Milkman delivers

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) Greinke and AJ grew up near each other, and ever since then, they've had problems. Remember when Greinke hit AJ 2 or 3 times in 1 game, and then AJ hit a HR and said something to him? I can honestly say that I don't remember this at all.

I didn't want to muddy up the emphasis of the Hyperbole thread, so I figured I'd take this here. QUOTE (Bighurt52235 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) I'm the most cynical person I know, in regards to how I feel about people, but the White Sox are the one area of my life where I love and support unconditionally. That's fine and dandy, but the problem arises when you defend every little thing the team does and never hold them accountable for the mistakes that they make. Many of us feel that quite a few people do just that on this site. As fans, our job is to support the team financially. Our only tool to keep the team in line when it's going in the wrong direction is to cut off that support. It's something I'm doing right now. I refuse to buy another ticket until some changes are made, namely removing Ozzie and likely KW. I'd stop watching the games entirely, but I just don't have the heart for that. Supporting them financially no matter what they do is, IMO, a terrible mistake. That's what happened with the Cubs over the last 20 years. It's like having a kid that you never discipline. When a teacher tells you he did this and that in class, you say "not my son" and continue to let him do whatever he wants. One day that kid's going to end up in jail. That's the best metaphor I can come up with off of the top of my head. We, as fans, can't allow the team to continue to waste money and to depend on inept management or else they will run the franchise into the ground or at least continue to put a mediocre product on the field.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:55 AM) SEE THIS IS MUCH FUNNIER Hahahahaha, I'm still laughing at this after 30 seconds.

QUOTE (quickman @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) JimH sends his regards! I certainly hope not.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) This entire organization is an unmitigated f***ing DISASTER. We are looking at YEARS of futility and mediocrity and if you think otherwise you're wiping kool-aid off your chin. This season was over the day they stepped off the plane in Cleveland. I firmly believe that part is true if they maintain the same managerial team.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) I'm watching that OnDemand tonight. I do believe it's "The Company MEN" though. Why did that not get wide release in theaters? I remember seeing the trailer for it a couple of times and thought that it looked good. The cast was ridiculous.

Uh oh, J4L's typing...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) Hyperbole.... Personal attack... Just a bunch of angry swearing garbage... Those are sort of three classifications of what I'd consider garbage posts. Not necessarily postERS, by the way, but posts. And mind you, I am not saying (and I don't think Jason is either) that posting something like that gets you an instant suspension or something just for making one post like this (as noted earlier, we discuss these things at length and people do get slack). The problem is when the board is riddled with s*** like this, which at times it is, and that just makes this place a lot less fun. Hope that helps clarify a bit. It does, very much. The initial posts left out those key elements, along with the examples. Thank you.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:22 AM) I don't think that's the case at all. I think it's when someone basically insinuated the player or manager should be drawn and quartered in a very explicit manner that people get a little tired of it. If you really don't think any amount of negativity after a win is looked at in disgust by more than a few posters, then I think you're just blind to it. Hell, we had a guy basically swear a vendetta to get negative posters banned because he was tired of the negativity which is caused directly by the team's poor play. I think the real issue comes down to where people vent their frustrations. It seems to me that those viewed as negative vent towards the team, whereas the other side vents towards the negative ones.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) I think you are being a bit defensive here. The lollipops and gumdrops posters get mocked and laughed at just as much or more as some of the negative nancy guys. I think guys like you, that usually take a pessimistic approach, but do so in an intelligent manner and seem to have some sense of reasonable and rational thoughts in your mind, are respected, even though you do take a bit of s***. But you've got to expect that, given the fact that you are on a White Sox fan forum and where you're coming from most of the time with your opinions. That part doesn't bother me. It's the fact that people seem to often get away with personal shots as long as it's against a person who is considered pessimistic. A guy that comes to mind recently (even though he's sometimes pessimistic, sometimes optimistic) is Real, who seems to come at the person he's arguing with directly. And again, right in this thread you have people being referred to as idiots and douches, but it's glossed over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:13 AM) If the bolded were true, I'd be referring to myself as well. So no, not really what I was getting at. But I do appreciate your desire for examples. Now, if I go find a bunch, people will of course figure out who said them, and then it will look like I'm picking on certain posters. Eh, f*** it, I am picking on certain posts and posters, because I'm tired of the garbage. So let me go find a few examples for you... I said already that you can use me as an example. It doesn't bother me and it will help clarify the rules for everyone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) I'm not trying to insinuate that at all....I'm asking you a legitimate question....if a White Sox winner thread bothers you, do you really think you're at the right place? I have some of my best discussions with some of the pessimistic posters, so please don't feel as though I don't respect and want those posters here contributing. And what NSS said above, those "ass-clown" posts are even funny once in awhile or when done to break up some anger or tension, but it's when things become a contest to see who can become the most shocking or negative trash talker that I think that sort of style begins to weigh on many. Just my seven cents. It doesn't bother me. But if the Sox win a game and Juan Pierre goes 0-4 with a failed bunt attempt and a walk that led to a CS, it should be allowed that a poster mention how badly he sucks in the Winner thread. Or when there is a win despite Ozzie's best attempts to lose the game, that warrants being mentioned. But that's viewed as attempting to bring down a thread or a win.

And again, I notice that the personal jabs usually don't come from the negative posters, but are normally directed at them. I hope that is considered, as I pointed out that this group has already been referred to in unsavory ways in this thread alone.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) Here is the funny thing in this whole discussion... no one can nail down an exact definition of what people are referring to as that hyperbolic, hyper-negative post quality... and yet pretty much everyone would point to the same few posters as being just that. The exact reactions in this thread to this topic are a perfect illustration of the hyperbole. We are "turning into WSI"? Really? I think everyone here sees that isn't the case, and in fact the guys at WSI would probably be insulted. WSI runs their site a lot differently than we do, for better or worse. They ban entire subjects of discussion, suspend people for being a "dark cloud", or even for content posted on other sites. They feel that keeps their board cleaner, whereas we feel its better to allow posters more license. And we do, so don't even bother trying to say otherwise. I personally have no issue with being "negative" or "positive" - its the way its delivered. You can say "Oh come on Ozzie, really? Leaving Peavy in for another batter? WTF?", and we all get that. But when your post says "Ozzie is a f***ing ass-clown who couldn't manage a little league team!!!", and when the board is full of posts like that... who wants to read that? This, IMO, is the biggest reason why we see fewer and fewer good, in-depth discussions, and why many of the knowledgeable posters stay mostly away. They are smart enough to see that their good points would just get lost amongst the hyperbolic bloviations of a few loud, obnoxious posters. Yes, its subjective. No, we aren't becoming WSI. But we pretty much all know what Jason is getting at here. And if you are one of the few who don't, well... Although I appreciate the insinuation that the current posters are of substandard quality and that anyone who is questioning this move is "one of those guys", I still have yet to see some real life examples. I'd like to have a better understanding before I take the risk of possibly being suspended with no warning.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) Well, it was my impression that the entire reason this forum exists is to bring together White Sox fans to celebrate winning White Sox baseball. I understand your point, and yes, certainly not every thread or post is going to contain some substantive opinion or information. And that's ok...but come on...does someone being happy about the White Sox winning a game really have a negative effect on you? I assumed you would go that route and insinuate I'm actively rooting against the Sox. My point is that this is a discussion board and this move is clearly meant to stifle one side over the other when both sides are necessary to create meaningful discussion. I realize that the initial post includes the people who are "rah rah White Sox" with no substance, but let's not act like this isn't a direct attempt to rein in the negative posts. I still would like some concrete examples (maybe quote a few posts) as the little caveat thrown in on the first post, "Note: No warnings will be issued, so consider this your warning", is pretty disconcerting.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) Exactly. Perhaps a tiny little motor with the number 18 on it? And perhaps since Peña isn't picture, he can be an anvil tied to the raft.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) I was the one who brought those examples up. All I said was that there was a growing trend to make statements such as "Player x is horrible at baseball," or "Player Blah is pathetic at his profession." Honestly, I don't think it is against any rule to make such a statement, but when there is a chorus of people making such statements, what has been added to the discussion? What do I take away from someone's effort to type those opinions out? I'll bite. You ask what is added to the discussion when multiple people make those statements. So what is added to discussion in, say, a "Winner" thread? There is usually no meaningful discussion at all in those threads. I've also seen in this thread a complaint about even "Winner" threads being brought down by negativity. So then, what does one take away from discussion in those threads by typing out a negative opinion regarding the game?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:46 AM) The raft is wearing #14... That's pretty perfect. My only qualm is that Ozzie should probably be giving Viciedo the finger.

QUOTE (T R U @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 02:57 AM) I think Al Albuquerque is a funnier name Furbush? that's like someones last name being Weinerpenis.. ok, not quite but you get the point.. More like Ballhairpubes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:26 AM) Will you be saying them 19 times consecutively or will you be pausing to actually elaborate on them? If it's just said once or twice, does it need the elaboration? EDIT: And I've also seen posters referred to as "drunken idiots" and "douches" in just this thread. I hope this edict doesn't start an open season on pessimistic posters.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 07:48 AM) statement 1 is a true statement as of right now but it only needs to be said so many times before it gets old. statement 2 is an opinion statement 3 also an opinion So, it's OK to say those things?

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:01 AM) I'm not against keeping him in RF. It just seemed like a "dream" scenario to put that lineup in. That lineup is unlikely to happen with the present manager though, because of his obsession with the L-R-L-R batting order. At the risk of saying something hyperbolic, he's obsessed with more than that. He is dead-set on playing a guy who is terrible at baseball. He's terrible in the sense that he's a shell of his former self and he's worse than almost all other major league players according to a wide variety of statistics. In no way am I saying that he's actually bad at the sport as a whole, as he's likely better than 99% of the world's population at the sport. I know he's better than me and I'm not passing judgment on him as though I'm better than him, just stating that according to the metrics we have available to us, he's inferior to other options that are readily available to this team. This is also no reflection on Juan Pierre (in case you were still wondering to whom I was referring) as a person, as he seems to be a well-liked individual and is more than likely a great human being. He is just hindering this team and we have very little room to keep a hindrance around. I wish him nothing but the best in his personal life and I hope that he makes it on another team. He just needs to go.

I think it's a terrible idea to remove Quention from RF. He's a headcase and he's been playing well this season. Don't mess with that. Viciedo to LF.

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:45 AM) Typically your reasoning would be sound but, having spent 8 years reading this board, it's different now, and the internet was just as knee-jerk 8 years ago as it is today. Jake Peavy says he's willing to pitch from the bullpen if that's what's asked of him and there are 4-5 posters who present and control the narrative that his comments meant that he knows he's washed up and can no longer start. Really? Those are the fans that this board used to make fun of, the drunken idiots who call into post-game shows or post on the MLB boards. It's what differentiated Soxtalk from other sources...there was always reasonable conversation about both positives and negatives but, no matter what, it was from folks who enjoyed talking baseball...not a gaggle of idiots who think it's pretty badass to be contrarians. That was a theory that a few guys came up with. I don't see the problem with coming up with guesses as to the deeper meaning of a statement in a thread entirely devoted to that statement. And your second part seems to be bordering on hyperbole and personal attacks. They're drunken idiots?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 12:41 AM) I wanted to say this so badly after Jason's first post but I didn't want to make light of the message Haha, just leave it to me. I couldn't pass up the opportunity.