Nottso

I may have to name my next dog "Clarence."

Thanks, Stu. She also prefers QuickBooks so that will be the choice.

Yes, that definitely helps. Thanks for taking the time.

I'd like to buy some accounting software for my business (design and manufacture custom motorcycle parts) to make things easier but I have no clue whatsoever as to what's good, what's bad or what's what in general. We have our taxes done professionally each year (both home and business) but I'd like to be more organized. I'm pretty sure that Intuit's Quick Books is pretty good but I don't really even know that for sure. Are some of the other (less expensive) brands as good or maybe even better? Do I need this year's version or is an earlier version just as good? Is it possible to update year to year or must I buy the whole thing all over again each year? As you can tell, I'm clueless. Completely. The only thing I've got going for me is that I'm extremely good with numbers but that doesn't help much if one doesn't know where to put the numbers to begin with, and I don't. So, thoughts...?

Davey Lopes also.

You start with telling me how I fail this and fail that and that the whole idea is just stupid. I practically BEG you to just go away and leave me and my stupid ideas alone then, and you clearly weren't able to do so and still aren't. You're STILL trying to tell me how I should want it. I don't want it like that. I want it exactly how I said I wanted it. Deal with it. Or don't. I really can't care. And now you want to get all noble and play the "open discussion" and "constructive criticism" cards? Dear God, that's right out of "Trolling 101." Bravo. Wonderfully played. Hooray for you.

I get it. You wouldn't do it. I would do it. It really doesn't need to be anymore difficult than that unless you continue to insist on making it so. I also said I wouldn't let Rose into the HOF even though he was one of my favorite players. Others have said that they would let him in. You don't see me arguing with them incessantly over it, nor will you. I'm perfectly content to let each and every one of them play their own respective versions of the "What would you do if they made you commissioner" game. I wish you'd show me the same courtesy.

You would still want to keep the other walls in case one broke. Yes, exactly. I'd leave the present walls up and work on a second set covering more area. Then a third set, and upon its completion I'd take down the first set because I would still have a double wall left. Then I'd start another set further out yet, and every time I finished a new set of walls, the oldest set would come down. That way I would always have a completed (4 sided) double wall in place and I'd always be expanding, reclaiming at least this continent bit by bit.

I like the show, but sometimes I get rather exasperated with it. For instance, when Andrea kept stopping for several seconds at a time to see if Milton was alive or dead I about lost my mind. I have no problem with her being dead as she annoyed me anyways but I was hoping to see Milton's character expand (nerds, unite!). Although I must say that I thought the Governor leaving Milton mortally wounded in the locked room with Andrea was deliciously fiendish. Now that pretty much all of the able-bodied Woodburians (or whatever they're called) have been murdered, why would you bring the children and the elderly to the prison? Why would you not just move your group into Woodbury? And going further, why would you not constantly work on expanding Woodbury by building new walls, each slightly further out than the last, and bringing in new people? What's the point in trying to survive if you're not going to at least try to reclaim the planet? Or at least a large enough portion of it to recreate some semblance of normalcy.

Well said. I especially like the bold part as it at least allows for the possibility that Carlos may make a change (although it's not looking real likely right now).

I have no problem with Front Row Amy. She appears to be watching the game. I do get annoyed at all the chuckleheads waving with their phone in their ear. You don't need to make a fool of yourself to be seen. Your friend already saw you or they wouldn't have called. Now please sit down.

Mean spirited, no. Egotistical, yeah, he kinda does (and I'm a pretty big fan of his). After watching the video in the link Maas Haas posted, I just don't understand; what's all the hub-bub, bub? Gomez definitely gave the ball a Pujols-like stare as it left the yard, but when the camera came back to him he was just rounding first base and it looked to me like he was cruising along at a pretty fair clip. I certainly wouldn't call that "Cadillac-ing it" around the bases. I didn't see the first 70 or 80 feet from home plate, but from where the camera picked him back up, he was going a lot faster than most players. As for the dancing in the dugout I saw it as relief that he finally got off the 0 for 9 schneid, and quite possibly a healthy dose of self deprecation. Before I get told that my opinion is garbage, please go back and watch the video again. You'll notice that when Carlos George hit his HR, he was digging hard out of the batter's box (as he should) but then slowed to a trot when the ball went over the fence. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with that and I don't see anyone complaining about it so I guess I'm okay thus far. Oh... and it took Carlos George twenty seconds to land back on home plate from the time contact was made. When Carlos Gomez hit his HR he paused for the Pujols stare because he knew it was outta there, which I absolutely did not care for, but then went on around the bases at what looked like a pretty good pace to me. And it took Carlos Gomez twenty-TWO seconds to land back on home plate from the time contact was made. "Cadillac-ing it?" Hardly.

Okay, Robert, I'm sorry. The next time someone asks me what I would do in a given situation I'll be sure and check with you first to be sure that my answers meet with your approval. Yeah, right.

I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. Well said.

I would much rather see a half-dozen teams that may not have a dire need for roofs have roofs, than to see a dozen or dozen-and-a-half teams that could really use roofs not have roofs. And to get even all of the teams outside of California to add roofs would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules. According tohttp://baseballticketsnow.org/how-many-games-are-rained-out-during-the-average-mlb-baseball-season%20 MLB averages 42 rainouts per year since 1960 and God only knows how many delays. Over a 20 year span, that's 840 rainouts. If given the chance to end them all, I would end them all. Absolutely and without question. And just to reiterate once again the point that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, to do so would require a change to the Universal Ground Rules. This would have to be pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. You can end them all, via a change to those pesky Universal Ground Rules, or you can stay with the status quo. Again, I would end them all, and I suspect that the revenues generated by not having those 840 rainouts and countless rain delays over a 20 year span would pay for those half-dozen roofs in California many times over.

I'd like to see your math on that. Because, it makes absolutely no sense to put a roof on stadiums that don't have rain problems to begin with. Let me turn it around, why are you playing favorites and punishing teams economically by forcing them to build roofs on stadiums that don't require them? Roofs cost hundreds of millions of dollars and should only be built where they're a benefit. And it's not a benefit to build a roof in California. And there's a cost to a roof. Let's say the A's, which is the only team in the next 30 years likely to be affected by this "rule", find a great spot in San Jose with a great view. A view that makes the stadium as aesthetically pleasing as the Giants stadium. San Jose averages less than 3 inches of rain a year during the baseball season.Why should they be forced to obstruct that view and damage the experience of fans for 80 games a year as opposed to perhaps one game a year where a roof would benefit? It doesn't take much of a cost benefit analysis to think that's a drain on revenue which impacts the profit of the team and the salary of the players. You make a rule, you make a rule that holds up to common sense and is an economic benefit. There's no economic benefit to put a roof on a stadium to keep out rain when you're in a climate that averages less than, say, six inches of rain during the baseball season. Otherwise, you're throwing away money for no gain. And, honestly, it's much too late to enact such a rule. The A's are the only team likely to build a new stadium in the next 20 years where a roof probably won't be built. The time to institute a rule to have any effect, would have been before the stadium building boom of the 90s and 00s, not now when it won't make a difference. What's more, since stadiums are almost always a private / public partnership, it's probably an unenforceable rule. I'd love to see MLB's reasoning for telling California what they can or can't build. Robert I don't need to do any math. If you can't see what a huge plus the roof at Miller Park has been and continues to be, and extrapolate from there the advantages of adding a roof to other stadiums, there's nothing I can do to change that. And MLB has been telling California what they can and cannot build for many, many years now. They're called Universal Ground Rules and they apply to baseball clubs in California as well as they apply to baseball clubs in every other state. Hence, the "Universal" designation. California just isn't that special, no matter how much you seem to want it to be. If you get to be commissioner, fine, no roofs in California. If I get to be commissioner, they'll have roofs in California or they'll have no MLB. Period. That's why the thread is entitled "What if they made you Commissioner?" as opposed to "What if they made you Commissioner, but gave RobertR final approval over all of your decisions?"

And then there's "some people say"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw Edit: The above references only the fact that certain people in certain places are trained to use certain words or certain phrases. Certainly.

I suspect that people working in hospitals are trained to answer every question they get with "I'll check" and then walk briskly out the door. This has been going on for a few years now, in several different hospital systems, with me as the patient or with anyone else as the patient and even the wording is always the exact same: "I'll check". My surgical experience this past Tuesday was over all extremely positive, except for they taped my head to my shoulder in a manner that was excruciatingly painful with all of my cervical spine issues. Every time someone walked in the door I asked them to please do something about it and of course the answer every time was "I'll check" and then they scurried out of there as if the room was on fire. Maybe I'm just paranoid and crazy, but I really suspect that this is being trained into people. The medical professions are just like any other industry; training methods come and training methods go with some becoming wildly popular. Perhaps "I'll check" is in a set of training videos or in some seminars that have made the rounds in various medical settings over the past several years.

San Diego (average precipitation April - September is <1.2 inches) would beg to differ with that complete waste of money. The Angels, Dodgers, Giants, and A's too. Can't play favorites. The overall savings that would be had by making this universal would eclipse those savings. Players would benefit... no more turf injuries, rain-outs or rain delays, all of which could culminate in possibly extending careers. Fans would benefit by being far more comfortable and by knowing a game will be played when they buy tickets. Owners would benefit in higher attendance because people would be more likely to buy tickets knowing the game will be played and played on time. Win/win/win. How about a giant flag pole in fair play 430 feet from home plate? Exactly.

1. I'd add the DH to the NL but tie the DH to the SP. When the SP goes, so does the DH. After that, it's NL rules. This gives both leagues a DH for what should be most of each game but also brings NL strategy to the AL. Best of both worlds. 2. All stadiums built from now forward will have a retractable roof and grass playing surface with ALL teams to comply by 2050. 3. All fields of play to follow uniform spec in the future. You can add "charm" to your ball park without a tree growing in right field or a whirling hot-dog machine at third base. This would go right down to locations of camera wells, width of warning track, etc. No more injuries because of architecture. 4. Pete Rose stays out (and he was one of my favorite players of all time).

It's always better to have the guys with the torches and the pitchforks on your side. For MLB, the collective opinion of said senseless masses carries much more weight ($$$) than does the collective opinion of the educated.

Thank you, Jericho. I may just take you up on that.

Thank you both VERY much.

I need help with Twitter. I want to start an account mostly to promote our business (http://www.mooresensible.com) but I'm completely clueless. I'm not even sure how I should sign up. The first thing it asks for is "full name" and that's where the confusion starts. Already... right on the first box on the first page. Is whatever I enter as "full name" going to be my Twitter handle (I'm not even sure if "handle" is correct), or after the "full name" portion will I be allowed to choose my handle (if handle is even correct)? Oh dear God, I'm already starting to hyperventilate. The full name of the business is Moore Sensible Products but that won't even fit in the "full name" box. I think I'd like my Twitter handle to be @mooresensible.com and I think that would fit. I would be open to suggestions on the handle if what I'm thinking is somehow wrong. I just don't want to do it wrong, and then be unable to start fresh because my email address would already be associated with the wrong entry. If any of you could walk me through the signup I think I might be able to dope it out from there and I would be extremely grateful. I do have a Facebook page set up for the business and it seems to be going along alright. (Woah... and lookey there, I made that a working link, all by myself.) But, I would really like to try and use Twitter to my advantage. Thanks in advance for any help.

This is just awesome. One can only hope that soundbites from this make it to the sound guy at Miller Park. Even better would be Gomez walking up to "Go Gomez, Go!" As a Gomez fan I really like the signing. Gomez is just plain fun to watch play baseball.