Dan Gould

I don't think Clay was here long enough to "goof off" last year and have anyone need to talk to him. He made one start, came back three weeks later and threw a no-hitter, made one more start and one more relief appearance and then was shut down. Yes, its his arm slot that he is getting out of and it effects his fastball command. Personally I like the idea of pitching backwards - its what Dice did in Japan - but you have to command those offspeed pitches because if they are misplaced they can be hit a long ways. Then you have to command the fastball when you bring it into play. I think Clay has a strong enough curve ball and change not to throw sixty percent fastballs. But what he throws has to go in the right place or else he'll pay. At this moment, my biggest concern is Papi's wrist which forced him out of an at-bat late last night. X-rays described as negative, a "wrist sprain" but I would be fearful if he misses anything more than one or two games. And wrist injuries are tricky and can have a big effect on the power a hitter displays.

What? Its gotta be a toss up between "Smoke On The Water" and "25 or 6 to 4".

With Dice-K on the DL with "a mild rotator cuff strain" and Buchholz optioned to Pawtucket, Justin Masterson will make his third start. I find it interesting that they aren't bringing Clay back. I think they've seen some things in the last few starts that they want him to work on, particularly his arm slot. Anyway, Masterson has looked masterful in two starts so far. Big righty, throws hard with a ++ sinker. What I like about him so far is that he doesn't get rattled and he works quickly, unlike Lester. And everyone can judge for themselves as the game is on ESPN, I believe. What a fucking infuriating game. After the Twins missed multiple opportunities including a triple that was inches from being a homerun over the baggie, I knew they were dead when they gave up a run in the 13th so I went to bed. Why do the Twins kill us and roll over for the Yankees?

No. Because it seems to me that Jimmy is being unceccesarily defensive about his music in this quote. It sounds a bit like, "well, the critics are right and really I'd have much preferred to play Hard Bop, but I could earn a living this way, so I did." But if Jimmy really thought like that, I think I'd sell all the albums of his that I have. Which is not to say that I don't think Jimmy and others in that business wanted to earn a decent living through their music, but that they had chosen where they wanted to be for reasons that weren't essentially financial. And to make the argument that Jimmy did is to demean those reasons. MG I think you're being unnecessarily defensive about the musical results when Jimmy "changed up to stay alive". Really, if Jimmy wasn't greatly pleased with what he was recording, why should that effect your reaction to the music? Its your reaction, not Jimmy's or the critics, that ought to matter. And you say you'd sell all of your copies of his music if you found out that he had chosen where he wanted to be for reasons that were essentially financial? You've expressed enthusiasm for a number of recordings from this era (say, mid to late 70s) that, of the ones I've heard, I consider to be complete or nearly competely putrid. (Like, for instance, the Blue Mitchell recordings before he got together with Harold Land, or I think there are one or two Sonny Criss records). Are you saying that in order to continue to enjoy those records, you need to know that it was "where their heads (and hearts) were at" at that time (so to speak) instead of knowing that they made a conscious decision to record what was popular at that time?

First off a lot of creditors will not negotiate settlements with them or anybody but you stand a greater chance with a place like Consumer Credit Counseling. Sorry dude, I don't care what ripoff report says, this company cannot guarantee shit and look how many complaints they had to resolve before getting an endorsement from that website which still isn't worth much of anything. Why would you want to deal with a place that takes so much of your money? They take $303. the first 3 months, then $147. for 14 months, then after that 17 months they take nothing. During this time (36 months) I would have a bank account that is growing and will be used to pay off the settlements. I think we understand the way it works. The concern expressed is the fact that they get $3000 from you over the next year and a half without actually having done anything to eliminate your debts. If you don't keep up with the plan, you'll be out that money and still be in debt. You also haven't said whether anything will be paid on your debts in the interim, or whether interest will continue to accrue or what.

I remember that. As I recall, the changeover came sometime in the early (or early-to-mid) 70's. Up 'til then Dunkin' Donuts made a decent cake-style doughnut. All of a sudden their doughnuts were greasy and tasteless. I actually thought I got a bad batch. But no, that's just how their doughnuts were from then on, and it was right around the time they started expanding like crazy and putting out adds about how great they were. What amazed me is that no one seemed to care that the donuts had gone from good to terrible. It certainly taught me something about chains and quality. Wow. Apparently I've been enjoying crap donuts all my life, since I have no recollection of Dunkin Donuts before I was 8 years old or so. Was it truth in advertising laws that led to the end of the "have to make the donuts" campaign?

Spoken like the man who shares composition credits with the guitarist, but not the drummer.

Here is the text and here is the video That's one of the best jazz profiles I've seen on a mainstream media outlet, thanks to all who were involved, especially Bertrand.

I agree with Chuck - the coffee is excellent and the croissant/egg/sausage/cheese sandwiches are pretty tasty and filling. I very rarely buy donuts but have never been known to turn down one of theirs if a box showed up at the office. I've never known of a single "Mom and Pop" donut shop anywhere near any of the places I've lived and I have serious questions about the taste buds of anyone who praises Krispy Kreme.

Credit Solutions doesn't make payments. They negotiate settlements with the credit card people and I chose the best settlement deals and pay off the cards while depositing $359. a month in a savings account for 36 months starting June 10th.. They claim that by the end of the program I will actually have a better credit rating.. To whom do you deposit the money with, Credit Solutions? And what, you then continue to make payments directly to the credit card company? CS charges me $2,980.20 to settle on the $19,868.00 owed in outstanding balances to 3 credit cards. First I set up an account at my bank and deposit $359. for 36 months. CS withdraws payments of $303.54 from the account for the first 3 months and then the amount is reduced to $147.83 for the next 14 months. Then there's no more payments to CS and the fees payed to CS the first 17 months are used to negotiate the settlements with the creditors. They guarantee I will be out of debt with these accounts in 36 months after the program is initiated. They claim to typically get better than $.50 on the dollar in settlement offers. I'm still kind of confused - are you making any payments to the C/C companies in the interim? I find it interesting that CD withdraws their fees up front. You are going to deposit $359 each month for three years - but a big chunk of that is going to CS every month. Then at the end, you will have $9943.80 for them to offer to your creditors. But its three years down the line - what is your new balance after ongoing interest? I'm not saying that they are a ripoff - it appears they aren't - but something seems to be missing in your description. And its definitely not kosher that they take their payment up front. I'm sure they've figured out that people are gung-ho about making a new start at the very beginning, so they are confident of getting their $303.54 for three months, then $150 a month for 14 more. But if you stop making the payments, or miss months consistently, where are you? Out the fee, and with far less money to try to payoff the debt.

One download, please!

My wife works with people who have used these programs (people trying to get qualified for first time home buyer's assistance). The one problem she has run into is that some do not make payments on your behalf on time, with the end result that your credit looks worse, not better, because of late payment dings.

Yeah, the check is in excess of the purchase price, they are going to ask you to send the balance to someone else. You send the balance then find out the check is bad.

c'mon dan, you and i have gone over this in many of our sessions toegther. stop repressing and tell him how you really feel. Small steps, doc, small steps.

Let me get this straight . The gravamen of your objection is now that I was responsible for taking this thread somewhere the thread starter didn't intend . Given how long you've been around here and witnessed literally thousands of threads go to places not intended by their starters , I can't help but see your concern as utterly disingenuous . I was criticized , I responded , and the thread went where it did , and not in accordance with any malice on my part . You've got to be fucking kidding me. "Thread drift" doesn't happen in the Offering and Looking for subforum. When someone puts up something for sale, it should hardly get any responses except from those interested in the items(s). For reasons of your own, you crapped all over his thread by encouraging anyone here who might have bid on a rare and difficult to find CD by encouraging them to find it for free in blog land. That goes against the stated rules of your host. But then again, you don't give a shit about your fellow members, why should you give a shit about what your host expects? Aggie's first comment summed it up completely. it's not cool to jump on Scott's thread for the purpose of effectively suggesting that people shouldn't purchase this cd from an upstanding board member, but should seek to download it for free instead. This is not the place for those sort of comments. That is, unless you aren't a self-centered prick who doesn't give a fuck about actually respecting the community.

He's also butting up against the prohibition on promoting sharity blogs or soliciting burns. But then again, in his world, information yearns to be free, so why not?

Well, what are the odds on the rest of this fucking disastrous road trip? 0-3 in Oakland, 1-2 to the fucking horrid Mariners. I'm predicting 1-3 to the resurgent Orioles, wrapping it up at 2-8. Sounds about right. 4-6 last time, 2-8 now, 0-10 at the end of June. Motherfucking pathetic.

I am sure that ESPN mentioned the fact that the Red Sox got swept on Sunday by Oakland. This is supposed to lead the reporting? Why? Good teams get swept, particularly on the road, every month of every season. The Earth didn't stop spinning, and unless you do your reporting through "woe is us, we can never compete with those evil big market clubs" filter, there is no reason to even mention that the A's were supposed to be bad. The reality is that Beane has turned over his roster and continued to win. Why should this be shocking, let alone be expected to lead the news? If Texas or Oakland were widely regarded as the best team in the majors, they'd get the coverage that you seem to think is skipped because of Boston and New York. And I completely disagree that they would have led with New York and Boston before covering a freaking cancer patient's no-hitter, if he were on a different team. It leads Sportscenter. Did they bury the coverage of that NL pitcher who came back in no time from thyroid cancer surgery? I'm pretty sure they didn't and he doesn't play for the Red Sox, Yankees or Mets for that matter. If there is bias toward New York and Boston, its because those are the teams that are expected to compete, year-in and year-out. Allow me to apologize for having an ownership and management that is committed to putting a decent product on the field.

Not bitching, developing a farm system and keeping the good players and adding bits and pieces via free agency is the way to go. Hell the Giants should pay Theo a couple hundred grand to just give them a clue for a day. I am just pointing out that the Red Sox have a advantage that 90% of the other teams don't have and their is a huge media bias in their favor. Ex: the lead story on ESPN Sunday night was again the Red Sox but about John Lester's no hitter from earlier in the week instead of how a small market team that was expected to lose over 90 games swept them. Are you seriously saying that "media bias" led ESPN to have Jon Lester as the subject of their "Sunday Night Conversation" instead of, say, plain human interest in a 23 year old who beat cancer and followed up winning the clinching game of a World Series with a no-hitter? I am certain you are not saying that.

I just wish he'd drop in when Chuck offers something from his back catalog and tells us where to find it in blog land.

Well I expected them to lose but I didn't expect to wake up to find out that Dice-K walked off the mound holding his back and hip - and supposedly its "shoulder fatigue". The guy who was described as having a bionic shoulder when the Red Sox got his medical records is now out with a bad shoulder. Jesus Christ. If this doesn't guarantee that the Sox won't "run away" with the division I don't know what would. Ah, quit yer bitchin'. You just said yesterday that you have a deep lineup/rotation/platoon/pocket. The loss of Dice-K won't kill you guys, and if it does then maybe this team wasn't as good as advertised to begin with. And last I checked, you guys were still in first place or tied for it. Thanks to the Rays losing to..... THE RANGERS of all people! Who'da thunk? Yesterday I referred to the youngsters who may fuel a "dynasty". That doesn't have a lot to do with replacing the only pitcher who has done consistently well all season. If he is out for any length of time, I will bet that the Rays will find themselves with a nice 3-5 game bulge soon enough. Unless Beckett gets his shit together and Colon somehow pitches like a number two when all we really wanted with him was an extra good #5. So excuse me, but I am going to continue to bitch, because I do not in any way feel the same way about this team as I felt about the 2007 team.

Wow. Appealing to fear instead of greed. Seems to me the scam would work best if you targeted your mailing to the members of Paranoids R Us. They just might believe their lives are in danger.

Mike - it certainly looks like MG should take the next one, I don't understand though why no one who is closer to the top of the list has checked in about this. A quick check shows that just about everyone has visited the board recently except for Mr. Bassman, Dmitry, and Claude Bartee.

Well, Clemens has added a new claim - "intentional infliction of emotional distress" - but most of his filing was in regards to why Texas should have authority over someone who lives in New York. One claim relates to some "long arm of the law" Texas statute, but here is the entirely nutty part of the filing: Wasn't it Rusty's assertion that it was the Feds and the Mitchell investigators who "forced" McNamee to name Clemens in order to avoid jail? Now they are saying that McNamee's intention to hurt Clemens started 8 years ago by falsely telling Pettitte about Clemens PED use? That is completely nuts. I mean, if their approach is going to be that McNamee is "troubled" and "hates" Clemens and that he started telling lies about him back then, why wouldn't McNamee spill the beans sooner than he did? Reporters asked him about steroid use, so why wouldn't he pull one of them aside and say "I got the story of the year for you, let's collaborate on a book"?