NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) No, no, you didn't make the point that one unknown was more likely to win based on anything that had merit. You made the point that Bayh was higher in the polls and that means that he's likelier to win than Vilsack, and I said that that's untrue and that early polls mean nothing. Don't mischaracterize your comments or mine, thanks. I can click the emoticons, too. I didn't say that Clinton was Vilsack and Bayh was Tsongas. All I did was point out several relevant examples to show that early polls means as much as an emoticon. Here's what I had said: "Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure." You said that Bayh had a better chance because of polls, then you went back and agreed with this: "there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet." which is just about what I was saying about dark horses. Grab some bench. Your circular reasoning is bizarre. Perhaps you are misunderstanding things here. I'll reiterate and try to clarify my main points: 1. Vilsack is a nobody outside Iowa, and barring a major shift in things, has little chance. He only polled 10% in the state is he is governor of, for pete's sake! At least Bayh and Richardson are widely known and popular in their regions. 2. This poll is too early to mean anything much, since candidates like Bayh, Richardson, and yes Vilsack, have yet to begin campaigning. Therefore, the poll leaders are just popular holdovers for all purposes. And since its one state, it doesn't paint any real picture of name recognition nationally. 3. National polls, not Iowa polls, do indeed reflect that Bayh and even Richardson are more well-known that Vilsack. This is prior to any of the three of them campaigning. So again, while anything can happen in the next year or two, Vilsack doesn't appear to have built enough of a name for himself yet as his first stepping stone. He is therefore a step or two behind them, and they in turn are a number of steps behind the big 3. Here is a neat link: http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm In the polls where both Bayh and Vilsack even appear, in 2006 polls (and using the most recent version of each), here are the percents for each of them: Bayh, Vilsack 2, 0 1, 0 3, 0 2, 0 Notice a trend? Vilsack polls so low he is given a '-' in all four polls, near zero support. He is an unknown. Bayh is certainly no world-beater either, of course, but its clear he has more name recognition at least. What did surprise me, I must admit, is that Richardson was actually better off than either of them it appears, at this point. QUOTE(minors @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:16 PM) It won't matter anyway a Republican will win If the Dems are stupid enough to run Kerry or Clinton out there? Then very possibly.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 09:02 AM) Mr. Knue? Is that you? just kidding. SS2K5's question was answered, he can look at my previous work over at that other site. Potshots? you mean me calling them nazi's? Sure I'll knock it off, the mod here asked me nicely, why wouldnt I do that? I too have many many many friends over there too, many of whom I still hang around with, my anger over censoring my thoughts isnt pointed toward the good folks who post there. Again, all of the questions your asking me have been answered a dozen times over in many of my MediaWatches over there. I find it ironic that nobody had a problem with my methods over there, I get here and you guys think everything is a Sunny Day, leave the media alone. People here don't all think everything is a "Sunny Day". But having posted here and there a lot in the last year, I think you'll find posters here in general are a lot less apt to take ANYTHING at face value. All are questioned, even veteran posters. Discussion is had. That's the kind of board this is, for better or worse.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 13, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) Personally, I'd pass on a sandwich that had been porked. POTM, right there!

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) YES they can. The way the seats are constructed now ..........its a simple bracket with the Hinge for the seats on either side of the bracket being of EQUAL measurements. The Brackets at Petco are not like this. Instead, for example, the measurements on the right side of the bracket are measured at say 4 inches, and on the left side of the bracket, are at like 8 inches. This allows for the seat to be facing towards the infield, while the bracket is still in a "straight line" (facing towards centerfield) And when the seats are angled into the aisles to accomplish that, reducing the already very tight walking space by another 4 to 8 inches... how do you propose that anyone other than Kate Moss is going to make it down those aisles? IT WON'T WORK. It's not designed for that. They'd have to realign that whole section of seats, which is a huge project.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) I think its totally disgraceful. I think the KKK is a low-rent, redneck bunch of idiots. I also think that despite their stupidity they have rights to free speech and free assembly. Its up to people who know better to counter their message with a more reasonable one. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) There's no reason to care that much. The best counter message? Don't even bother showing up. Ignore them. I agree with both Nuke and Balta. Not often I've gotten to type that sentence.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:13 AM) Radio shows over the weekend were buzzing with "hosts" labeling Ozzie as EVIL for his stance that Grimsley should just shut up and quit outing people. The morning hosts over at The Score (Sox flagship) spent the entire morning saying the Ozz should be condemning people for this behavior, and not defending them. I didnt think Ozz was defending them, but he was made a Villain over the weekend, including Rick Morrisseys bogus column. Anyone agree with these people? Just another chapter in the vast conspiracy to keep the Sox down, eh Hangar? :headshake Maybe people "lambasted" him because most fans dislike the idea that players are using these drugs and enhancements. Just a thought.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:08 AM) I've got a neck. I'm fine with the way they are. And the Sox didn't drag their feet with the seat change. They're doing it right, instead of rushing it and making it worse. They lost a month of construction time because the park was occupied in October for some reason. Here we go again... Hangar had a huge thread on WSI about the seats change. He is convinced the team dragged its feet, despite the fact that people showed him threads about temperatures for setting chemicals, etc. Now we'll end up with the same discussion here. That's why I sort of avoided that topic in my response.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Went to the ballgame Friday nite, and a buddy of mine asked my why some of the seats were Green and some Blue. I told them the SOX are dragging their feet on the seat replacement project. He said he went to the earlier in the week and was sitting down the lines, and wondered why they dont ANGLE the seats towards homeplate instead of towards Centerfield as they currently are. I told him Ive long complained about those seats, and make sure I dont have tickets for those sections to avoid the problem. But it got me thinking, I wonder if the newewst seats this offseason will indeed be ANGLED towards the infield. What do you guys think? Angling the seats would be much more invasive than just replacing them. It's not like they sit on posts and can just be turned. You'd need to change the aisles, which means changing the cement underneath entirely. That would be a pretty big job. But I do agree that it is annoying, they should have designed those sections better to being with.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) Again, you continue to be extremely misleading when you say Media Coverage. Using the words media coverage is a broad brush generalization which isn't backed up by your numbers. To be (somewhat more) accurate, you should state "coverage in two of the four major Chicagoland daily newspapers", with the other two being the Southtown and the Daily Herald. While I certainly don't get much out of Hangar's tinfoil threads, I will say that you cannot possibly put the Southtown or even the Herald in the same league as the Trib or Sun Times. The 1 and 2 papers in Chicago are an order of magnitude more widely read than the 3rd place Herald, and I believe the Southtown is well below the Herald (though that last part I am not as sure about). But I agree that it would be a step in the right direction of believability if his thread referred to this as coverage from Chicago's major newpapers, instead of the media generally.

QUOTE(Damen @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 10:34 AM) AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI SB CS SO BB HBP SH SF IBB GDP BA OBA SLG Anderson 129 21 2 0 5 17 15 2 1 43 16 1 1 2 0 1 .163 .257 .295 Uribe 174 34 6 1 4 15 18 0 1 32 6 2 2 2 1 4 .195 .228 .310 Uribe has a higher average, but Anderson cancels that out with a higher OBP. And despite 45 fewer at-bats, Anderson's numbers compare pretty closely to Uribe. If I'm Juan Uribe's new son right now, I don't know if I'd want to be named after my father. If we are talking about offense, regardless of position, I'd still take Uribe. But in the long run, things may change. If Uribe continues to be stubborn in his hitting style, and Anderson "figures it out", then Anderson may win out. But for now, Uribe is more valuable offensively. I just hope that Uribe DOES make the necessary changes (he drive the ball really well when he stays down and back), and that Anderson DOES figure it out (he can hit the ball really hard when his timing is right).

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) Can you really plan broken jaws? Ripped biceps? Concussions? Professional weightlifters don't expect 500 pounds to break their knees...does that make them tough? Forgive my dark clouds here, but I have a feeling that many of those things don't happen nearly as often as they lead people to believe. I am sure injuries occur, but I am also sure that many of the injuries seen on TV are no more real than the rest of what goes on.

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 09:44 PM) You can get them on the WS site. Go to the section where Season ticket holders put their Tix up for sale. That's true too, good point. Sox season ticket holders sell their seats on the exchange on that site (where, like a broker site, you will likely pay an arm and a leg).

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 09:20 AM) Actor or not, the pain is real. Watch the video's that someone posted. Getting thrown 16 feet off a cage and landing on a table. Getting slammed 10 feet through a fence. Getting tossed on thumb-tacks 3 times. So what if it's planned, that doesn't make what their doing painless. The thread was about toughness. I am sure there are tough guys in the wrestling circuit. but I also think that its a lot easier to handle scripted, rehearsed, known events (which are designed to reduce the chance of injury), than it is to put yourself on the line in unkown, rough situations. That is why I don't see those wrestlers ever being as tough (in my book) as the tough players in a sport like football, or rugby, etc.

QUOTE(Damen @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 01:51 AM) After BA's night, I think it's fair to say that Juan Uribe is officially the worst offensive player on the team right now. Wait... after a .150 hitter has ONE good night, suddenly he leaps past a .200 hitter? A little pre-mature, no? I mean, neither of them have much to be proud of offensively, but let's have some perspective here.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) I invite you to get do some "stage combat" with Mick Foley. Oh I'm not saying I'd want to get in a fight with some wrestler. I just don't think what they do is a sport. Boxing is a sport, and even that UFC stuff is sport - because there is actual competition. Professional wrestling is just entertainment, like an action movie for example. There are some tough actors too... but they are still actors.

Steve Largent. Or Dick Butkus. And I'm sorry but anyone in "professional" wrestling can't possibly be considered. Its stage combat, not sport.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) Our educational system has been on the decline for decades. This kid pointed out several of the reasons why in front of the only educational system to which he had access. You guys calling this kid a loser and a nerd, well I have news for you. He's going to be the one raking in the big bucks and getting the trophy wife because he considered his education important. The ones that skate through school doing just enough to get by, spending the bulk of your time being popular, being jocks or heads and trying to score the hot babes are the ones that will end up being losers. Take it to bank. Hm. Are you sure? I mean, are you sure it won't be the ones calling him a f***tard (whatever the hell that is) and saying that high school is all about the 'me' and the now? Aren't they the cool kids 4eva?!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 10:58 PM) Clearly you don't know politics. Using 1992 as an example, Paul Tsongas was polling better than Bill Clinton because Clinton dodged the draft, had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers, and was the Governor of a "small state". Clinton went on to win the Presidency, even though he was a little known candidate. We could go all through history with this: James K. Polk. Jimmy Carter, for two other examples. Just because people are unknown pre-Presidential race doesn't mean a damn thing. I am confident enough to say that Muskie couldn't have won where Carter did, Tsongas would fail where Clinton didn't. I like Bayh. Very much. But Presidential races are long, grueling affairs, and being unknown isn't that much of a handicap. Certainly not in climates like today's which are conductive to newer faces. I had to read the first sentence three times to make sure I read it right. Are you serious?! You think I don't know politics because I think one unknown candidate is more likely to win than another? When Bayh is a lot more well-known outside Iowa than Vilsack is?! You, my friend, are hilarious. And besides, looking at your line about being unknown is irrelevant, its pretty clear who here isn't too aware of the world of politics. Awareness of name is in fact one of the most important factors in national politics - a fact which I assumed most people were aware of, simply as a matter of common sense. And your other unrelated examples have no connection whatsoever to the personalities at hand. Using the logic of your example (Tsongas v Clinton), you think Tsongas is Bayh and Clinton is Vlisack? Not really. My post, which you replied to, was about 3 candidates NOT in the top four in this poll anyway (a poll which, again, is ridiculously too early to mean anything significant). But please, continue posting. This should be entertaining. QUOTE(BHAMBARONS @ Jun 12, 2006 -> 12:18 AM) That's is very well said these contests have grown to be so long starting right after the midterms are done. You really could go on and on with the dark horses infact this point of 1990 the front runners for the '92 elections were Gephardt and Cuomo. But they backed out so there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet. Which was exactly my point - which seemed to be missed entirely.

Again, if government (state AND federal) unwound itself from the business of marriage entirely, then none of this would be an issue. And there would be one less string of beuracracy to deal with. The gov't doesn't belong in the business of personal relationships.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 07:02 PM) Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure. Bayh has a much better chance than either Vilsack or Richardson. National polls I have seen show Bayh as 3rd or 4th, and Vilsack and Richardson are nowhere to be seen.

QUOTE(Nokona @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) Welcome to high school f***tard. As long as you dont get caught, it's legal. I am overwhelmed by the profundity of your well-reasoned post.

This poll is too early. Edwards, Kerry and Clinton are 1-2-3 because they have already campaigned in Iowa (Edwards anf Kerry in 2004). They are known commodities. People like Bayh, Warner, and even Richarson (not in the poll) will do a lot better when/if they start advertising and doing appearances. This poll, at this stage, is a 2004 popularity holdover. And I really don't think Vilsack has a chance outside Iowa.

The Sox sent out an announcement prior to the season - all club level and scout seats were sold out to season ticket holders. The only way to get them now is via a broker or someone like THE WOOD (who is selling a bunch of his seats over in the ticket exchange for fave value, and who is good to do business with).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 11:45 AM) The war on drugs could be won in months if the US had the balls to do what is necessary to win. Same goes for the war on terrorism. The war on drugs couldn't really be won, but it could go a lot better if they: --Legalized marijuana, which is less dangerous in society than alcohol and tobacco anyway --Regulated marijuana to generate revenue from taxes, thus covering enforcement of rules --Take some of the umpteen million dollars that was spent in interdiction, enforcement, prevention of marijuana and put half of it into the same tasks for drugs that are actually dangerous to society --Use the rest of the money to reduce the deficit

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 11, 2006 -> 01:29 AM) That means nothing Republicans will still do well in November. Bush will receive a bump and get his numbers back into the 50's. It's liberals like you that make wonder if you guys were disappointed that we killed Zarqawi and are winning the war on terror because it hurts your party. You liberals care more about poll numbers than bringing these thugs to justice which is really sick. Dude. The guy just made a comment about his polling numbers. Is it really necessary to snap off like that? And do you think anyone will take your comments seriously when they are steeped in ridicule and insults?