kapkomet

QUOTE(Balance @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) Exactly. Let's look at this in three or six months. If this is really a "turning point," then we're going to see a reduction in violence in Iraq. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. Otherwise, it's just a bit of good news amidst a deluge of bad news. So what if the war were spun the other way? About the 'good things' that are happening over there... what would you say then? Of COURSE it's all bad news over there, when you have the liberal media supporting the calls for the liberal congressman saying cut and run, change course, etc.

Neither did Rove.

You do realize that attendance can't 'go up exponentially' in EITHER club's case, right?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) I am thisclose to have a stroke waiting for this game to happen. Now I cannot get to the Canes message board. I keep getting "You cannot view this page, you do not have permissions..." i was just on an hr ago and have not done anything to get booted. I hope the board is up and running prior to game time. We need a game 7 thread on 4hockeyfans.

Nothing's going to happen. Nothing. (unless the Cubs do something stupid and I don't see that)

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) Stop yourself. You keep assuming the Cubs had "more fans" thats why they get "more coverage". No they dont. 1981 Cub attendance 565,637 1982 Cub attendance 1,249,278 And the Chicago White Sox? 1981 Sox attendance 946,651 1982 Sox attendance 1,567,787 Anyone else remember walking around those years? Did you see as much cub nonsense, jerseys, hats available like up til last year? That's a lot different time period. And a lot different circumstances???

Hangar, answer the questions that are asked of you. I'm interested. Everyone is not 'attacking' you, they just want to know your stance. I think there tends to be some bias - but the #'s appear to be shifting since the Sox have won and continue to win. Eventually, a crap product will start to decline attendance, and it will shift if the Sox keep winning. The arguments you are basing this on goes away if this shift keeps going the way it is.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 07:05 PM) Aren't there a ton of Katrina "refugees" living in Houston? As a matter of fact, yes. Ironic, don't ya think?

Dirk and/or Devon may have fouled Wade, but how about the three forearms he used to get free to even get to Dirk and Devon? That's the "MJ factor" right there, IMO. There's no way D-Wade gets called for pushing off in that situation, even though he should have. Not to mention the backcourt situation. Not to mention no Stack. Dallas played well, IMO, considering you had a 15 point scorer taken away by the league. Game 3 was a CHOKE, period, so ultimately Dallas is to blame as it shouldn't have gotten as far as it has.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 19, 2006 -> 06:54 PM) Don't worry, its Texas, there will be a much quicker response. No, there won't. Not from the federal government. Because unlike Louisiana, we can handle it, thank you.

WHERE'S BUSH? WHERE'S FEMA? DAMMIT, I DEMAND ACTION!

Dallas is the biggest f***nuggit chocker mother f***ers I have ever seen. That is all.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 18, 2006 -> 02:53 AM) There is only so much the coaches can do at this point. I really thought having Erik Cole out there would have completely fired the team up. I do think Ward needs to be pulled and have Gerbs in for game 7 though. I was thinking the same thing, although that's an awful ballsy move ... for a game 7. And I think that the coaches can adapt the game plan to play for the trap. You can break the trap if you make the pass from side to side and dump the puck. You have to be decisive and know what you are going to do.

Carolina is intimidated. Where are the adjustments from the coaching staff?

I still think Carolina will win in 7 now. The calls won't go Edmonton's way in game 7 on the road. It just won't happen.

Yea, she is. She's starting to get really alert and responding to things. Good times.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 01:41 AM) And finally: I'm happy to see that some other people hate John McCain, too. I loathe that man. HE won't, but if he did become president, I'd move to Canada. I can take Hillary over that prick.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 09:36 PM) Kap, Yes what you say makes a lot of sense and once again let me say I appreciate your insight. Let me ask this ... you identified three problems here, they are: 1. the person in question who, when people disagree, responds with talk that isn't facts but simply more talk which turns into belittlement 2. the STFU's that result and 3. The usual lapdogs who pounce on those people who have the sensitivity to the STFU's Why not just deal with the people who are the cause of those three identified problems? I presume you guys are, not my business, but I think my question is legit. Sometimes, soxtalk admins and mods tend to deal with some things out in the open. This is a case in point. We want people to know what we're doing, and what we're not, unless it deals with a specific incident and that person then deserves the respect of being dealt with privately. In this case, we want people to understand that we want to welcome the debate, and we're trying to change behavior if you're going to bring about a discussion like this. If the person can't craft the arguments better then they are and keep belittleing people, they'll get their 'justice', if you will. The 'regulars' are being allowed to express their frustration - I'm just saying be careful to not go overboard to you people who have little tolerance for the 'ignorance', and eventually things will work themselves out. I must admit that I think it's quite amazing all the newbies jumping in - quite frankly, they have little influence as to what will happen.

BTW, folks, nice thread. This is really informative.

JimH, I wholeheartedly agree that this stuff should be debated. To clarify or re-emphasize a point, I think that debate from a topic that is a lightning rod is good, as long as the person delivering the controversy can 1) back it up with facts and 2) have a thick skin and not belittle people who disagree. That I have a major problem with. I've seen several times now from the person in question when one disagrees, the talk isn't facts to try to change a mind, it's just more talk and then it turns into belittlement. That's where the STFU's come in, and sometimes rightly so. Those STFU's come from the people who usually call out what they perceive to be stupid s***... and then we have the usual lapdogs waiting to pounce on those people who have the sensitivity to certain things. Then, we're in the viscious circle that becomes controversy at soxtalk. Yes, we knew going in that these threads would bring controversy. What we want to count on, every single time, is to error on the side that people here can handle it. I hope that in the long run, all parties can prove us right. Everyone knows that we try to be a lot more open then most message boards, on a variety of topics. Sometimes, it doesn't work out, but we will always try. In this case, as I said, and I'll say it again, we can find the balance, and the postees, if you will, can back up the points of their post, and if they can't, they can respect those who disagree. I hope that makes sense.

This was taken last week and I forgot to post. Her one month pic:

GP. I understand your logic, but my thought was more in line with what Crimson was alluding to. However, it took a specific repeal to 'undo' an amendment, and the same would have to happen here, I think. I tend to think, even before I read your post, that you can't have the Courts rule on the 'constitutionality' of an amendment. That has always made sense to me, but I wanted to see it articulated from someone who knows more about it then I do. I will say that the whole thing is laughable - I just wish they wouldn't do it at all... because it's not worth fighting about politcally, IMO.

QUOTE(Vann @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 08:11 PM) OMG Hangar, please dont listen to people like this. Really makes white sox fans look bad. Unreal the venom that is spewed by some of the people around here, my gosh V OMG, who are you really, to create a new screen name to come here and question someone? That's called being scared to be who you really are, and it's shameful. To everyone else... i Ya'll can disagree, and that's fine. In fact, that's what this place is about. Sometimes, however, it's better to leave things unsaid - Steff and even to a lesser extent (in this thread) JimH, you knew this person was going to be an issue, fine. Please don't be the board cop - and what I mean by that is when you start feeling like you want to poke someone's eyeballs out to keep them from posting because they annoy you, it's probably time to let it go. Unfortunately, people follow in particular you two around waiting for that to happen, and use it against you. I know you don't care, and neither do those that understand, but it just adds fuel to their little personal vendettas (see Vann). Personally, I agree with you, but I won't say it (well, I just did). Hangar, the condescending tone is horrible. If you disagree with someone, put the condescending crap away, and don't post. You know what you post is controversial, fine. Post your crap and then stop commenting on it. If you were on a 'fact finding' mission like you said you are, then you'd post and let others respond, not go ballistic when someone disagrees with you. You'd post FACTS back in response, but you more often then not do not back up your talk, you just talk more. I'll just tell you, your time is growing short here with the way you handle yourself, not what you post about. Think about it. I'm going to say this again, I said it the other day for game threads. Instead of people calling out a bunch of crap, if there are concerns about a poster, PM the admin/mod team instead of starting the arguments out in the open. We'll take a look at it and decide how to handle it. Sometimes, it won't be right away so we can see how it plays out, but you need to let us know and not play board cop. That's what the mods and admins are for. Does that pretty much cover it? I hope so. Kap

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 17, 2006 -> 01:34 AM) SoxBadger: You've gotta be kidding me if you think the Supreme Court will ever have a Court that will be willing to review the Constitutionality of an Amendment. It isn't explicitly forbidden from doing so, certainly. That doesn't mean a Court ever will. The consensus is, to fill you in on reality, is that the Amendments are the Constitution. You can't rule something that's a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional. You can't say, "Well, it's Unconstitutional to have an age requirement for the Presidency, and that's found in the ninth amendment." You arguing that the Supreme Court would, or should, strike an amendment down is absurd and wholly without merit. GP, I follow your logic - but help out an 'unconstitutional scholar' here... don't just state your opinion, tell us why it couldn't happen from a legal standpoint, if you can. And for the record, I don't agree or disagree with SB's stance, yet. I just want to see more proof before I agree with a side here.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Not to mention the one to "protect heterosexual marriage" (i.e., ban gay marriage). This isn't what the framers had in mind. Agree 10000000%.