Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) I believe this is 100% true. It is also a normal set up for most places. When that breaks down, you get a mess. Exactly. It seems that some people want an autocratic last century management philosophy. That hasn't been the best practice for decades.

We're assuming that people want FIFA to clean up and that the corruption doesn't go further.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) Literally one of the reasons I joined a private club. I like to play fast whenever I want. The private club experience is much different. But even on weekends most clubs have longer than normal pace of play. Our club was slow on the weekends because of all the fivesomes playing wolf. But brutal was the late morning tee times playing in 4:45 - 5:00 hours. Earlier times could be played quicker. We were certain to call early to book a time around 7:30 - 8:00. What I really miss is the hanging around the practice area at lunch and after work. Always people I know, always a putting or pitching game to get in. $10 knock out was my favorite.

And we do realize that this is all speculation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 29, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) What you are saying makes no sense. One time you are saying that there is no chain of command. But when the general manager goes to the coach, who works for him, and tells him to do something, he is meddling? Same with the White Sox. Rick Hahn does the leg work. Final approval for moves goes through the chain of command into Kenny and then finally, and if necessary, Jerry. Certain guys are obviously responsible for certain things. Do you honestly think that Jerry or Kenny are the ones making out line ups? But, when there is a bigger problem with the performance, such as with the Bulls and Thibs playing guys too many minutes, then the chain of command kicks in and tells him to knock if off. I am not sure where you have worked in the past that you have full autonomy over everything, but that is pretty much the textbook definition of chain of command. Agreed. I would add one thing you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 29, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) The question isn't that at all. The question is "who has final say"? I guarantee you that it's not Jed Hoyer. Hoyer works the phones I'm sure and does other duties but the executive at the top is Epstein. It's a traditional org chart. The Sox have more of a triangle it seems at the top with JR, Hahn and KW all making inputs. That isn't going to work. You are talking in part one about who makes the decision. In part two you are saying who has input input. Do you think that Hoyer doesn't have input? Do you think that JR, Hahn, and KW split the decision making, have a vote,

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 29, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) I gave you the answer: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=3168610 You're ignoring the reason these laws are being proposed (prevention of mass shootings) and that we're not talking about all laws generally, we're talking about specific laws that are add-on's to other existing laws. You are creating a premise that is how these laws were designed to work. You are stating this is why the laws were proposed. We all know that laws do not prevent a crime. If we used that criteria we wouldn't have any laws. Again, I ask. Name one law in the history of laws that prevented crimes from being committed? The reason we have laws is to determine the punishment. In the end, that is all they do.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 29, 2015 -> 10:30 AM) again, you are trying to take an incident and mold it for an agenda you are trying to make. i really can't see it. Russia during the height of the cold war. they, Russia who has extremely tough law on crime and criminals still had that illegal activity and criminals. bottom line pls don't take the waco incident to paint it all in one color. b/c there will always be an illegal side of society. i am thru here. To be clear Alpha began this segment by stating by making a statement that the laws didn't work. Again, we all agree that criminals break laws. Why is that any proof that the laws didn't work?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 29, 2015 -> 08:35 AM) Because I never said the laws were or were not working. I said that the laws they wanted would not have worked there, so it was a bad example of the need for the law. Antis INSIST that the laws will PREVENT things from happening. They INSIST that the laws they want would have prevented the Waco incident. I say that they are wrong. The laws may help them add some jail time to them after they are caught, but they will NOT STOP THEM from happening. My point is exactly that criminals break laws and that no law will prevent them from doing what they want to do. Antis seem to think otherwise and use bad examples, like Waco, to back their claim. How much more clear can I make that for you? I agree. All the laws that were broken in Waco did not prevent any crimes. The clear part that I keep asking you is the next step. Because laws will not stop a criminal, what do you want to do about the laws?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 28, 2015 -> 03:02 PM) tex, not going there. I didn't say that the law would or would not work. I said using the Waco incident to advocate for the laws, where it would not have made a difference, was stupid. We've been over that more than once and you keep trying to change the goalposts. That's like saying that since a car slid off the road during snowy weather that it proves we need to have mandatory third tail lights. Again, how do you judge if a law is making a difference? It's a damn simple question that you keep avoiding. The only thing you say is well criminals broke the law. Well again, criminals break laws all the time, it doesn't mean the laws aren't working. You're only point is criminals break laws. So unless you can finally explain how you come to the conclusion that the laws aren't working, I'll assume you don't want to answer the question.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 28, 2015 -> 02:32 PM) you are just arbitrarily saying that .......... and that is not a realistic idea. the ability of getting, in this case weapons, has nothing to do with laws of waco or tx. many of these weapons were brought to the fight. the location was nothing of an incidental location. Not arbitrary at all. It was thought out and specifically included, not by random chance. So again, what conclusion should we make about laws in respect to Waco? People keep saying "see the laws didn't work". OK, if you say the laws didn't work why can't anyone state how they would judge a law that does work? No one has been able to answer that. They just create a premise that since criminals broke they law, the law isn't working.

I make those a few different ways. What has become our favorite is to make a bacon/cream cheese filling and stuffing them and grilling them in a jalapeno rack.I tried different styles of bacon, but the peppered is my favorite. It becomes less bacon and more jalapeno. I usually remove the seeds and veins to lighted up the heat.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 28, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) haha.... nice trying to putting words in my posts. i am not going there. Then what is your point? I have said again and again that criminals break laws. That's not a reason to eliminate laws.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 28, 2015 -> 01:55 PM) for the most part, i have been staying out of this. but come on. there is always going to be a source to acquire weapons, even if it is going out of state. it is part of the illegal activity that thrives in the US. if you need proof, see how the government is dealing with yrs of strict laws concerning drugs. I agree. Are you suggesting that any law that does not stop illegal activity should be dropped?

CNN reported what the cops were saying. Good job to the cops for not knowing what the count was. Alpha, what proof would you accept that a law works?

I usually bundle four or five spears together with one piece of bacon. It grills easier. If I know someone prefers their bacon a little crisper I will precook the bacon a little bit then wrap. It is very hard to judge how long to precook so even better I wind up eating a few pieces will cooking.

This is a dangerous precedent when we use a transaction through a bank to force extradition and claim jurisdiction. Imagine a CEO of an American company being extradited to Vietnam because they have a supplier there and the transaction went through a local bank. FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland, it should have been the Swiss to prosecuted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:43 PM) A sizeable reduction in shootings would help. But when there's so few of those shootings anyway, tough to say that a change in gun laws would be connected. That sounds subjective. It is easy to say anything about the Waco shooting in favor or against. The Waco shooting shows how the laws worked. With more guns, more ammo, more higher power weapons people in neighboring businesses would have been killed. With higher capacity more people would have been killed. Those weapons were not present making this a lot better than the horror it could have been. But obviously there is no objective proof to that statement. Just like saying this is an example where the laws do not work. Again, you are placing an impossible burden on any law if anytime the law is broken you can say, see it didn't work. Also, more and more evidence is coming out that the cops over reacted in arresting everyone in sight. The latest is a guy without a motorcycle that just drove a few friends there to hang out with other friends. Now a father of three who had never been arrested lost his good job and still sits in jail.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) I'm on probably my 7th or 8th brand of grill up there since they only last outside for about 2-5 years. Once this one wears out I am moving my Weber up there and buying a Genesis for my house here. Nice choice. QUOTE (brett05 @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) If you are getting so much grease that you are putting out red hot coals you need to get better cuts of meat. Honestly something is wrong if the grease is putting out red hot coals. Plus the grease hitting the coals adds to what we call "charcoal flavor" so we really do not want to avoid that entirely.

How would you show that a law prevented a crime? What evidence would you accept?

America cleaning up the world. The whole thing sounds a little crazy. But we'll see if the US justice system can legitimately claim jurisdiction. I see that as the biggest battle to a successful prosecution.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2015 -> 01:29 PM) Oh yeah that is a typical configuration of the off brand grills, my brinkman looks just like that and I get mad flare ups. I actually burn it off and then scrape them with the brush. One thing to check is for any rusted out spots. I had basically an open flame in one section of the burner, which in turn took out some of the deflector. Replacing the parts helped a lot with that grill.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2015 -> 04:15 PM) They also make grill pans with smaller openings that help lots with asparagus. Try dunking in lemon juice and garlic powder, then wrapping in bacon. Mmmm, bacon.... Do you bundle them together of one spear per one piece of bacon? I've also used a cast iron skillet on the grill for bacon wrapped veggies. After allowing some of the heart healthy bacon grease seep into the veggies I will finish up on the grill to dry it up a little bit.

I have about the same design, only a four burner and the burners seem to be a little closer together. I also have some flareups but they are usually minor and within the first few minutes. I usually watch closely through the gaps and have a spray bottle of water to control the flareups.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) I'm not going to attempt to read your quadruple negative there, but I'll repeat: you're ignoring that these laws are being proposed on a belief that they will prevent similar crimes in the future if they are enacted. They're not being proposed simply to add more punishment for crimes (and given that a lot of these crimes end in suicides/intended deaths, that wouldn't even make sense). Without the tragedy, there's no push for new laws. No one disagrees with your general point, but you need to move past it to the next level. We already have gun/murder laws. People are punished for using guns in unlawful ways and/or for murdering people in unjustified ways. The question now is do we need these other laws on top of existing laws. I'm not ignoring it. If anyone passes a law because they think it will prevent a crime, they are idiots. I believe I wrote that more than a few times. Laws do not prevent crimes. Laws establish what to do with the criminals. There has never been a law that has prevented a crime from being committed by criminals. So if you use that as a criteria, we would not have an laws. Do we need these laws based on a biker shootout in Waco? No. If that is the only reason these laws were written, that one situation, that is wrong. How about the gang member who is caught with automatic weapons and high capacity magazines while cruising their neighborhood? Now they can be arrested and potentially prevent a crime by getting them off the street instead of being allowed to do nothing.