Steff

QUOTE(southsider17 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 11:00 AM) If you can guarantee I'll be surrounded by these well behaved people then I'll reconsider. But I'd rather play the percentages and go on other days (with my kids that is). Do you also not drive with your kids unless you have a guarantee some asshole isn't going to crash into you...? I'm sorry.. but come on folks.. common sense tells you not to sit with your kids in the bleachers on Monday nights.. this is going to sound bad no matter how I say it.. and I apologize in advance.. but not going on Mondays because of the crowd is just another in a loooooong line of excuses. :running and ducking the swings..

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 11:03 AM) Let me try this again, lol. Do they have any beer purchasing restrictions in place this year like they did last year on half price nights? I don't recall there being any "restrictions" last year.

Dee Pope.. dee Pope...

QUOTE(southsider17 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:55 AM) Noted! I'm sorry.. but this is a very unfair assesment of all those that attend Monday night games.. There are plenty of people that know how to behave.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:52 AM) All I'm saying is this, in my experience (many years of going to visiting arenas) it is best to keep a low profile. It actually used to be a lot worse than it is now, there are tons of corporate transferees and tons of fans of other teams living all over the country. I've never had trouble in a visiting arena but have seen and heard lots of incidents where a Chicago fan gets abused in another stadium. And it's not always because they've been running their mouth. Let's face it, you're a visitor, and outnumbered. I get the biggest kick out of people (not you, just in general) who get all bent out of shape when an opposing teams fan comes in wearing that teams jersey. Yet, they are the first person to wear their teams jersey in another city. They expect to abuse other fans but when they get abused they get all indignant. Hypocritical. Blackhawk fans are famous for this, and I am probably the biggest Blackhawk fan of all. Of course, everyone is entitled to wear whatever they want, it's freedom of expression and all. It's just in my experience, it's not always real smart. Jim.. maybe you have so many problems because you are a troublemaker..

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) Your summer attire is quite nice. I have a very special outfit for when you come to town Yas..

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:43 AM) You beat me to it, Steff! I had TWO cups of coffee today.. I'm on fiiiiiii-yaaaaaa!!!!

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:38 AM) In addition, some stadium crowds are much more tolerant than others. From the Bad Idea Department: wearing opposition colors to Madison Square Garden and Oakland Coliseum. Very bad idea. As is wearing Boston stuff in NY and vice versa. Jim, I see what you are saying and to be honest I think more often than not opposing teams do hassle visiting fans. Some get lucky and sit in a good area. I only go to Wrigley for Sox games and I wear my stuff there but it's only in the boxes or the company seats which are right behind the Cubs dugout and we never get bothered there.

LMAO... that wasn't even the issue.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:18 AM) Barrington...hey now...

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 10:03 AM) monday half price nights is always "skokie" night.. tuesday is "trailer park" night.. I know this crap, yet I'm still bringing my one-year-old tonight. .. like I said it could be an adventure... I just want to point out that there are jerkoffs from Naperville, Evanston, and Barrington just as well as there are from a "trailer park".

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/199nd1.htm Supreme Court: Can police search if wife says yes, husband no? Tuesday, April 19, 2005 By Hope Yen The Associated Press -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON — Scott Randolph didn't want police to search his home after officers showed up to answer his wife's domestic disturbance call. Mrs. Randolph had no such reservations. She not only let them in — but she led officers to evidence later used to charge Randolph with drug possession. The Supreme Court said Monday it will use the case to clarify when police can search homes. The high court previously has said searches based on a cohabitant's consent is OK, but it's not clear whether that applies when another resident is present and objects. Lower courts are divided on the issue, with most holding that consent from one person is sufficient. In another case, the high court agreed to hear in the term beginning next October, justices will consider the scope of police questioning. Under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court has generally expanded government powers for police searches. Most recently, it ruled 6 to 2 that police may use drug dogs to sniff outside a car when a motorist is lawfully stopped, even if officers had no particular reason to suspect drug activity. Mrs. Randolph called police on July 6, 2001, to report a disturbance and asked them to come to their house in Americus, Ga. The two had separated, but she moved back in two days earlier with Randolph's consent. When police arrived, she complained that Randolph had taken away their son and had been using cocaine. A few minutes later, Randolph returned home and told police the son was at a neighbor's house. Officers asked to search the couple's home, but Randolph objected. Mrs. Randolph, however, consented and led police to the couple's bedroom where officers saw a straw with white powder. Mrs. Randolph later withdrew her consent, but police obtained a search warrant based on what officers saw earlier, seized 25 "drug-related" items and charged Scott Randolph with drug possession. A trial court upheld the searches, but a Georgia appeals court reversed it in a ruling the state Supreme Court affirmed last November. In siding with Randolph, the courts ruled police must defer to an objecting occupant's position when two people have equal use and control of the home. They said police could not violate Randolph's privacy rights, particularly in a case where a feuding wife had consented over his objections. "When possible, Georgia courts strive to promote the sanctity of marriage and to avoid circumstances that create adversity between spouses," the appeals court stated. "Allowing a wife's consent to search to override her husband's previous assertion of his right to privacy threatens domestic tranquility." In their Supreme Court filing, Georgia prosecutors said the ruling "focuses arbitrarily on the rights of the objecting occupant, to the detriment of the consenting occupant who was trying to report a crime and who had just as much access and control over the home as her husband." Randolph counters that states have the authority to give their citizens privacy rights that go beyond the U.S. Constitution. A husband's interest in privacy outweighs the wife's property right to allow a search, he argues. According to court filings, three other states also have ruled that all cohabitants present must consent before police may search a home. They are Florida, Minnesota and Washington. The case is Georgia v. Randolph, 04-1067. Separately, the court said it will consider whether police went too far in questioning when officers taunted a murder suspect with the possibility of the death penalty after he invoked his right to an attorney. A Maryland state court dismissed the case of Leeander J. Blake, saying his "Miranda" rights were violated. Blake and Terrence Tolbert were charged with the Annapolis murder of Straughan Lee Griffin, who was shot in the head Sept. 19, 2002. Blake, who was 17 at the time, initially refused to talk to police when he was arrested and taken to jail. When a police officer delivered a copy of the charging documents listing death as a possible penalty, another officer told Blake, "I bet you want to talk now, huh?" About half an hour later, Blake told police he did want to talk to them and made incriminating statements about the murder without consulting a lawyer. The Maryland state court ruled last year the statements couldn't be used at trial because Blake had invoked his constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer. The comment, "I bet you want to talk now, huh," was a functional equivalent of interrogation, the appeals court said. The case is Maryland v. Blake, 04-373.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Apr 18, 2005 -> 07:07 PM) THe fact that he was total ass f***. And the fact that Jordan and Pippen wanted absolutely ZERO to do with him anywhere outside of the court. I will admit he was one hell of a player though. That is soooo not true. My favorite memory is Dennis' birthday party at the Shelter and both MJ and No Tippin Pippin where there.. they LOVED that he was here because it took the media focus off them and they could get away with s***. At the party I saw Rodman on the rotating bed they had in the center of the dance floor with Carmen Electra and 2 other chicks dancing capitol N-A-S-T-Y.. that dude was nasty ugly but man he got a ton of action..

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:49 AM) that guy's (first row behind BP) chant "LET'S GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!" he also has a flag from time to time... Yes.. he's hysterical.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:47 AM) Where did I ever say that he should? I am simply pointing out that he is not all about winning. Winning is not the only thing on Frank's mind, which is what was stated in the post I responded to. By the way Frank is not Barry Bonds, that is a really piss poor comparison. You are assuming... assuming that you haven't directly spoken to Frank.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:37 AM) OK.. next guess.. is he kind of a big guy "roomy in the hips" ... blond(light??) hair... with a round face... and does he bring a flag???? No. But I know who you are referring to. I also love the guy who sits in the first row behind the BP who reads the paper before every game.. LOL. He's a nut.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:37 AM) Probably more like, thanks to the $8 million a year Pffffttt.. Jill has that.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:32 AM) hmmm... I think I know who you are talking about... did he try getting the first row last year or the year before??? before that he was like 6th or 7th row on the sec 160 side of sec 159??? I don't think so.. he's been in 4 and 5 in 159 for the last 4 years. No big deal.. I was just curious if you knew him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:29 AM) Konerko is probably one of their two best sellers right now. Thanks to those hair plugs.. the ladies loooooove him.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:25 AM) rick??? Yea.. I don't think it would be appropriate to post his full name. He has season tickets.. makes it to about 50 games. Last year he spent most of the season with his arm in a cast. He has 2 sons that are usually with him. Good friends with and always talking to Greg Walker. We use his seats 5 or 6 times a year... I was just curious if you know him. He talks to everyone out there. Real social butterfly.

We are 6-1 in 1 run games..

BTW guys.. the Sox are on 94.7 tonight not AM1000.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:18 AM) section 159 in left field has a chant when idiots throw visitors home runs back... "eight miles north!!!!" Hey.. I've been meaing to ask you if you know Rick.. he sits by you. 2 end seats next to the BP rows 4 and 5...?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7554389/ Police: Woman admits causing Paris fire Hotel blaze killed 23, half of them childrenMSNBC News Services Updated: 8:16 a.m. ET April 19, 2005PARIS - A woman detained in connection with a fire that killed 23 people at a budget hotel in Paris last week admitted that she started the blaze by accident, police said Tuesday. “A young woman admitted she had accidentally caused this fire,” a police source told Reuters. The woman was taken into custody Monday, three days after the Paris Opera hotel burned down. She was identified by judicial officials as the girlfriend of one of the hotel’s night watchmen. The woman, not identified by name, acknowledged starting the fire accidentally, police said without providing details. Hospital officials on Tuesday said another man had died as a result of the blaze, raising the death toll to 23. The overcrowded hotel in Paris’ 9th district housed mostly people in need, many of them African, who were placed there by social services. The 32-room hotel was meant to accommodate 61 people, but at least 90 people were known to be living there. Judicial officials said Monday that the woman had been detained for questioning over her whereabouts at the time of the blaze, which occurred shortly after 2 a.m. Friday. The manager of the hotel, also not identified by name, was questioned Sunday, two days after the fire. Hours after the fire, which devastated the hotel, firefighters speculated that it had started accidentally in a breakfast room. The prosecutors office opened an investigation for manslaughter. The exact origin of the blaze was not immediately known. Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin said Sunday that he plans to work quickly toward new measures to reinforce fire regulations. He said experts had been asked for proposals and that the matter should be handled within several weeks. The hotel’s fire prevention system had been checked March 24, and four recommendations to improve safety were issued, but the measures were insufficient to close down the hotel, police said.

QUOTE(mreye @ Apr 19, 2005 -> 09:11 AM) Wow! Total over analyzing. When your said, "They're all white..." I thought you meant the jerseys, not the players. Huh. Am I under analyzing? I had to read it a few times before I fully understood what he was saying.. I thought he meant the color of the jersey at first also..