Let's Play 20 Questions With Hangar

[Guest JimH]

Well since we have a daily thread from Hangar about supposedly proving a media bias, I think it's only fair we have a daily thread as a question clearinghouse for Hangar.

 

Since there are so many posters who have asked so many legitimate questions, most of which Hangar fails to answer, maybe we can put them into one nice neat thread so we don't get Hangar always asking "what page was THAT question".

 

So here are the questions thus far today, because unlike Hangar I think we should start fresh with this, ignore all the previous legitimate questions he hasn't answered and just start with todays.

 

1. Just wondering hangar, do you have proof of this "running wild" stuff and "disproportionate coverage"?

(question in relation to spring training coverage and hangar claiming a spring Cub bias)

 

2. Or is this just like all the rest of your data, your subjective opinion? (related to #1)

 

3. Also why would one team dominate coverage when the focus is looking forward, i.e. to the 2006 season? Isn't that subjective reasoning on your part, i.e. the way you personally want it to be? (related to #1)

 

4. Where do you get the impression the Sun Times tries to mimic everything the Tribune does? (oops Hangar answered this one, he said both papers have little red boxes around the city)

 

5. Why are you telling us the Sun Times goes out of their way to help promote the Cubs?

 

6. you never answered my repeated question about "media ignored" White Sox. Last week you admitted it was an ill turned phrase, yet yesterday you included it again. What gives?

 

7. Trib policy the last couple of decades? Please explain what that is. Are you privy to it? And not your usual dust in the wind theories Hangar. Tell us about the Tribune policy, in detail, without your editorial spin on it.

 

8. Cub fans that want to see the White Sox too now? Who said that? (technically counts as 2 questions)

 

9. Um...why doesn't it count? Because you say so?

They had 90 wins that season. One game playoff or not...it's official (re: '98 Cub season)

 

10. Hangar, can you please explain the ongoing disrepancy of how you count and how SS2K5 counts and how I count? Re: the Tribune. (Hangar sort of answered this one, the response was basically "it depends on the time of the day that I count"

 

11. Please define "Media Historically Ignored". Also I think it's very fair to ask you to provide some proof for that statement. (technically not a question, one request of several that were made).

 

12. Yes, like the big picture on the back page of today's Sun Times trumpeting the Sox-Cards series. You know, the one you ignored in your count/commentary? (in relation to hangar saying pictures with a Cub theme should count, but he ignored a big Sox related picture on the full back page of the Sun Times)

 

13. Or are we dealing with selective representation and fact reporting here? (relating to question 12, but basically it is a big picture/overall question)

 

14. How have you proven that the times and trib are out to make the Sox look bad? (from zach61)

 

15. Exactly what do 1982 attendance records have to do with today? What do 1982 attendance records have to do with a media bias? Aren't you the one who finally admitted yesterday that there were a number of factors which led to Cub popularity, outside of media? (the 3 in 1 special question)

 

16. Here is an idea, why don't you begin to realize that as long as you count wrong, people will challenge you? (again, more of a request)

 

17. Also, please answer the question about "Historically media maligned" and explain how that's better than "Media ignored" ... with proof please. (was sorta asked in question #11 but since I had to ask twice I thought why not list it here twice)

 

That's 17 and it's not even noon yet.

 

 

 

18. didn't you admit yesterday that yes, there were in fact other factors which caused the Cubs to become significantly more popular, unrelated to the media? Are you flip flopping on that admission today?

 

(just two more and we can change the thread title to "Let's Play 20 Questions With Hangar" )

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimH

[chitownsportsfan]

Jim, arguing with Hangar is like playing tennis against a brick wall! Good post though.

[Guest JimH]

Hey Hangar,

 

19. When are you going to answer these legitimate quetions?

 

20. Are you ignoring them because you refuse to debate your position?

 

Jim, arguing with Hangar is like playing tennis against a brick wall! Good post though.

 

Chitown,

 

I tend to agree with you

 

I think the questions are legit and deserve a response. Hangar has been passing off his media watches as "proof", the moderators have asked him to respond to legitimate questions and are watching his media watch threads to make sure it's not just Hangar posting sketchy data with no basis in fact.

 

He's been asked countless times now to provide proof, on several different levels. The questions are for the most part very specific. If he had data to back it up, he could answer the questions.

 

I'm speculating though that all he has is perception, smoke and mirrors, and an agenda. Frankly I would be just as upset with the media if Hangar could in fact prove a media conspiracy campaign. However, he hasn't proven jack s***.

 

Hey Hangar, I think you should answer the questions. After all it's only fair. You get to post a media watch thread every day, so people should be able to ask you questions about it every day. If they have a concern with how you're tabulating, those questions are legit.

 

Why are you refusing to answer the questions Hangar, they are all laid out in a nice neat little row for you.

[Pods22]

Well since we have a daily thread from Hangar about supposedly proving a media bias, I think it's only fair we have a daily thread as a question clearinghouse for Hangar.

 

Since there are so many posters who have asked so many legitimate questions, most of which Hangar fails to answer, maybe we can put them into one nice neat thread so we don't get Hangar always asking "what page was THAT question".

 

So here are the questions thus far today, because unlike Hangar I think we should start fresh with this, ignore all the previous legitimate questions he hasn't answered and just start with todays.

 

1. Just wondering hangar, do you have proof of this "running wild" stuff and "disproportionate coverage"?

(question in relation to spring training coverage and hangar claiming a spring Cub bias)

 

2. Or is this just like all the rest of your data, your subjective opinion? (related to #1)

 

3. Also why would one team dominate coverage when the focus is looking forward, i.e. to the 2006 season? Isn't that subjective reasoning on your part, i.e. the way you personally want it to be? (related to #1)

 

4. Where do you get the impression the Sun Times tries to mimic everything the Tribune does? (oops Hangar answered this one, he said both papers have little red boxes around the city)

 

5. Why are you telling us the Sun Times goes out of their way to help promote the Cubs?

 

6. you never answered my repeated question about "media ignored" White Sox. Last week you admitted it was an ill turned phrase, yet yesterday you included it again. What gives?

 

7. Trib policy the last couple of decades? Please explain what that is. Are you privy to it? And not your usual dust in the wind theories Hangar. Tell us about the Tribune policy, in detail, without your editorial spin on it.

 

8. Cub fans that want to see the White Sox too now? Who said that? (technically counts as 2 questions)

 

9. Um...why doesn't it count? Because you say so?

They had 90 wins that season. One game playoff or not...it's official (re: '98 Cub season)

 

10. Hangar, can you please explain the ongoing disrepancy of how you count and how SS2K5 counts and how I count? Re: the Tribune. (Hangar sort of answered this one, the response was basically "it depends on the time of the day that I count"

 

11. Please define "Media Historically Ignored". Also I think it's very fair to ask you to provide some proof for that statement. (technically not a question, one request of several that were made).

 

12. Yes, like the big picture on the back page of today's Sun Times trumpeting the Sox-Cards series. You know, the one you ignored in your count/commentary? (in relation to hangar saying pictures with a Cub theme should count, but he ignored a big Sox related picture on the full back page of the Sun Times)

 

13. Or are we dealing with selective representation and fact reporting here? (relating to question 12, but basically it is a big picture/overall question)

 

14. How have you proven that the times and trib are out to make the Sox look bad? (from zach61)

 

15. Exactly what do 1982 attendance records have to do with today? What do 1982 attendance records have to do with a media bias? Aren't you the one who finally admitted yesterday that there were a number of factors which led to Cub popularity, outside of media? (the 3 in 1 special question)

 

16. Here is an idea, why don't you begin to realize that as long as you count wrong, people will challenge you? (again, more of a request)

 

17. Also, please answer the question about "Historically media maligned" and explain how that's better than "Media ignored" ... with proof please. (was sorta asked in question #11 but since I had to ask twice I thought why not list it here twice)

 

That's 17 and it's not even noon yet.

18. didn't you admit yesterday that yes, there were in fact other factors which caused the Cubs to become significantly more popular, unrelated to the media? Are you flip flopping on that admission today?

 

(just two more and we can change the thread title to "Let's Play 20 Questions With Hangar" )

 

Good luck on getting answers from him. IT will will be like pulling teeth. He is right because that is that. There could be a 100 Sox articles and he still would not be satisfied. Glad some questions all the bull s*** he talks.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Writing a post like that takes dedication. Props to JimH!!!

[Steff]

Poor Jim...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AbeFroman]

Hey Hangar,

 

19. When are you going to answer these legitimate quetions?

 

There all so funny... but thats the best one

[Guest JimH]

Hangar you're on the thread now.

 

Time for you to answer the questions.

 

Edit: Hangar has now left the thread without answering any of the questions ... once again.

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimH

[RockRaines]

Writing a post like that takes dedication. Props to JimH!!!

I luuuuuv when Jim analyzes.

[Guest JimH]

#21 - Start posting the stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad and how many of them there are each day. Why is that so hard for you? (from zach61)

 

#22 - the guy just looked it up, presented what he found, and you respond with your recollections? And you paint your recollections as proof??? (re: Muscatel's looking up of the murder in front of Wrigley story)

 

#23 - Also, what does TV have to do with your media watches? I thought you said the two papers, Tribune and Sun Times. Now you are pulling in TV because it suits your purposes. (re: Hangar bringing in TV stations when he's said all along it's Tribune and Sun Times)

 

#24 - Why do you misrepresent things and ignore things Hangar?

 

 

 

Hangar it's now 24 questions.

 

If you answer one per hour you can have this done by tomorrow. Of course there will be a whole new set of questions about your proof and your methods tomorrow Hangar.

 

This is not going away Hangar.

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimH

[Whitewashed in '05]

Hangar you're on the thread now.

 

Time for you to answer the questions.

 

Edit: Hangar has now left the thread without answering any of the questions ... once again.

LOL!

[RibbieRubarb]

JimH: The Man with a Mission!

[Rex Hudler]

JimH: The Man with a Mission!

 

 

JimH: A man with WAY too much time on his hands. But funny nonetheless lol

 

Then again, I guess it takes a guy with lots of time to fight a guy with no life, right?

[kapkomet]

Wow.

[RME JICO]

Jim,

There is a simple equation to get the Cubine factor, and I thought everyone knew it. So just in case you missed it in the Cubs 1978 media guide, here you go:

********Official Cubine Media Factor***********

Note - For Official Use Only

 

Step 1-

First you have subtract the zip codes from each Chicago field:

60616-60613 = 3

 

Step 2 -

Then you take the last time the Cubs played in a World Series: 1938 and subtract the last year they won one: 1908

1938-1908 = 30

 

Step 3 -

Add those two totals up and you get 33. Which ironically is the # of former Cubs player Gene Mauch.

 

Step 4 -

Then you take the combined starts for Kerry Wood and Mark Prior (4) in 2006 and add that to Michael Barrett's suspension of (10) games and you get 14. If you don't want to use Barrett in the equation, simply replace him with Ron Santo's number (10).

 

Step 5 -

Now you add the 14 to the 33 and you get 47 (Jersey# of Todd Van Poppel - who rocks, btw). Then you add that number to the number of wins the Cubs had in 1986 (70) and you get 117.

 

Step 6 -

Finally, to get the Cubine factor you take 117 and divide it by the Sox regular season wins for 2005 (99) and you get:

 

1.182

 

That is the Cubine factor. So for every Sox story, there is 1.182 Cubs stories. Now you can adjust this factor if needed by adding or subtracting until you come up with the number you want to prove is correct.

 

********Distribution Not Authorized***********

Edited June 21, 2006 by RME JICO

[zach61]

#21 - Start posting the stories that you claim are biased against the Sox to make them look bad and how many of them there are each day. Why is that so hard for you? (from zach61)

 

#22 - the guy just looked it up, presented what he found, and you respond with your recollections? And you paint your recollections as proof??? (re: Muscatel's looking up of the murder in front of Wrigley story)

 

#23 - Also, what does TV have to do with your media watches? I thought you said the two papers, Tribune and Sun Times. Now you are pulling in TV because it suits your purposes. (re: Hangar bringing in TV stations when he's said all along it's Tribune and Sun Times)

 

#24 - Why do you misrepresent things and ignore things Hangar?

Hangar it's now 24 questions.

 

If you answer one per hour you can have this done by tomorrow. Of course there will be a whole new set of questions about your proof and your methods tomorrow Hangar.

 

This is not going away Hangar.

 

 

I hope all these questions aren't forgotten and will soon be answered by our media watcher.

[zach61]

I hope all these questions aren't forgotten and will soon be answered by our media watcher.

 

Still waiting for the answers to these questions since I see the "media watch" is still being done.

[zach61]

And don't forget about all of the questions in this thread that you still can't answer. They are not going away. You are probably hoping that by ignoring them they will go away, but they won't.

[knightni]

I take it that my comments on 6/20 will be ignored as well eh?

[zach61]

I take it that my comments on 6/20 will be ignored as well eh?

 

Yup. He usually avoids any questions and just says his numbers speak for themselves, then rants about how he proved it already at the "other" site an if you don't like what he is posting, then prove him wrong. I'm still trying to find out what he actually proved though. All he posts is his count of Sox and cub stories from 2 papers then claims he outed the Chicago media.

[Hatchetman]

i suppose you guys made fun of the special ed kids back in school.

[kapkomet]

CRICKETS, BABY!!!!!!!!

 

Hangar, this is what I'm talking about. You can't post with the big boys, if you can't answer some of this.

 

If you want to have any validity at all, you better come up with some answers, even if you answer then that some of them is your opinion.

 

Otherwise, your posts are all bull.

[Guest JimH]

HANGAR,

 

I've been out all day and went to the game with quickman tonite.

 

Where have you been?

 

Obviously not answering the dozens of questions that have been asked of you.

 

Either answer the questions and show you can defend your position, or you will face even more intense scrutiny from this site's members.

 

If you think you can just ignore legitimate questions and post your daily rant without discussion, you are sadly mistaken.

 

Answer the questions Hangar.

[Guest JimH]

CRICKETS, BABY!!!!!!!!

 

Hangar, this is what I'm talking about. You can't post with the big boys, if you can't answer some of this.

 

If you want to have any validity at all, you better come up with some answers, even if you answer then that some of them is your opinion.

 

Otherwise, your posts are all bull.

 

Hangar refuses to answer legitimate questions about his media rants.

 

What does that tell us?

[Guest JimH]

Just in case you're ignoring certain other threads Hangar, I thought I'd make it nice and bright and bold for you.

 

Time for you to answer all the questions in the 20 (+ ) questions thread Hangar.

 

Time for you to man up about this.

 

If Hangar won't answer any of these questions ... mods ... my question is, why is he allowed to post these media rant threads? More than enough holes have been poked in them, he's been questioned by more than enough members, without any response from Hangar.

 

???????