Joshua

Also, based simply off comments, not votes, here's my country totals (I based off where people are currently living, not originally from, unless they're not citizens of the place they're staying): Americas Total: 22 USA: 13 (CA 1, GA 1, IL 1, IN 1, MI 1, MN 1, NY 1, UT 1, WI 1, 4 unidentified) Canada: 5 (Ontario 3, Newfoundland 1, 1 unidentified) Mexico: 2 Brazil: 2 Europe Total: 17 United Kingdom: 7 Republic of Serbia: 2 Latvia: 1 Spain: 1 Portugal: 1 Slovenia: 1 Holland: 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1 Bulgaria: 1 Norway: 1 Asia Total: 8 India: 4 China: 1 Malaysia: 1 Vietnam: 1 Bangladesh: 1 Australia Area Total: 7 Australia: 6 New Zealand: 1 Africa Total: 5 Egypt: 3 Algeria: 1 South Africa: 1 Mideast Total: 3 Saudi Arabia: 1 Pakistan: 1 Turkey: 1 Also, I tried to get the continents/areas about right, but might have messed up somewhere. If so, let me know and I'll issue an update.

I'm from Illinois, USA, in a small quaint suburban city somewhat near Chicago. I am a fan of the Cubs That's the nice thing about Chicago, there are lots of sports teams to root for, but unfortunately the weather is too cold most of the year for a lot of the good sports to be played. Someday I'd like to move somewhere warmer so I can play baseball more often :PAnd yes, I do not support Bush either. I was against Iraq as early as 2004, when I was first able to vote, and chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate (Michael Peroutka) rather than support him or Kerry. Bush's wars are really destroying our country's reputation... :PAs for the USA, I might live here, but... I'm not that much of a fan. I don't like the wars, the school shootings, the abortions, the divorce rules (or lack thereof), the lax media rules against violence/nudity, the childcare system, the education system, the death penalty, the lack of accountability for government officials, the tax system, foreign policy, treatment of non-Caucasians, (you thought I'd be finished by now, didn't you?) and the general lack of personal community in much of America. Yeah, there are some great freedoms here, but it's hard not to get discouraged at all the stuff I see getting worse and worse in this country.

Burial. :PWell, here's my 2 cents based on what I see the Bible saying:We "sleep" after death in a place called Sheol or the Grave until the 2nd coming of Jesus, when the dead in Christ will be raised and the living will be caught up to meet Him in the clouds. God will physically (though the bodies will be different, immortal, spiritual ones) raise all the dead of Creation to stand at a final Judgment where all will give accounts for everything they've done in their lives, good and evil, every thought and every action. I believe there are different levels of punishment in the coming Lake of Fire (what many consider "Hell") just as there will be different levels of reward in Heaven. People will be individually judged by God at the end but we are each guilty before God unless justified through faith and the blood of Jesus, by which we can have mercy instead. God is going to separate everyone into 2 kingdoms, the righteous, and the unrighteous. There is not and never has been a Purgatory or middle ground. God will not allow into His coming new creation, which will be perfect just as He made and intended this one to originally be, those who will defile it as they've defiled this one. He will not allow the evil people to harm others like they have in this creation. God withholds judgment at the present time to give a chance for repentance to all. God wants everyone to come to repentance, even the most evil and wicked of people. He's not setting up people to fall, He wants us all to turn from our evil deeds and turn our lives over to Him. However, God is not mocked. He has said that those who don't show His mercy as they've received it, will receive it no more. In other words, someone who hasn't been merciful to others shouldn't expect God's mercy no matter who's called them a Christian. The Bible says God's idea of good and worthwhile religion is to help those who His heart most aches for, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless journeyers. The Bible says all God's commandments are fulfilled by a love for Him and for other people. The Bible emphasizes a right heart before God and that God looks on the heart, not the outward appearance, but that a right heart should produce good actions towards others. It's like love. Love is not an emotion, it's a matter of the heart but its outward evidence is the fruit of sacrifice and commitment.The Bible says all thoughts of men's hearts are open and bare before God and He sees the intents and motivations we have that even we ourselves are unaware of. The Bible says it is by our words that we will be justified, and by our words that we will be condemned for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."The main Bible verses involved on the final Judgment: 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, 1 Corinthians 15:12-55, Matthew 12:35-37, Romans 14:9-12, Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 25:31-46Other topics: 1 Samuel 16:7, Romans 13:8-10, Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2:8-16, Romans 3, Matthew 22:37-40, 2 Peter 3:9-10

I'd like to see the government step in and stop this one, personally. Microsoft, the Evil Empire, has a bad tendency to build up monopolies and use Wal-Mart like tactics to destroy competition. What's more, the company is cheating the U.S. economy out of millions if not billions of dollars a year after they moved their company financial headquarters to Ireland, taking advantage of a financial loophole that allows them to get taxed according to Ireland's rates instead of the U.S.'s, which cheats the American economy big time. Gaining Yahoo would give them an even bigger monopoly over the computer/internet world then they have already. Yahoo still has a lot Google can't offer at the same level, though Google wins on Mail and Search Engines. Yahoo is better known for its Instant Messenger, for example, for its homepage (MyYahoo), for its games section, and for its groups. If anything, Yahoo might just be struggling because of all the features they have which need a lot of maintenance, and might do better if cutting out some of the less popular ones. It might also be a case of their CEO/administrators getting paid too much.It's been pointed out that American companies tend to overpay their CEO and top officers while Japanese companies use that money on workers, as evidenced by the struggling of American companies Ford and GM who've tried to solve the problem by firing workers and moving to other countries where labor is cheaper, even as Japanese company Toyota has created many factories in the U.S. and is prospering due to their better spending which is less management-directed.Perhaps one of the best things we could do to make companies like Yahoo more competitive would be to place caps on what companies could pay their management/CEO's, perhaps no more than 10 times that of the average worker. For one thing, it doesn't make sense for CEO's to make so much more than the President.

The antivirus stuff especially can be key, because it can really slow down your computer. Norton/Symantec programs especially are HORRIBLE at slowing down computers. If you have one installed, sometimes all you have to do is uninstall it to see a rapid speed boost of as much as 5-10 times more. I'd also recommend deleting temporary internet files regularly, or better yet going to tools and setting your options/settings to save the minimal for temporary internet files and history. Those can also slow down browsing speed. You might also want to go to your Add/Remove programs feature in settings and look at how much each program is taking up. Larger ones that you don't use anymore might be good to uninstall as they could free up space on your computer, and if they're set to run automatically, could also decrease the processing load for your computer.

2 games, one of them I learned from my brother who came across it is called Scum (I've heard it's also called BS but I don't like that name) and the other is called Pit. I've heard Scum is played a lot of different ways but here's the version I like: Objective is to get rid of all your cards first. Normal deck, minus jokers, is shuffled out as evenly as possible to all players. Player left of the dealer starts. The 2 is the highest card and can start over a pile whenever played, unless it's triples in which case you need two 2's, or if it's quadruples, then three 2's, basically 1 less than the number of cards the pile is on. The person starting a pile can start with singles, doubles, or quadruples (three 4's, 2 Jacks, 1 Ace, etc.). With the exception of 2's, a person has to play the same amount of cards the pile started with, and play cards of equal value or higher. So if it starts with double 5's, then everyone has to play doubles of 5's or higher until the pile ends, unless they play a 2 (see 2 rules in 1st paragraph). If it starts with triples, everyone has to play triples until the hand ends, unless they play two 2's to end the pile. A pile of cards is what's started by the person playing the cards originally and ends when a person ends it either with a 2 or 2's, or when everyone else passes after one person played. So if 5 people are playing, and someone plays an Ace, and the other 4 people pass, that person who played the Ace puts the pile aside (nobody gets the cards, they're just moved aside) and gets to start the next pile. Part of the strategy involved is that people can pass intentionally to save their high cards until the end, or play a high card early to keep other players from getting rid of their low cards early on. Once a player goes out and loses all their cards, they are considered the "President" for the next round, meaning they get to go 1st. The second person to get rid of all their cards is Vice President (assuming 4 or 5 players) and goes 2nd the next round. 3rd is Neutral, 4th is Vice-Scum, and 5th is Scum. Different names can be used depending on the number of players. With more than 5 players it might be best to use 2 decks of cards in which case if someone plays 6 cards to start a pile the other players would need to keep playing 6 of a kind until the pile ends, and would need five 2's to end the pile, either that or the pile would end when all players passed after someone played (i.e. no one could play on it). After everyone's gotten rid of their hands, the next round starts. The person who got rid of their cards first the last round will not only get to go first, but they get the 2 best cards from the person who was the Scum (finished last) in exchange for any 2 cards they want to give away (usually 2 worst, but they might give away slightly less worse to have more doubles or triples of a card). If 4 or 5 people are playing, the Vice-President (finished 2nd) gets the best card from the Vice-Scum (2nd worst) for any card they want to give away (what they consider worst). In this way rounds keep going with players continually changing positions each round. Usually people keep it going the same direction to avoid confusion and thus swap seats each round to remember the order. Pit: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ This is a great trading card game for as many as 8 players. It's tough to find the game being sold anymore though. Basically there are 8 sets of cards with 9 of each card, all named after grain foods (wheat, grain, barley, oat, etc.). Depending on how many players are playing, you take that number of sets of cards and shuffle them together to make the deck. Players are then each dealt a hand of cards and the objective is to trade with other players to get all 9 of the same type. Some packs include a Bull and Bear card which affect final point scores and how the game is played (see rules above). Basically once play starts people yell out how many cards they want to trade, putting them face down on the table, and players swap cards until someone yells out PIT meaning they got all cards of one type. What's more, each set of cards has its own point value thus affecting which are most sought after, as you'll get more points at the end depending on which you went after, assuming you got PIT. This game could even be played with a normal card deck(s) although you'd have to play with hearts/clubs/spades/diamonds and thus only have 4 players, unless you had enough decks that you could use 9 2's, 9 3's, etc. as the replacements. Also, it would be difficult assigning the point totals as well.

Well, here's the Bible quote:

Well, I have $4,685 to work with right? I can spend that much trying to get the bracelet removed by a non-police source or at least looked at, and if they fail then still cash the check. I don't like the idea of giving the terrorists money, and they might go through with their plans anyway. However, if the person trying to remove the bracelet fails, it might inject me as part of the mechanism. So then, if I decide to go that route I would have to set up the check somehow to be sent in maybe 3 to 5 days so if I get killed trying to get the bracelet off they hopefully will not kill everyone.Of course, I have to question why they'd want the $3 million since their silly bracelet probably costs more Anyway, it would be a tough decision because trying to remove the bracelet might end up with me dead, but I'd like to avoid cooperating with terrorists like that. A third option would be to go through with everything up to the mailing of the check and then immediately alert the authorities to all info including mailing address of the check, what the terrorists did, give over the device, etc.Because the terrorists would likely kill me and possibly the others as well just to cover up their tracks, I'd at least try looking around to see what I might be able to do with the $4,685 that could get the bracelet off. I would deposit the $3,000,000 but not touch it because if anything goes wrong I want to have it on hand to make sure everyone doesn't get killed, and because anything done to that money might get noticed by the terrorists who might be keeping tabs on the bank account and go through with their plans otherwise. I'd also have the bank prepare to send the money to the terrorists in perhaps 3-5 days so if the anthrax kills me while I'm trying to have someone take the bracelet off at least there's a chance the terrorists won't kill anyone else.Ideally I'd like to use the $4,685 to get the bracelet off, then alert the police and have the girl put in a witness protection program, have military force sent to the check receiving location, have the bracelet examined, the bank officers taken into custody, and the $3 million kept (although the government might try confiscating it as "evidence"). As an additional plan, I could actually alert the girl to what's going on, have her go to the police for protection, or have a friend go to the police to explain what was going on, and have that person or someone else act as a go-between between me and the police. I could tie a note to a rock and throw it from 3 or 4 blocks away at a police station explaining what's going on. I could mail or email police about what was happening, although terrorist monitoring might intercept it which is why the rock idea might be safer. At any rate, I could in some such way alert the authorities without the terrorists knowing and without going to a police station, and have them make sure the safety of the girl, close down all elementary schools in the city on February 27th, locate all Peruvian cities with populations near 40,000 and have them protected, and send military force to the check receiving location.

Rats, all these recent posts made me think this was a recent issue, I just realized it wasn't. Oh well, hope it turned out alright.

1 - Wear a paper bag at all times that you suspect he might even be in the same zip code as you.2 - Use ninja techniques, peer around corners, walk on tiptoe, etc.3 - Either bug him with a location tracking device or use a complex network of friends with radio/cellphone contact so that you can know where he is at all times and thus be far, far away.4 - If somehow he does manage to notice you, quickly use diversionary tactics like setting off sprinklers, shouting out "fire!", etc. and make your getaway.Seriously, disregard the above and just be honest with him It sounds like the main reason you don't want to be around him is because of what happened with the rocks. Tell him that. Honesty is the best policy. Tell him what happened again and that you lost respect for him because of his actions there, and that you'd prefer not to spend time around him. Like someone else said, his feelings are going to be hurt either way, so that can't be avoided. What can be avoided are the misunderstandings that could make this even worse. Tell him exactly why you don't want to be around him. Based on that, I wouldn't think him a very good choice for a friend either, and it sounds like you're honest enough to be able to tell him that.I do hope though, that it's not just because of his reputation or whatever or how it affects your reputation. Sometimes the best friends can be the most unpopular, but we shouldn't worry about what others think regardless. If you were willing to stick up for him in the first place though, I doubt that's much of an issue for you.Still, just be honest about what's affecting your decision and at least do him the service of letting him know exactly where everything stands. Who knows, maybe it will even result in a misunderstanding being cleared up? Truth has a funny way of making relationships stronger when you'd think it would tear them apart.And hey, if the guy's the whiny sissy you think he is, at least you can walk away from this with a clear conscience and no regrets or misunderstandings. Maybe that honesty could even have an impact on his character in the future and one day he'll be able to thank you for it.Figure out exactly why you feel the way you do, and tell him it. I'm guessing it might run something like this: "I stuck up for you against the bullies because it was the right thing to do, not because I wanted to hang around you all the time. The main reason I don't want to spend time with you is because you got in my way when I was throwing rocks at a pole and then got me in trouble with the teacher, which isn't my idea of what a true friend would do. With all due respect I really just want you to leave me alone. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, I just don't like you hanging around me all the time."

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ I've had this site for a while but have been starting to question whether I perhaps should change the colors to something less vivid and more neutral like navy blues, greys, etc. Do you think it needs to be changed, and if so, to what? Also, if you have any thoughts on site features or constructive criticism about the site, that would be appreciated too.

I don't think it's a matter of gun ownership or of psychiatric history. A lot of people have psychiatric problems without doing this kind of stuff, and criminals will get weapons regardless of the laws the same way they get illegal drugs. All gun control laws do a lot of times is stop ordinary citizens from getting the weapons needed to defend themselves, although of course there should be some limits; I don't know why an ordinary citizen needs access to rocket launchers or assault weapons, for example.I think a lot of the problem comes from the media. More and more violence and nudity is shown in the media and the media will show violent stories on the front page but good news in the back of the newspaper. Kids are getting saturated by horrible content and it's a miracle if they DON'T grow up with violent or sexualized tendencies as a result. Look at movies and how they teach kids to deal with their problems. Studies have shown time and again that this stuff is impacting our society but people want to blame psychiatric problems and what not.Well, guess what: people had the same psychiatric issues 100 years ago but didn't feel the need to go shooting everyone up then. This is happening more and more frequently and it's clearly a more complex issue than people just having psychiatric illnesses.

Below are my thoughts on the Cubs and the direction the team is taking. Also as reference, here are some links to the Cubs' stats in 2007: Player Stats Overall Team Hitting Stats Overall Team Pitching Stats Historical Team Hitting Stats Overall: Despite off-years from star players Carlos Zambrano, Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, and Alfonso Soriano, the team reached the playoffs thanks to improved starting pitching and a team that reached base at its best level since 2001. As it's been said, a team lives and dies by its starting pitching. Despite a bullpen weaker in many ways than the horrible 2006 team, the Cubs had the 2nd best team ERA in the National League (4.04). The team on base percentage was .333, 9th highest in the National League (out of 16 teams), which might not seem too special until you compare that to the teams GM (General Manager) Jim Hendry has been putting together in recent years. The team on base percentages with their ranks in the National League have been as follows: 2006: .319 OBP (16th in NL), 2005: .324 OBP (11th in NL), .328 OBP (6th in NL), 2003: .323 OBP (13th in NL), 2002: .321 OBP (12th in NL), 2001: .336 OBP (6th in NL). 2001 was the year right before Jim Hendry became the Cubs General Manager, too... Much of the change may be due to firy young players like Ryan Theriot, Matt Murton, and Geovany Soto coming up through the farm system, as well as other hitters with patient hitting styles like Mark DeRosa and Daryle Ward. All of these players because of their newness to the team have not had their good mechanics and hitting styles done in and undone by the flawed teaching methods that were commonplace under former Manager, Dusty Baker. Catcher: Geovany Soto showed a lot of promise last year and Cubs nation is doubtless looking forward eagerly to see how he develops in 2008. He showed signs of being more solid both defensively and offensively than former Catcher Michael Barrett, who had an unusually disappointing year. However, other Cubs prospects have looked great in short time frames before and then failed to pan out (Jason Dubois, David Kelton, Ronny Cedeno, et. al.) so you can be sure a close eye will be kept on this promising young ballplayer who could provide a strong arm behind the dish and a good on base percentage to a team that has been in dire need of both. Henry Blanco and returning catcher Koyie Hill should both spell Soto, with both probably catching for staff ace Carlos Zambrano. Zambrano in 2007 was nearly unhittable with Hill catching, holding opponents to just a .160 batting average through 212 At Bats, so if Hill gets another shot in the majors it might get interesting. 1st Base: Derrek Lee scuffled a little in terms of his own lofty expectations (91 Runs, 22 HR's, 82 RBI) but has remained defensively one of the best fielders at his position in all of baseball. He flied out deep many times and pitchers consistently got him out with pitches low and away, so some slight changes to his hitting may well be all he needs. After his breakout 2005 season pitcher seem to be respecting his power more and appeared to have him figured out in 2007. Lee, however, appears to have gotten away from his focus in 2005, when he said his hitting coach was having him work on "keeping my feet quiet." It appears to be a simple matter of mechanics for Derrek and once he figures out what pitchers are doing to him and changes accordingly, as well as bringing back the good mechanics that made him such a threat in 2005, opposing teams had better watch out! As a last note, with the corner outfield spots crowded, pinch-hitter Daryle Ward is more likely to get some of his starts at 1st Base according to Lou Piniella so as to give Lee a rest once in a while. Ward last year was a huge threat both off the bench and when starting, and Lou will surely try to get him in the lineup as much as possible. 2nd Base: Mark DeRosa had a minor heart problem recently but should be the starter once again. While his power isn't anything to write home about (10 Home Runs, .420 SLG) he hit for a high average (.293) and got on base well (.371) drawing a career best 58 walks. He provided solid defense (.984 Fielding %), a calming presence on the team, and despite being a righty hitter actually hit right-handed pitchers better than left-handed ones, so Lou may actually be able to treat him like a lefty in the lineup rather than a righty should he repeat those results. DeRosa is a solid, hard-working player at his position and invaluable for his ability to act in a utility role (last year he wowed teammates with great defense at 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, and RF). The former college teammate of Ryan Theriot, Mike Fontenot, should also see some playing time at the position; and possibly young prospect Eric Patterson as well. 3rd Base: Aramis Ramirez, the team's perennial offensive superstar, will of course be manning the hot corner once again. Since leaving the Pirates in 2003 he has consistently hit for a high average, gotten on base well, slugged well, produced well, and fielded his position at a high level. He has struggled a little with health issues but consistently plays 120+ games. Despite playing only 132 games last year, he still hit 26 Home Runs and had 101 RBI's! Had he been healthy all year he might well have been the MVP. Expect another solid performance from him, and should he go down with health issues at any point super-utility man Mark DeRosa should be able to pick up the slack. Shortstop: Ryan Theriot, aka "The Riot", despite unmerited criticism from Cubs fans, cemented his spot on the team at a much needed position in 2007. After years of players like Cesar Izturis, Ronny Cedeno, and Neifi Perez who could provide decent defense but no offense, the young middle infielder stepped up to give Cubs fans a solid performance at the position. His solid .980 Fielding % silenced the criticisms of those who said his arm was too weak to play Shortstop, and though he wasn't one of the fastest players on the team, he stole a team-best 28 of 32 bases, far outpacing his nearest competitor, Alfonso Soriano (19 of 25) who struggled with leg problems during the year. What's more, his .326 On Base % was deceiving since it dropped due to a slump late in the year, and had been as high as .351 on August 26th and .335 on September 13th. His playoff stats were also deceiving since he reached twice on errors, at least one of which should have clearly been a hit. Taking that into account, he was one of the few players to come through offensively in the post-season. Expect another solid year from the young shortstop, who will only continue to improve and to silence his critics. His versatility will allow coach Lou Piniella to move him around, and last year he played solid defense at 2B, 3B, SS, LF, and RF, as well as hitting everywhere in the lineup except 3rd! Any playing time missed by him will likely be filled in by Mark DeRosa or Ronny Cedeno. Leftfield: Alfonso Soriano is a heavily overpaid player. He's got a good arm defensively but his fielding is average if not sub-par. He hits a lot of Home Runs but so far hasn't been able to do so except when leading off. Soriano has remarked in the past that the only At Bat in a game he worries about is the first because that's the only time he usually leads off, and he's a leadoff hitter. Perhaps as a result of this flawed mindset, Soriano hit 70% of his Home Runs last year with no one on base, and has hit 67% of his career Home Runs with no one on base. As a result, his blasts are far less effective than if he was batting down in the order. And his career .327 OBP is unimpressive for a leadoff hitter. If the Cubs could trade this 32-year-old star who will be getting paid $18 million dollars when he's 38 years old, I'm sure they would (although I have little faith in GM Jim Hendry). However, his no-trade clause makes that unlikely (even though Hendry got Greg Maddux to revoke his no-trade clause - another dumb move), as does the fact that few teams will want Soriano. The Cubs will be best off trying to teach Soriano some hitting fundamentals so he can bat farther down in the lineup, maybe in the 2nd, 5th, or 6th spots in the order. Centerfield: The one position that is still wide open for whoever wants it. Acquisitions Jacque Jones and Craig Monroe were so disappointing offensively at the position that they were traded as well as was promising young player, Angel Pagan, who also spent time in Centerfield. Felix Pie was good defensively but horrible offensively (.215/.271/.333), often swinging wildly for the fences with massive uppercut swings at called strike 3's despite producing only 2 Home Runs in 87 Games. More promising is Sam Fuld, who in limited playing time displayed amazing fielding ability and a patient eye at the plate which resulted in 3 walks in 6 plate appearances (.333 OBP) although he has yet to get his first big league hit. If neither steps up to cement the position, expect to see the Cubs look for new talent. Rightfield: The recent addition of the veteran from Japan, Kosuke Fukudome, could prove big for the Cubs. In Japan he was a perennial gold-glove winner who hit for a high average, reached base very well, and slugged well. Even if his slugging and batting average drop to average levels, the promise of a player reaching base at a high level for the Cubs could prove a huge asset to the team. Expect to see the occasional appearance in rightfield by Matt Murton or Daryle Ward as well. Murton despite criticisms has fielded his position well (though he struggled last year when switched from Left Field, his natural position, to Right Field), hit for a high average, reached base at a high rate, and slugged at a decent clip. Lou Piniella recently complimented Murton for his efficient, compact swing; and Fukudome could have competition. The Bench: Pinch-hitter Daryle Ward is arguably one of the most dangerous pinch-hitters in baseball, and pitchers last year recognized it, walking him 22 times and intentionally walking him 8 times (tied for most on the team with Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez even though Lee and Ramirez both got much more playing time). This team has lots of versatility defensively thanks to utility players Ryan Theriot and Mark DeRosa as well as the hordes of young players like Mike Fontenot, Felix Pie, Sam Fuld, Ronny Cedeno, Koyie Hill, Scott Moore, and Matt Murton who all field their positions well. However, offense, apart from Ward, is a different story. Mike Fontenot and Matt Murton have shown an ability to provide decent offense in the past, but otherwise this team is sadly lacking. Felix Pie makes for a solid pinch-runner. Starting Rotation: 1 - Carlos Zambrano: Despite a career-best 18 wins, he also had a career-high 3.95 ERA. Zambrano continued his unusual habit from past years of pitching better on less days of rest than on more. When pitching on 4 days of rest he had a 3.05 ERA through 20 games but when pitching on 5 days of rest had a 4.82 ERA through 11 games. While Koyie Hill was his catcher he was almost unhittable but when Hill was demoted after one bad start by Z in August, Big Z fell apart, and his ERA rapidly ballooned from a 3.42 to a 3.95 over the last month and a half/2 months of the season. Z has also been criticized for being inconsistent, as he does better in the middle months of the year and horrible in the early months. However, fellow Venezuelan Johan Santana is even more extreme in this problem, and it is probably due to both being warm-weather pitchers. If Zambrano has a problem it is his tendency to get rattled when there are base runners, and he needs to learn as Greg Maddux has to not worry about them and just make his pitches. All the same, expect another solid year from the young starter who has been one of the best pitchers in baseball over the last 6 years, and who has shown the fire to want to win and the humility to admit his mistakes and keep on learning. 2 - Ted Lilly: On a team whose starting rotation has been a big problem area, the former Blue Jay came in and promptly proved himself a reliable #2 starter despite a rough starting in the playoffs. The fact that he's a lefty makes him very valuable to have behind Big Z in the rotation, giving the Cubs a solid 1-2 punch in the rotation. Expect another solid year from the calm lefty, although he'll have to prove he can keep his ERA as uncharacteristically low as it was last year. I believe he's like DeRosa, a guy who's calming down with age and learning like Greg Maddux, despite wanting to win badly even if he doesn't show it much. 3 - Rich Hill: His stats last year were unimpressive (11-8, 3.92 ERA) but there were a lot of games he should have won if he'd gotten more run support. Hopefully the runs won't be as much of a problem this year and he'll get more wins. And in his first full season he showed a lot of promise, hopefully he can step up and prove a solid 3rd starter in the rotation. 4 & 5 - Lou Piniella has said both these spots in the rotation are up for grabs. Jason Marquis, Sean Marshall, Jon Lieber, and Ryan Dempster (former closer) will all be competing for these spots. The addition of Lieber, who at 37 hasn't been healthy or had a good season since 2005, is yet another of Jim Hendry's questionable moves. It's probable that after making the colossal mistake of trading future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux, who continues to impress despite his age, Hendry is trying to atone by collecting other lesser players in hopes they'll do the same thing; players like Steve Trachsel, Jason Marquis, and Jon Lieber who though in some ways similar are clearly proving to not be Madduxes. As a result, this team is likely to have sub-par starters in the 4 and 5 spots of the rotation which could prove disastrous to the team. They should have gone after Johan Santana and the choice not to do so could haunt the Cubs for years to come. Bullpen: - Closer: Veteran Bob Howry will likely get the job over young Carlos Marmol, who Lou Piniella likes to have in the 7th and 8th innings. Kerry Wood, who has looked impressive in Spring Training, might also get consideration, although his questionable health will likely keep him from getting the role. Ryan Dempster, despite his criticisms, was an excellent choice last year in the 9th innings. The bottom line is that he saved 28 of 31 games. His high ERA was a result of non-save situations. In save situations, he pitched 31 innings, giving up 12 runs, for a solid 3.48 ERA. What's more, he gave up 7 of those 12 runs in just 2 of his botched saves, so in the other 29 games he had just a 1.55 ERA! If Dempster isn't moved to the Rotation, he should definitely get his old job back, with the catch that in vital non-save situations Marmol or Howry should be brought in instead. - Setup: Carlos Marmol will probably be in this role once more, where he was lights out last year. Should Ryan Dempster return as Closer, Marmol and Bob Howry would make an excellent righty-lefty combination. You heard me right, even though Howry throws right-handed, he should be considered a lefty, because his 2-seam fastball results in MUCH better stats against lefties than righties. Marmol facing the righties and Howry facing the lefties is a deadly setup combination. - Long Relief: With so many competing starting pitchers, this shouldn't be a problem. Sean Marshall or Jon Lieber will likely get relegated to the role of Long Relief/Mop Up. - Other: Scott Eyre, Michael Wuertz, Angel Guzman, and Kerry Wood (who has looked very good in Spring Training) will likely prove key assets to the bullpen. Young pitchers Rocky Cherry and Kevin Hart both were impressive last year in limited playing time and will likely get a chance to prove themselves as well. Management: Supposedly the Cubs were to be sold before the start of the year, but the Tribune Company ownership continues to disappoint as they have all through their uninspired reign as Cubs owners. I know for a fact that many other Cubs fans are, like me, drooling at the thought of GM Jim Hendry leaving so that the chance of a GM who values On Base Percentage as well as getting young studs at Shortstop, Centerfield, and the Starting Rotation (as opposed to old, washed up players for the bottom of the rotation/corner outfield spots, and shortstops who can't hit) might finally be realized. Lou Piniella, however, has proven solid, and will hopefully be given further opportunities by Cubs fans and (hopefully) new management to show what he can do.

Xisto just got a rave review from me! (a 10)

Alright, I have some things I want to comment on here :PTo Master Bacarra: I think anything can be misinterpreted, including the Constitution or a Dictionary. If we're not honest and objective, and don't confront our personal biases, we're bound to misinterpret. To AdrianTC: I think faith is like science in that it comes after personal conviction, thought, and study on the subject. People may end up making decisions apart from reasoning after already having faith, but originally are going to have to face their doubts and suspicions before they can ever have faith! We make those decisions apart from reasoning with faith for the same reason you'd have confidence in a professor who's been consistently shown right about what he speaks. Faith in a person or a belief is a matter of confidence being built in them, and that comes about from honest examination, not from self-delusion. In my opinion anyway. I don't think a delusional faith is faith at all. If a faith can't overcome a person's natural doubts and questions then it isn't much of a faith to begin with.

ISNT ABORTION A RIGHT? Shouldnt a woman have the right to her own body, to do with it what she pleases? If she wants to have an abortion, is it not her own body? God gave us all free will, who are we to take it away from her? If she wants to have an abortion, or walk around town nude, or punch someone in the face, who are we to stop her? And all 3 cases are indeed equivalent, because the right made use of is the right to infringe upon the rights of others. Shouldnt a persons right to throw a punch stop where anothers nose begins? Is a persons right over his or her own body so absolute that it takes precedence over the right to life, or the right to not be visually or physically assaulted in public? Of course our society recognizes that once a persons rights take away from the rights of others, there should be limits placed. A society that condones murder, adultery, rape, and pornography publicly accessible to children is providing all the wrong rights to all the wrong people. What about the rights of the children, the spouses, the rape victims? America has a long history of treating classes of its citizens as subhuman, from the Native American savages whose lands were stolen, to African-American slaves whose value was determined by the Three-Fifths Rule; from Hispanic-American citizens forcibly deported during the Great Depression to free up jobs for Caucasians, to Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps during WWII. Todays leading abortionists do not understand these principles, as evidenced by their support for Partial Birth Abortion, which presidential candidate Barack Obama has consistently supported both with his words and his voting record. Under the law prior to 2007, children could be born alive after such late-term abortions and left to starve to death on hospital beds. Abortion is not just about the right to kill unborn children, but to kill ones outside the womb as well! Although a bill outlawing this horrible practice was passed in 2003, the courts refused to uphold it while abortionists fought furiously against it. Why? Why promote the killing of newly born children? Their priorities are ones of selfishness, and not the moral ones they claim. Some will ask, But what about cases of rape or the mothers life being in danger? Shouldnt abortion be allowed then? However, such cases are rare and even before Roe v. Wade abortions were permitted under such circumstances. When the mothers life is in danger from the pregnancy, it is her right to life that is at stake also; so in such an instance, she should be given the option to abort. -Joshua Zambrano

Alright, I've wondered about this for a while now. The Bible specifically states that people who obey their parents are promised long life: Now, I'd really like to see a scientific study done. They do studies all the time to see what allows people to live longer. They recently learned that several factors resulting from living moderately, abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes were 2 I remember, can add many years on to a person's life. Now, if people obey their parents they'll often avoid such behaviors, so that could be an indirect cause. Anyway, I've just always wanted to ask a bunch of really old people if they obeyed their parents when they were young.

A lot longer than he can live with too much.

Actually, I have heard it said that it is exactly that which keeps Christianity from not being a religion: that it is not about being a good person to get into Heaven. According to the Bible, all of us are guilty wretches who can never be good enough to get into Heaven. This is a good thing since it keeps us from being able to condemn or punish one another, since we can't bop others with rocks unless we are un-bop-worthy ourselves. Since Christianity involves becoming a new person, a saint, simply by asking Jesus to save us and trusting His sacrifice on the cross to save us from our evil deeds (meaning we first must admit we're evil), it completely eliminates the element of pride that comes with religion. We can't brag because we owe everything to Jesus, and stand every moment only by God's mercy towards us. Furthermore, since we're all a bunch of jerks, or at best, redeemed jerks, it means we should be merciful to others, or else God won't be merciful to us. And, since we're saved by grace, not by our works, it also means we should do good towards others not out of fear God will punish us, but out of love and our hearts being right inside. However, it does not condone laziness or evil deeds because if we're saved at all our lives should begin producing good fruits naturally, not because of our efforts but because of our very natures having been changed. As for churches, they really don't matter. We should try to be around other Christians to be kept accountable, to fellowship with them, to praise God, and just because we like being around God's people, but that doesn't mean going into a literal building. It could be a bunch of Christians sitting in a tree and be about as effective (or maybe more), imo. If anything, church buildings can prove a distraction since they can get the focus on legalism, structure, and externalism rather than God. Also, brainwashing is a bad thing, but I never understood the term. Wouldn't people want their brains nice and clean instead of all dirty and icky? I mean, it's good to give a dog a bath once a while, wouldn't it be the same with a brain? It couldn't really work like a carwash, maybe more like sticking a hose in one ear, and...

-I believe God gave us the Bible perfect, and that He'll preserve it perfect until the end of time. -I believe that religions and beliefs don't lead to God, but salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. -I believe all God's commandments are fulfilled by a self-sacrificing love for Him and other people, because it doesn't harm other people. -I believe saving faith is through God's grace alone and works come only as a by-product of that faith. We can never be good enough to deserve the righteousness that comes through trust in Christ's payment on the cross alone.-I believe I'm a jerk. I believe the rest of humanity is a bunch of jerks. I believe the lot of us jerks can only be justified through what Jesus did for us, and can only be changed by God's goodness, not ours. -I believe that because we're all jerks, we have no right to punish others, but should show mercy. If we don't forgive others, God won't forgive us. I believe in being nice to my fellow jerks because I'm a jerk myself.-I believe only God is good. The Bible records the best men in history as having messed up, sometimes big-time, to show that we should trust God alone. -I believe we need to seek God out of sincerity from our hearts. I believe our relationship needs to be based out of the heart, and that means not hiding from the issues or being religious. God doesn't mind us questioning Him but expects us to reach a decision sooner or later whether to trust Him for all eternity. -I believe Jesus died for my sins, rose again the 3rd day, and that by simply asking Him to save me based on His payment for me, I can have eternal life. However, I have to commit to following Him and give Him my life so that He can change me to become more like Him.-I believe religious people, by and large, are all pretty bad. I think even the best of denominations have their share of phonies slinking around. I think the majority of so-called Christians, aren't.-I believe Jesus didn't come to make a religion, but a bunch of people who follow God from their hearts individually, and not just because their herd leaders tell them to.-I believe "church" is not a building or an institution, but just wherever 2 or more believers are gathered together. It's just Christians getting together to praise and follow God with all their hearts.-I believe I shouldn't worry about anything but should realize God is taking care of me, and that through Jesus I already have everything in the universe that matters.-I believe the real Christians down through the centuries were those that obeyed Jesus' commandments of loving their enemies and being peaceful. Those who committed horrors like the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials were the continuers not of Jesus, but of those who persecuted Him; the Pharisees and the Romans.-I believe God gave all of us free will to choose or reject Him. God doesn't want a bunch of puppets running around, because then we couldn't love Him (sorry Pinochio). -I believe God is a gentleman who lets us choose life or death, but tries to persuade each of us to come to Him. He's not setting any of us up to fall because He doesn't want any of us to perish, but for all to come to repentance.-I believe a good rule of thumb is "Your right to throw a punch stops where the other person's nose begins." I disagree with abortion, homosexual marriage, and slavery because the right desired is the right to infringe upon the rights of others. -I believe in returning good to my enemies and overcoming good with evil. Even if I don't like them or their actions, I am still accountable to God for my own. -I believe in obeying authorities even if they're not right, so long as to do so doesn't go against the Bible, simply because God has put them in authority, and to resist is to resist God. And I should fight evil by returning good, that's God's will.

Also, I've updated the poll to include only those candidates still running in the primaries.

What I didn't see mentioned here is that with partial birth abortion, there have been many instances where the children survived the abortion and, under the law, can legally be left to starve to death on hospital beds. In cases where they were rescued, some have lived to tell about it.Barack Obama voted against all bills that would've stopped this horrible practice but refused to give a reason for his actions. It is why I oppose Obama more than any other candidate in America. I'd prefer seeing Clinton in office to him, just like I preferred seeing Bush in office over Kerry (though I voted for neither, but for Michael Peroutka instead).

Fair enough. Barack Obama might well be the golden boy of todays political world, but I would hope Illinoisans better remember him for his support of the infamous practice of partial-birth abortion. It is at least comprehensible to me where someone might be coming from when supporting abortion in general, although I disagree that babies are inhuman at any point, or that any persons right should include the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others. However, I cannot understand how those like Obama can so fervently advocate a law where children can be born alive after botched abortions, and then legally left to starve to death in the back rooms of hospitals. Thankfully, the ruling against this horrible practice was finally upheld in the courts within the past year, after years of staunch opposition from those like Barack Obama, who voted against the bill despite personally hearing in congress the testimony of nurse Jill Stanek concerning the horrors of partial-birth abortion. Obama, despite his claims to the contrary, is as radical as they come in his support for abortion, including the abominable practice of partial-birth abortion. When questioned in 2004 why he supported it, he replied, God will judge me. But regardless of whether God judges him, he still has a responsibility to be honest with the people he is supposed to be representing on such issues. I believe Obama has made it this far only through avoiding serious talk about his radical stances on the most controversial issues, and using a combination of charisma and buzz words like change to inspire hope in voters. We made a mistake in supporting Obama for Congress, I can only hope we do not repeat it with regards to his bid for the Presidency.

You didn't try anything like the cpanel password recovery feature recently, did you? That would subtract 10 (actually often slightly more).

Last year I noticed an article about what appeared to be a dead Chupacabra having been found. It generated a lot of press: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ However, later testing led to the conclusion that it was just a hairless coyote, although to my knowledge they haven't yet explained why it lost its hair. NOTE-The first article offers one person's opinion at the bottom that the creature is a Xoloitzcuintle, a rare species of dog also known as the Mexican hairless dog. However, if the fangs are genuine for the Chupacabra specimen, that might prove a major difference since I can find no examples of fanged Xoloitzcuintle's. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21595838/ However, the photos do not look much like a coyote. Perhaps the Chupacabra is another species of coyote with a taste for blood similar to the vampire bat? It's anyone's guess, but the 2007 case should allow you to see some serious evidence and decide for yourself. Hairless coyote or Chupacabra? You decide. Also, here's pictures from the 2006 case, where the Chupacabra carcase was also photographed: https://news.mongabay.com/ However, while the coloring isn't too dissimilar, one appears to have more hair, a longer tail, and no fangs, making me think they're not the same species.