DuWayne Steurer

Now first, this has been an exciting Brewers debut by Gomez.........but I'm not a big fan of the bat flip when you're down 4-1.

This stinks. This year's Bucks had somewhat rekindled my interest in the franchise, and I was somewhat hopeful for a possible playoff run. I can't see them getting past the Hawks or Celts without Bogut though.

As I was reading this thread, I was thinking the same thing. Brauny doesn't strike me as a guy who doesn't understand how money works, and that having a big contract means he has unlimited resources.

My plan with U.S. Cellular is pretty good. 750 minutes, unlimited text and 5GB data for $95 a month. With blackberry you can purchase the tether app for $30 bucks on a one time only fee and turn your BB into a modem. It's pretty consistent at about 1.5 to 2MB download speed. And U.S. Cellular kills Sprint for coverage/call dropping.

Similarly, I've heard 2/3's full as the 'you're really pushing it' point. About a month ago I was working on a slow speeds issue for someone, and found that their 120 GB hard drive had exactly 136 meg free space. Talk about packing it in.

Any current Cubs or Cardinals.

I dropped a tong of bricks on my big toe some years ago, and when I got home, I had a lot of swelling. I took a 1/8" drill bit, and really slowly by hand (just spinning the bit between forefinger and thumb) managed to drill through the nail and get the fluid out. Talk about relief. About a week later, I could tell the nail felt 'hollow' underneath, as if it weren't attached, and sure enough, a few days later, I took off my shoe and the nail had come completely out. It's completely painless. You likely won't even know it's happened.

Oooooooooh, snap! Ok, I'll give you that. I was just trying to find a comparison for a lifeless performance, and for me, Neo is 'that guy'.

I made the Dances with Wolves comparison earlier in the thread, so I feel it necessary to plunge back in. I liked Dances with Wolves. It was one of the few movies in which I felt Costner didn't suck. Also, the story really was meaningful to my mom, as there's an ancestral tie there. It had historical meaning to the U.S., and actual people that have lived and breathed. I know it's 'just a movie', but it had a central theme that had a lot of meaning for me personally. Avatar is a knock off, with awful acting. I'm sorry, the visuals were fantastic, yes, the best I've ever seen, but the acting was terrible, in my opinion of course. The grizzled bad guy was so ridiculously cliched and over the top it was laughable. Worthington, as others have pointed out, put in a really Keanu Reeves-esque performance. Yes, I took it for what it was supposed to be, a summer blockbuster with gaudy visuals (didn't disappoint, no sir) and a crummy plot. I actually expected more. I know that every movie or book out there nowadays draws inspiration either directly or indirectly from some source material. I'm fully aware there's no 'original' ideas out there anymore, and that everything from this point forward will, to some degree or another, be a 'remake'. This one was, however, in my opinion, poorly done. The fact that I was still able to be somewhat awed and entertained should be a nod to the visuals, if nothing else.

Man am I glad I read this. Today is my day off, and I was planning for about a 3-4 hour Socom marathon this afternoon. I'm also pissed that I can't play, but glad I didn't borx my PS3.

Finally went and saw this last night...... I'm really glad I saw this in a theater, there's no way a rental even on my sweet HD tv would have had near the visual impact. I'm also really pissed I spent $35.00 on tix and snacks to watch a remake of Dances With Wolves.

I thought the ending of the movie fit the media a bit better. I think the 'squid' ending would have added a lot of time to the movie, and it was already on the long side. The part that I felt really lacked was the scene in the prison where Rorschach explained to the shrink the events that caused him to become Rorschach, not just Walter Kovacs pretending to be a hero. In the book, that final dialogue was hands down *awesome*, maybe one of my favorite scenes in a book, ever. In the movie, it just lacked any kind of a punch at all. Of course, they chopped out a lot of the dialogue at the end of Rorshachs speech, and it may well have been due to the religious (or anti-religious) undertone it had, but at any rate, the scene in the movie fell way short, in my opinion.

Getting up and seeing only 1 to 2 inches on the ground WAS the positive note. Having to drive back and forth to Madison daily, I can't stand the winter weather. Madison (especially the beltline) turn into an absolute, godawful mess when there's more than 2-3" on the ground. I'm glad we're almost done with it for the year, and by the end of spring I'll be working from my home and only making the drive a handful of times per year.

What in good green gravy does he *need* to have a gun in the clubhouse for???

Marlins - Yankees D-Backs - Yankees. Ugh. Just the fact that I'm saying there's a decent balance in baseball leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The playoffs are a crap shoot, at least IMO. The Yankees have been to the playoffs 8 times in the last 9 years, and are 9-8 in those playoff series.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi...id=21&entry_id=57274 "Could I go pitch somewhere now? Probably. But I feel like I'd have no chance to be successful at any level, and I think it could lead to getting hurt in some weird way, and that's the last thing I want."

Because it's a low risk signing, I don't have a big problem with this. However, taking a year off at Edmond's age in a game that relies so much on timing is never a good thing. I'd be mildly surprised if he'd put up a .750-ish OPS even if he were protected from lefties. It seems like Melvin's throwing a bunch of crap at the CF wall and hoping something sticks. The issue with that type of problem solving is that usually, the only thing you end up with is a wall that smells like crap.

I saw a couple movies tonight that I've meant to see for a while, but for one reason or another never managed to get it done. Walk the Line Pretty standard bio-type movie. Phoenix does a good job with the role. A lot of fabrication, but so be it, it's a movie, and the point is to entertain. 7/10 No Country For Old Men I'm kinda puzzled here, it wasn't a bad movie, I guess I just don't 'get it'. I know there was more to it than just the story we see on the surface, and I was admittedly distracted throughout, maybe I wasn't paying attention close enough to get the deeper meaning of what was going on here. Even so, I certainly can't complain, taken on the surface, it was a pretty good (if not overly violent) thriller. 7/10

I have a website. It has nothing on it. I'm fairly competent on a computer, but web design is something I have never been involved with in any level. I'm sure I could fight/struggle through it with time, but I'd rather not struggle just to put something together that looks like dog poop. It's not something that's going to be a huge project. Anybody here involved in this kind of nonsense? Anybody want to help me out? PM me for more details if you're interested.

Down goes Purdue. Nice bounce back game for Bucky.

9 This was a cool movie, but it felt a bit rushed. They tried to jam a lot of story into about a 75 minute feature, and it really showed at time. The animation is fantastic, and it's a cool little story, I just felt like with 15 minutes more run time, it could have been a bit more. 7/10 Watchmen: Directors Cut: Not much was added from the theatrical version. I'm still torn on this. Snyder did a great job with the translation, but some things just felt hollow. Kovac's monologue about the birth of his persona as Rorshach was absolutely EPIC in the novel. Maybe one of the coolest scenes/monologues in a book that I've ever read. I was really looking forward to how this translated to film, and it just really didn't have ANY punch. Very dissapointing. The mega violence is a tiny bit of a turnoff (gore and stuff doesn't bother me), it didn't seem to be true to the source material (at least in my opinion). That being said, the visuals are downright stunning. It's a fantastic and compelling story, and for the most part, the changes made from the book made sense. 9/10

Thats what it comes down to with the Beaneists. Dawson didn't take a lot of walks, so his OPS was relatively low. If follows that simply because Raines had a higher OBP he was the better player. The fact is that after 87, Raines was a pretty ordinary player. He was never anything to write home about in the field ether. Maybe Bill James has some stats that show Raines should be in, but if he is in you have to put Kenny Lofton in as well because they are almost exactly the same guy except that Lofton was a centerfielder. In my view Lofton is not HOF and neither is Raines.A Beaneist? Really? Is that even necessary? I like Raines, Raines took walks, so I must be a Billy Beane fanatic. I don't like Billy Beane at all. But I am willing to look at what stats tell me. It's not some 'cool new stat' or some big secret that not making outs is the most important thing a batter can do. Dawson was terrible at this. People can scoff and sneer at walks all they want, a guy carrying a career .323 OBP is making a whole lot of outs, and in the process, costing his team runs. This is why guys like David Eckstein have value. Because people would rather value stuff like RBI, hustle and other intangible nonsense. Tim Raines carried a great OBP, hit for average, hit for enough power to keep teams honest, and was one of the best base stealers of all time. (For the record, most 'Beaneists' find stolen bases all but worthless). Saying Raines was 'ordinary' after 87 is more less just plain false. He played every day til he was 35, and continued after that to be a valuable role player. From 88 to 98 (11 years), his OPS+ was over 100 for every year but one, (in which his OPS+ was 98). It's fine if you want to discount the stats, but you're making statements about a guy that are easily proven to be not true.

I won't argue that Dawson was a better player then Rice or Raines, but you can't just throw out his 1987 season. Even if most players had a better year in 1987, Dawson's was the best of them as evidenced by his MVP trophy.I didn't say Dawson's 87 should be thrown out, I said it was an aberration. And because of his absolute refusal to draw walks, his 87 wasn't really a DOMINANT year. How a guy can hit 49 homers and still fall short of a .900 OPS is beyond me. Yeah, he had a lot of RBI. RBI is almost exclusively determined by who hits in front of you and what their OBP is. Raine's 87 was significantly better than Dawson's as well as the fact that Raines played on a winning team that year. The MVP that year (as it is many years) was a joke.

I can live with Dawson being in, even if I don't agree. I think it's a joke that Dawson is in while better players sit out.

I grew up watching Dawson, Raines, and Rice. Not only would I put Dawson on the bottom of that with the ol' stinky eye test,He was statistically the worst of the 3 as well. Raines' on base percentage was staggeringly better. I wouldn't even say there was any year where Dawson was a DOMINATING player. 1987? My 15 year old kid would have hit 30 homers that year, I think the numbers clearly show that 87 was an aberration for most players. Dawson was a very good player for a long time, but he wasn't a dominator, and he wasn't as good as Rice or Raines.