Texsox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) Is McCormick pretty much at capacity year-round? I have no idea. That's what I'm thinking. I'm certain they didn't push dates because they wanted the place to be empty then. I believe there is a pretty good chance that a bigger convention wants those the dates a smaller convention has. Plus y'all are looking at September and October dates which are great for Chicago weatherwise. And I will agree with Alpha, it is much more expensive to hold a convention in Chicago than Orlando. For a national convention Chicago wins for cheaper travel for most people, middle of the country, major airport, etc. Rosh Hashanah moves in the calendar all over the place. I wonder how you would have had a conflict in September one year and October another year? Here is a clue, this year you have one building assuming it is the Graph Expo, the Process Expo has three buildings. Any bets they want to go to four or five buildings?

And let's think about what the theater will look like during the shooting. Has anyone ever looked around a movie theater? I might have special vision but I can see almost everyone in a theater. It's pretty bright with that movie going and everything. Your eyes get adjusted once you are in there for a while. Now, I'm guessing a lot of people are hiding and still others are running away from the shooter. How many people are running towards the gunman and standing really tall to be shot? Is the gunman surrounded by dozens of people standing there waving their arms? What do you think it looks like?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 03:22 PM) Those doctors, lawyers, professors, truck drivers, construction workers, and secretaries also aren't likely to be extremely well trained at aiming firearms in a dark movie theater, yet we get presented the fantasy that they would be. No, you keep presenting that fantasy. You set up a situation and show how a hypothetical idiot with a gun would react.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 03:09 PM) the only way to reduce gun violence is to continually increase the number of people carrying guns everywhere they go The way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of criminals that are carrying guns. If you removed all the guns from people who will not commit a crime in their lifetime, how will that reduce gun violence?

Reading through the comments one thing becomes clear. Most of the non gun owners believe that non criminals with guns will act like criminals with guns. Criminals do not follow the same laws as the rest of society. Some criminals have severe mental disease or defects. You also assume non criminal gun owners will do the stupidest possible thing. In the theater they will just stand up and start shooting in any random direction like some cartoon character. Remember these are really normal people. They are doctors, lawyers, professors, truck drivers, construction workers, secretaries, and from every walk of life and background. They don't suddenly veer their cars into traffic, they don't randomly start killing people. But somehow many of the people here suddenly think I'm as crazy as the criminal that is killing people. It just isn't so. There are millions and millions of very responsible gun owners who just would not do the things that some people here think they would. Your caricatures would be laughable if they weren't so wrong.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 02:49 PM) Great post. Another great post. Tex is right. If the bastard comes up to you and you have a gun ... bang, the perpetrator is DEAD. Tex is the man. Maybe dead, but at least you have a fighting chance instead of hoping he doesn't see you in the dark or decides that you should live instead of die that day.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) We've been over this before and you're still wrong. Laws don't have a singular purpose. They can be for punishment and prevention, or something else (e.g., money). We pass laws all the time to curb behavior X with the goal of preventing Y. Again, when we say that a law did not prevent a crime from happening discounts what you've mentioned in punishment, money, curbing behavior. Too often people claim we do not need a law because it would not prevent a crime from happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:27 AM) Yeah, discounting the deterrence and cultural/social signaling effects of laws to zero seems pretty silly. I'm reacting more to the idea that since a law didn't prevent something it's an unnecessary law.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 09:34 AM) I don't think this is necessarily true. Only one of you is going to care about collateral damage and actually hitting what you are aiming at. While you may not have a shot, he can just point in your general direction and get lucky. No doubt the criminal has the advantage, they always seem to. But the criminal also isn't always aiming. They tend to be spraying bullets and hoping to hit something. But no reasonable person would take a shot across the theater and if they did, they deserve to be punished, severely. As they say, it's personal protection, not crowd protection. You have to leave that up to the professionals.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 06:41 PM) Regarding LaRoche, I think we need to start playing him at 1B more frequently to see if that can help him get going. Worst case scenario it improves the defense a bit. And we definitely need to start platooning him. I don't care if that's a shot to his ego, but he should not be facing LHP under a normal circumstance. And as far as anyone knows the ego thing is purely conjecture on the fan's part.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jul 26, 2015 -> 10:00 PM) and if that is the case, why go to the game when you can see it on tv. you can to admit that the price of the games, esp in season ticket holders are $$$$. again, if your fav team is always screwing up thru bad management, why would someone go and spend the money??? Again the casual fan really doesn't live and die by the results of their team. They go to see the show. Attending the game is a special event. The sounds, the sights, the food. There are family traditions to always go on a certain birthday, or to see X team when they come to town. I hope this example doesn't steer this too far away. It's like saying I'm a Brad Pitt fan and I will only go to a movie if it's a great film and Brad Pitt is in it. If you want to see a movie you go see a movie. People attend a circus, not because they are "loyal fans of that circus", but because they want to see a circus. Same with casual fans and a baseball game. Those pick games for other reasons, the promotion, something else to do in the city, and of course that the team is winning and it's exciting to be a part of that. So bottom line, if you really enjoy baseball and are a fan of baseball you go to games. Like I said, In then past decade I've watched every level of baseball played. I couldn't even tell you the team names or the schools of many of the games. Why should I spend my money to see two college teams I don't care about? Because it was fun. And I enjoyed it live way better than on TV. I enjoy live shows. I'll pay to watch a concert or play that I could easily find a recording of.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 11:14 PM) this is no pun on your name but the sox fans have heard all the b/s lip service that the sox FO has spewed. so why should they want to or feel motivated to spend their hard earned money on a product that reaks of incompetence in the front office and their narrowmindedness of hiring lackeys for key positions such as Managers. Because major league baseball is a damn entertaining thing to watch. I've been to stadiums all over the country watching games played by teams I could care less about. If you love baseball, how could you not attend a game? I've sat and watched minor league, independent league, college and junior college games. Baseball is great to watch.

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.