papsrus

I don't think their championships are tainted, but there is no way in hell Manny wasn't cycling roids with the Red Sox. Just as I don't think Bonds, A-Rod, Clemmens ect should have a fucking * on their records because way more people were doing them then we think therefore it was a even playing field. I only said that to bring up the stupidity of the media and fans who wanted the * in the past. There is 4 ways to look at it. 1. Probably the most healthy way is who cares, its entertainment. 2. Mine, I don't like it but I get it. If 40% more college eligible kids are trying to break into pro sports then in the 70's then DUH they will do anything they can to get an edge to be part of the that 1% and keep doing it once there in.* Since its impossible to clarify eras anyway the sanctity of the records are overrated. I never thought I would say this but Jose Canseco is looking smarter everyday. 3. Screw em all Im done. 4. Your way which is only selected players that have already been pointed out have done them and need to be punished to the full extent of the law and all of my guys are clean is hypocritical in my opinion. * I bet there was poll in america right now that asked would you take an illegal drug to get paid like a CEO I am guessing it would be close to a 90% yes. There's another way to look at it. I keep saying it. Look at the evidence. When you say there is "no way in hell Manny wasn't cycling roids with the Red Sox," where's the evidence that he was? (btw, does MLB keep samples?) It's an assumption that you just can't make, I don't think. Particularly since this is the first test he's failed out of X-number that he's taken. The evidence is clearly that he didn't cycle roids while with the BoSox.

And given the fact that MLB does have an exemption policy for legitimate uses of at least some banned substances, if you do have a medical need for one of these drugs then of course you're going to go through the proper channels to get the exemption. The fact that he didn't do this makes it less likely that he had a legitimate medical issue. The excuse that "my doctor prescribed it and I didn't know it was a banned substance" doesn't wash, given this exemption policy.

Re: Manny. Aparently mlb already has an exemption for legitimate medical needs when it comes to banned substances. Didn't know that.

And if the O's sweep, I think the Yankees would be in the cellar.

But there's no evidence that he was taking anything while with the BoSox. You gotta have the evidence first. You can suspect all you want, but I don't think you can start throwing asterisks around or calling for forfeits without evidence from his playing days in Boston. Whether or not forfeits are warranted is another question. Gotta start there with the Dodgers, though. IMHO btw, Rays tagged Rivera for back-to-back HRs in the ninth to break a tie ballgame and TB went on to get the two-game sweep. I think there were 6 total HRs in that game.

One of the great early jazz bands. In my opinion, this is the next set to get if you have the King Oliver 1923 recordings and a good representation of Jelly Roll Morton. Good. I'm looking forward to it very much. I really dig that one.

The information is sketchy. But ESPN reported (or, they reported that a couple of reporters who follow this sort of thing reported ...) that the fertility drug is commonly used at the end of a roid cycle to kick-start the production of testosterone. If it was this drug, and that is a common usage among athletes, anything short of the prescribing physician coming out (with Manny's blessing, of course) and saying why he prescribed it would likely leave most people believing he was cycling roids. But regardless what the purpose was, he used a banned substance. Unless baseball grants the limited use of some of these banned substances for legitimate medical reasons, he's in the same camp as the rest of the players who've been busted, in my view. As for Boston's titles, they're legit. Even if Manny and the whole team was roided up (which there's no evidence of), they didn't get caught. It would only be a problem if someone tested samples from their championship years and found the whole team was juiced and their opponents weren't. Doubt that's going to happen. You can only penalize what you have evidence for.

Trying my hand at some chicken cordon bleu with steamed artichoke dipped in lemon butter. (I have lost 5 pounds in the last couple of weeks, haven't eaten all day today, and I'm starving. )

I enjoy that one. Very nice rapport between the two. Just ordered: "New Orleans Rhythm Kings 1922-1925 (The Complete Set)" (challenge)

And he never had much luck in the metrodome either.

You know managers have it rough when fans complain about a 3 run inning. Kapler has had 3 successful SH in his past 1220 plate appearances. He spends more time muscling up than practicing bunts me thinks. Had he bunted you would have had Navarro coming up (.179) followed by the deep-in-a-slump B.J. hitting .157. Kapler is your best hitter of the moment. :rsmile: Good points, Quincy. Yep.

So, you got men on first and second, nobody out in the bottom of the seventh inning in a 3-3 game at home. Your No. 8 hitter comes to the plate. It seems like a no-brainer to me that you have him bunt, but apparently Maddon figures the best thing to do is let Kapler (.211) swing away ... and fly out. Eventually got three runs in the inning, so no biggie. But still.

I think it was the mutating characteristics of the virus that had health officials alarmed more than the rate it was/is spreading.

For me, there is a difference between what the AP offers and what the NY Times, WashPost, WSJ offer. It's more than just the columnists, in my view. You'll read stuff in each of those three publications that you won't get from AP, until maybe after the fact. ("The Washington Post reported today that ..."). Maybe going to google for an AP synopsis of an NYT or WashPost story is sufficient for most people. But maybe there are enough folks who would prefer the primary source to make it viable. Maybe not. But if news organizations found a way to transition all of their content, or the bulk of it, to a subscription-based model linked to these devices (as opposed to the web), it might be that "killer app" for them. Bezos seems to know what he's doing. Hitching your wagon to him, or apple, might not be a bad idea, especially when your current business model is swirling down the drain. <--- a bit of an overstatement (some papers still can/do make a profit, declining though it may be. It's the mad borrowing that's killing them. Declining readership of the paper products is certainly a problem, but we're in the information age. I'd guess more people consume news today than ever before. The question is, how to make that profitable for the news providers.)

The Kindle The Times story Interesting. One of the huge downsides that might come from something like this is that news organizations might eventually take their free content (or the bulk of it) off the web. Don't see how they could charge a subscription fee to one set of users and offer it free to another.

NY Times has a story tomorrow about how electronic, portable, big-screen reading devices may be to newspapers what the iPod was to the music industry (which, I'm not really sure what that is in the end, but generally, a savior of sorts). Apparently, several companies are planning to introduce these devices over the coming year. There's one out now called the Kindle. (?) Anybody seen one of these? FWIW.

Ah ... read something about he may miss his next start. I suppose too early to tell.

But Zambrano got hurt ... batting.

Says he wasn't aware it tied a modern record -- nobody talks about stats during the game, he says -- and that he might have tried to steal 7 if he'd known. From what I saw of this series (not a whole lot) it looked like both teams were running all over the place.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Thanks Dan. Gonna run, not walk, to find that BB King-Ellington. And will look into a few of the others, notably Simpkins. Really enjoyed it.

I think you're dead right there. If I had a free choice of where to live I wouldn't stray much further than the edge of the south-west of England. The coastal proximity you mention is important to me too...though it has to be a west coast ('There's a feeling I get when I look to the west...'). ... Is there ever! I'm headed out now for a 10-minute drive down a lush key to one of the world's best beaches, with fine white sand, warm, buoyant salt water, gentle rolling waves and a sun sitting low in the cool, blue, late-afternoon sky. ... Yeah, this is all quite nourishing for me. And while your shores are quite different Bev, I know they are no less beautiful, and certainly as nourishing.

Frankfurt was a little bit of a surprise, for me. Nice place, I guess, but top 10?

More layoffs where I work today. They're basically coming every quarter. No advance warning other than the calendar. It's just kind of a given, at this point. I take it three months at a time now. Lost one guy in our department. He apparently didn't take it too well. Great guy, great worker. Pretty depressing. The initial shock must be nasty, and people say things in the immediate aftermath of "that meeting" that really give you pause. You know, they have a wife, kids and a life insurance policy. ... It crosses people's minds, I guess. But hopefully, when the sun comes up in the morning, they begin to think of new directions. It's scary for anyone, I'm sure, but there are some particular challenges facing the 50-ish guy who has worked most of his adult life in one company. (Such as, nobody wants to hire that guy for anything). And we've got more than a few of those -- me included. Paper or plastic?

It's curious that, with the exception of Auckland, Sydney and Vancouver, all the cities in the top 10 are clustered in a few European countries. There are obviously some personal preferences that can't be weighed in a survey like this. For instance, I personally just feel a lot better living in a coastal city than I do an inland city. Kind of important. Several of the cities in the top 10 would not meet this basic criteria for me, and so it's unlikely I'd find them very agreeable over the long term. But I'm sure they're all wonderful in their own ways. Of those on the top 10, Sydney sounds the most attractive to me (even though I've never been). ... In the end, I prefer smaller cities anyways, though. I'll take Portofino over all of 'em. Interesting list. Thanks!