CubKilla

I am and I have seen the law in action. It was designed for guys that think like Clu really. You know, the guys that think just because a woman comes up to their room or wears a short skirt and tiny shirt showing cleavage that they are somehow "entitled" to sex and that, since the girl is wearing sexy clothes and came to my place, she must have wanted sex in the first place right? The laws were written because, prior to the Rape Shield, rape trials commonly became a trial of the victim and not the accused. I mean, we see that right here on this board. That's all the Rape Shield Laws really are..... protection for the victim. Why some think that what a woman has done in the past is relevant in rape cases is really lost on me..... unless the woman has a history of crying rape (and this is EXTREMELY rare). And in most of these cases, police are able to clear the complaint because of lack of evidence and, eventually, the victim stops cooperating with the police in almost all of the "victim accusations." But the trial becoming a court of the victim in the past is not hard to believe given the fact that most judges, at the time before the Rape Shields, were men.

Good one

And you know this is fact because you were there right? What about the prosecution witnesses that have come forward who occupied the room next to Bryant on the night in question and called hotel security because a woman was screaming for help in Bryant's room? What about the witnesses and hotel security that saw this girl crying outside Bryant's room immediately following the incident in question? The facts of the case will come out in court. Quit spouting off like you know exactly what happened because you don't.

I hope no one near and close to you ever gets raped then. You should do the board a favor and shut you mouth on this topic. You sound like a misogynist pig.

I'm not disputing that number, but I'd be shocked if the Sox drew that many fans during 2000. I, for one, went to a few "teen" thousand attendance games in August and September back in 2000. I remember thinking to myself that the team is winning but no one is coming out to watch.

Oops. The Strike was in '94. White Flag Trade was in '97. We've had so many good things happen to this franchise thanks to JR that I sometimes confuse dates and seasons

Not to mention, this is his first full season at the ML level. He probably never pitched this often in HS and college.

No you didn't. You said bench PK and Daubach, put Thomas at 1B, and make TG the DH.

He's done for the season. Just my gut feeling.

Glad your long trip wasn't spoiled by the White Sox being no-hit. Instead, you were treated to one of the better games of the season..... a come from behind win. I'm happy you had fun. I guess when USCF is only 10-15 miles from your house, you take it for granted.

Bagwell and Thomas were born on the same day, won MVP's in their respective League's in the same year, but Bagwell beat Thomas to 400 HR's by at least a day.

First game he's come up big since 07/02

Yep

I thought the same thing. Of course, ShamME hit a stat-padder that ESPN has been replaying over and over again..... all f***ing night. Ok. ShamME hit a HR. When the score was 9-1 sCrUBS. Play the ShamME HR highlight when he hits a HR that actually means something. You know what that means ESPN. Something clutch.

1-4 on Sunday. Funny none of the DJ apologists posted this tidbit .

The Royals just took 3-4 from the Mariners. They are, since when I called it on April 15, the team to beat in the AL Central.

I disagree. There was never this attendance talk about Chicago until Jerry's Folley was constructed at 35th and Veeck Dr. Once the newness wore off and the '97 Strike took place, USCF has fought to draw fans. Even in 2000, when the Sox had a first place team, fans didn't particularly come out to USCF (Comiskey) in droves.

I'm not saying he's not doing well. I'm just saying you don't bench everyday starters everytime a bench player gets hot. TG got his shot to shine last season and he sucked. TG knows his role is a bench player and he is better off performing as one. Let him enjoy the ride against Detroit pitching and use him as the situation dictates against Cleveland and Toronto.

I guess in all this TG hype, none of you bothered to notice that Maggs was closer to the cycle than TG was

I'm not hating. I'm just pointing out that anyone who thinks that TG is gonna maintain his 5-7 pace over the past week is sorely mislead. I appreciate what he has done. But to bench, R Alomar, PK, Thomas, or Daubach.... just to play TG everyday..... is ludicrous.

He'll get it with JM as manager. So what's your point?

So a 4-5 TG over the past week is consistent? That's a good DAY for most baseball players..... not a good week. Parlay that 4-5 over two games into a week.