Controlled Chaos

I don't really give a s*** about this. It's not like the NSA is listening or even hand looking through who I call. There is a massive computer....just scanning numbers and if they hit some pattern worth looking into then they will look. You think its checking to see if I call my mom?? They most likely have a database of bad guys....and then scan numbers to that list. That's it....Big deal...

Only in f***in Philly. There's a number of fans criticizing him for it. the loser posts are in pink... Don't stifle it and you have NO player. Nobody here is blasting him for his all out persona. I like it. I really do. But then you get a game like this where the guy could have killed himself. And for what, a possible win? Like I said before, he could have missed the ball. Why do we give merit to outcomes and not actions? I understand it is the easy thing to do, but that doesn't make it right.[/i] Honestly, as a fan watcing for entertainment value, I loved the catch, and I love Rowand for making it. As a fan of the team who hopes they win, I don't kow why anyone would want him to play that way (assuming he's their best option for CF). He broke his nose, maybe he's out for a couple of games...if he breaks his collar bone or his neck, it's a lot longer. Would you want Bobby Abreu playing like that? If you would, you're just not thinking straight. I want guys on my team to play SMART, not recklessly. That's what leads to championships. Also saw this on their boards... "I just re-watched the catch in slow motion on Tivo and what amazed me the most about Rowand's catch was that after he did catch it, he looked forward and saw the wall right in front of him. Instinctively, he held his right hand over his glove to secure the ball inside as the glove slammed against the wall. It worked. The ball stayed in his glove. Without his right hand free to protect his face, his nose slammed into the wall full speed." "Rowand only gets #3 on SportsCenters Top 10. Griffey's diving catch and walk-off HR were one and two." That is unbelivable in and of itself. Griffey's diving catch...and a homerun over someone going balls out to save his team.

Unbelievable!! Aaron rocks!!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 11, 2006 -> 08:46 AM) Ha!!! Funny you should say that - I'm pretty sure my wife did the same thing, noticed before me in Spring Training. I guess we should be wondering why our wives are noticing these things... I'm looking at balls and strikes and good swings and bad swings and shes sitting there going, "hmm..that guys ears kinda stick out" or "that guy needs a haircut" or "that guy is so skinny"....so I guess I can see why she observed it before me. I'm watching BASEBALL...she's watching people!!!

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ May 11, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) It's just too damn easy to do this to someone and it happens all the time. It's terrible. Pay attention here college peeps!!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ May 11, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) I saw that first article when it was published, but hadn't seen the followup. Truer words were never spoken than when she refers to morning after shame morphing into a date rape accusation. It's frightening that someone can thing so little of ruining somebody's life that she would claim rape instead of admitting that she had consented to an act and later regretted it. Rape, real non-consentual rape, is one of the most vicious and brutal violations one human being can commit against another. Morning-after regret that mutates into a rape allegation is something entirely different, and something that would not happen to the degree it does if people understood and accepted the importance of taking personal responsibility for their actions. If anything, in my mind the regret-turned-rape allegation is way closer to rape than what the guy did when he believed he was engaging in a consentual act. When the "victim" rewrites the facts to ease her personal guilt or shame, she has violated the accused person so deeply and completely that it can ruin his life. I agree 100%...She basically raped him of leading a normal life. I don't know the exact FACTS, but the way she tells the story it seems as if there was no arguemnt from her that he did indeed STOP when she said STOP. I feel terrible for this kid if that's the case.

I found these two articles very interesting. Discuss Sex, lies and prison May 3, 2006 by Kathleen Parker For the past six months, I've been staring at a 30-pound box filled with court documents and what's left of a young man's life following one college night and a 5- to 15-second disputed sex act. That is, 5 to 15 seconds into the act of sexual intercourse, she said, "Stop." He stopped immediately. She claimed rape. Thus, before his 23rd birthday, Rich Gorman of Orlando, Fla., was locked behind bars in the Liberty Correctional Institute near Tallahassee, serving a five-year sentence for sexual battery. One minute a junior at Florida State University majoring in business/computer systems, the next a prison inmate labeled a sex offender. I've hesitated to write about the case because all such cases are complex, as we've been reminded the past several weeks by the rape case at Duke University. Gorman's case bears little resemblance to the Duke episode, except that both involve youth and alcohol, a toxic combination in the sexual arena of he said/she said. The moral of Gorman's story, which can't be proved or disproved in this limited space, is that boys and men accused of rape have little hope of reclaiming the life they once knew, regardless of whether they're guilty or innocent. Any objective person reading through the testimony and depositions from Gorman's case would wonder how he landed in prison. The "victim," whom we'll call Chastity, contradicted herself and changed her story several times - all documented in the box at my feet. She was drinking and making out with Gorman earlier in the evening. She also went willingly into his apartment on the night in question, and this is key. She initially told police that she was pulled struggling from the car and dragged into his apartment, where she was raped. When she was told that parking lot cameras might have captured her going into the apartment, she changed her story, admitted that she wasn't forced, and that she walked voluntarily into the apartment. My suspension of skepticism ends right there, but there's much more, including a prior rape claim by the "victim" at another college a few years earlier. Same victim, same scenario, except that she recanted in that case, saying she wasn't sure it was a rape because she was drunk. All the preceding was ruled inadmissible during Gorman's trial thanks to rape shield laws. Again, I'm unable to do justice to the many questionable details of this case. Instead, let's focus on Gorman's nightmare, and what potentially can happen to any male who has sex with a female in the current sexual climate of virgins and demons. After the sexual encounter - that is, after Gorman stopped when Chastity said, "Stop" - Gorman drove her back to campus and dropped her near her dorm. Chastity immediately called a male friend, who urged her to file a police report. In those next few hours, Rich Gorman's life was being unraveled while he slept. He awoke to police at the door. Within hours, Gorman was charged with sexual battery and locked up. Within days, he was suspended from his college and his fraternity. Within weeks, his family was devastated, financially strapped, and hell was waiting around the corner. Gorman went to trial twice in Tallahassee. The first, in February 2005, ended with a hung jury. The second, in June 2005, went so badly for the prosecution that Chastity's lawyers offered Gorman a plea bargain the night before the verdict: 12 months probation, no prison. But Gorman, his parents and attorneys were so convinced of a not-guilty verdict that they passed on the plea bargain. When the jury issued a guilty verdict, the judge ordered lawyers for both sides to come up with a new plea agreement less than the mandatory 8.9 years. To his great regret, Gorman signed off on the agreement, which also included waivers prohibiting his seeking any post-conviction relief, including raising claims of ineffective counsel. Thus, until Gorman is 37 years old, he will be on probation, possibly under curfew, and will have to live under sex offender restrictions until he's at least 47. Postscript: Before going to trial, Gorman reconnected with his high school sweetheart. They have a 9-month-old baby girl and hope to marry under more normal circumstances. Before going to sleep the same night she allegedly was raped, Chastity spent the night and every night thereafter for several months with the male friend she called that night, according to depositions. Within a week of the alleged rape, she was back out partying with friends. Two lives, two very different outcomes. Gorman, a regular college Joe, a good student and a good son, lives behind bars for having sex with a gal he thought was willing. Chastity, whom I only know through her testimony and depositions, may have been a regular college Jane. But she also had a record of finding herself in situations she later regretted. She also apparently had a drug problem. In February 2004, a year before Gorman's first trial, her father took her out of school and installed her in rehab for a cocaine addiction, according to the father's deposition. Chastity refused to stay longer than three days. One life goes on. The other is ruined. Five seconds - or 15 - is all it takes. When date rape is a life sentence May 10, 2006 by Kathleen Parker When most of us hear the words "sex offender," we imagine a beast who kidnaps little girls from their bedrooms and rapes and murders them before dumping their bodies in a remote ravine. We see the adorable faces of Polly Klaas, Samantha Runnion or Jessica Lunsford and can think of no punishment cruel enough for their killers. But what I've just described is, in fact, a "sex predator" - one who commits a sex offense that is either a capital, life or first-degree felony - not merely a "sex offender," which relates to a less serious offense. More to the point of this column, "sex offender" also refers to those convicted of "date rape," which is invariably a case of "he said/she said" and often involves young people caught in the throes of a debatable moment. She was drunk, he was confused. She said "stop," he didn't stop fast enough. Sometimes he's a brute justifiably accused of rape. But sometimes she's not the victim she claims to be. Sometimes, alas, morning-after remorse morphs into a defensive claim of rape that sends college boys to prison for an offense that falls somewhat short of what most of us think of as rape. I opened the floodgates recently with a column about Rich Gorman, a former Florida State University student who is serving a five-year prison sentence for a "rape" that involved a 5- to 15-second sex act. He stopped immediately when she said "stop," and asked, "What's wrong?" - not the usual query of a rapist - and then gave his soon-to-be accuser a ride home. Rather than rehash the details, suffice it to say that Gorman's case raises questions about how we prosecute date rape, questions that I intend to explore in future columns. I've learned, meanwhile, that Gorman is not unique. I've heard from dozens of parents around the country whose college-age sons have wound up in prison because their dates decided that what he understood as consensual, she understood as rape. I have no idea how many of these claims are valid. Most parents naturally believe the best of their own children, while few prisoners admit to guilt. But the special circumstances of "date rape" - especially among college students immersed in a permissive culture of drinking, drugs and "casual" sex - raise concerns about how we label those accused and convicted. Should a young man like Gorman, for example, be treated the same way as Alejandro Avila, the sexual predator who kidnapped and murdered 5-year-old Samantha Runnion? I suspect the answer to most fair-minded people is "no." Obviously, there's a difference. Yet, under current Florida law - and under similar laws in other states - Gorman is treated largely the same as those who brutalize children. Indeed, upon his release from prison, Gorman faces the same lifetime sentence as a predator. He'll have to register as a sex offender, checking in with local sheriffs twice a year, and suffer the stigma of being identified to neighbors as a sex offender. But, critically, will neighbors also learn that Gorman earned his label in college for a questionable date rape, not for molesting a child? The question doesn't minimize the seriousness of true date rape, but given the clear differences between a Gorman and an Avila we should ask it. It is worth noting that society seems to worry more about alleged date rapists moving next door than it does about new neighbors who might be murderers, drug dealers or violent offenders, for which there are no comparable registries. In our justifiable repulsion in the face of monsters like Avila - and in our efforts to make the world safer for children - we have used too broad a brush. Thus, Gorman's Tallahassee attorney, Michael Ufferman, plans to challenge Florida's sex offender registration statute as unconstitutional. His position is that the law fails to meet the due process clause of the state's constitution because the law includes no requirement to find that the offender is a future risk. The same challenge has been made - and failed - regarding sex predators, but predators tend to be pedophiles, who have a high recidivism rate. Men such as Gorman inarguably fit another category and surely deserve a different dispensation. Ufferman plans to file his challenge July 1 - near the one-year anniversary of Gorman's imprisonment. If he succeeds, Gorman and others like him could get a fair shot at becoming the citizens, husbands and fathers they hope to be, a second chance at life following a single bad judgment way back when. If he fails, we should lock away our sons and daughters until saner winds prevail.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 11, 2006 -> 09:08 AM) Bobby Jenks gets more excuses from this board than any player imaginable. He was horrible last night. It wasn't raining very hard when he was pitching. It started pouring after they took him out. If he can't pitch when its raining, or he can't pitch if he doesn't start an inning, or he can't pitch if there are runners on base, then he needs to find a different occupation. This board makes him out to be some sort of grizzled veteran closer. He has 16 career saves. 16 out of 19 chances and 4 out of 5 in the post season. CUT HIM!!!!! Why does he have to be a grizzled veteran to get your respect. Pitching in the World Series with more pressure than half the closers out there ever experienced isn't enough for you?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2006 -> 08:35 PM) Nope, there is nothing about Idol I hate more than Paula Abdul. I was sort of surprised to see Chris go home, as Kat really deserved it, but all in all I am glad Chris did not win. Kat deserved to go due to Tuesday's performance, but overall I don't think she deserved it. I guess it depends how the people are voting. At this point in the competition, are they voting each week with a clean slate or is it based on past performances as well. I'm not an expert, but I think singing Elvis would be a difficult task for even the most seasoned female singers. She was going to struggle and sound out of key no matter what. I was surprised Chris went home, I figuired he had all the teeny bopper girl votes, but maybe those went to Kat. I think these four will all be stars in their own regard and they each have their own style...which is cool.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 10, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) Actually, I thought it was here first. The one on WSI (from Hangar) started about a week ago. The one here is from April. If that matters. But the cool pic in my avatar I did get from WSI a few days ago, from a poster named Unregistered. Quite cool, I thought. OK Truth is, it came from my wife. She said it during preseason when I was watching the games. I totally forgot about that until I sent here the picture and she was like I told you he looked like Mr Incredible in March. I was like oh yeah, but you know I don't listen to you so much when I'm watching the game....

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ May 11, 2006 -> 12:13 AM) Jenks wasn't a reliever until last season. Its still up in the air how it will affect him. I do think they are overusing him a bit, plus it does look like he's lost a lot of weight since spring training, maybe too much too quickly. He certainly doesn't have last year's velocity, and really no track record to predict continued success. I really don't care about his lack of blown saves. Shingo was 8 for 9 last year in save opportunities, and he was horrible. The ball might have been a little wet, but it really wasn't raining very hard when he was in the game. There are no excuses, I think he would be the first to say he just sucked tonight. I'm sure if Jenks continues to perform like this, KW will do something about it. I think Jenks will be fine. Once he starts faltering in optium conditions I'll worry. It was raining pretty dam good when he was pitching. I don't think he gets a good grip on the ball when it's wet. He has faltered a few times in the rain.

Hypocrisy? He is an entertainment reporter who takes digs against Bush and his administration every chance he gets. It's not easy to invoke politics when talking about things such as Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson or the newest TV show that airs, but this guy does it. Now he writes an article stating the media, which HE is a part of, is too conservative. The Media is giving the president a break. Maybe he should read what he injects into his own articles. Doug Elfman Did media miss real Colbert story? May 7, 2006 BY DOUG ELFMAN Television Critic A "blogstorm" is thundering across liberal Web sites. Many liberals are furious at the White House press corps for virtually ignoring Stephen Colbert's keynote speech at the press corp's own White House Correspondents' Dinner last Saturday. To non-liberals, this may seem like an isolated complaint. To liberals, it further justifies their belief that the media, particularly TV news, is a big stinking cabal of conservatives. The truth is many in the media wrote about Bush's stand-up routine at the dinner as if they had just watched the coming of a comic genius, but they didn't report much on Colbert's funnier, harsher jokes. This may have been a case of the press corps following a standard motto: to the winner goes the spoils, and Bush got more laughs (out of copy written for him) than Colbert did. How did Bush tickle reporters? He made fun of the fact that he can barely speak English (he is quite simply the worst communicator of all U.S. presidents), that our vice president is a heartless face-shooter, and that Bush is basically an idiot. Ha ha, our "war president" knows he's a village idiot? To members of the White House press corps, that's some real funny stuff. To non-insiders, this looked like another example of good old boys and gals slapping each other on the back. Colbert's routine was more remarkable for its unique and creative brazenness. He joked that Bush's presidency is like the Hindenburg; that Bush's wiretappers were monitoring this very event, and that the White House press corps, sitting in front of Colbert, gave Bush a free pass, scandal after scandal, until recently (when his polls numbers dropped). How's this for a newsworthy lead? It was perhaps the first time in Bush's tenure that the president was forced to sit and listen to any American cite the litany of criminal and corruption allegations that have piled up against his administration. And mouth-tense Bush and first lady Laura Bush fled as soon as possible afterward. From whom were they fleeing? A star comedian pretending to be a Fox News-like blowhard doing a sort of performance art that America hasn't witnessed nationally since the days of Andy Kaufman. Even if Colbert's bit had been reported as a train wreck, that would have sufficed. Instead, shocking lines like the following were barely covered by any traditional organ except industry magazine Editor & Publisher: "I stand by" Bush, Colbert cracked, "because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world." For TV reporters in particular to quote that gruesome line would be an agreement with Colbert, that they helped Bush mix politics with corruption from the ashes of 9/11 ("aircraft carriers and rubble"), and failed to see through Bush's politicization of the drowning of an American city after a hurricane ("recently flooded city squares"). But ignoring a newsworthy keynote speech -- at an event the press corps itself set up -- doesn't go unnoticed anymore. Internet stables for liberals, like the behemoth dailykos.com, began rumbling as soon as the correspondents' dinner was reported in the mainstream press, with scant word of Colbert's combustive address. This is trouble for the media. It has been losing customers to bloggers and Web sites for years. This won't help. The media's implosion of silence could be one of the final reasons many liberals use to not turn on TV news. It's not like they feel a vested interest in the industry anyway, since it has been bought and parceled by conservatives. There is Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, that Pravda of GOP propaganda and breeding ground for Bush appointees. There are the networks' Sunday news shows that give more face time to Republicans. There are cable news channels like MSNBC, where Republicans have programmed the shows and hired on-air Republicans and conservatives-lite, from Tucker Carlson to Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. Some TV watchdogs even chronicle these conservative media daily, backed up by transcripts and video clips from TV news shows, in the expansive Web site, MediaMatters.com. On cable, only CNN still plays the journalism-school middle ground most of the time, questioning liberals, moderates and conservatives with equal skepticism and respect. Clearly, in terms of advertising revenue, CNN alone cares to attract the disposable income of American viewers of all political stripes. To liberals, this must be somewhat puzzling, since the rest of the conservative media primarily sides with a president whose approval ratings stand at 32 percent, a whisker better than Nixon's before he resigned in disgrace. Liberals find true solace on TV only in the fake news of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show," a place where Jon Stewart merely has to show actual clips of Bush speaking, or Condi Rice, or Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld to elicit laughter at their hubris. If NBC News let in audiences during its broadcasts, those people might also laugh at the president. But the TV news corps, the unthinking and unblinking herd of pack journalists, prefer to laugh with the president, and kiss many viewers goodbye. Transcript: 'I'm a simple man with a simple mind' In his keynote speech at the media dinner, Stephen Colbert played the earnest but clueless newsman of his Comedy Central TV show, 'The Colbert Report.' Here's an edited transcript: Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents' Dinner. To just sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face. Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly into your table numbers and somebody from the NSA will be right over with a cocktail. Ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to celebrate our president. He's not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the "fact-inista." We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up," and that's not true. That's because you looked it up in a book. Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, "The Colbert Report," I speak straight from the gut, OK? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the no-fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on that term. I'm a simple man with a simple mind, with a simple set of beliefs that I live by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists. My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to see how the Washington Post spins that one tomorrow. I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq. I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's not butter. Most of all I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias. So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is half full. Pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32 percent means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash. Folks, my point is that I don't believe this is a low point in this presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback. I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied, his corner man [is] Mick, who in this case would be the vice president, and he's yelling "Cut me, Dick, cut me," and every time he falls she says stay down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky, he gets back up and in the end he -- actually loses in the first movie. OK. It doesn't matter. The point is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68 percent approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't. I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world. Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite-powered car. And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitists telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen. The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will. And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story -- the President's side and the vice president's side. But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason -- they're super depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ May 10, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) I have corresponded with Roeper for years and highly, highly doubt he saw that here and then stole it. If he did see it here, he would have said that's where he got the idea--he's more than willing to give others credit for funny ideas (I've made it into his column a few times). Yes he is a Sox fan big-time and no I don't think he reads here, as he mentioned WSI in a more recent column as being a cool place/resource (I told him about us though). Anyway, since the idea seems to be well-received among all here, why not. I wish I knew how to poll. I'd say if you got us and WSI to give it the thumbs up, well then: Bob's your uncle! Wow looking at the picture that is just dead-on. The Thome/Mr. Incredible was on WSI. That's where I got the picture from.

I was just asking NorthsideSox72 about this. Roeper passes it off as his own conclusion....gimmie a break

You may have won over Paula, but not me dude. Elliot you go home tonight!! Anyone else have visions of Wearwolf Man when looking at Elliot during the interview segments?

I know AJ caught him some in the spring, so I hope it's him.

You guys will get all the sleep you need when you die. Whats' the prob?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 9, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) You mean the 3 pages after his first post where people were asking for confirmation or a source? Come on. Circling for the kill, that really just makes me laugh. Its a message board. Are we worried someone got his feelings hurt? First the thing to do was discount this rumor, now the thing to do is climb up on the high horse. Hilarious. Actually I think the "thing to do" is learn the error of ones ways.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) I haven't seen anyone talk about no security, it's the level of security that is relevant. We have thousands of miles of coastline, shall we mine along the coasts? Which wall shall we build first? The Canadian or the Mexican? After all *security* isn't very secure if we build a giant wall on only one side. You know where the problem is Tex.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 9, 2006 -> 08:13 AM) I actually had to stop and think a little bit before I answered this. I'll admit my first thought was to come on here and just tear this whole thing apart in a blazing flame job. Then the more I thought about it, if you didn't get the original post, you probably wouldn't get this either, but I also wanted to explain something that other people should understand. You used the term moral compass like a term of derision. Something you completely missed is that the admins/mods of a good website are exactly that. Especially in a situtation where you expect more out of an individual poster, good leadership steps to the plate and does something to rectify the situation. Now I now my answer should have been a little bit less bitter, and I will freely admit that. But the point of the post stands, the attacks were questionable at best. I have seen people trying to justify them by the kids attitude and the way he posed his question etc, but on the flip side of things, the guy has eight posts, and obviously has no idea of Soxtalk etiquette, so what happens? Instead of someone explaining to him what he should be doing, they rip the kid apart. Then to top it off, when all of the people who were yelling so loudly about everything were proven completely and 100% wrong, only one person had the moxie to apologize. Now many of the people who were chirping the loudest, I don't expect anything from, as they have demonstrated nothing that would indicate they would have the decency to look themselves in the mirror and admit a mistake in the first place, so why would they in this situation, right? But others I was extremely disappointed in. Some people you just expect more from. As a matter of a fact, you would expect them to be a sort of moral compass. Someone to help out new people, and be man enough to admit when they are wrong, not to further add to the embarassment by acting like they are above common decency. Another big problem here is that I know of people personally through emails and PMs who refuse to post any new info because of threads exactly like this. Egotisitcal people is a rush to look better than someone else overreact to a situation, and immediately attack the messenger. This has led to more than a few of our "inside" sources either quitting the site, or just not posting anything edgy anymore. The funny thing is that the losers in these situations are all of the same people who are causing this problem in the first place. If you don't believe me take a look around at the people who aren't posting here anymore, and the disappearence of minor league posters and "breaking" news from certian posters anymore, then add it all up yourself. One definate problem here, is this whole clique mentality that has developed here lately, sucks. Its like you have to be a part of the "group" or you are no one. If your opinion doesn't conform, you are driven off as somekind of outcast or idiot, which has become very reminisent of a situation that many of our posters fled other places on the internet. Many days and threads turn out like a bad teen movie with all of the little princesses fighting over who is the prom queen. Well girls, I am here to tell you that you are all snobs. Call me the moral compass, and damn it I am proud of that. I want Soxtalk to be a FREE and OPEN exchange of information and ideas. I want Soxtalk to be a place where someone new can come and fit in, just as well as someone who has been here since day one. I don't want a situation where just because someone has a lot of posts, they can label and deride someone just because. Part of my role as an administrator at Soxtalk is to make a situation here where exactly the ideal situations for member are occuring, and sometimes that means being a moral compass. When I see a situation where I can educate someone on being a better poster, I'll will take that chance, because in the long run, it is for the good of the site as a whole. I don't regret calling out people at all for this. People needed to hear how they were acting, and if they chose to ignore the feedback they are getting, from MANY more people than just me, well that is up to them. I read through the first 6 pages of this thread yesterday and this is my first post. Sometimes it's better to take a wait and see approach.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 8, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) See, now this is a sensible set of solutions. Good compromise, coudl be made to work all around. The problem is, there is a powerful group in this country that is so insistent on punishing the ones here and making sure that is item #1 in any solution to the immigration issue that it has sabotaged any hope of an actual fair compromise that would actually put us in a good situation for the future. I don't think that's #1 to a lot of people. I actually believe that if we put up a wall or use technology or whatever to STOP the flow of illegals and are assured we won't have this issue come up again in 10 years, then the American public will comprimise on amnesty for those here now. But it seems it is also #1 for some people to be against a wall or securing the borders no matter what.

I've been reading this guys stuff on the Sopranos. He provides a nice recap and helps those of us that don't dig as deep into the symbolism, while watching the show. Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 8, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) There is already a fence. And as for a wall, better to go the cheaper, less damaging, more effective route of technology and smart use of manpower. AND working towards lessening demand by penalizing businesses who hire them. A wall, technology, a moat...whatever.

A fence would help.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 8, 2006 -> 05:57 AM) I suggest that we not destroy our agriculture industry, reduce our personal liberties, and create huge deficits, to blindly enforce laws that clearly should have been better written to begin with. We should have improved those laws way back when Reagan put in an amnesty program, but we didn't. Daily we decide how the laws will be enforced. Police watch cars speed by and only stop the worse offenses. Drg users are allowed to go free in exchange for help arresting the dealers. People are allowed to pay fines and avoid jail time. We certainly can enforce our laws without building the Great Wall, locking up 12,000,000 people, etc. Acording to the Pew Hispanic Center, "About 7.2 million unauthorized migrants were employed in March 2005, accounting for about 4.9% of the civilian labor force. They made up a large share of all workers in a few more detailed occupational categories, including 24% of all workers employed in farming occupations, 17% in cleaning, 14% in construction and 12% in food preparation." Just curious.....All I have been hearing is that illegal immigrants only take jobs that Americans won't take. Well who is doing the other 76% of farming, 83% of cleaning, 86% of construction and 88% of food preparation then?