southsider2k5

C U next Wednesday!

SUCK ME DETROIT!

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 09:57 PM) I hope this is a good ohman. He wasn't very good tonight.

QUOTE (Pale Sox @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 05:44 PM) ESPN's choice of wording was interesting. "Colon Pounded" More at X

QUOTE (knightni @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 07:44 PM) I'd like to commend you on your cleverness. Nice catch.

DE-TROIT SUCKS!

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) brian, to clarify, Heyman said Sox are taking calls on Jackson and Braves are taking calls on Lowe. That is a big, big difference.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Clearly there would have to be more to it. A Rios-like contract going to the Braves, or a player coming back in addition. Or half of the Braves system coming back to Chicago.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) Ok, either I'm paranoid or I drank too much. I thought you were saying that she was guilty. I don't know if she is. But the case against her was s***. And I have no problem with her walking. At least on the first degree murder charge. QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:30 PM) Oh, then we're both mis-reading the s*** out of each other's posts. I think hugs are in order...

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:47 PM) Per Rotoworld Chicago Blackhawks and Chris Campoli will part ways. On Friday, Chicago went in a different direction by signing defenseman Sami Lepisto to a one-year contract. Chicago will probably attempt to trade Campoli's negotiating rights. If they are unable to do that, they have the option to walk away from whatever contract an arbitrator awards Campoli, which would make him an unrestricted free agent. Stay tuned. Campoli's arbitration hearing is scheduled for August 3rd. No surprise there. I wonder how far apart they were and what the numbers were/

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:44 PM) I find it comical that management didn't even think damage of the jokes being made at their expensive might outweigh the bombs given up by Davis in Charlotte. Who cares. It is Charlotte we are talking about.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) Did he trip over the dog or the gymbag? Or fell down the stairs...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) Being the holdout who causes a hung jury though isn't illegal...if he genuinely believed that the person was guilty and would not vote to acquit, then that's not illegal. That is also not what he said originally.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) Yay, you're on the Marmol has a 30 inch plate bandwagon with me! Never seen someone who gets the benefit of the call on the slider as much as he does. He really goes to the "Is catching the front corner of the plate, instead of passing over the whole plate" debate for being a strike.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) More on Kaner, he's having minor wrist surgery but is expected to be ready for training camp. That didn't take long to change David Schuster Patrick Kane will be out 6-8 weeks after breaking his wrist...supposedly during off season training.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) I'd be following them because I'd be excited to see Dayan Viciedo. But he isn't here.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) Is it really illegal or just immoral and unethical? I'd imagine it'd be extremely difficult to prove somebody was doing that. To do it intentionally is illegal. Of course it would be hard to prove, but in this case this is exactly what Greg told us he would have done.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) Wait, so Kuhn got demoted? lol. I never thought anything of him anyway. But that's kinda funny. Yes, sent back to AA.

QUOTE (Cali @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) I actually want 3-9, but 6-6 is more likely just to keep the status quo intact for KW and Ozzie to keep the same corpse-mix on the field.... Why are you still following the team if you want them to lose?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:38 PM) Yeah and I would go out of my way to take my car and ram it into somebody and kill them. What mod can I contact to issue my complaint about your post? Who is in charge here? You are out of line. I am on a jury. I have a right to convict after hearing evidence that 70 percent of the country after examining it agrees with me. But I am as bad as some idiot who tries to kill somebody? Great example you are setting for wanting a f***ing discussion on here. 70% of the country wasn't on the jury, and neither were you. What everyone else thinks who was not in that courtroom doesn't matter. You are talking about intentionally hanging a jury just because you want to see another trial take place. That is illegal. You are talking about putting a person on a life sentence, when none of the 12 jurors came to that conclusion. A life sentence is pretty much a death sentence in this case. The conclusion is very easy to reach via your own posts. You can report the posts to anyone whose name has a fancy color behind it if you like, instead of using it as a part of your argument.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) yeah, that's what I figured. Just wondered since they were turning to their own AAA for a replacement. Damn shame Castro got hurt. Castro would have actually been a great fit for them.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) How is saying I believe there's enough evidence to convict her on the other charges wanting the first degree murder charge only? I say there WAS enough evidence. Obviously the jury at some point agreed as well as it was 6-6. It is my right to try to convince everybody else without being a VIGILANTE or some street thug trying to kill somebody with my car. And I can't believe you aren't backing down on the insult. I'm out of this thread. This really pisses me off. I think if I posted something like you did, I'd be banned. That's just bulls*** to insult me like that. Bulls***. You have said multiple times that you would have gone out of your way to commit an illegal action if you were on that jury because of your belief. That is the textbook definition of vigilante.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) Stop saying this, it's just dumb. Obviously HALF of the jurors agreed at one point early on, but after deliberation and discussion changed their mind. This important. The life of a jury negotiation is dynamic. Just because you vote one way, one time, doesn't mean that is what you believe at the end of the day. Once a jury starts discussing evidence in detail, plus people's testimony, they could very well realize that viewed something incorrectly, or didn't understand what the burden of proof was. A 6-6 vote could mean that the jury bought into the circumstantial evidence, but once they really got in and talked about the basis in fact, they realized they were wrong. Realize that jury is a lot like a thread like this. People all are exposed to the same things, and turn it into what they hear it as. Then they are charged with taking all of those different view points and coming to a consensus.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) I have a problem with you calling me a nut and comparing me to somebody trying to kill somebody. If it was me, I'd go back and kill that post. But I'm not a mod. And you again conveniently fail to point out I feel there WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convict on some charges. Why is that being a vigilante. Holding out? Why is that being a vigilante? I want justice. You are talking about convicting a person of first degree murder, despite the evidence being found lacking by a 12 person jury who was involved in the evidence from day one. The prosecution failed, and despite that, you want her to get what would in effect be her death sentence. Convicting someone without enough evidence would be akin to killing her in this case. Trust me, I think she was guilty too, but you can't go vigilante and make the system do something that it isn't supposed to do.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) 1.) That's very unfair. I think you should take that back. You can't argue or answer my points about how she could have been convicted on the second or third counts and come up with that? The only crime I've ever committed was drinking and driving in college and never caused an accident or got caught and stealing candy from a store as a kid. I'd be a jury equivalent of a nut who ATTACKED somebody? Geez. 2.) Lying to police is endangerment of her child. At that point child was 'supposed' to be alive. 3. Breaking news: Casey Anthony's attorneys have filed a notice of appeal for her four convictions of lying to police. The document was filed at Orange County Court Courthouse Friday by Anthony's lead defense attorney, Jose Baez. And state of Florida has to fit the bill because she's indigent. That is irresponsible. The woman lied to police and that's documented. What is Baez looking for here? Sad. And yes I'm ashamed I drank and drove in college. That was wrong. Luckily nothing came of it. I have a zillion friends with DUIs. You are basically saying that the jurors should have taken the law into their own hands, vigilante style. Yes, I have a problem with that.