Amsterdam is the strangest place ever...2

So, Jantzen says "Great, now this guy is going to go outside and tell all his bum friends to take our stuff." Now I'm on-guard. Im clutching my bags, looking over my shoulder, and generally being paranoid. I know, you're thinking "Its Amsterdam, he's paranoid...stupid stoner..." but I swear, we hadn't even made it to the hotel, not to mention a coffee shop. This is pure paranoia, and not unfounded.

After 20 minutes of walking around the station, we finally got our tickets (a 10 Euro 48-hour tram pass) and catch the 1, 2, or 5 south towards Leidesplein. We get there, and find the Marnix Hotel. I dont know what it is about europe, maybe its a lack of space, but every set of stairs I went up/down in Amsterdam was like 4 inches wide. Its bizzare. i was excited at the Atlanta Airport when i could fit my entire foot on the stair!

We get to the desk, and sure enough, the credit card machine is broken, and that means we cant pay for our room, and we have to get E246 (roughly$343) in cash. We tell them we will take care of it in the next day or two, but we need to put our stuff in our room and get lunch, etc. They give us a room key (#100) and we head down the hall to the room. Much to our suprise when we open the door, there are two asian people in there making the beds. No big deal, cleaning crew, I get it. The thing that was confusing was that some guys bags were still in there. That was weird.

So we had to put our luggage in the closet next to the desk until the room was empty, and set off to get lunch.

Jantzen and I headed across the street to "Crush" the coffeeshop closest to our hotel. The weird thing about the people in Amsterdam is that either they speak perfect english (enough to convince you they are American) or they dont speak it all (because they are Moroccan) but will pretend to understand every word you said, and give you rude, abrupt answers.

The "bartender" at the Crush was the second.

He sat, and nodded along while we talked to him, said yes and no when appropriate, and then was clearly lost when we asked an open-ended question like "how much is it to use the internet." It was his answer to this question that set me off. "Three Euro per hour." Okay, thats fine, I don't care...BUT WAIT, there is a sign behind his head that says "Internet, 2 Euro per hour." That Moraccan Bastard! Why is everyone trying to screw me here? Whats the deal!

To make things worse, The worst thing that could possibly be on TV was on...Clueless, the Series. That is just uncool. So Janzten goes to the weird Moraccan and says "Would you mind changing the channel" and the guy doesnt' get it. Jantzen points at the TV, and the guy picks up the remote. Jantzen reached for it, and the guy is like "No, I use remote" and put on Football (soccer). Thats alright with me. Then he mutes it and puts on Bob Marley. I couldn't belive it. I know, I know, we're American, and we're in Amsterdam, and we're at the Coffeeshop, but I mean, that doesn't really mean I want to listen to Marley. I'd have prefered to listen to the damn match...

Then it just got bizzare...

This woman was kind of stalking around the cafe, and went into the bathroom. She looked American, dressed like us, etc. She came out of the bathroom and came right to us. Started asking us all these questions about where we were from, staying, what we were doing, etc. I tried my best not to give her information, but for some weird reason, every time I opened my mouth, some critical piece of information about our trip would fall out of my mouth. It was embarassing. She could have said "what time is it?" and I'd have said "We're staying at the Marnix Hotel Room 100." I couldn't believe it. The other thing is that she wasn't even an American. She tried to convince us she was, but then when we tried to have a conversation about some specifics, she got weird. The Dutch love to pretend to be American, its like they enjoy fucking with us...

Jantzen and I were both very uncomfortable in Amsterdam at this point, and decide to leave the Crush and go get food.

We step outside, and begin to walk back towards Leidsplien (the square near our house) where all the restruants are located. We are walking about 200 yards down the road, and come to the first canal we have to cross. As we are crossing the bridge, there are literally hundreds of pidgeons flying around above my head. I looked at Jantzen and I said "I'm going to get shit on" he thought it was funny. I said again "No, seriously, the way today has gone. I'm going to get shit on by a bird." he laughs again, "no you wont, lets go." Again, I say "I'm going to get shit on by a damn bird!" We both laugh, and keep walking. We get about halfway down the next block, and I look down...

SURE ENOUGH, I GOT SHIT ON BY A BIRD!

Thats what our trip to Amsterdam was like...

I got shit on by a bird

It got better.

Much better.

But that first half-day was insane.

Stay Tuned...

Amsterdam is the strangest place ever...

So I used to laugh at the jokes in Austin Powers when goldmember did some akward things, because it was akward, and I could recognize that as an American (probably no matter where I was from).

Now I understand why it was really funny. Dutch people are AKWARD!

Let me tell you about the un-beliveable series of events that befell me today.

First we get out the door at 7:45am London time. That is 1:45 in Knoxville, 12:45 in Memphis, and 8:45 in Amsterdam. Already our clocks are gone again, and we are confused.

We head to the "Kings Cross Station" to grab the Picadilly line to Heathrow at rush hour on a Tuesday. Absolutly nuts. There were 8 of us, each with big luggage, and backpacks. We had to get on 4 seperate trains. Two at a time was the best we could do.

An hour later, we finally reach the "Tube" stop to get the bus to Heathrow. We are only 7 minutes from the airport, and its 9:00. The trouble is that only David and I were there. The other 6 were behind us. We waited, and eventually, David and Holly showed up. We were concerned because the line we were on splits, and heads WAY up north, and Heatrow.

Of course, Jantzen and Charles had gotten on the wrong train, even though it was the right line. Fortunatly they realized it before it was too late. At the last stop, they swapped trains and all was well.

We all got to the airport in plenty of time. Which is damn good, because the line for security got insane. They were testing a new system of checking people (full body scans) as well has training new employees. AND one of the machines was broken, so they had two lines funnel into one. David and I were in the line a solid 20 minutes before Jantzen and Co., but just the same, they were almost all through security before us.

It took 45 minutes to go about 100 feet.

We get through to find out the plane is delayed AND they can't tell us what gate to go to until 50 minutes before the flight. so we just got to sit in a random area that one of the British Airways employees thought MIGHT BE where to go.

The fight is then moved to the OTHER SIDE OF THE TERMINAL. No big deal, we get there with time to spare.

Flight goes well, its not even an hour long. EXCEPT that as we are coming into Amsterdam, the wind of the North Sea (Nord Zee) got really bad, and our pilot had to bank in a manner that exposed the bottom of our right wing directly to those gusts of wind. I almost died, not because the plane was in danger, but because my heart almost stopped waiting for the impending barrell-roll. It didn't happen, and we landed well.

Once we get off the plane, we are all pretty exhausted, but still have work to do. We go to get the train tickets, and you wouldn't believe it, but they won't take my debit OR credit card. Neither will the pay phones (Sory Mom, Sorry Dad). Finally, Jantzen buys my ticket, and we get on the train.

About 25 minutes later, we are in Cenral Amsterdam. Acutually we were at Amsterdam Centraal Station. We start to head out, and the problem is that we have no Euro's, and no idea where we are going. We step out of the station, and I turn to David and say "So, where are we going?" and immediatly, a Dutch man turns and begins to give us directions. "Oh, you don't have Euros? Let me show you where to convert them" "No, really, that wont be neccesary, we will find it." The guy leads us for about 90 seconds, and then points into the Money Exchange, and says, "I'll wait here, and you guys can maybe give me a little change for the trouble" "FUCK" (says Jonathan) "Told you" (says Jantzen).

We get our money, and decide we will all throw some coin together for the guy, just because we don't want confrontation. We do. Its about a Euro ($1.30). He comes in, and puts his hands out, and Brit hands him this. He looks at it and says "One Euro. You have a lot of nerve. You shouldn't insult people like that."

This was just the begining. I'm tired or typing the story though, and want to go back to the table.

We are at an internet cafe/coffeeshop...What can I say...Priorities.

Stay Tuned...

I am OUT OF HERE!

Have a great spring break everyone!

Kurt, Holly, Brit, Patrick, Jantzen, Charles, David and I are leaving tonight on our own little Euro-Trip.

What was that safe-word again?

Stay Tuned...

The Best Court Opinion EVER!

Jeffrey M. Stambovsky, Appellant,
v.
Helen V. Ackley et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

July 18, 1991



SUMMARY

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered
April 9, 1990 in New York County, which dismissed the complaint pursuant to
CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

OPINION OF THE COURT

Rubin, J.

Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house he had recently contracted to purchase was widely reputed to be *256 possessed by poltergeists, reportedly seen by defendant seller and members of her family on numerous occasions over the last nine years. Plaintiff promptly commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract of sale. Supreme Court reluctantly
dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiff has no remedy at law in this jurisdiction.

(1) The unusual facts of this case, as disclosed by the record, clearly warrant a grant of equitable relief to the buyer who, as a resident of New York City, cannot be expected to have any familiarity with the folklore of the Village of Nyack. Not being a "local", plaintiff could not readily learn that the home he had contracted to purchase is haunted. Whether the source of the
spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller are parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication (Readers' Digest) and the local press (in 1977 and 1982, respectively), defendant is
estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted. More to the point, however, no divination is required to conclude that it is defendant's promotional efforts in publicizing her close encounters
with these spirits which fostered the home's reputation in the community. In 1989, the house was included in five-home walking tour of Nyack and described in a November 27th newspaper article as "a riverfront Victorian (with ghost)."
The impact of the reputation thus created goes to the very essence of the bargain between the parties, greatly impairing both the value of the property and its potential for resale. The extent of this impairment may be presumed
for the purpose of reviewing the disposition of this motion to dismiss the cause of action for rescission (Harris v City of New York, 147 AD2d 186, 188-189) and represents merely an issue of fact for resolution at trial.

(2) While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral. *257

"Pity me not but lend thy serious hearing to what I shall unfold" (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene V [Ghost]).

(3) From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: "Who you gonna' call?" as a title song to the movie "Ghostbusters"
asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale. It portends that the prudent attorney will establish an escrow account lest the subject of the transaction come back to haunt him and his client--or pray that his malpractice insurance coverage extends to supernatural disasters. In the interest of avoiding such untenable consequences, the notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest.

It has been suggested by a leading authority that the ancient rule which holds that mere nondisclosure does not constitute actionable misrepresentation "finds proper application in cases where the fact undisclosed is patent, or the plaintiff has equal opportunities for obtaining information which he may be expected to utilize, or the defendant has no reason to think that he is acting under any misapprehension" (Prosser, Torts

106, at 696 [4th ed 1971]). However, with respect to transactions in real estate, New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty upon the vendor to disclose any information concerning the premises (London v Courduff, 141 AD2d 803) unless there is a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties (Moser v Spizzirro, 31 AD2d 537, affd 25 NY2d 941; IBM Credit Fin.
Corp. v Mazda Motor Mfg. [USA] Corp., 152 AD2d 451) or some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes "active concealment" (see, 17 E. 80th Realty Corp. v 68th Assocs., -- AD2d -- [1st Dept, May 9, 1991] [dummy
ventilation system constructed by seller]; Haberman v Greenspan, 82 Misc 2d 263 [foundation cracks covered by seller]). Normally, some affirmative misrepresentation (e.g., Tahini Invs. v Bobrowsky, 99 AD2d 489 [industrial
waste on land allegedly used only as farm]; Jansen v Kelly, 11 AD2d 587 [land containing valuable minerals allegedly acquired for use as campsite]) or *258 partial disclosure (Junius Constr. Corp. v Cohen, 257 NY 393 [existence of
third unopened street concealed]; Noved Realty Corp. v A. A. P. Co., 250 App Div 1 [escrow agreements securing lien concealed]) is required to impose upon the seller a duty to communicate undisclosed conditions affecting the premises
(contra, Young v Keith, 112 AD2d 625 [defective water and sewer systems concealed]).

Caveat emptor is not so all-encompassing a doctrine of common law as to render every act of nondisclosure immune from redress, whether legal or equitable. "In regard to the necessity of giving information which has not
been asked, the rule differs somewhat at law and in equity, and while the law courts would permit no recovery of damages against a vendor, because of mere concealment of facts under certain circumstances, yet if the vendee refused to
complete the contract because of the concealment of a material fact on the part of the other, equity would refuse to compel him so to do, because equity only compels the specific performance of a contract which is fair and open,
and in regard to which all material matters known to each have been communicated to the other" (Rothmiller v Stein, 143 NY 581, 591-592 [emphasis added]). Even as a principle of law, long before exceptions were embodied in
statute law (see, e.g., UCC 2-312, 2-313, 2-314, 2-315; 3-417 [2] [e]), the doctrine was held inapplicable to contagion among animals, adulteration of food, and insolvency of a maker of a promissory note and of a tenant
substituted for another under a lease (see, Rothmiller v Stein, supra, at 592-593, and cases cited therein). Common law is not moribund. Ex facto jus oritur (law arises out of facts). Where fairness and common sense dictate that
an exception should be created, the evolution of the law should not be stifled by rigid application of a legal maxim.

The doctrine of caveat emptor requires that a buyer act prudently to assess the fitness and value of his purchase and operates to bar the purchaser who fails to exercise due care from seeking the equitable remedy of rescission
(see, e.g., Rodas v Manitaras, 159 AD2d 341). For the purposes of the instant motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), plaintiff is entitled to every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn from the pleadings (Arrington v New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 443; 442; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634), specifically, in this instance, that he met his obligation to conduct an inspection of the premises and a search of available public records with respect *259 to title. It should be apparent, however, that the most meticulous inspection and the search would not reveal the
presence of poltergeists at the premises or unearth the property's ghoulish reputation in the community. Therefore, there is no sound policy reason to deny plaintiff relief for failing to discover a state of affairs which the
most prudent purchaser would not be expected to even contemplate (see, Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 551).

The case law in this jurisdiction dealing with the duty of a vendor of real property to disclose information to the buyer is distinguishable from the matter under review. The most salient distinction is that existing cases
invariably deal with the physical condition of the premises (e.g., London v. Courduff, supra [use as a landfill]; Perin v Mardine Realty Co., 5 AD2d 685, affd 6 NY2d 920 [sewer line crossing adjoining property without owner's
consent]), defects in title (e.g., Sands v Kissane, 282 App Div 140 [remainderman]), liens against the property (e.g., Noved Realty Corp. v A. A. P. Co., supra), expenses or income (e.g., Rodas v Manitaras, supra [gross
receipts]) and other factors affecting its operation. No case has been brought to this court's attention in which the property value was impaired as the result of the reputation created by information disseminated to the public by the seller (or, for that matter, as a result of possession by poltergeists).

(4) Where a condition which has been created by the seller materially impairs the value of the contract and is peculiarly within the knowledge of the seller or unlikely to be discovered by a prudent purchaser exercising due care with
respect to the subject transaction, nondisclosure constitutes a basis for rescission as a matter of equity. Any other outcome places upon the buyer not merely the obligation to exercise care in his purchase but rather to be omniscient with respect to any fact which may affect the bargain. No practical purpose is served by imposing such a burden upon a purchaser. To the contrary, it encourages predatory business practice and offends the principle that equity will suffer no wrong to be without a remedy.

Defendant's contention that the contract of sale, particularly the merger or "as is" clause, bars recovery of the buyer's deposit is unavailing. Even an express disclaimer will not be given effect where the facts are peculiarly
within the knowledge of the party invoking it (Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 322; Tahini Invs. v Bobrowsky, supra). Moreover, a fair reading of the merger clause reveals that it expressly *260 disclaims only
representations made with respect to the physical condition of the premises and merely makes general reference to representations concerning "any other matter or things affecting or relating to the aforesaid premises". As broad as
this language may be, a reasonable interpretation is that its effect is limited to tangible or physical matters and does not extend to paranormal
phenomena. Finally, if the language of the contract is to be construed as
broadly as defendant urges to encompass the presence of poltergeists in the
house, it cannot be said that she has delivered the premises "vacant" in
accordance with her obligation under the provisions of the contract rider.

To the extent New York law may be said to require something more than "mere
concealment" to apply even the equitable remedy of rescission, the case of
Junius Constr. Corp. v Cohen (257 NY 393, supra), while not precisely on
point, provides some guidance. In that case, the seller disclosed that an
official map indicated two as yet unopened streets which were planned for
construction at the edges of the parcel. What was not disclosed was that the
same map indicated a third street which, if opened, would divide the plot in
half. The court held that, while the seller was under no duty to mention the
planned streets at all, having undertaken to disclose two of them, he was
obliged to reveal the third (see also, Rosenschein v McNally, 17 AD2d 834).

In the case at bar, defendant seller deliberately fostered the public belief
that her home was possessed. Having undertaken to inform the public- at-large,
to whom she has no legal relationship, about the supernatural occurrences on
her property, she may be said to owe no less a duty to her contract vendee. It
has been remarked that the occasional modern cases which permit a seller to
take unfair advantage of a buyer's ignorance so long as he is not actively
misled are "singularly unappetizing" (Prosser, Torts

106, at 696
[4th ed 1971]). Where, as here, the seller not only takes unfair advantage of
the buyer's ignorance but has created and perpetuated a condition about which
he is unlikely to even inquire, enforcement of the contract (in whole or in
part) is offensive to the court's sense of equity. Application of the remedy
of rescission, within the bounds of the narrow exception to the doctrine of
caveat emptor set forth herein, is entirely appropriate to relieve the
unwitting purchaser from the consequences of a most unnatural bargain.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York *261 County (Edward
H. Lehner, J.), entered April 9, 1990, which dismissed the complaint pursuant
to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), should be modified, on the law and the facts, and in the
exercise of discretion, and the first cause of action seeking rescission of
the contract reinstated, without costs.

Smith, J.

(Dissenting). I would affirm the dismissal of the complaint by the motion
court.

. . . if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be
for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a
poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court.

(emphasis added)

Funny stuff huh!?!?




Stay Tuned...

World Baseball Classic

I love it! Its like the World Cup, except its INTERESTING!

Lets go USA!

Oh, and the Domincan Republic team, may be the nastiest batting order I've ever seen...WOW!

I can't wait for MLB to start up!

Stay Tuned...

NCAA TOURNAMENT

MEMORANDUM

TO: Public
FROM: Jonathan May
RE.: Crimson Tide Basketball
DATE: March 12, 2006
____________________________________________________________________________________

We started out the season as the 15th ranked team in the country. Really high expectations.

Then the shit hit the fan. We had 4 players transfer, and our second best incoming-freshman did not qualify, and can't play. Our best player got hurt (ACL) and another punk quit the team in the middle of the year...

So that left us with 7 scholarship players, the ones you need to know are:

Ronald Steele - Think Mo Williams, with more discipline. He is amazing, and he is the only point guard on the team, which means he NEVER comes out of the game. He is an iron-man. He holds some record because he played EVERY MINUTE of SEC PLAY. Incredible. Great shooter, and a very good floor-leader. Unfortunately might be going to the NBA after this year. He's from Birmingham.

Chuck Davis* - This guy was supposed to be a potential player of the year for the SEC, he has been getting much better each year, and this is his Senior year. Unfortunately, the FIRST GAME of SEC PLAY he tore his ACL and is done for his career. He is a big guy, like 6-11, and won't be playing for us.

Jamerrio Davidson - This is the guy who was a freshman when we left, he is a 7=footer from Atlanta. He is a really big talent, but kind of an underachiever. UNTIL Chuck Davis went down, and then, all the sudden, JD has been THE MAN. He and Steele were elected to the ALL-SEC First time (big honor). He is probably going to the NBA after this season, even though he is a Junior.

Richard Hendrix - The BEST FRESHMAN ALABAMA HAS HAD IN YEARS. he is averaging like 16 points and 12 rebounds a game, as a FRESHMAN. he is 6-11, and like 280lbs! He is a beast, and if he doesn't go pro, he could ultimately be the best player in the SEC if he stays. He's from Athens, AL.

Alonzo Gee - Also a freshman, from Palm Beach. He is a lot like Kennedy Winston used to be. He slashes to the basket, and scores from EVERYWHERE, but also isn't shy about taking bad shots. that part sucks. Gee and Hendrix were elected to the ALL-SEC Freshman team (another big honor)

So you know the important players, the role players are as follows:

Jean Felix - He is from Africa, but grew up in Paris, then went to HS in B'ham to get a better chance to play college basketball. Good three-point shooter, but nothing else.

Evan Brock - Just a body to put on the floor...Nothing special, but he isn't a "liability" so to speak.

Brandon Hollinger - A freshman, who sometimes plays Point guard to give Steele a chance to just walk up the court without any pressure.

We had 1 other guy Justin Jonus, who quit the team cause he "wasn't getting enough playing time" which is ridiculous. You've got to earn it.


Story of the Season:
We were not doing very well at all, we played the 2nd hardest NON-CONFERENCE schedule in the country, and only did so-so. Really, even as late as mid-January, we didn't look like we'd make the tournament.

Then we started winning some road games (which are worth more "credit" so to speak than home wins), and went on a 6 game win-streak in the SEC.

In February, we finally started to hit a stride, we have 3 big wins late that are singularly responsible for us being in the tournament:

Then, Sat Feb 4

We beat #13 LSU at home...67-62

Two weeks later

We beat #8 UT at home...92-79

One week later

We beat #7 Florida at home...82-77

We ended the season 17-12, 10-6 in the SEC (tied for 2nd in the West with Arkansas)

The Morale of the Story:
- We are underdogs because of our lack of players (we have an athletic trainer that wears a uniform to games, just in case we get into a crisis and he has to stand on the court for us.
- If you had asked an Alabama fan in September if being a 10 seed in the NCAA was okay, they would have said no.
- If you asked that same fan after Jonus quit the team, and Chuck Davis tore his ACL, and 5 kids transferred/did not qualify, they'd say "hell yeah!"
- So, we are content. If we happen to win 1 game (Marquette is a game we can win) then the whole season will be a success.
- No one will expect us to do any damage in the tournament, but we are a 'tournament built team' because we have two dominant big men (Hendrix and Davidson) and one of the best point guards in the country. If they play the way they are capable, and guys like Felix and Hollinger hit some open 3-pointers, we could see some magic again. That being said, our bracket is TOUGH!
- If we do win our first game, we get #2 seeded UCLA (most likely) to get into the sweet-16. Now, you remember a few years ago we were in a similar situation, and had to play Stanford (who was a #1) to get to the sweet-16 and we did it. Gottfried knows what he is doing, but the players don't have much tournament experience.

The biggest weakness we have, is that we have a tendency to go through 4 or 5 minute periods where we CANNOT BUY A BUCKET. That is why we lost to Miss St. at the end of the year, and Ark, and Kentucky. In all those games, we had 6, 8, 12 pt leads late in the game and and couldn't find a way to score, and lost.

Time will tell.

First game Thursday!


Stay Tuned...

Barry "Boo Hoo" Bonds...

A picture of Barry Bonds in 1997

A picture of Barry Bonds in 2003

Aw, Poor Barry...

The media just won't give him a break...

The second another allegation comes out, they want to jump all over him.

Its a wonder, after he's been so sweet to them for the last 18 years, that they don't return the favor with some kindness, or, perhaps the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know what Barry did, or didn't do. We will probably never know. But when his attorney released a statement, there was one thing missing...a denial of the allegations:

His attorney, Michael L. Rains, issued a statement on www.barrybonds.com.

"My client, Barry Bonds, has not read the Sports Illustrated article and does not intend to. Furthermore, he does not intend to read the book from which the article is excerpted. Barry regards this as an unfortunate distraction to his friends and teammates at the San Francisco Giants and to the good name and the great players in Major League Baseball,"

"The exploitation of Barry's good name ... may make those responsible wealthy, but in the end, have misled the public in the interest of financial and professional self promotion."”

I didn't see any language that said "Barry Bonds has not, and will not use performance enhancing substances that have bbannedaned by Major Leage Baseball"

You've got to wonder, after the congressional investigation, the grand jury, Balco, and now this book...how many people could be getting it THIS wrong.

There is no question that he was a great player before 1998, but look at the difference in the guys stats:

Pre-1998 Career numbers (13 seasons)
Batting Average: .308 (stellar)
Home Runs: 411 (thats roughly 31 per season)
RBIs: 93/year
Slugging %: .556

1998-2004 (the seasons in question)
Batting Average: .328 (holy hell!)
Home Runs: 292 (thats roughly 48 per season)
RBIs: 105/year (hitting in the middle of an AWFUL lineup)
Slugging %: .754 (WWWWWWWHAT!)

I'm sorry Barry. It has nothing to do with the fact that in 2003 and 2004 you hit home runs that absolutly crippled my Braves. It has nothing to do with the fact that I just don't like you. It has everything to do with the truth, and a game that means too much to be cheapened like this. You should be ashamed for not denying these allegations if they were untrue, and if they are true, you should be even more ashamed.

Sucks to be Barry Bonds...boo hoo...

Stay Tuned...

The Bitter-Sweet Taste of Closure

I've been torturing myself for weeks.

I've been dragging myself through something no one deserves.

There is no one to blame but myself, it wasn't "done to me."

I feel better now. Weird huh?

I don't know what I'll do with myself for the next period of time, but I know I'll be okay.

I'm going to go buy NBA 2006 for my Gamecube.

I'm going to have dinner with friends.

I'm going to play golf.

I'm going to study my ass off, and make good grades so I can get out of this god-forsake town.

I'm going to be happy.

I'm going to be myself.

I'm going to need the help of my friends, and I know I can count on all of you.

Thanks for all your support these last three weeks, I'm ready to be myself again.

Hmmmm...

Two roads diverge...

I'll take "Memorable"

Stay Tuned...