Milkman delivers

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 07:34 AM) No, there really isn't. In both cases there was basically one side presented. And mind you, the paper tried to give the asshole a chance to speak and he had no comment. Again, it's not like we are going to get much more coverage of this event, so "waiting for the facts to come out" basically precludes any discussion on the incident. Hey, whatever you say. I'm going with a Grand Jury report being on a slightly different level than The Mayberry Times and the report of one side of an incident. You can think whatever you'd like.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 07:28 AM) all of that, and "gays are coming for your kids!" ads, too! what a deal. I dunno, seems worth it to me, all things considered.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) The extraneous "so to speak" bothers me. CSN Chicago surely has a copy editor look over these things, so to speak. Would you prefer he say "mighty" Yankees? QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 05:06 PM) Fixed Haha.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:43 PM) If you don't count Dunn, why would you count Peavy? Could KW predict Peavy would have an injury that noone else in baseball has ever come back from? Well, you can count on him having injuries, perhaps not that exact one.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) At the beginning of this "lengthy" investigation, very little of the actual body of facts was known. It was not dissimilar from this. The first we heard of the PSU thing there was a Grand Jury report. In this instance, you have a small town paper covering a story after they talked with exactly two people. There is quite a bit of difference.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) It just seems like you are doing the exact opposite of what you did with the Penn State thing, just as SSK mentioned... With the PSU thing, there had already been a lengthy investigation. With this, nothing.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) Are you honestly doing this on purpose? Yes? I seriously don't want to take one side of a story and believe it blindly.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) To the stable of idiot Ozzie supporters this will mean nothing since it wasn't written by Cowley though. Exactly.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:08 AM) I would like to state that myself and Milkman were the first to post on this site, sometime around May 2011, that Ozzie was not trying to win anymore. We were called idiots for a month or two. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) You guys were, are, and will continue to be called idiots for far larger reasons than that... QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) wait, why is this different from other months? QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:19 AM) Even a blind squirrel.... Yeah yeah yeah

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:26 AM) A long high-pitched wail was just heard coming from Kansas. Ha!

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) Real inspiring stuff. This guy had a chance to come out an address the worst season in history for the money he was paid and he casually talks about how he's hit a little and hasn't lost weight and he's fine and whatever.... Enjoy the boos Donkey. QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) Honestly, the articles on Dunn's off-season are not giving me much faith in him having a major rebound. Hasn't gotten in better shape, hasn't swung the bat much, and hasn't watched any tape of his terrible 2011 to determine if there are mechanical flaws that need correcting. If I were Dunn, I would have spent the entire off-season trying figure what caused my problems in 2011 and done anything in my power correcting them. Sounds like the off-season getting over his embarrassment. Seriously, these.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 08:51 PM) Usually it means "I'm sick of arguing with you" That's what it originally meant. But recently (and I don't mean Joe with my next statement, I'm being very general) it's mostly been used by dumb people that want to sound smarter. To them, it looks better to someone witnessing the debate to pretend like it's futile to continue when in reality it's just admitting defeat without actually admitting it.

Anyone care to explain what exactly he has done that makes him a tool? Not sarcastic, I'd like to know.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) I think you'd have a great career as a mafia defense attorney. lol "Judge the guy tripped and fell on my client's knife, which he was only carrying for self-defense. Anybody with common sense could see that." Haha, I've been thinking about a new line of work. And I'm not saying that this guy is innocent here. He may well have done everything that was insinuated in this thread. All I'm saying is that there is a chance that he's innocent and that we can't believe what we've heard so far, which is all from the other side of the story. And it's not the hardest thing in the world to paint a gun-loving, secluded, avid hunter as a bad guy.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) To be fair, I don't know if there is necessarily a Joe Paterno in this situation. Also true.

Read it, still don't see anything wrong with what I've already written.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) Says the guy who didn't even read the article... lol I figured if the content from the article were important enough, you might have bothered to post it all here. I suppose I gave you too much credit. Sorry, I will read it all and get back. But I'm going to go in expecting it to be sensationalized, which I'm more than certain it is.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:01 PM) Damn dude, did you enroll at Penn State or something? I sorta get the joke, but it doesn't fit that well. The media will crucify this guy to no end, but there won't be a public outpouring of support from the media like there has been for Paterno.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) Milkman, Thats a fine point, I just disagree with the way the author goes about making her point. By using "f*** Joe Paterno" and then "f*** my child rapist" you make an inherent connection in the readers mind that somehow what Joe Paterno did is equivalent to what a rapist did. If you just want to make an argument that people shouldnt canonize Paterno, go for it. But the author does more, she basically says Paterno deserves no respect, he deserves nothing, the basic implication is that his action was as terrible as the man who raped her. The bottom line is her being raped has nothing to do with whether or not Paterno should have done more. Its merely trying to give her moral authority to speak down on Paterno. But the fact is, you dont need to have been a victim of rape to be upset about what Paterno did, but at the same time when you are trying to get on your pulpit about how to stop abuse, you should consider focusing on the facts. if you are just ranting to get blog hits, feel free to use a famous persons name to pump them up, but if you want to make a real point, you want to make a real change, you have to start with the simple truth. You can not trust the police. The family of the victims trusted the police and they were failed. Paterno trusted the police and he was failed. We the people of the United States trust the police and we have ultimately been failed. Blame Paterno, dance on his grave, but be honest, he didnt rape anyone, he (to the best of my knowledge) never even witnessed a crime and he did report it to the supervisor of campus police. If that is not enough for you, that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to defend what that woman wrote, as she is clearly very angry and went to extremes in her writing. But I can see from your posts that you have a bit of an agenda with police

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) I'd be willing to bet he lured the dog onto his property and shot him in a drunken stupor. See, you're already running wild with this. And you wonder why the media would run with a story like this and sensationalize it? Second page of this thread and the guy is already luring innocent puppies onto his property to drunkenly strangle them with piano wire.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) The dog's owners moved in next door March 2011, less than one year ago. They had exactly one conversation with this guy prior to the shooting... Thanksgiving... when he walked out his door with a beer in his hand and yelled at them to keep their dogs off his property. Think about the events here... A guy goes outside with his dogs. One wanders away for a few moments. He notices it missing and he hears a shot. He goes running towards it... sees the dog running towards him bleeding... during which he hears another shot which hits the brush near him. Timeline... when did the shooter have time to go get his rifle, etc? It had to be sitting somewhere relatively close and loaded. First shot... He walked 4 steps out his front door and shot the dog from 50 feet away. Second shot... There was blood all the way down his drive. No doubt the dog was hit. Why the second shot? And did the shooter even think that possibly he could be endangering the owner who was calling and running towards the dog? Guy goes back into his house and then comes smiling to the front door when the owner shows up to ask what happened. Bottom Line: He not only inflicted cruelty on a companion animal (which is a Class 4 felony in Illinois)... he endangered the owner with the second shot. And he came to the door smiling about it??? OK, I'm going to repeat this because I think it's very important. The smiling thing could incredibly easily be a fabrication. I'm not calling your friend a liar, but she had to be in a state of panic when she confronted him. I'm not going to take that as evidence, but unfortunately it's going to be a key point in the court of public opinion as it's already been brought up a few times in this thread. This guy hunts on his own property. I'm guessing it wouldn't be uncommon for him to have a loaded rifle around, as unsafe as that obviously is. Does it state anywhere that the owner was in sight when he fired the second shot? The part posted here seems to say that the neighbor simply heard the shot in the bushes. So while he may well have known that the owner was within range, he may have just as easily not known with tree/bush coverage. I'm no lawyer, but this guy can probably get off with a slap on the wrist, or even less. Heck, he can maybe even say that he thought the dog was a coyote.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) gold star for the MK reference No love for Street Fighter?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) Did you read the rest of the article? The dogs have collars on which vibrate when they leave their owner's yard. They do not understand why the dog left their yard. The reason the guy knew something was amiss in the first place is because the dog was not there. It almost seems as though the dog was lured onto the other guy's property by something (gee whiz, what could it have been??). I did not. The part that was pasted here said that he had to push a button to activate the collar. But again, I'm not going to immediately believe the first article I read about animal abuse. It's a pretty hot-button issue right now and the media tends to run with these things and neglect to feature every side of these stories.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Paterno is a villian, not the villian. But still, f*** Joe Paterno. He's like the Goro to Sandusky's Shao Kahn, or the Balrog/Vega/Sagat to Sandusky's M. Bison.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) When you read the article "f*** JOE PATERNO" and it does not even mention the police failure and only 1 time uses Sandusky's name, doesnt it kind of imply that Paterno is some how the villain in all of this? She uses Paterno's name at least 15 times in her posts, she uses Sandusky's name 1 time, she uses Schultz name 0 times, she uses the witnesses name 0 times. Thats my problem with the article, you can hate Joe Paterno all you want, but at least make it clear that in terms of who is to blame, Paterno is not #1. Thats not saying he didnt do anything wrong, or maybe he could have done more, but it should be always clear that the failure was on the police and CRIMINAL. Had the POLICE done their job, Sandusky would have been stopped 20 years ago. You want to rant, rant about that. If you're taking the article as a stand-alone piece and didn't follow any of the previous story, yes. But in reality, the article was most likely written in response to the canonization of Paterno by the media as a whole. Everyone is in agreement that Sandusky is the worst guy in this situation, and anyone who knows anything about the case understands that Schultz, Curley, McQueary, etc. all have varying degrees of guilt as well. But you don't get articles defending those guys, as the public opinion about them is in agreement that they were also at fault. The article was written about Paterno because he's the one guy being defended in all of this.