paul253

They made mentioned of using a Navy SEAL team as well but they never showed. It would be cool to see the SEALS take out the guys with the vehicles threatening the FBI. Overall I liked it. I knew the weapons wouldn't be in that facility, but I didn't think it was whats his face who was setting up the FBI. I thought whats his face was being set up by Jon Voight.

CVS pharmacy does that too. They may have 3 registers open but only one line.

I think if you pause, look to see if anyone ahead of you is going to go, and then go, that's fine. But to go there immediately when you see a cashier coming, not even giving the other people a chance, I think thats rude. Its like they are saying "my time is more valuable than your time". Like I said, if I am last in line, I will actually ask the person ahead of me if they want to move. They may not, as some places like Walgreens only sell cigarettes from one side, but I still ask. To me, they were their before me, so they should have the first oppurtunity to get out of their before me. Obviously its different if there already is two lines and they just happen to pick the slower one. 1.) Coupons piss me off. 2.) Filling out your checkbook pisses me off. 3.) Buying 100 items and putting it on 10 receipts pisses me off. 4.) Digging around in your purse for exact change pisses me off. What pisses me off about coupons is that they still exist. Seriously....every store where you may buy a lot of small products, like grocery stores, drug stores, etc, has their little "discount card". Why cant you just take to stupid 20 extra cents off with the discount card? Filling out your checkbook doesn't necessarily get to me. What gets to me is when someone sits there, staring at the cashier, nothing in their hand and all the oppurtunity in the world to fill out like the date, the name of the store, signing it, but they don't. They wait until the cashier physically hits "total", then digs it out of their purse and starts. Also, when I was a cashier, people would actually fill out the entire check but before they gave it to me would fill out the back part where they keep their balance as well. Thats pisses me off. Number three really irritates me. If they are going to act like 3 different customers, they should have to get back in line each time. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is someone who forgets to get something, but of course they are already 3/4 of the way done with the scanning so the cashier can't just take the next customer. Everyone has to wait for that person to run over to who knows where and get what they need. Cashiers shouldn't let people do that.

This has happened around me twice in the last week, and I personally find it to be extremely rude. Oddly enough it happened at the same store, just different locations. I was standing in line waiting to checkout. There was only one cashier, and the line was about 6-7 people long. The cashier called for another cashier. Both times, as soon as the second cashier came up, the very last person in line immediately rushed over to the other line so they could check out first. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does. These people obviously saw how many people had been waiting longer than they were, but they didn't care. They just ran up there as quickly as possible (one person actually must have seen the cashier coming because he left and was waiting already when the cashier came up). This is a case where I actually practice what I preach because another time that happened, I asked the lady in front of me, who wasn't paying attention at all, if she would like to go to the other line rather than just hopping over there and getting out of the before she did. And don't get me wrong, I am not mad because they skipped me, just because they skipped everyone, including people in front of me. I don't know, its just one of those things that I find rude and inconsiderate. What does everyone else think?

How is the men's team going to look for next year? They lose Connelly and who else? Are they bringing in any good recruits? I can never find any good, up to date site on college hockey recruiting.

I don't understand why he didn't take him back. He traded a prospect in Eric Fryer, moved another one to second base. That leaves Lucroy and Salome, one of whom could easily be traded in a deadline deal this season. Palmisano could have played behind Lucroy at Huntsville. Does this have anything to do with roster space? Would he have had to be placed on the 40 man roster?

If I remember correctly, FSNHD on time warner was a waste of a channel as hardly anything was ever on HD. I have ATT now and although I don't watch many Bucks games, I do believe a lot of them were in HD. The HD advantage definitely goes to ATT. They have a lot more channels in HD.

I enjoyed this weeks episode. I must admit, I didn't see the whole Sen Mayor thing going down. Its looks as though Tony is going to be a more visible character now as well.

If its just about price, ATT is cheaper. The equiptment and internet is definitely comparable, but I would give the edge to Time Warner. I am having a lot of issues where i lose my wireless connection with ATT, but only for a second, and not nearly to the point where I want to call ATT and set up an appointment.

I appreciate this....I would like to throw my name in for the JJ Hardy Bobble

Why does he 'belong' there? Because from what I understand (I've never seen him play) his defense at third makes Ryan Braun's defense at third look gold-glove caliber. If the Brewers are going to pay $15m for a 3B, instead of keeping Hardy they should pay $15m for a true 3B. Thats the whole point. An .820 OPS 3B isn't a $15m player. I don't think there is anyone I'd pay $15 million a year to play third base in Milwaukee except maybe David Wright, and I don't think he is coming. Hardy won't command nearly that much, and if he does....see you later J.J. When you consider what you're going to pay Hardy, you have to look at the alternatives and for third base there arent that many alternatives that would come to Milwaukee. More than likely instead of ending up with a good, true third basemen, you are going to end up with yet another platoon of guys like how we've thrown Russel Branyon, Bill Hall and Mike Lamb out there, trying to convince ourselves that these players are fine. Then maybe a year or so after Hardy would leave, someone like Taylor Green is going to come along, but he's not likely to hit for above average power for a third basemen, so now you have even less power with Green and Escobar as opposed to Hardy and Escobar. Instead of worrying about what kind of numbers someone is supposed to have based on what position he plays, why not just put together the best lineup you can with the available resources. What difference does it make if your #4 hitter plays first base or second base? We can't just go out and find a good third basemen. If we could have, we would have done it 5 years ago. Moving Hardy to third would be an offensive upgrade over what we've been throwing out there the past few seasons and allows you to keep your top prospect. I do understand Hardy's stance, but I hope Milwaukee makes it worth his while to stay and move to third. I don't see any better, realistic solution. There will be so good players at third base next off season, but Beltre, Jones, and Glaus are all older than Hardy and may all command more money. I'd rather just sign Hardy long term than take a chance on Glaus or Beltre.

I didn't have it there, but I did have it. It was the best money I ever spent. I hated my contacts with a passion, and glasses gave me a headache. I would recommend this procedure to anyone who is considering it.

I believe the Brewers would be willing to pay him, especially if he moves. They can't keep replacing all their veterans with young guys and expect to compete more than once every 5 years. I don't see Fielder, Weeks, or Hart in Milwaukee long term, which means they should have enough money to sign Hardy to a long term deal paying him $7-$8 million a year. In a few years, Hall and Suppan's mammoth contracts will be off the books, and Fielder will probably be gone, freeing up even more money. Also, I don't see much a of drop off for him defensively moving to third. The knock I've heard on his defense now is his lack of range, which wouldn't be a problem if he plays third base. And if you look at his number offensively, I'm sure the Brewers would love to have that at third base compared to what they've had the last few years. This would allow Gamel to move to first or the outfield where he belongs.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/40935277.html Not so much the part about Escobar, but that quote from Hardy. ""If the Brewers want to use him, I feel like I'll still be playing shortstop somewhere," Hardy said. "Just not with Milwaukee. There's nothing I can do about it, so it's one of those things I don't worry about. But no, I don't see myself moving (positions) anytime soon.". That quote makes Hardy seem completely unwilling to change positions, which means more than likely this is either his last year in Milwaukee, or Escobar is going to be traded. I personally don't like either option, as I don't think you'd get enough value in trading Hardy, but I also think you need guys like Escobar, Gamel, and Salome here for the next few years to keep payroll down. Personally, I dont see why Hardy is so opposed to moving to third base. Whats really the difference to him if we sign him to a 4 year, $30 million deal to play short or sign him to a 4 year, $30 million deal to play third? I don't buy this "his value is not as good as a third basemen" argument. His value to who? His value to us would go up because he fills a position of need while at the same time allowing our top prospect to play. Meanwhile, if his salary is the same for either position, how is his "value" any lower? Its not like he can't switch back to short if he wants to leave. The only other option I see is moving Escobar to second, but that would mean another position controversey in probably two years when Lawrie is ready. Edit: Clarified title. Please state thread topic in the title to avoid vagueness. - Toby

Just curious because I would like to read this - where did you see/hear/read that paul253? Here's an excerpt from an article: But two to four hours after the boat capsized, one of the NFL players removed his life jacket and let himself be swept out to sea, the Times reported. A few hours later, the other one followed suit. "We were told that Nick said the two NFL players took their life jackets off and drifted out to sea," said Bob Bleakley, whose son Will Bleakley, 25, is also still missing. After Cooper, 26, and Corey Smith, 29, were carried away, Bleakley and Schuyler hung on until morning - but then Bleakley decided to swim to get help when he thought he saw a distant light, the paper said. He, too, took his life vest off, 24-year-old Schuyler told the families.

According to the survivor, two of the players just gave up and let themselves be swept to sea. I couldn't imagine just giving up and accepting death, especially after a few hours only. I don't know, maybe I have watched too many episodes of "Man vs Wild", but I would like to think I would not have given up like that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503164,00.html Kind of reminds us of our place in our universe. I don't know whats scarier...that an asteroid came this close to hitting earth and we only had three days notice, or that an asteroid smaller than a football field can cause a blast the same magnitude of a nuclear weapon.

I think that insurance should definitely be required for all drivers in this state. I don't think it would be a hassle for police at all because they wouldn't know if the person had insurance until they already had that person stopped anyway, so it would only be a matter of writing another ticket. I think then a portion of the money from tickets for driving without insurance should go into a fund to help reimburse people who were involved in accidents through no fault of their own with someone who doesn't have insurance. As far as the rule changes go, I think they are absurd. All you're doing is driving the up cost of insurance for people who have it and allowing lawyers to sue for more money. Plus, the people who won't be able to afford the new rates are now going to go without insurance so there will be fewer people out there with insurance.. I'd like to know what the purpose of this change really is.

Yeah why not? Its not going to cost much, and you can try him out at corner outfielder or even first base if anything to get some more depth.

If a player hits a home run and his team loses, what good did the home run do True, but a home run is a home run and a stolen base is a stolen base. When someone hits 20 home runs, it doesn't matter when they come, its 20 home runs. You can see that player hit the home run, so when trying to figure out how much power he has, you can look at the specific numbers. most people think Abreu is terrible in the field at this point. When metrics and scouts both agree you usually have a pretty sure thing. I don't know. I've seen people describe Abreu as "solid" defensively, and say that his reputation for being a lousy defender is because of that wall thing. The worst I hear about him defensively comes from this site from people who don't want him. Building a team isn't about "ideal." How can you say that? You can't just slap together a bunch of all-stars and expect them to win the championship every year. Ask the Yankees. You need to get players who compliment each other, especially offensively.

I don't know if I agree with any of these defensive....minus 23 type projections. For one, they are just assuming that Abreu won't get to a ball that Cameron would and based on that assumption are assuming that it would lead to x many more runs being scored against you. Obviously Abreu and Cameron are not a match defensively. Sometimes there can be an over reliance on statistics, especially defensive statistics which can't necessarily be measured by direct numbers like you can on offense. To say that if we had Bobby Abreu in the outfield last season the opposing teams would have scored exactly 23 more runs and therefore we would have lost exactly 4 more games is not even close to an exact science. What if of the 6 of those supposed runs we would have given up came in an 12-1 win, making it a 12-7 win? What if of those 22 extra times on base he scored on 8 of them, 7 of which were in one run losses that would have eventually lead to wins? It just like there are too many x-factors when talking about how many extra wins or losses a team would have had if someone else had been playing defense.

You may not like it, it may not be pretty, but it really doesn't matter. I agree with JJ in that it does matter. Yes, a home run is a home run, but home runs are more valuable when someone is on base at the time. Since home runs are fairly rare, once every 5 or 6 games on average for someone hitting 27-30 home runs, it doesn't seem like the best strategy to sit around and wait for everyone to hit a home run. Rather, have someone that will get on base so when those people only get singles instead of home runs you're more likely to score a run. Over the course of a season's worth of at-bats, or about 550, you're talking about Bobby Abreu getting on base about 22 more times than Mike Cameron based on last years OBP. While it doesn't seem like a lot, it is 22 more chances Braun and Fielder would have to hit with someone on base and 22 more chances to score at least one run. He also had 14 more doubles than Cameron and a batting average .056 points better than Cameron in arguably the toughest division in baseball. Though we are in agreement that batting average doesn't necessarily mean a lot, getting a hit is more likely to cause a run to score than getting a walk because getting a hit allows most people on second base to score, while walking only means putting runners on first and second. If Abreu would mean 4 less wins in terms of defense, couldn't we argue he'd mean 4 more wins because of offense? That would be a push, with maybe $4 million more to spend on someone else you can bring in to help get an extra win.

They have argued that Abreu is a complete butcher in the field and overall would have made the team worse. I don't think he is as bad as people make him out to be. What it then comes down to is are you willing to pay someone $5 million more who is far superior on defense but slightly worse on offense, or would you rather take that $5 million and spend it elsewhere? I would rather have spent that money elsewhere, on people like Edmonds, Crede, and/or Bobby Abreu.

I believe he was a type B, so had they offered him arby, I guess they would have gotten another pick. Had he accepted, I'm sure he wouldn't be making $10 million, thats for sure. I'm not super upset about having Cameron back, but we could have had him back for less. If the Yankees had signed him for $10 million, who knows, maybe they couldn't have gotten both Texiera and Sathatia and we would have gotten a first rounder instead of a second rounder for CC. Yeah Edmonds would have been a drop off in center, but its not like he's a butcher out there. Plus you'll have Gwynn on the roster who you can fill in as a defensive replacement if need be. If you could have had Abreu and Edmonds for $10 million, I'd rather have that than Cameron for $10 million. Hart could have played center when Abreu is in and rightfield when Edmonds is in. No its not ideal, but offensively its better. I think I pointed in another thread that offensively, Abreu was better than or about equal to Cameron in every major offensively category last year. Edmonds also had a tremendous year in Chicago. People just assume they will both drop off and Cameron will not.

This is definitely a move I like. Not only does he have nobody blocking his path to Milwaukee, but I don't think Rickie Weeks have done anything to suggest he is the future at 2nd base. I assume he will eventually take over for Weeks. This allows Taylor Green to stay at third, where he has played the past few years. Now I wish they would give Gamel some time at first base which is where I believe he ends up at in 2 years, or even next year, when Fielder is gone. Time sure flies by. A few years ago we couldn't wait for Fielder and Weeks to come up, now we are talking about whose going to replace them.