vote_for_palpatine

"We should go someplace where the Imperials won't find us, like a frigid planet with no discernable sources of energy or useful supplies."

"I'll be right behind you Han - I just want to go check out a meteorite. This one meteorite, which is likely the size of a Jawa's fist, will undoubtedly hold the key to our defeat of the Empire, so it's worth risking an encounter with a man-eating monster."

"I can't stay with you, Leia. The full might and power of the Rebel Alliance can't protect me from the occasional small-time bounty hunter."

"I feel great! That blow to the back of my head left one hell of a scar on my face, though."

"The Rebels are there. Have Admiral Ozzel set course for the Hoth system, and have the ship which launched the probe droid near Hoth go somewhere else."

"No, we're not going into an asteroid field; this is a debris field. Asteroids are much, much farther apart than this!"

"Artoo, we're going down! If only we had done a preliminary scan of the planet - we all know how fog is fatal to spaceships!"

"Set us down...there, Chewie. And do it with a huge, spectacular loop-de-loop. But don't call it that in the ship's log."

"Asteroids do not concern me. I want that ship, not excuses."

"Lord Vader, the Emperor demands you make contact with him."

"Move this ship out of the asteroid field so that we can send a clear transmission!"

"Uh, my Lord...asteroids won't have any effect onGHHHHHHK! ACK! AAAAAAAAACK!!"

"Mynocks. Chewie and I have run into them before. They usually hang out inside the mouths of giant, vacuum-breathing monsters, so it's kind of weird to find them here."

"My lord, we have them! And by 'We have them', I mean, we can see them and have a good chance to capture them!"

"Oh no!! I cut off Vader's head in the middle of a weird hallucination and my face was in there! Could this be foreshadowing?!?"

"My lord, the ship no longer appears on any of our scopes! And our ship has suddenly gained 5,000 pounds!"

"You'll find I'm full of surprises - for instance, you didn't think I'd let myself get disarmed so easily, did you?"

"GODDAMN YOU LANDO I'M GOING TO CHOKE YOU TO DEATH THANKS FOR FREEING US FROM THE IMPERIALS I'M A MINDLESS SAVAGE THEREFORE I CAN'T SEE THE BIG PICTURE!!"

"That's it Chewie, choke the son of a bitch to death! He could have easily kept Darth Vader, that guy who can choke people with his mind and flies around in a ship bigger than Cloud City, from capturing the man I love!"

"NO...That's not true! That's IMPOSSIBLE!! And furious denials never indicate actual acceptance of a difficult truth!"

"Lando and Chewie are leaving...let's all see them off together, standing in a kind of pose. That would be meaningful in some way."

Scratch that.  I choose me.

Oh no you don't; Mielr called it before you.

The quality of the GOUT has kept me from watching any parts of the OT in quite some time.

If you don't want to answer that's cool, C3PX, but where do you live? If I were to believe the stereotypes, it seems like you live in the heart of the Bible Belt, surrounded by trailer parks, Wal-Marts, and Southern Baptist mega-churches based on what you just said.

Hey, first of all my first scenario was a weird hypothetical, that if I was forced to vote between Bonds and Rose, I would vote for Bonds. But if I had a real-world vote, one I could give to (or withhold from) anyone, neither Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, nor any steroid cheat would get my vote. I agree with you that they cheated the game.

How can you tell for certain that Rose did that kind of thing?

I can't. But certainty is not necessary in this case. Since Pete Rose admitted to betting on baseball games, he has kept himself out by breaking the biggest of all baseball rules.

I rarely watch movies myself these days. I've seen so many at this point that it would be difficult to be overly impressed by one, and I feel like I have better ways of wasting my time. I just have the feeling that "I've seen it all before", even if I haven't.

C3PX, what do you have against FOX News? I mean, I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Sean Hannity, though. Jeez, what a tool. I agree with him more often than not and I can't tolerate two seconds of him.

 Whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

Steroid apologists go to this all the time - we are not depriving Pete Rose of rights here. Resaonble doubt is a legal standard, something which must be taken into account before the state deprives a man of his constitutionally recognized rights. No one has the right to enter the Hall of Fame. Yes, Pete Rose's play did merit entry into the HOF in my opinion, but he denied himself entry by breaking baseball's most serious rule.

well, isn't being banned for breaking the rule against gambling the same as being banned for gambling?

Wife-beaters aren't banned from baseball for beating their wives because baseball has no rule expressly forbidding wife-beating. But baseball does have a rule, established long before Rose made the major leagues, against gambling. That is the difference.

But getting back to Rose's style of managing - does it not seem logical that if Rose had a bet riding on a particular game that he would manage it differently? Let's say I managed the Yankees and I bet on them to win tonight against Boston. I've got a one-run lead in the ninth with the heart of the Red Sox order coming up. I shouldn't use Rivera here because he's been overworked lately, but I do have $50,000 riding on it. Why wouldn't I use Rivera? What's three more outs here, two innings there? This is what happens.

For the benefit of those who want to follow along (not bloody likely!), I'm going to reproduce all the moves as we go along.

• 1. e4 e5
• 2. Nf3

We can't prove he effected the outcome of games to win them.   There is no prove he bet against his team.

If Rose was only betting on his team to win, then obviously - it logically must follow - the days he did not place a bet on his team is a bet against. A bet is a statement of confidence - no bet, no confidence.

And again, speaking of logical conclusions - as manager, Rose decides who plays and who doesn't. If Rose has 5,000 riding on Reds vs. Astros, suppose he uses his best reliever for a third straight night when that reliever needs the night off, just in the hope that he can cover his bet? That taints the game and could jeopardize the health of that player or any player he rides too hard in the interests of covering his bets. That's just wrong.

We can allow all sort of bad people in the HOF,  but we can't allow a gambler in even though he may be the best player to ever play the game.   Gambling is something millions of people do each day.

Do you know why people gamble on sporting events? They gamble on the assumption that they are watching something honest. If those people in 1987 who laid down hard-earned money on the Reds knew the manager of the team did not place a bet on his team on one night or other, do you think they would do the same? Let's say Joe Torre gambled on games, present day. If I knew next season that Joe Torre didn't bet on the Dodgers vs. Brewers, July 11th, I would also not place a bet to that effect. Because I know that Torre believes his team won't get it done that night, and that he will not push as hard for a win when he didn't place a bet.

Did Player X beating his wife or Player Y's racism effect the outcome of baseball games? Highly unlikely. Did Pete Rose, playing certain players on certain days and withholding certain players on other days, effect the outcome of baseball games? Most likely. And he wasn't doing that for the good of the Reds, he was doing it for his own personal gain. Putting his goals ahead of the team.

Pete Rose is not banned from baseball because he gambled. Pete Rose is banned because he broke the rule against gambling.

This Thread Is Now About...Moustashes.

For the ladies.

Do you have what it takes to defeat me in a game of chess? You may all consult amongst one another before making your move.

1. e4

1. P-K4

I made my first move in two different chess notations for those who aren't familiar with one or the other. Good luck!

tonight was my only viewing of TTS with Conan O'Brien. I only saw the Tom Hanks interview (good) parts of the Neil Young song (what a no-talent hack) and the end. Conan seemed sincerely upbeat and thankful, but Will Ferrell's "Free Bird" was a sour note. Ferrell used to be funny.

Fink and Threepiess aside, here is my argument against Pete Rose for the HOF.

If Pete Rose had simply left baseball, cold turkey, after his playing days had ended, he was a HOF shoo-in. He was one of those rare athletes who squeezed talent out of every square inch of his body. He wanted to win every game he played in. He may have shortened another player's career trying to win the All-Star game. I don't necessarily believe that there is one and only one best way to play the game, but Pete Rose's approach to the game left me doubting myself on that score.

But then there is Pete Rose the manager. Pete Rose compromised the integrity of the game of baseball through his gambling activities. One might argue that steroids also compromise the integrity of the game, and it is unavoidable that multiple steroid users will enter the Hall. Since steroid cheats will surely be in the HOF, why not Rose?

I wouldn't care to see Mark McGuire, Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds in the HOF, among others. But let's say I was forced to cast a vote for one player and my choices were Bonds or Rose. Bonds cheated, true, but the selfish motivations he had for using steroids did have the beneficial side effect of helping his teams win ballgames. He could react quicker, hit the ball harder, stay healthy and recover more quickly from fatigue or injury. If I was a teammate of Barry Bonds', it wouldn't bother me that he was using steroids. The guy is hitting getting on base all the time and slugging balls like crazy.

On the other hand, my manager Pete Rose bet on us to win the first two games against San Diego and didn't place a bet on the last two games against them. Not hard to figure out which of his starting pitchers he has confidence in. And it's easy to see that he's going to work his best relievers like crazy during those first two games and they'll get all the rest they want during those last two games. The first two games of that 4-gamer with the Padres will be managed like games 6 & 7 of the World Series, the last two like a split-squad Grapefruit League game against the University of Florida. And all of that so Pete Rose (who makes a very good living as a major league manager) can make an extra $10,000.

Both Bonds and Rose did damage to the game of baseball, but Rose did much more damage to his team through his actions - and non-actions - than did Bonds. And that is the heart of my problem with Pete Rose: in a team sport, he cheated his team. If you must cheat, at least help your team win.

The rules of this game remind me strongly of Calvinball.

If you ask me, every thread - ultimately - is about William Shatner.

Rose was once an Expo. "Expo sin" sounds like lewd behavior.

*Dammit, man, stick to the topic! Don't let Frink bait you!*

Meanwhile Pete Rose whose only crime was gambling, can't get into the hall of fame.

Warbler, do you want to talk about this in the baseball thread? Because I believe Rose should be kept out - he committed the Cardinal Sin in baseball. Gambling turns whatever sport it infects into professional wrestling without all the entertaining sideshows.

Suggestion to Adywan for an edit in RTOJ

Return The Original Jedi is fine like it is.

I have no interest in on-line gaming. I bought a PS3 for the Ratchet & Clank and Hot Shots Golf series, which I have played since they first appeared on the PS2 and PSX, respectively.

I was being sarcastic, miker71. I know sarcasm isn't always clear in writing. And this is me being serious now. (Or am I? Shit...am I a clone?)

You must have been born in the 70's, Frink. Because that was 1000 years ago. I'm 35, which is like 60 in single guy years these days.

What is the male equivalent of the spinster with a bunch of cats?