Texsox

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 08:23 PM) If people don't want to watch the Sox, then just don't watch them. We're better off without fair-weather fans. Just don't come back when we start winning. Sorry, but that is entirely wrong. The casual fans are the ones that in the end determine the attendance. Those fair weather fans that attend a game or two every year buy hundreds of thousands of tickets. The hard core fan base of both Chicago teams is about the same. What the two teams fight for are the "fair weather fans" who decide which team to go see. It's unfair really to call the fair weather fans, they don't necessarily declare loyalty to any team. They just like getting to a baseball game now and then. The Sox lost them in the 1970s by trying pay per view while the Cubs were carried on WGN. They don't attend the games on the cheap. It's an event and they will buy the souvenirs, pay the going rate for parking, eat and drink. They will get their peanuts and crackerjacks. Without casual fans the team has the payroll of the Pirates.

I'd need to meet them and see them off camera.

If the Sox make a late run, it shouldn't matter, but we've seen the voters react to similar.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 04:47 PM) It's an average. Maybe they go 3-4 against the Angels, but go 3-1 or sweep the A's. Just pointing out the schedule they have left is doable if they play good baseball. At this point, there's no harm in having some hope. But if they only split with Boston, I'd probably hope for Samardzija to be traded. Until then, hope the win train keeps going, and the Twins keep losing. Right and it underscores how difficult the run will be after digging such a hole. If a few of those 4-3 series results flip to 3-4 it's all over.

At the least with a straight face the team can tell any buyers that they are serious about contending and not looking to just let anyone go at bargain basement prices.

You have them winning or tying every series from here on in. That's a tall order.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 12:56 PM) Wake me up when we're within 3-4 of a playoff spot. Opening Day 2016?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 01:58 AM) He's a democrat so this is the thread for this. I am asking a serious question of you politicos: Is Obama the worst president in the last 48 years? No

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 10:40 AM) That's all fine and good, but that was before 2005. Most intelligent White Sox fans realize that desperation to get back into a one-game playoff isn't as important as preserving the viability of competing over that 3-5 year window we keep hearing about. I agree 100%. Now seriously what percentage of non intelligent fans make up the ticket buying and TV watching public? I believe the vast majority of fans believe they are intelligent fans because they listen to the pre and post game shows and know what those talking heads are saying. How few actually get to the level of discussions we have here? They are mostly dittoheads of the experts, both local and national. We laugh those off, yet we hear that stuff repeated all the time.

Good analysis. In the back of my mind is a belief that the organization remembers the terrible backlash after the "White Flag Trade" and has vowed not to repeat it.

Winning these three games just makes selling harder for the fans to accept than buying. Notice than no one is really thinking about adding a bat to make the playoffs. The choices still are staying pat or selling.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 10:03 PM) It's easy if you try ,all teams below us, above us only sky ! golf clap

My new White Sox Creed Past performance does not guarantee future results. You should not rely on any past performance as a guarantee of future winning performance. Pitching, defense, and offense will fluctuate. Fans are cautioned that data based on less than five lifetimes of experience may not be sufficient to establish a track record on which predictions can be based.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 09:37 PM) I refuse to have hope. I want to. This pitching staff is good enough that if the White Sox offense is even average, they could make it. But something about fool me once... I've lost count how many times this has happened. One day at a time. From something I was reading today

QUOTE (soxfan85 @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 09:43 PM) Minnesota: Have a gut feeling they will fall from grace Toronto: Can't pitch, aren't that far ahead of US, and want one of OUR top pitchers...why would we help them? One game over .500 Tampa: I have no idea how they are where they are...but they will fall. Under .500 Detroit: Can't pitch. Under .500 Baltomore: The only team that concerns me, but they are 2 games under .500 and supposedly NOT selling but going for it. Texas: We will pass them up. Why not just take a shot at this thing? Still over 2 months to go. THIS is what it takes to survive a lifetime of White Sox baseball. That's what I like about you, you dream big!

Sox winner, Cubs no hit. I can rest.

Thank you for all the work you are doing.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 11:28 PM) A movie theater is in so many ways an awful place for a shooting to happen and nobody should be able to say with a straight face that a gun carried for self-defense would be useful in that particular situation. Sight is terrible so seeing the gunman will be difficult. Combine the sight problem with the crowd issue and you are taking a huge risk by firing a weapon because there are so few situations in which you can be sure that your bullet will miss innocents if it misses the active shooter. Then we have the secondary issue in that any other heroes in the audience may struggle to figure out which person firing their gun should be trusted. As people start standing and firing their weapons in the crowd, how should everyone else evacuate without waking in front of one of the several active shooters? It's just a very vulnerable position. As for this particular situation, I have some hunch that it may not have been all that premeditated. We know the guy was a hardcore right-wing type, but I don't see how this would accomplish much of anything. He didn't seem to conduct himself like he had a plan. I wonder if this is a situation where this already unstable person heard some audience member make a comment or something and just lost his cool. In the excitement of the moment and in realizing what had been done, he killed himself rather than face the consequences, which is not all that uncommon in these situations. Y'all are perfect at creating a scene where a gun would not be useful. It is also not very useful when held by a cop ten minutes away. It isn't useful in arguably 90%+ of situations in a theater. With a straight face here are a couple situations where it is useful. If I am close enough to see the shooter clearly, perhaps within 10' to 15' a gun would be extremely useful. If you are hiding between the seats pissing your pants and the gunman turns down your row and is standing over you aiming for your head, a gun is extremely useful to you. If they are aiming at your spouse or child, you will really wish you had one. But if you are too far away to safely take a shot at the murderer in the crowd, you are also safer hiding because he will also have little chance to kill you. His best chance is also your best chance, close up. The only situation worse than a shooting in a movie theater would be sitting in front of a guy shooting in a movie theater. All the environmental factors you mention make it a terrible place to shoot someone. To help your hiding you may wish to wear black clothes. But bottom line y'all are thinking about the person carrying and protecting everyone. I'm thinking about carrying and protecting the people immediately around me. If we are far enough away that I don't have a shot, either will the murderer, so we keep hiding, taking cover, trying to flee. If we come face to face with the killer, then y'all hope for the police to save you, I will, with a straight face, believe my gun will be more useful than your ability to do whatever.

It's not all zeros for the Cubs, they did make an error . . . Last chance

Suddenly I'm interested in a Cubs game

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) Yeah. https://twitter.com/TigersGIFs/status/624729684652257280 That made me lol

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:50 PM) Be honest and think here. In a movie theater, under fire, it's dark, only light is from the screen. You really think that under fire, probably from behind, you could turn around, aim, and get a clean shot off without accidentally hitting the wrong person? While the person has a semi-automatic handgun and can keep pulling the trigger? Per the police, as the crowd was leaving the theater this guy snuck into it and almost got out of the theater before someone stopped the crowd/stopped him. The people fleeing the room didn't identify the shooter as he left the theater with the group. They couldn't tell. Now you're telling me you could honestly figure out who the shooter was with enough accuracy to pull the trigger? The closest example of a mass shooting interacting with a person carrying a weapon I can think of is the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the person across the street who had the gun nearly shot the wrong person. And that was in the daylight. You paint a scenario that makes you right. Actually 100% right and without any room for argument. Based on your situation there would be little or no chance of helping and a prudent person should not add to the problem by shooting. Your example is so tight that 99% of people would agree with you. Now how about it's the guy in front of me who just stood up and is shooting people in front of him. He's close enough for me to see and touch? I like my chances in my scenario. At some point he is going to turn around and start shooting behind him and I'm next in line. Of all the possible scenarios we can start arguing I will agree that probably 90% would result in fleeing or hiding being the much better option than pulling the trigger. I'll concede that point. But it becomes a rather worthless argument. You can hypothetically argue that every person carrying is going to take stupid shots based on your knowledge of gun owners who have qualified to carry. I'm going to argue that people who are carrying in your situation would not return fire in that scenario. I'll also argue that if you were standing next to the guy and he was aiming for your head, you would wish someone would shoot him first. My approach will be much better than the people who are not carrying who will stand up and run towards the nearest exit, in some cases right at the killer, making the killer's shot even easier. You see if you can make gun owners do stupid stuff in your example why can't I make those not carrying do stupid stuff? Does that prove my case any better?