zach61

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) Im sure it might be a bit easier now, but has anyone been able to honestly say "I made this person a Sox Fan Because ................." I converted Robert McCormick because I think he could help the Sox get more attention that you need.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) In Short ... Yes, I can think on my own (stated that in previous post, you mustve MISSED it) and Yes, Id love it if a newspaper can just report the news to me instead of telling me what I like isnt that good. Id love it if they would constantly do it, but that probably wont happen. I'll settle for fair coverage. But then again, why are the rules changed just because we won it all? What rules? Could you please provide the link to the rules you are talking about? And if you need a paper to report what you like is good, then yes, you need someone to reassure you that you like the right thing.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) No where in your post do you infer "all Media". My watches are obviously the 2 major newspapers in Chicago. This isnt a TV watch or Radio Watch (though I do comment on that too) All you said was "The SOX had more coverage last October and they've had more coverage this year than ever before". Since were talking about my newspaper coverage, I can only assume your talking about newspaper coverage from last year. So as I said in another post somewhere in this pile of crap, start over this Monday(6-12-06) and post the titles of the articles that you are counting and start from zero again. We can then see how accurate you are counting then. We have no idea what you counted in the past and since someone proved your count was wrong already, your totals cannot be trusted. This will actually help the times and trib sell more papers because we will be checking them to see if you are accurate in your counts. So I have to congratulate you on doing the opposite of what you tried to do and that is to help them sell more papers no matter what they put in them.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) to translate, I DONT NEED the media telling me what to do. I just need them to report on the World Series Champion White Sox with the dignity and respect they deserve. Thats not too much to ask is it? They did that and you still aren't satisfied. Why do you need someone to constantly reassure you of something? Can't you think on your own instead of needing somebody to tell you through a newspaper that what you like is acceptable to them?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 9, 2006 -> 11:40 AM) I disagree. Thats what makes White Sox Fans SO UNIQUE. We expect excellence, and WONT TOLERATE anything less. Remember the Booing and Catcalling at Opening Ceremonies for SOXFEST 04? That was awesome, to see the fanbase rise-up and tell the team how they felt. We always BOO and dont need the newsmedia to tell us to do so. We always CHEER and SALUTE our players and dont need the newsmedia to tell us to do so. Its one of the reasons ive stayed a SOX fan for so long ................ the Passionate (and long underrated) Fanbase. Like I said before, that other team gets to .500, their fanbase Parties HogWild, break windows, pees in the streets indiscriminately. You say you don't need the newsmedia's attention, but all you do is b**** about not having the newsmedia's attention. Are you capable of posting something without mentioning either the media or the cubs?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) That is a capital suggest Sleepy. I am glad you said it. I am going to merge all of this stuff into one thread, that way who wants to read it will know where it is at, and at the sametime it won't take away from people who don't want to see it. And for the meantime I will ask for those who just want to say they don't care, please skip this thread. If you have a legitimate argument, question, or comment feel free to add it. Other than that, please have the courtesy to let the people who are interested in this discuss it freely. We are letting Hanger have his say, just like we let everyone else, unless it becomes a big problem. Any questions feel free to PM, post, or email as usual. Great idea. Now the board won't be cluttered with bad counts of stories not about the Sox and this hangar guy can feel like he is sticking it to the Chicago media by posting on a Sox board about how they are biased against the Sox. And to show my support for hangar, I refused to let Trader Joe's put my groceries in a bag cause their shopping bags are biased towards the cubs. Until they put the Sox logo on their bags, I won't let them bag my groceries. I still go there just like hangar still reads the papers, but if I complain enough to Jewel Food Stores about it, then Trader Joe's will have to put the Sox logo on their bags.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 8, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) The SOX creep just a little closer to 1st Place today, but unfortuneately this doesnt translate into any extra coverage for the 2005 WS Champs. They are nearly 100 stories behind the 5th Place team who are only 2 games out of Last Place now, but still continue to get more coverage in Chicago. Fred Mitchell today decides to do a piece on a Cub from yesteryear. Timely. I did notice online how the Tribune linked both MLB drug stories with the SOX, so on quick perusal, makes you think the SOX are intimately linked to this new scandal. Chicago Tribune: 5 cub stories 4 sox stories Chicago SunTimes: 4 cub stories 5 sox stories Standings as of June 8th, 2006 Priviledged, Media Owned, Media Favored, 4th Place in 05, 2 Games out of Last Place, Cubs 545 Underdog, Media Maligned, Media Ignored, WSChamps 05, 1/2 Games out of 1st Place, SOX 449 After reading Jim H's post in another one of these pointless watch threads, please post the titles of the stories to back up your numbers. And I think you should be starting with new numbers since the mistake was already caught about mis counting stories. You're numbers can't be considered accurate now unless you can post all the story titles to verify their correctness and so that we can read them too. Start tomorrow at 0 for both teams and post the stories so we can all see what you are claiming and counting.

QUOTE(Whitewashed in @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 09:44 PM) Okay you can just stop right there. Don't make yourself look like an idiot. Too late, he already did. Guess he missed the WS last yr. He probably still thinks Jose Valentin should be our 3rd baseman.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) And look at that.. it's selling WITHOUT the Sox being in the paper as much as the Cubs... Kind of took a poop on your own theory right there Henry.. But if the media would report it, then they would be in the media? Maybe Henry will be happy when the Sox have a crappy team, a full park, and tons of great stories about how the Sox are the best team to go see even though they suck and can't win.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) The sox peanuts taste much better. Can we have a sep Cubsession section of the board so Henry and Cuck can post there. I get the feeling Henry has never written that check. Henry can't write that check cause he spends all his money on the trib hoping to see more stories about the Sox.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) The city of Pittsburgh has a population of 334,563, while the Pittsburgh Metro area has a population of 2,358,695 according to This page. Chicago has a population of 2,896,016 and it's metro area holds 9,157,540, over 3 times as much as Pittsburgh. Therefore, the percentage of the city's population going to Cubs games and Pirates games yesterday was roughly the same. Actually, Pitt was even slightly higher. But when the cubs play there, the park fills up and the trib writes about the cubs losing instead of the Sox winning at home. So because of the media, the Sox get no coverage and its the medias fault that there were no Sox fans in PNC.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 04:10 PM) SO does Old Style Beer. I would like some comparison's on that. And Jewel and Dominicks sell cubs and white sox bags of nuts, I wonder if the ratio of cubs to sox bags in the display is sqewed based on the attendance the previous week. So are you saying there are more bags of nuts with the Sox logo left over cause the cubs have more attendance?

QUOTE(rangercal @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 04:07 PM) it's not that we are obsessed with the cubs. The fans who live in or around the city are tired of being force fed cubs. Thats why they have such a huge fan base, the people who gave in to the force feedings from wgn, the tribune and the rest of the media. I understand all the regulars view on this situation, as it is a very tough one. You guys do not want soxtalk to be labled as a site that worries about the cubs more than the sox. I know that the hardest put down a sox fan can ever hear is, "you hate the cubs more than you love the sox". But the first thread was all fact based. I seen nothing wrong with it. If it were a thread titled "the cubs suck" for stupid reasons, then we have problems. stop complaining, about me complaining ,about you guys complaining about henry. Better get on Trader Joe's now too. They got the cub logo on their bags instead of the Sox. Maybe the cubs just do a better job of getting their crap out there? Or is the media the reason for the cubs logo being on the Trader Joe's shopping bags?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) Here we go again.... :rolly Who the hell is bashing him? It's called conversation. A debate. A disagreement. He's pointing out his side, and others are pointing out their side. Want know what I'm sick of.. the pot stirring. Isn't there a tribune or suntimes message board that this hangar guy could go play on? They might actually care about media coverage. I don't even read those papers. Read the southtown if you don't like the coverage of the trib. Plus, the trib owns the cubs, why would they want to write about the Sox?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) Any 2006 numbers out of curiousity? To me that pretty well makes sense from 99-05, and it seems to mirror the play of the teams more than the attendence of the teams. If anything that saids to me that we are getting a disproportionate share of stories, because our corresponding attendence rates sure haven't looked like that. If the Sox want all the press, then they should get their own paper too.

Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG J Uribe CWS SS 32 114 9 24 4 1 3 13 39 5 22 0 1 .246 .342 .211 B Anderson CWS OF 34 97 15 17 2 0 4 10 31 13 32 2 1 .277 .320 .175 I'll wait it out with Anderson because he makes it look so easy in CF. Who should we put in there for Uribe?

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) a smoker who smokes a pack per day for 10 years and then quits only has a SLIGHTLY higher chance of lung cancer/disease than a non-smoker. So you wanna explain to me how exactly a brush with second hand smoke on the concourse is a "risk to your health"? That is an interesting point becuase there are studies from both sides about second hand smoke. Here's something interesting to consider too. If someone urinates on you, you wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't harm you. Urinating is legal, but you can't urinate in public places. They have designated places for that. So would you swim in a pool that has a urinating section and a non-urinating section that is divided by a net so the swimmers can't get into the other section? I always ask the person in the restaurant that asks if I want smoking or non-smoking if there is really a difference if I'm in the same room. That would be like being in a pool with a urinating section.

QUOTE(mreye @ Mar 30, 2006 -> 08:10 AM) Because as bad as it is - it's still legal. I quit about a year and a half ago. I never realized how bad smoke smelled until now. Wow! I don't like this. Smokers have a legal right to smoke, in my opinion. Just like I have a right to drink, eat a brat with extra onions that stinks to high hell, or burp and fart. I just have a problem with this constant war against people doing a perfectly legal thing. Addiction is a disease, right? AIDS is a disease. Diabetes is a disease. Why is it OK to humiliate smokers, but feel sympathy for people with other diseases? Where's the ACLU for smokers? Can smokers use the Americans with Disabilities Act? Just my $0.02 And drinking is legal too, but there are parks and forest preserves where you can't have liquor. And I don't think you can just walk down a city street with an open beer. I could be wrong, but just because something is legal doesn't always mean you can do it wherever you please. I'm also against the smoking in public places to avoid some idiot throwing a lit cigarette into a trash can and starting a fire.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) How about in 1996, when the Taliban took over and many of the major al Qaeda figures lived with them? What does that have to do with '93? And didn't we put the Taliban in power there?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:06 PM) Perhaps you need to look up the definition of the word "after." I don't follow either. How much "after" should we have invaded Afghanistan when al queda bombed the WTC in '93? Was al queda in Afghanistan at that time? Or did someone have a forwarding address for al queda and knew they were heading to Afghanistan? Please explain what you meant by after. Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster: Function: adverb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English æfter; akin to Old High German aftar after, and probably to Old English of of : following in time or place : AFTERWARD, BEHIND, LATER Function: preposition 1 a : behind in place b (1) : subsequent to in time or order (2) : subsequent to and in view of 2 -- used as a function word to indicate the object of a stated or implied action 3 : so as to resemble: as a : in accordance with b : with the name of or a name derived from that of c : in the characteristic manner of d : in imitation of Function: conjunction : subsequently to the time when Function: adjective 1 : later in time 2 : located toward the rear and especially toward the stern of a ship or tail of an aircraft Function: verbal auxiliary chiefly Irish -- used with a present participle to indicate action completed and especially just completed Function: noun : AFTERNOON

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) It's even more interesting considering that Iran produces a lot more oil. And from what I hear, a lot of enriched uranium. We need to get in there and nip that in the bud right now. And who knows, maybe we can use the oil to help them rebuild a democracy.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 22, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) Wow. Who doesnt like boobs? Ashcroft?

QUOTE(JimH @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Report directly from the ballpark: 1. Quickman met Thome yesterday at Risky Business, says he is extremely nice. 2. It's the bottom of the 2nd and he's half in the bag Thome or quickman?

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) Sure, but at least Rush had a legitimate case (the DA illegally accessing his medical records). The ACLU doesn't have ANY case here. This is a frivilous lawsuit that will get thrown out of any court immediately. And the ACLU knows this, but doesn't care. They have no concerns over tying up our court system with a frivilous case. And guess who will pay the legal fees for this lawsuit: the taxpayers! Right, but my point was that the ACLU isn't just promoting an ultra left wing political agenda that you said. They do protect civil liberties of people. Even the ultra right wing conservative Rush Limbaugh. Rush had a case and the ACLU fought for his civil liberties. They might not always pick the right cases, but we need a group like them. Who else stepped in for Rush during that time? I'm not searching to try to see if Hannity filed anything with the courts or if Dubya had anything filed with the courts, but I remember the ACLU filing something with the courts to protect Rush's rights.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Mar 14, 2006 -> 06:01 PM) This is yet another piece of evidence supporting my claim that the ACLU is more interested in promoting an ultra left-wing political agenda than protecting the civil liberties of individuals. And it's a damn shame. Didn't they support Rush Limbaugh during his drug phase? Whether or not you like Rush, his rights were being stepped on and the ACLU was right there to stand up for him. I think a lot of thought was put into the 8th amendment to prevent us from reacting to another persons crime. In a lot of cases I think the person should have a long painful death, but then my human side gets in the way and tells me not to stoop to their level. If these convulsions are just muscle reflexes, then it's no big deal to me. But if those convulsions are actually pain, then I have to agree that we find another way to execute them.