NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 07:40 PM) I just see that you are supporting Ozzie with no backup to your apparent statement that he's a good manager, and a laughable "you need to watch games," when anyone actually watching them can see he's atrocious. Just sayin'. YOU think he is atrocious. Many people here feel otherwise. Its not a situation of fact - its subjective. Just sayin'.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) Anybody else read how his daughter was arrested after appearing on national TV to talk about him? yeah, she as a warrant out for her arrest. [Lib NUKE] HAHAHA!!! EAT s*** YOU CRIMINAL!!! [/Lib NUKE] His daughter had an active warrant? Where did you read that?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach. Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that. Completely agree. But I think that might have to be KW saying, here is a list of candidates, go pick one you like. Because I don't see Ozzie doing it on his own, and I don't see KW forcing a coach on Ozzie. therefore, I doubt it happens at all. You think maybe it would help if we all emailed Ozzie to tell him to hire one?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 05:20 PM) He wasn't charged with lewd conduct, or intent to commit lewd conduct, or anything of the sort. He was charged with disorderly conduct (for the whole ritual of swiping his hand beneath the divider three times, touching the cop's foot, etc -- a misdemeanor) and invasion of privacy (for staring into the stall -- a gross misdemeanor) -- the invasion of privacy was apparently dropped as part of the plea. Interesting. Thanks for the info. I had thought it was a lewd conduct charge the arrived at. It its just disorderly conduct, the threshold is lower. I think he'd have a very hard time overturning that, not even to mention how unusual it is to try to overturn such a thing after voluntarily entering into a plea agreement.

QUOTE(shoota @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:51 PM) The question shouldn't be asking what man could have lead this Sox roster to great success, but if Guillen is the best manager in the game. The answer is no. Solution: Don't extend the contract of a man of inferior managing abilites, and hire one better. You are saying that if a team believes their manager is not "the best manager in the game", they should fire him? So, 29 teams should fire their managers every year?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) Tapping your foot and offering a hand shake is alarming and therefor illegal? When did alarming become illegal? Staring through the crack, and touching his foot, would be considered pretty alarming. At least to me. I have to say though, I hadn't gotten the impression that those acts themselves were the lewd acts. If they are, that's a different direction than I was going. Jackie, where did you see that?

Call me crazy, but you can mark this down. I have a feeling that these core hitters who have been lacking punch will be waking up and suddenly going on a tear this month. Way too late for it to be of any use of course, but I just saw something in the way Paulie, AJ, and some others were carrying themselves late in the game. They are starting to look angry... finally.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) good point. I'm starting to agree with you. Did Craig motion to his crotch? Did Craig somehow indicate he wanted sex there and not someplace where it would be legal? Or was it the illegal actions of others that determined that he had an illegal act in mind? He motioned something with his hand, I honestly don't recall what they said the motion was. May have just been a wave. I have no idea.

Dempster blows the save, Dodgers beat the Cubs 7-4 with 4 in the 9th. Cubs now in tie with MIL for 1st. STL currently winning big, would be 1 game out if they win. Cubs now going on a road trip where they will play 11 games in 10 days in 4 cities, including 4 games against STL (1 at home). Ouch.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:23 PM) Here's is the calm question. Comparing this to a prostitution bust, why isn't calling a hooker over to a car enough? It seems to me that is the point where he was busted. And let's take this step by step with Craig. It appears that just intending to commit a crime is enough. Is two people in one stall a crime? No. Parents take their kids all the time. Is exposing yourself in a restroom illegal? No. You have to at a urinal. But any of these would be a crime, if the cop *knows* it will lead to a crime? I believe they cops are pinning their prosecutions on guys not wanting to be labeled gay. If this was a straight crime, they would need a lot more because the guy would be saying, yeah, I hit on her. She's gorgeous and I'd do her anywhere. Would I do her in a restroom? Damn yes if she was willing. Do you honestly believe he would have been busted? BTW, stall sitting has to be the worst undercover assignment. Think the guy kept his pants around his ankles? You are again pointing at examples not in the same territory. Look again at the litany of actions Craig undertook. Then take that obvious motive to its end. The last link - the actual act - cannot be established for numerous reasons. So they get as far as they can with it. And they are doing it, I'd bet, because people were complaining about it. If it were a co-ed bathroom and they got complaints, they'd probably do something about that too. Calling a hooker over to a car isn't enough, just as simply waving a hand under a stall isn't enough. Too much doubt. Could be offering the prostitute money and then drives off. Could be the senator was out of TP. But with EVERYTHING Craig did, there simply is no reasonable doubt. Just like if you waved a hooker to your car, flashed money, pointed at your crotch then motioned her to get in.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:26 PM) So it is illegal for one man to hit on another? I get it now. Okay, so I meet some beautiful lady while waiting for a flight connection, and I make arrangements to catch another subsequent flight. This is completely out of the realm of possibility, yeah? Come on. Beyond a reasonable doubt my ass. There is a difference between reasonable doubt and an outside possibility. Its also possible that Craig has mental issues and was trying to talk to the space alien in the stall next to him - but no reasonable person would believe that. And in this case, knowing the fact that these things occur a certain way, and given the bizarre location and method used, this is not simply a guy hitting on another guy. Bring it to a grand jury of 12 citizens, and most or all would feel it was clear the intent was to participate in sex acts in the bathroom. And that is illegal, just as lewd acts are illegal in most public places. QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Well yeah, who said that they should? That's more or less northside putting words into my mouth. You were the one who harped on the fact that no illegal act occurred. If the cop doesn't act, how else would it occur? I simply closed the loophole you were attempting to open. Just curious... is it the law you disagree with? Do you feel people should be allowed to do these things in public? Because I can understand that stance. But if you are looking at the police conduct, they did everything they could reasonably do to establish probable cause without actually engaging in an illegal activity. So as far as I can see, they enforced the law properly.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:20 PM) I agree. Cops should not engage in the illegal act. Which of course this cop was by sitting in a known cruising restroom, waiting to be propositioned, exactly like a criminal would. He lingered way longer than what would happen if he was using the restroom for "the intended purpose". Why not have the cop ask, what do you want? Well, for one, that would probably scare him off. The whole thing is apparently meant to be non-verbal until they are in the stall together. and at that point, it might be difficult to not make it clear he is a cop. Second, from a self-defense perspective, as a cop I wouldn't want to try to "sting" someone that I was stuck in that small a space with, if I could avoid it. It greatly increases the danger level.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:15 PM) The intent to have sex was present. The intent to have public sex? Where is it? How can anyone possibly prove it? You can tell all of that just from footsies? If I play footsies with my sister's friend underneath the dinner table, does that mean we go at it right there and then? Is that my intent? I don't get it. While he waited for a flight connection? If it wasn't in the stall, it was somewhere else in the airport, and that's public (unless he has a private office in the airport).

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) Where is the sexual act? Don't talk to me about intent, either. Like I said before, damn near everyone would be locked up if that were the case. Not me, though. I'm a prude. LEGAL intent. Not the psychological term intent. Important difference. Legal intent was clearly manifest here. Sting-type operations do not require the illegal act to be successful - the burden of proof is to get enough evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the next act. You cannot expect cops to actually engage in the illegal act itself.

QUOTE(kwolf68 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) This is the worst team in professional baseball. Even our so-called good players just aren't that good. Then the other half of the team should not even be playing in the majors. we have about 10 25th guys on this roster. Pathetic fall from graace...lets resign them all, go get some more old grinders and go for the records next year. Certainly the worst offense. I'd say not nearly the worst pitching staff.

I have tickets for 2 more games this year. One is tomorrow night. I just don't know if I can bring myself to go, although I really do want to watch some of these younger players as much as possible before the end of the year.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Whoa, sex in a car would also be illegal. Or better yet, talking to a hooker in a bar. Should that get you arrested? I guess I can see the point of a well orchestrated mating dance getting someone arrested, but it's a slippery slope. Huh? TALKING to a hooker in a bar, if sex never comes up, is not illegal and could never be successfully prosecuted. And sex in a car may or may not qualify for lewd acts in public, depending on where the car was, etc. Slippery slope? You seem to just throw everything remotely similar into the lake. There has to be a line somewhere, and Craigs repeated, complex and obvious actions make that clear.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:50 PM) I believe Timo was a hit and an error hence they are both earned. and Cintron's airball at that grounder was a hit, even though it was his mistake.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:47 PM) Same thing if a guy bought a girl a drink, danced, bought another drink, danced, talked about his car's big back seat . . . Exactly. Except its the back seat of HIS car, not a CTA bus. This isn't about sex, its about sex in public.

f***. Bobby blows one, but that was mostly on his defense and some seeing eye ground balls. In any case, yet another painful loss. Where the f*** is the offense?

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) I still think Thornton and MacDougal should be on the team. MacDougal tried to hard to strike out hitters this year instead of making people put the ball in play (which he was great at last year when we got him). One of the reasons that I like Wasserman so much is that he gets a lot of grounders, which is crucial out of the bullpen. Besides for MacDougal coming into this season, we had a bunch of pitchers who were fly ball pitchers. I agree on Thornton - I am not even sure why, but he still looks like a guy who can be very good. But MacD I am not so sure on. I am not sure he has the control or the mental strength to do well, consistently. But you are right, when he just throws strikes, he can be very good.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:17 PM) Not at all, I agree with SS that the lowest income jobs, do not pay income tax, in fact, the receive a profit. Plus, not every citizen with a SS number is paying all their taxes. What I am saying, it's the wages that those jobs pay that determines the net effect economically in our tax balance, not the person who is working the job. Anyone "on the books" making less than the poverty threshold, will receive a net surplus in taxes. We will have an increase in the tax burden when these jobs go on the books, again, it doesn't matter who is working the job. As I understand it, that is only true of federal income tax. Any other taxes - Social Security, Medicare, FICA, state taxes, etc., are still paid (the state part is different state to state of course).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) OK, I guess I can understand why a foot tap and a reach along a stall wall could cause a Senator to lose his position. It still bothers me that someone could be busted because a cop *knows* what you are thinking. That's why there is the legal concept of intent, and here, the manifestation of intent in his behavior. Its not like the cop guessed at it. Quite the contrary. Let's AGAIN go through what Craig did... stared through the crack for an extended period... did the foot tapping... did the foot tapping again... reached under the stall and waved... waved again... reached over in an awkward and otherwise unnatural position and touched his foot... waved AGAIN... THEN the cop showed his badge. There is zero guesswork there. He followed a long process with numerous steps. I can't see how there would be any reasonable doubt as to intent.

And Logan to finish it. For when the 2008 Bullpen is formed up, I think we can pencil in three names: Jenks (closer), Wassermann (ROOGY), Logan (LOOGY). Its the other three slots that concern me.

QUOTE(Brian @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:20 PM) Wasserman 3:16 I think I can safely say it now, after watching him pitch these couple months. Wassermann = good