jam40jeff

Yay for overpriced mass-produced soup!

Technically, he's right. After Ohio City was annexed, it was called the Near West Side neighborhood of Cleveland until the late 1960's.

I tried the Indigo Imp porter (Gatekeeper I believe). It was decent, but not a great porter. Lake Erie Monster is good, and really strong, and pretty expensive since it only comes in 4 packs. But at 9.1%, you don't really need a 6 pack! :) I've been meaning to, but I've yet to try Thirsty Dog.

Ohio City existed before Cleveland, so surely it existed in the early 1900s.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that these things happen many times and a game and aren't successful very often. It would be like watching a football team drive into the red zone 30 times and only get 1 field goal out of all of it. It would make watching most of the drives feel like a waste of time.

I'm tired of this low scoring argument. It is complete cr@p! The Giants v Patriots Superbowl of a couple years ago ended with a score of 17-14 and was considered a good game. Really if the NFL didn't have inflated scoring (1 score = 7 points) this game would have ended as 2.5 to 2. Maybe if we started counting each goal as 7 points if would suddenly become more entertaining. The difference I see in football (which is a fairly "low-scoring" sport) is that, similar to baseball, there are a series of events that lead up to a score at a decent percentage. In football, it's string together a long drive. In baseball, it's getting guys on base, stealing bases, stringing hits together, etc. In soccer, it doesn't progress towards a potential score. You go from not having a low chance of scoring to scoring a goal in a matter of seconds most of the time. It would be akin to a 17-14 football game in which all four touchdowns were scored off punt returns for a TD, which would probably not be considered a good game, or a baseball game ending 2-1 where all 3 runs were on solo home runs and nobody else reached base the entire game. The best example I can think of is that there is nothing analogous to getting a leadoff double, or pounding the ball down the field, where you may not end up scoring, but your chances of scoring keep getting higher and higher. In soccer, it seems as if your chances of scoring are always pretty low, until for some reason they skyrocket to near 100% for a second (or you get lucky and score on the 1 in 500 shot).

I dislike soccer for the same reasons I dislike hockey, although I dislike soccer more. It is fun to play for the exercise and getting to kick people in the shins and whatnot, but any game that low scoring has the possibility for this crap, similar to how basketball used to be without a shot clock and jump balls are every basket, when final scores such as 4-2 weren't unheard of. The biggest problem with such low scoring games is the success rate is so low that luck becomes a huge factor and drowns out the effects of strategy and talent. You can execute a play well 100 times, and 99 of them you won't score. Sometimes you can execute well 100 times and never score and then your only goal will come as a consequence of complete luck. I have no problem with luck being a part of a game, but it shouldn't have such a large effect in every game. It would be like if in baseball batting averages were all about 0.005 and games ended 1-0 after 24 innings on a fluke play where somebody actually scored. Not fun to watch, not because of "good defense", but because you feel like 99.9% of the game is inconsequential.

I don't think it's a joke, but I don't think it's a way to "stay safe" either. What could this guy have done to protect himself? He likely didn't know what was happening until he had a gun to him. I don't think the outcome would have been any better if he had reached for a weapon rather than tried to run.

I hate the University of Notre Dame as much as a Catholic person could. :)

Besides, a statue in a church has quite a different purpose than one erected of mammoth size next to a freeway.

It's nothing against LEAP or any other non-profit social services. It's the view that they shouldn't ALL be in Ohio City (there are already plenty of other social service non-profits in the area). And it seems a large proportion of people running and working at these non-profits DO live in Westlake. They don't mind driving in to deal with the issues for an hour as long as they don't have to live near them. Regardless, now that I now they are moving locations (not a newcomer to the neighborhood) and not taking first-floor retail space, I don't really care.

EC, you're missing the point. It's not whether you lead by example (I think you clearly do and that's great), but that you are overly harsh and abrasive in addition, which is detrimental to your cause. I appreciate what you do, but I think you need to tone down the rhetoric and attitude or you're going to get people tuning out your good ideas.

ANOTHER social services nonprofit in OC?!?!?! WTF?

I thought it was the case that the existing parking lot does not go under any buildings due to the odd shape, but I found a map to verify: http://parking.case.edu/map/map.htm

How about this comment from a PD worker:

EC, he wasn't saying you don't go the extra step. He was saying that you should lead by example and not by trying to boss others around. Hopefully people will follow your lead, but if you turn them off, they're less likely to.

I understand they were forced out, and that's a shame, but they couldn't find a better location to relocate to than Brookpark and Pearl?

Cincinnati Bell doesn't pro-rate though? Verizon will pro-rate their monthly plans if you switch in the middle of a month.

They should pro-rate the charges so that if you only use it for 5 days in a month you only get charged like 1/6 of the monthly charge.

I hope so. I like Telfair and was actually hoping he might get a little PT in the playoffs.

Having a website is a fee, yes. But implementing online reservations doesn't just "come with" having a website. There would be another fee for implementing and maintaining such a system. These thing don't just work magically and they aren't free.

I think he "doesn't show up to the playoffs" each year because teams really turn up the heat on defense and he can't handle it. (I think it's ridiculous guys paid that much to play a sport don't play that hard every game, but that's a different discussion.)

Here is what is wrong with Mo Williams, and I generally like Mo Williams: Mo Williams is an undersized 2 guard. He has trouble beating people off the dribble when people apply a lot of pressure to him. He is not one of the quicker point guards in the league, doesn't have ridiculous ball handling skills and is an average passer at best, and doesn't finish well when he is able to get inside. What he is good at is shooting open jump shots. The problem is that he's tool small and doesn't play good enough defense to be a stand around shooter. We need a point guard. We need a guy who can handle extreme pressure from other fast guards like Rondo or Tony Parker or Chris Paul or the Allen Iverson of old or Steve Nash, who can guard them, and who can drive and dish or finish so Lebron doesn't have to every time. We have enough other guys that can stand around and shoot 3's. If you notice, we looked horrible when teams turned up the pressure a notch and Lebron was out of the game. We had noone else in the game often times who could get by a defender. That is the type of point guard we need, someone who can get around or blow by their defender and cause the defense to have to make a decision instead of being able to stick to their man like glue for 24 seconds.

I just watched Major League last night rather than the Indians game, and thought how our team now very closely resembles those which the movie was about.

Restaurants that wish to take online reservations have three options: pay a bunch of money to someone or spend a lot of time and energy creating their own or buying an online reservation system for their website (if they even have one), pay somebody else who already has the expertise (OpenTable) to do it for them, or decide it's not worth the cost. Restaurants make one of these three choices based on what they expect the return on their investment will be. Why would you assume that creating their own reservation system may be any less of a loss to the restaurant than OpenTable?