stevejrogers

Forget what I said about Lidge, GET HIM AND OSWALT!

Looks like this is why nysportsday.com was down! Now on WFAN

cooby wrote: Speak for yourself. I already have my alarm set for 12:01 tomorrow morning so I can beat Steve to it HA! I reinstituted (though I'm starting to wonder if I should be instituionlized) JD's IGT mojo theory, so expect IGT sometime before the game on Tuesday, probably 10 minutes before depending on how far along my Excel class is going And yes, Billy Joel's Lite FM side is returning! "Don't go changing to try and please me..." Well, I promise never, EVER, even as a CPF Song Parody Challenge song, to use "Just The Way You Are"

Edgy DC wrote: Hey I just posted the names of the actors Which unequivocally disregarded what the questioner asked you not to do. Ah, I thought most of them had allready been given. Again I need to RMPL

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I was thinking about opening a closed book thread in the Baseball Forum, but I figured that somebody (ahem) would eagerly post the full answers. Now I read this thread and I see that my suspicion was accurate and warranted. Maybe I'll give it a shot anyway. Hey I just posted the names of the actors Watch it Ben...err Reed

Gwreck 15-10 Most Threads Started, Won and Lost Posted: Fri Jul 28, KC 13-3 Highest Pct. with 5 or more starts SteveJRogers 9-5 CF 3-0 Elster88 3-2 NYMR83 3-2 Edgy 2-0 Hillbilly 2-0 ScarletKnight41 2-1 Johnny Dickshot 2-3 A Boy Named Seo 1-0 GYC 1-0 OlerudOwned 1-0 Rotblatt 1-0 MLBaseballTalk 1-1 Frayed Knot 1-1 Sharpie 1-1 Metirish 1-2 TransMonk 1-4 Duan 0-1 Abogdan 0-1 Rockin' Doc 0-1 The Old Mole 0-1 Willets Point 0-2

Centerfield wrote: This is a good start, but if we're going to have any sort of meaningful analysis from this, we need to know pitching matchups, how the team is hitting etc. Like with pitchers, win/loss record is an imperfect way to judge IGT thread starting statistics. We need degree of difficulty...not all IGT"s are created equal. Without this analysis, we will never be able to ascertain the impact of the IGT thread author on the outcome of the game. So says the guy with the most wins without a loss!

Edgy DC wrote: I think once you get them downtown to the courthouse, the typical person is more consicenscious than that about the gravity of rendering justice. Fair enough. I guess no one is pulling a Larry David (from CYE couple of years ago pulling the Seinfeld card and the "I hate minorities" card) or a situation I heard where a woman actually said she'd lock someone up if they got arrested on any drug charge (a suburb court)

Edgy DC wrote: I don't get out of jury duty, and I'm fucking brilliant. My opinion is that juries often have people too unselfish to get out of jury duty. True, probably too many people use the "I'd lock them up no matter what!" answer when asked about the circumstances of a case rather than say safe things like "Well I'd have to know all the facts of the case" even if its a open and shut case

Vic Sage wrote: Also this movie is probably hated by countless of cops and DAs across the countries through the years. Granted it turns out to be the correct decision (apparantly, but I'd love to see the DA's face in the courtroom "All that because a guy was upset over the death of his son?") but thanks to this kind of movie every hack juror is probably thinking "There has got to be one sliver of doubt here..." this is a moronic thing to say. The jury is the last failsafe in our judicial system to try and get justice in a system that favors the wealthy. The movie offers at least a possibility for weighing rationality, compassion and fairness over irrationality, hatred, bigotry and everything else human beings bring into a jury room with them. It says to people who may one day be on a jury that "you have a duty to rise above both YOUR pettiness and OUR inequities, to try and reach a just result". If that upsets DAs and cops, then they're in the wrong business. And conviction rates are extremely high, despite high-profile celebrity acquittals, so they usually get their man. The notion that there are juries running wild out there is just such complete utter nonsense. Fair enough. Popular opinion though is that juries are filled with those too stupid not to be able to get out of jury duty, so thats probably all it is, popular opinion then.

Edgy DC wrote: What makes this worth re-shooting and ripping off in countless movies and tv shows is that jury movies are great showcases for character actors. Only one guy --- be he Henry Fonda or John Cusack --- has to be deep, and the rest of them, all being obstacles that the protagonist has to get past, can all play it broad and have fun. How can you shoot such movies without Jack Klugmans. To this day, I think of Jack Klugman and think, "That guy knows how to use a knife." Also this movie is probably hated by countless of cops and DAs across the countries through the years. Granted it turns out to be the correct decision (apparantly, but I'd love to see the DA's face in the courtroom "All that because a guy was upset over the death of his son?") but thanks to this kind of movie every hack juror is probably thinking "There has got to be one sliver of doubt here..."

Because he was in the 1997 remake! Never mind... From the IMDB Martin Balsam John Fiedler Lee J. Cobb E.G. Marshall Jack Klugman Ed Binns Jack Warden Henry Fonda Joseph Sweeney Ed Begley George Voskovec Robert Webber

Vic Sage wrote: I LOVE this movie. This is what i recall: Martin Balsam - jury chairman John Fiedler - weasily little guy who kept changing his mind Lee J. Cobb - angry guy working out his grief over his dead son (businessman?) E.G. Marshall - intellectual guy with glasses (professional?) Jack Klugman - grew up in slums Jack Warden - obnoxious salesman; trying to get to a ballgame Henry Fonda - the conscience of the jury (architect?) Ed Begley - racist with a cold Robert Webber - dopey ad exec plus there was: - the old man (retired?) who supports Fonda - the immigrant watchmaker - the blue-collar guy who sticks up for the old man Why am I thinking Jack Lemmon was in it as well?

Wheres Vern Hoschiet! Now that I think of it, anyone heard any updates on him? Better go check that website that his daughter put up

ScarletKnight41 wrote: BTW, in 1986 the Daily News published a collection of its Mets columns for the season. They started their countdown on August 8th, and the magic number on that date was 41. How Metly appropriate!

OAK-LA-HOMA where the wind comes rolling through the plains... You're doing fine Oaklahoma! Oaklahoma! OK! Oh what a beautiful morning! Oh what a beautiful day The Mets are 13 and a half games up Things are going their way... Damn, I should never of taken that production crew job for the community theatre that summer...

Elster88 wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]I'm heading to bed actually, maybe lack of sleep has me more irratable and irrational on internet message boards Now you're blaming lack of sleep? Suggesting, I've been cranky and irritable and down right asshole-ish in RL lately

Here is another answer, the Orioles were an arch enemy of the MFY during the early Weaver years, kind of like Mets-Braves 1993-1997 Then the Yankees got real good in the late 70's-early 80's just as the Weaver O's were having their swan songs. Both teams struggled during the mid to late 80's (Orioles more than the Yanks) so you could say rivalry is dead. Then when Angelos puts more money into the team, look who�s back in the playoffs and playing the MFY in the 1996 ALCS, and then in 1997 is the last non-Yankee team to win the division. Rivalry "renewed.� O�s go into a tailspin and it appears that the O�s are no longer on the Yank�s radar. Now if Mazzone can do his magic, and some key acquisitions are made there is a strong possibility that the O�s can vault right back into the mix in 2007, an renaissance for the Yanks-O�s rivalry? Or for that matter Red Sox-O�s. These divisional rivalries are all cyclical, and that�s why the teams should still matter in the eyes of the fans of a fellow inter-divisional team.

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think we need an "All Purpose" designation on front a thread with a very specific purpose. I disagree. There can be a small number of topics spun off a CBA discussion; Drug Testing standards, Salary Cap issues, the raging big market-small market debate, Revenue Sharing, how a new CBA will affect long term growth, ect.

Elster88 wrote: Elster88 wrote: From a pure numbers standpoint, I have to give the edge to Beltran so far. I'm taking full credit based on my "Hotel Flushing" piece in the CPF Song Parody challenge! = SC=22,000,000 ..... Easy Elster, you don't want me to send you a .wav file of me singing my CPF song parody "Hotel Flushing" do you? =

Well, they are talking. MLB, union continue CBA talks DO NOT DISAPPOINT US! WE WANT A CELEBRATION OF SOME SORT IN APRIL! ]COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- With ongoing talks already underway for collectively bargaining a new Basic Agreement with the players association, Commissioner Bud Selig has canceled the summer owners' meetings originally scheduled to be held in Toronto from Aug. 8-10. "We felt that the details of the new television agreements reached with Fox and TNT earlier this month could be handled on the telephone," said Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's president and chief operating officer, here this weekend for Sunday's induction of Bruce Sutter and 17 former Negro Leaguers into the Hall of Fame. "We're deep in collective bargaining at this point and that's going well. So the Commissioner thought there was no reason to pull the owners away for two days from some tight pennant races." Collectively bargaining with representatives of the players association has been ongoing every day for the past two weeks. The current agreement expires on Dec. 19, but DuPuy said that he still believes there's plenty of time to get a deal done before that deadline. "I still think we may be able to get this done by the end of the season," DuPuy said. He added that there will be the usual ownership committee meetings around the country during the course of the summer, but the group won't get together as a whole again until November. The 2002 talks in New York went right to the edge of a Aug. 31 deadline. The contract included a competitive balance tax, increased revenue sharing and MLB's first random testing for performance-enhancing drugs. That agreement was groundbreaking, DuPuy said, and enhanced the chance of more amicable talks this time around. Since then MLB's annual revenue has risen to $4.7 billion while the average player salary reached a record $2.8 million in 2006. Cumulative attendance records continue to be broken, and with more than 45 million having passed through the gates of Major Leagues ballparks a new mark this season is again possible. "The negotiations in 2002 broke ground in a number of key areas," DuPuy said. "We really believe that that signifies there are no issues this time that would appear to be deal breakers." Since then, the owners and the union renegotiated the Major League's drug policy twice and in the process lowered the incidence of positive tests among big-league players from 5-to-7 percent in 2003 to below one percent in 2005. This past winter's new policy, which extends to 2008 and was separated from the Basic Agreement, includes the harshest penalties ever for the use of performance-enhancing drugs and amphetamines. Thus far this season, no player on the 25-man roster of any big league club has tested positive. Both sides would like to bring the expiration of the drug policy and a Basic Agreement back into line. And there are also some technical concerns regarding revenue sharing and how the money is spent, debt service and the renewal of the competitive balance tax. Major League clubs now share 34 percent of local revenue, a figure that will top off at over $300 million distributed this season. Two teams over the course of the current agreement have consistently exceeded the competitive balance tax threshold: the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, who are annually involved in a struggle to win the American League East. For his part, DuPuy sounded more optimistic about the process than at any time in the past this late into negotiations. "While there are some areas of the CBA that are matters for concern, there's no single issue that will mean taking the game off the field," he said.

9-2 Philly in the 9th

old original jb wrote: Does life become less meaningful after you've slain your dragon? You aren't a Ranger fan are you? Umm, I'd lean towards the side of all NL East teams will always matter. I've never looked at the Braves any differently than the Phils, Expos/Nats, or Marlins (or Cubs, Cards and Bucs when they were in the East) because it will always be cyclical thing with division teams. One year its the Mets running away with it, the next it could be Phillies and Marlins battling it out, the Braves could return to glory next year, two years or five years from now. Now granted that means that there would be a septeptual happiness (or whatever the word for 7 good things) so I guess to me there really isn't "Triple Happiness" in the true sense but I'm clearly not going to advocate a thread should the Mets win and the Yanks, Braves, Phils, Marlins and Nats all lose on the same day. I'd go with the flow here, but to me the Braves very much still matter in a "well, they ARE in our division!" sense, even if we are winning a hundred and they are losing 90, they still are a division rival and must be treated as such.

]I agree and thats what I'm hoping to do, especially 41. But in honor of the sweep that photo is a photo of a giant 44 outside Turner Field, obviously Hank Aaron's 44 Why don't we take a hint and defer to the guy who has put so much work into the thread?

Willets Point wrote: Who are we rooting for to lower the magic # anyhow? I get confused when Philly plays Florida. Next week is really going to be dicey. We play Florida (who I THINK is whom we are rooting against) and Philly plays the Cards, chances of both teams losing two or three is very good and this weekend we play the Phillies and Florida plays the Dodgers. Can't anyone here claim this here 2nd place?