Taro T

Actually, it sounds an awful lot like you are justifying Bonds, which is essentially the same thing as defending him. There are a few reasons WHY Bonds gets raked over the coals and "people don't ride the others the same way". 1st off, most of the guys you mention aren't in baseball anymore. It isn't a case of people actively defending cheaters like McGuire and Sosa, it's they aren't in the game anymore. 2nd off, I think the signs of what was going on were there when McGuire and Sosa had their homerun derby season, but the guys covering baseball loved it so much that they let themselves believe McGuire's andro story. ("I'm only doing legal stuff.") Remember, that season "saved" baseball and I don't think there were many baseball writers that really wanted to "kill" baseball. Although several did make major mention of McGuire's training program using andro. This was pre-Balco and writers that wanted to keep their head in the sand had an easy time of it. 3rd off, if Canseco's book hadn't come out and the Balco trial hadn't happened, he probably would be getting the same free pass he had gotten the 1st few years he took steriods. Unfortunately for him, the steriods lab that got busted was HIS supplier and HE HAS ADMITTED to using the steriods. He just claims he didn't know they were steriods. Give me a friggin' break. If Bonds didn't treat people like they were dumber than rocks, maybe he could get past this. (Note, I didn't say he would, I just said he might.) 4th, and very importantly, Bonds has had a very bad relationship with the media throughout his entire career and with many of the individuals he comes into contact with on a daily basis. If you treat people like dirt for a long time, when they get a chance to kick some of it back onto you, there is a very good chance that they will. What goes around comes around and it usually comes back a lot stronger than it left. 5th, Bonds is heading towards "baseball's most sacred records". Ruth and Aaron's HR records are the holy grail of baseball records. There are a lot of people that don't want to see either passed legitimately. They definitely don't want to see them broken by a "cheater". The single season HR record was a slightly different beast because of the asterisk that Maris' record always got. Then when Bonds passed McGuire and Sosa, well he was passing people doing the same things he was doing, so it wasn't quite so big of a deal. He didn't get railed on this badly when he set that record. Also, as much as you protest his poor treatment, there isn't an asterisk next to his single season record (yet). Maris had an asterisk next to his for over 40 years. Finally, you've got a herd mentality in the media, sports media is no different than the rest of the versions. It's an easy story to cover and it seems to drive ratings. That's why they hammer it every single day. Me, I don't give Bonds any harder time than I give the other cheaters. I simply don't follow baseball anymore. In the last 11 years, I would guess that I have watched fewer than 20 games on TV (definitely fewer than 5 complete games) and have been to exactly 1 major league game (and that was because it was part of a friend's bachelor party, and I left the game early to go to a bar across the street). I still go to the occasional Bisons or Red Wings game, but really don't care much about the Bigs. I will agree with you that people that purjured themselves in front of Congress should also be tried. I just don't agree with you that Barry is getting anything worse than he deserves. It's a shame too, because if he'd have left baseball after '97 (which was theoretically before he took steroids) or just continued to play to his natural ability, he'd have most likely been a HoF lock.

The Rangers are playing for their postseason lives right now? Might you care to explain that one? There are only 3 teams that can end up in the 5th slot. All have clinched the playoffs already and 2 are playing basically 0.500 hockey the last couple of weeks.

I'd probably prefer to see Philly and would least like to see Jersey. Philly's goaltending is the most suspect of the bunch and their D are slow for the most part. If you keep the Forsberg line in check, you should be in very good shape. While the next 2 lines can do damage, they aren't nearly as scary as Forsberg and Gagne. The Rangers were a huge surprise to me this season. I didn't know much, at all, about Lundquist and expected them to be older and slower than they were this year. I like the fact that the Rangers couldn't beat Buffalo in regulation this season. Jagr is extremely scary, especially come playoff time, but he can be taken off his game if you play him physically. Stay on Jagr, stay out of the box, and outskate the Rangers; and you should win. Their D still doesn't impress me as much as their forwards, even though they were very good on the penalty kill this year. The Devils have been playing great lately and have Brodeur, but you wonder just how long they can sustain the level they are currently at. They've been playing at playoff intensity for over 3 weeks now. That is not an easy pace to maintain with 2 more months to go. With the possibility that the refs will swallow their whistles come playoff time, these guys are the most dangerous IMO. I actually don't think the refs will stop calling obstruction, but the Devils did a very good job of getting in the way of people without getting called for it all season. How much of that is skill, and how much of it is Lou Lamoriello being arguably the 4th most powerful man in the game today standing behind the bench, is debatable (personally, I think it's a lot of the former and a little of the latter). The Devils have good speed for the most part and play a style of game the Sabres have had difficulty playing against. I would prefer getting the Devils in a later round, after the Sabres have gotten a feel for playoff hockey and hopefully after the Devils have run out of gas; but if they end up 5th, they end up 5th.

You got it. Rangers can end up anywhere from 6th - 3rd, Flyers can end up anywhere from 7th - 3rd, and Joisey can end up anywhere from 6th - 3rd. The only spot locked up in the East is #4. The only spots locked up in the West are #1 and #2.

With Joisey's win over Philly tonight and the Otters tying their game w/ 2 seconds left, the Sabres locked themselves into the 4th spot in the conference.

I thought one quote in the article was kind of ironic: So basically, humans can destroy any species that they don't want to (thus the large number of endangered species), but can't do squat about species they do want to eradicate. Maybe the better way to protect endangered species is to move them to new territory where they have no natural predators, and then in a few years we can worry about how we are going to cull the formerly endangered species.

45, wow. Happy Birthday! Maybe if you are lucky the wife will make you a special rettata cake! Oh, wait, she'd probably have to have started it on Tuesday. Oh, well, maybe next year. Hope the day goes well.

I don't know, what keeps guys that are acquitted currently from pressing charges for false accusations? I'd imagine the same mechanisms that are currently in place could be used (with possible slight modifications). If the guy DID actually rape the girl, he'd definitely have to be a ballsy mo-fo to try to charge her with a false report. I doubt that the prosecutor would pursue the case vigorously, as he would be privy to the original evidence that led him to attempt to get the original conviction; but I could be wrong about that. Also, I would expect that the man bringing charges against the woman would increase her likelihood of bringing a civil suit against him. There is a lower threshold of evidence in civil cases, and the man (again, we are dealing in this hypothetical with one that did actually commit rape) would likely have a good chance of owing the woman a lot of money. On a different note, I'm not certain that I see it as a bad thing to have a woman that gets herself drunk and then regrets what she did the previous night be hesitant to press rape charges. As for your final question, I know that 20 years ago in NYS, if a woman filed a complaint the police had to press charges even if the woman later recanted her story and/or decided she didn't want to press charges. I'm not sure what more the police could do to "protect" her in that situation.

No, she wouldn't necessarily be prosecuted, but she could (and again, not necessarily would) be sanctioned. The sanction could be something as mild as putting her on a list so that if she brings charges that cannot be proved (once again) in the future that her name can be released to the papers. The sanctions for reporting an unintentionally false rape claim would be strictly on a case by case basis, and designed to be mild enough to not cause additional rapes to go unreported. (Realizing that certain women's rights groups will claim that you can never reach that standard, as not all rapes are reported today.) If however, you have a case where the charges are completely fabricated, then the woman should face serious consequences for her actions. I don't know that the current case will end up fitting this scenario, and will reserve judgement until the investigation is completed, but it sure does look like the charges have a very good chance of turning out to be bogus; if in fact the charges have no merit, then this woman should be prosecuted.

Actually, I think the UNintentionally false ones make it harder to get convictions on the real ones. By unintentional false accusations, I am referring to the accusations that come about a few days after the "event" when the "victim" decides that she isn't overly thrilled with who she went home with and gets convinced that just because she had a couple of drinks she had no control over the situation. Sorry, but unless the woman was drugged or given alcohol under false pretenses (really, these are VIRGIN Mary's), I don't buy the self applied victim label. (Heck, maybe the poor guy wouldn't have slept with her if HE wasn't drunk! ) Because some accusers get talked into believing that they were "raped" when in fact they weren't; I think that makes it harder to get convictions in "real" rapes more so than some bimbo totally fabricating a story. The total fabrication shouldn't alter the mindset that rape is a terrible crime. The converting a "gee, I wish I didn't sleep with that guy" into a "I was raped by that guy" would bring more doubt into an "impartial juror's mind", IMHO. I do agree with you though, that the intentional fabrications should be fought strongly against, preferably via jail time. The women who make unintentional fabrications, I have a bit more sympathy for, although I think that depending upon the circumstances that there should be sanctions against that as well (although much milder).

Which, when you get down to it, is pretty pathetic and sad. IF this lady did file a false rape charge, she should have the book thrown at her. (Though I honestly don't know if she'll be charged or not assuming her story doesn't hold.) I can think of few criminals that should be held in lower esteem than rapists. Because of the severity of the crime, the mere accusation tends to be pretty severe as well. Someone who would file a charge like that falsely has roughly the same character as a rapist, as the mere accusation can mess up someone's life pretty well.

I only checked one price range, and those particular tickets were sold out. Why are you surprised that tickets still remain on the 1st day they are available when people don't even know what days the games will be played? (Much less the opponent nor the game times.)

If it turns out the lady was not assaulted by any of the lacrosse players, and from arm's length, it does appear that no assault occurred at their house; does anyone expect her to be charged with filing a false police report?

I would simply stop watching pro football (at least for a couple of years), the same way I stopped watching basketball when the Braves left. I still haven't cared about the NBA and it's getting close to 20 years since the new owner moved them to San Diego. The only reason I could see that I might eventually pay attention to the NFL again, is I'd probably get lured back into "pick-'em" pools. Following the NFL would not be the same and I expect that I would hate whatever team "replaced" the Bills. I expect that I would watch some of the college bowl games, but probably wouldn't care much about the regular season of that either.

I would expect it to work the other way. Each time they win, Ralph GETS clothing. Otherwise, 0-16 would definitely be possible. As for picks, here's my totally random shot. Sep 10 @New England - L Sep 17 @Miami - L Sep 24 N.Y. Jets - W Oct 1 Minnesota - L Oct 8 @Chicago - L Oct 15 @Detroit - W Oct 22 New England - L Nov 5 Green Bay - W Nov 12 @Indianapolis - L Nov 19 @Houston - W Nov 26 Jacksonville - W Dec 3 San Diego - L Dec 10 @N.Y. Jets - L Dec 17 Miami - W Dec 24 Tennessee - W Dec 31 @Baltimore - L 7-9.

Prior to Rich opening, didn't he threaten to take the team to Seattle? Also, they were pretty low grade threats, but threats none the less, that if the State and County didn't pony up in '98(?), the team might leave.

I still think Miller should have stopped the 1st shot. Considering, even if he had caught the shot, he ended up in the net, he misplayed that one. Sometimes the team needs their goalie to step up and bail them out; Miller didn't do it. I thought Gagne was further back, towards the top of the circles, but again, I didn't have the benefit of replay. Considering I was at the Amerks game on Wednesday, I guess you are the only one that noticed Marty played like crud that day. Agreed with your final point.

I went to the game tonight, so I didn't have the benefit of (much) replay, but I definitely thought he should have stopped the 1st one. That goal took a lot of life out of the team. I was giving him a partial pass on the Gagne goal, simply because it was Gagne, but he was far enough out that I would expect Ryan to make that save more often than not. Couldn't tell that he was screened on the 3rd one from where I was sitting, but it did look like he got a piece of it. I will give him a pass on that one, as it now appears he was screened. Was (and still am) giving him a pass on the 4th one, but wonder if his coming out as much as he did to challenge the shooter was due to a request by Lindy / Corsi for him to be more aggressive or if it was a lack of focus, as I have seen several interviews with him where he has stated that he is intentionally staying back further in his crease so as to prevent those backside plays from happening. Where he was, he had absolutely no chance whatsoever. At any rate, I expect Marty to start tomorrow, and the job is getting close to the point of being his to lose. Ryan simply has not stepped up to take the job back from Marty. While you are right in that a lot of the goals he is giving up he has no chance on, he is tending to give up a soft goal early in the game more often than not. In the playoffs, when everyone brings their A level intensity, those soft early goals will allow them to challenge Darci to a longest drive contest far sooner than I would like.

I must. I'm glad to see that you agree with me that Darci is a girl.

That's ok. I'm sure my senior Senator will be decrying this right away. Oh, wait, Bank of America ISN'T a UAE entity? Oh, Nevermind.

I agree 100%, and I don't watch SC often, if at all, anymore. But when I did watch, I could definitely say that their producers don't agree with us.

So what, there were no basketball games Wednesday?

I'm not certain what year F*cker bought tickets to the "Conference Finals" (ooh, that's impressive), but she must have done it at least once. She was not a Loaf in '99 when the Sabres kicked TO's bippy. She was a Laff when they lost to NJ. She played in 4 playoff games with Montreal in a year that they went out in the 1st, NEVER played in the playoffs with TB, and then rode Sundin's coattails in TO starting in 2000. So the only way Darci made it to "a COUPLE of Conference Finals" is if she bought tickets for one of them. Maybe the other Conf. Final she was in occurred in the year that she got her mystery 18 playoff games that got her to her quoted 80.

Just purely out of curiosity, I wonder what the docs that wouldn't amputate would say to a guy who wants his unit removed so he can "become the woman" he always knew he was born to be?

You make a very good point. Two others that should be considered but appear to be dismissed (could only access the abstract, not the paper, so this is based on the abstract) are: 1. is there a reason for the "liberal bias", and 2. is there any alteration in the views of the students due to the quantified bias? They don't appear to be looking for the reason for the "liberal bias". Is there a self selection for liberal leaning individuals to gravitate toward professorships? Anecdotally, I would say that there is, but have no way off hand to prove it. They state that the liberal bias becomes "self-reinforcing", but is that due to the characteristics the applicant pools bring to the job openings or is it due to the Deans and faculty responsible for hiring to actively look for candidates with a liberal bias? That would be a more interesting question IMO, and I would expect the applicant pool would be at least as responsible for the bias as is the expectations of those doing the hiring. As CTM and Gavin touched upon, if the "liberal bias" of the university professors did influence their students to become indoctrinated to liberal causes, wouldn't you expect to see college age "kids" and 20 somethings becoming increasingly liberal as a greater percentage of professors supposedly become more liberal. Again, it's anecdotal, but there seemed to be a larger percentage of 20-something liberals in the 70's than today. Maybe, if the authors of the study want me to be overly concerned about the current "bias", they can show me tangible effects resulting from their quantified bias. They also might want to show me how a liberal teaches light transmittance or how to solve differential equations differently than a conservative does.