Satchboogie3

Since when? Was the AL considered weak last year? The winner has alternated from the AL and NL each of the past 4 (probably soon to be 5) seasons, with the NL taking 4 so far this decade and the AL taking 5. The two leagues play considerably different styles of baseball, and certain teams simply match up better against their opponents than others. That, to me, is more influential on who wins than what league they are from. The only real evidence you can make that claim with would be the recent all star game success for the AL, but that's still just an exhibition game. Your joking, right? There is LOADS of data that shows that the AL has been the superior league for the last decade or so. The most telling data is interleague play (the AL has dominated) and players changing leagues. There has been LOADS of players who went to the NL and had career years (pitchers and hitters), while NL players didn't fare well switching to the AL. It's a bit late right now, so I can give a ton of examples in the morning if necessary. Just off the top of my head, though, are the Cliff Lee, CC Sabathia, Roger Clemens, Dan Haren, Josh Beckett, Rudy Seanez. I'll take a closer look in the morning. No doubt that there is a lot of match up relevance between teams, but I think overall, the AL is the superior league. I also think going by the WS is too small a sample size. Last year, I think TB was too young. If the Red Sox had been healthy, we would have easily made it to the WS and likely have won it. In '06 the Tigers looked amazing in the playoffs, but I really do think their week long break killed them. In '01 and '03 we saw the results of offense vs pitching. The Diamonbacks and Marlins were built for pitching while the Yankees were not. The Yanks were certainly a powerhouse team, but a stacked lineup isn't as reliable as a stacked rotation. The AL also tends to feature more powerhouse teams than the NL. I have found the road to the WS as been far tougher in the AL than the NL in the last decade.

I LOVE Valve. I grew up on half-life and CS. I held many many land parties for CS and all the other great mods ("The Specialists", oh yeah). I was one of those nerdy gamers , the kind was playing multiplayer lan GTA back in the Vice City days. Those were fun days. Right now, I'm going nuts in GTA Ballad of Gay Tony. It's a fitting end to Liberty City. I can't wait for Modern Warfare 2!

QFT I saw this movie a few days ago and it blew my mind. It really shows how much dedication Jackson had to these concerts and the whole thing was just unbelieveable. I was a little agrivated that there wasn't any material from Off The Wall and barely anything from Invincible, but other than that, it was EPIC. 10/10 Not a Michael fan so I won't be seeing this. The one thing that bugs me, though, is how a lot of people in society seem to praise seemingly pointless attributes. Michael might have been an extremely hard working man, but I don't see how that makes him a great musician. It's like the same idea behind faith. I hear too many people talk about the importance of faith when faith itself is actually a terrible idea. I'm certainly not trying to knock the guy, he was an incredible performer, but dedication in and of it self is meaningless. A suicide bomber is extremely dedicated, but they are certainly not people I respect or envy. I guess my point is the focus should be on his craft. I find most serious musicians to be extremely dedicated to their craft, so I just don't think it's of any interest. It's like the distinction between practice and perfect practice; practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. I'm now rambling, aren't I.

Spoilers here: I just got through watching it and I have mixed feelings. It definitely did a great job of building tension, I loved the cinematography and 80's music, but I think the pacing was just a bit too slow. I'm not sure the payoff was quite right either. The end just didn't feel right. It felt too rushed and a bit cliche. I don't think they built up the final scene enough to make the suicide attempt fit. I realize that she was actually infected by the devil, but I found it too subtle and it happened to quick for her to immediately contemplate and commit suicide. It felt out of character. I enjoyed it, but I was a little disappointed. Right now, I'd rate it about a 6/10. I'm a tough horror critic, so that is a pretty good rating for a "modern" horror flick. It could grow on me.

The Phillies are done. I don't think they have the pitching to pull themselves out of this hole. Cliff Lee looks amazing and Pedro looks sharp, but they really don't have any depth. You are starting to see why the National League is considered weak. I don't understand the hype that was Cole Hamels. He has one good pitch (changeup), one decent pitch (fastball), and his 3rd pitch is terrible (curveball). Stranger things have happened, but the Yankees are just too stacked.

Yeah, it's certainly not a perfect movie and it isn't as "gory" as it can be claimed to be, but I did think that "the" scene in the shed was pretty taboo and I'm still unsure exactly how I feel about it. I personally love the fact that the film is ambiguous as to what actually happened to "She". It works on many different levels (purely psychological, woman goes crazy with post-partum depression; the break up of a relationship; and/or actually evil). There are a lot of interesting themes. As far as horror-comedies go, I am a fan of the genre. I LOVE "Shaun of The Dead" and "Zombie Land", as well as some of the low-budget movies (Dod Sno). I think the genre works well, but i think it has to be intentional and well crafted. I don't like horror movies that are so bad, they are funny, or films that try to take itself to seriously and fails. I just watched "The Thing" again Halloween night and I think it is still one of the finest Horror films ever produced. It's perfect. I've heard some wild reviews for "The House of The Devil", it's supposed to be an old school horror film. I can't wait to see it.

For one, I don't watch Lost so I didn't see the parallels. I was just hoping for a good sci-fi series that was more focused on the mass blackouts and action and less on the drama. Guess I'll just have to wait for Fringe to come back on air.

On point one, I despise most horror remakes and I also am not a fan of "gore" horror. I thought the first Saw movie was decent, but the rest of them are just regurgitating the same thing. For "Paranormal Activity", I just found it just another possession attempt. I really don't find anything scary about seeing someone get levitated, etc. I'm more of an old school fan of creating a creepy atmosphere and mood and I found that lacking in "Paranormal Activity". The acting was also pretty laughable. The reason I suggested Anti-Christ was because it was fresh in my mind after having just seen the film. It can be extremely graphic both sexually and violently, but it works because of the photography. It isn't just trying to shock you. I absolutely loved the atmosphere the movie created and the acting was fantastic. The theme of course isn't completely original, but I loved how open the story was. I'm a fan of artistic horror movies, not teen slashers. I thought Anti-Christ was a beautiful and striking film and it left me with a lot of questions. I wouldn't say it's as good as the classics (maybe I did, I don't remember), but I find it far more compelling than 95% of the crap they put out today.

I'd suggest the classic horror films. The original Halloween isn't a gory movie and is very psychological, same with the Exorcist. Rosemary's Baby is a fantastic story and I also think you would find The Fog to be a great ghost story. As for me, I can't stand ghost "hunters" shows. I can't take pseudo-science seriously and that is exactly what ghost hunting is.

For those who think Paranormal Activity is amazing and scary, have you seen all the classics? (Exorcist, Poltergeist, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thing, Nightmare on Elmstreet, Susperia, etc) I find these new movies really unoriginal, predictable, and not very scary. If you want to watch a movie that is actually creepy, twisted, and bizarre I would suggest "Anti-Christ". I must warn though, it can be extremely graphic (sexual and violent). It is an amazing piece of cinematography and although I'm not a big fan of using this word, it is very artsy. It's a great story, it has many levels of metaphor, and it is extremely creepy, scary, horrifying, and depressing.

^Love the flavor, hate the aftermath. Do you have a strange obsession to find the single most beautiful piece of music, while realizing you will never actual find it?

I REALLY wanted this show to be good, but it is just falling apart. The first 2 episodes were pretty good, but since then everything has been awful; the acting, dialog, plot, character development, everything. I hope the don't screw up V. Oh, and I LOVE me some Arizona Ice Tea (with lemon).

You don't save yourself by "repenting", you "save" yourself by not doing stupid, ignorant, and hateful crap. What I find amazing about the type of people who write those articles is that they themselves are WORSE than those they condemn. I think my favorite part of that link was one of the responses to the article. The article condemned a NFL player to hell for having long hair and someone replied "Then what does that mean to Jesus, is he rotting in Hell for not shaving?"

Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue". It comes very very close to being arguably the most beautiful piece of music ever written. It's amazing how a simple 3-note motif can be crafted into such a powerful melody/piece.

Who ever said Sanchez was a HOF QB? And it's Favre. Not Farve. Lots of fans and even some analysts were singing huge praises for Sanchez and thought the Jets were the best team in FB, thus Pats fans started joking around calling him a "HOF" QB. Oh, and I have a bad habit of sometimes spelling Favre wrong, just can't get the sound outta my head.

Ahh, it's just a U2 rip off. I don't like most Pop music, but U2's early stuff is great. Not so much a fan of their more recent, poppy material. What??? You think Coldplay is a U2 rip-off?! They are both totally different bands! Coldplay has some mellow songs (i.e. Sparks and Swallowed in the Sea) and upbeat songs (i.e. Life in Techicolor ii, Viva la Vida, Lost!). What I am trying to get at is Coldplay has variety. U2 has a lot of the same kind of material with not a lot of variety. I'd say one of the only things they have in common is that they are both college bands. U2's older material actually does have a bit of variety. I'm just saying that because it's an extremely similar sound. Heck, Chris Martin even sounds like Bono, albeit no where near as good. For me, I just love listening to the young Bono sing his heart out. As for Cold play, I don't dislike their sound, I just don't like all to many of their melodies and don't like the fact that a lot of the songs don't really go anywhere. I guess the same can be said about U2, but Bono's amazing voice (early Bono) more than make up for it. Getting nitty gritty too, I think far too much of their material is written in minor modes (and lots with out any major bridges/contrasting sections). I'm not a big fan of Chris's falsetto, I like my singers with wide range. The melodies themselves don't really seem to be very strong and tend to be fairly basic and a lot of the music just doesn't go anywhere, it's very static. I find that the harmonies just don't do it for me, the tension-release (dissonance-consonance) doesn't seem very strong or diverse (or it's too bland), I don't particularly like the organ/synth sounds they use a lot on their albums, and I'm just not a big fan of the "pop" sound they have. As far as albums, Viva La Vida is certainly my "favorite", but pretty much all the songs leave a lot to be desired. It feels they only skimmed the surface of some of the melodies they introduce and don't develop them enough. I also don't like the "pop" aspects of tunes like the title rack of that album. There is nothing more I hate than the poor use of string instruments (violins, etc) in pop/rock (title track again).

The Saint's are for real and I think the only team that has any shot at taking them out in the playoffs would be the Vikings, but with Farve, you don't know if your getting pick 6s or TDs. The only thing I'd worry about is for them to peak early/mid season. You don't want to see them cool down come playoffs. I'm hoping my Patriots are starting to click. If Brady is indeed back to '07 form, the running game continues to get stronger, and the defense gels, we could return to *near* unbeatable form. Just thinking about all our impact rookies/2nd year players makes me shine (Mayo, Meriweather, Chung, Vollmer, Bulter, Edelman, and Pryor). Also, It's good to see the Jets finally come back to Earth. 3 straight losses and they are 3-3. They have looked progressively worse since their "Superbowl" in week 2, especially their "HOF" QB. Sanchez has now thrown twice as many picks as TDs and his passer rating is atrocious. Looks like the Pats may run away with the division.

I have NEVER called him the toughest QB in the league. Quite frankly, I like the type of QB Brady is (pocket passer). I'm not a fan of the guys who running around and try to force plays, it just causes WAY to many turnovers and negative plays. As for New England fans, I do think we have great fans for the most part. Of course there are some that are really annoying (just about any of the "drunks", etc), but that comes with every team. We are generally very knowledgeable about sports because of our deep history. As for Pats fans, I think they really are some of the best. I was at the Ravens game this past weekend and I can say about 80% of the Pats fans were very respectful towards Ravens fans and didn't trash talk after the game.

As a Pats fan, as I have said before, I've many times seen Peyton Manning "get" calls "by" rallying for one and although I hate seeing something go the Colts way, I understand that the Refs don't just throw the flag because of a compliant. They either see something or they don't throw the flag. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, nor making excuses. Teams like the Ravens lose and they blame the refs. Teams like the Pats lose and even if there were in fact bad calls (Hobbs bogus PI call against the Colts in 06 AFCG) the team would blame themselves for not making enough plays. As for the Pats-Ravens game, Mike Wright was flagged for "brushing" Flacco's helmet, so it goes both ways. The Pats were ready for the tight reffing (Belichick talked to the team about the reffing squad for the game) and I guess the Ravens weren't. Brady was looking for one call (and the correct call) and now everybody is accusing the Refs of being pro-Patriots. It's ridiculous. I don't know how anyone can think the media is pro-Patriots. "Spygate" was the most overblown pile of crap in the history of sports because it was the Dynasty and a Boston team. Past coaches and people in the NFL were trying to argue that the Pats were just doing what every other team does, but of course, the media didn't want to listen to that, because it doesn't sell. Finally, the only "Brady" rules were the tuck rule and the rule that once a defender is down on the ground, he can't go after the QB's feet/legs. All the other rule changes have been about other QBs and injuries (Carson Palmer, etc).

I don't understand where this idea that Brady gets all the calls comes from. Oh wait, never mind, I do; it's because all the fans are jealous of Brady and the Patriots. If you want to watch a QB that has got "getting a call" down to perfect, just watch Peyton Manning. At least once a game I see him begging for a PI or Roughing the Passer call and the officials grant him it. Do I hate him for it? Of course not, he's just doing his job. Heck, all you have to do is go watch the Pats-Jets game from week 3. Brady was getting slaughtered, yet he didn't get a single roughing the passer call. Seriously, take off the "hate-tinted" glasses. Response to BeemerBoy: Does the NFL really have to be so brutal that they don't want to protect players and are fine with many career ending injuries occurring? This isn't a war, it's a game. I get sick of this attitude. Just because they get paid well doesn't mean they shouldn't then get any ounce of safety concern. More importantly, though, the rules are about protecting a product. No team wants to lose their most valuable and expensive player when they have a salary cap. Also, the NFL want's to have the highest quality product. NFL players are the best football players in the world. It's the highest quality of football in the world. The NFL is at it's best when it has all of it's star players and QBs in the game. Injuries to the star players does the league no good. It really all comes down to the quality of football, ratings, and money. And with all do respect, who the hell cares about NHL rules. They have been cracking down as well. The AFL is completely pointless to bring up because there isn't anywhere near the amount of money, quality of game, tv support, and fan support as the NFL.

Well, I would LOVE to see the "helmet" rule of "roughing the passer" become a judgement call, but I do support the reason for the rule. I agree it sucks to see a 15-yard penalty when you just graze the helmet, but the NFL is clear about the rule and players should have full control of their arms/hands. There really isn't a good excuse for it. As for the mentality of a QB given "special treatment", it's because of their special situation. What other position on the field stands straight up, while big fast men are trying to knock him down, looking beyond his attackers and try to read the defense. A QB is in such harms way and goes against all safety logic. Any other player would be bracing for impact or looking for a way to avoid the hit. The QB has to stand there and get absolutely slammed play after play (I'm not just talking sacks, QBs get hit a TON while/after throwing). The only thing comparable is a WR going across the middle and getting hit, but the hits are generally still not as forceful, nor anywhere near as frequent. I agree that they need to work on the rules, but lets be serious. The NFL is still an incredibly brutal league. I challenge anyone who says it's "getting soft" to put yourself in the shoes of an NFL QB. I can't think of any single sport being more terrifying and difficult as being a QB.

^I just read through that detailing... WOW! I'm not sure I'd have the patience to do 1 full day of detailing, let alone months!

Dexter and South Park, currently.

Hey, I wasn't "correcting" you or anything, I just wanted to put my opinion out there and clear up some confusion. However, I do think that it was likely intentional. Matt Light barely touched him (on the shoulder), if he just "tripped", than why did he flat out DIVE straight at Brady, lower his head, and stick out his arm right at Brady's knee? I'm not buying it. As for being a "Homer", this has nothing to do with Brady. It's about the rules. I don't understand how people are complaining that QBs don't get hit now. They still take BRUTAL hits. There is no other player who is as vulnerable nor takes as many blind-sided hits as a QB. As I said earlier, the rules are very similar as they are on the other side of the ball. There are TONS of illegal hits/blocks on the offensive, defensive, and ST side of the ball (like the crackback block). The League just realizes that it might be good to keep players on the field. It does the league no good (nor the game) to lose QBs to serious injuries. Don't take it lightly, either. Diving at the knees, picking up and pile driving a QB, and hitting a QB in the head all lead to serious injuries. The game is still very physical and violent, but you shouldn't sacrifice all safety.

You didn't realize that the "guy" in the NBC booth that made that comment was Rodney Harrison? The comment was a joke, as he said after the game. Anyways, when it comes to the physical nature of the game, Rodney is a bit of a hypocrite. He does think the rules for QBs aren't physical enough, yet he fails to realize that they are just the equivalent of the same rules defensive players have. Of course, the one time he flipped out was when a player dove illegally at HIS knees that put him on the sidelines for the season. Can't have it both ways. A couple of things to clear up, first, it was an illegal hit. To begin with, it was a late hit. The ball has in the air for a good 2-3 seconds before Suggs hit him, so there is automatically a flag. Second, he dove for the knees. There is another flag. As for the "Oh, he barely touched him", well, that is only because Brady manged to move out of the way. Had Brady stood his ground, we might be looking at another serious injury. As Pereira explained, the point of the "roughing the passer" rules is to PREVENT players for hitting high/low. He wants them to air on the side of caution so that the players don't think they can dive for knees so long as they don't cause an injury. Finally, the idea of a "Brady" rule is a bit ridiculous. The 2nd "roughing the passer" penalty that was called against Suggs was for diving low at his knees. That has been in the rule books for a LONG time. The "new" rule, that was instituted after Pollard injured Brady is that once a player is already down on the ground, they can't go after the QBs feet/legs. Completely different rule. Also, I think it would be more fitting to bill it the "Pollard" rule since it is HIS fault, not Brady.