have been averted.

Not only does that point get screwed up, but when emmit finds marty in the old west he 1) wasn't expecting him and 2) doesn't remember dressing him up in that weird cowboy outfit.

my head hurts.