Let's Play 20 Questions With Hangar

[Gregory Pratt]

I've only looked at one of Haeger's posts, all-time, that was a "Media Watch," and I didn't like it. But something about this entire series of events makes me sick to my stomach. Perhaps it's that everything you're doing reeks of bullying to me -- the constant heranguing of Haeger, the insistence that he answer questions. Perhaps my unease has to do with me always feeling a sort of sad sympathy for people like Haeger who enjoy doing weird things, don't like answering questions from people they might consider hostile, and who then get ripped for it.

 

I'd love for Haeger to answer all the questions posed to him, and I wish he'd handle it all different. But this whole situation makes me sick to my stomach. And I wanted to share that, because I don't think I'd feel quite right if I didn't voice my opinion that Haeger is being, well, abused -- not entirely undeservedly, but still.

 

You know, I'm certainly in the minority, but I just don't think he's got any obligation to answer anyone's questions. I was under the impression that freedom of speech was given to people to express their viewpoints, and that they never have to answer any questions of their viewpoints unless, I don't know, in a Court of Law.

 

And so, I guess I'm saying that I don't think Haeger should HAVE to answer a darn thing. If that ruins his credibility with everyone here, then so be it, but to insist he answer to your commands and then threaten him with punishments for expressing an opinion is wrong.

 

And just as I look over my post, I learn that I got his name wrong. I feel like Homer Simpson, when he found out Edna K.'s real name and realized that he'd been calling her "Crabapple" all those years.

 

 

Sorry Hangar.

 

It's the thought that counts...

[Guest JimH]

I've only looked at one of Haeger's posts, all-time, that was a "Media Watch," and I didn't like it. But something about this entire series of events makes me sick to my stomach. Perhaps it's that everything you're doing reeks of bullying to me -- the constant heranguing of Haeger, the insistence that he answer questions. Perhaps my unease has to do with me always feeling a sort of sad sympathy for people like Haeger who enjoy doing weird things, don't like answering questions from people they might consider hostile, and who then get ripped for it.

 

I'd love for Haeger to answer all the questions posed to him, and I wish he'd handle it all different. But this whole situation makes me sick to my stomach. And I wanted to share that, because I don't think I'd feel quite right if I didn't voice my opinion that Haeger is being, well, abused -- not entirely undeservedly, but still.

 

You know, I'm certainly in the minority, but I just don't think he's got any obligation to answer anyone's questions. I was under the impression that freedom of speech was given to people to express their viewpoints, and that they never have to answer any questions of their viewpoints unless, I don't know, in a Court of Law.

 

And so, I guess I'm saying that I don't think Haeger should HAVE to answer a darn thing. If that ruins his credibility with everyone here, then so be it, but to insist he answer to your commands and then threaten him with punishments for expressing an opinion is wrong.

 

And just as I look over my post, I learn that I got his name wrong. I feel like Homer Simpson, when he found out Edna K.'s real name and realized that he'd been calling her "Crabapple" all those years.

 

 

Sorry Hangar.

 

It's the thought that counts...

 

Hey Greg,

 

He's not stating an opinion, he's said he's proven a media bias.

 

Maybe you should read a little more before you start feeling sorry for him.

 

That's the way SoxTalk has always been. State things definitively and refuse to back them up, you will be questioned.

 

but I just don't think he's got any obligation to answer anyone's questions.

 

He's been given free reign to post a story count every single day, he gets the count wrong more often than not, but he's not accountable for that? Especially when he says he's "proven" something?

 

Oh, ok.

[Guest JimH]

Didn't want this to get buried in yet another thread where Hangar will ignore questions.

 

Since Hangar can post a new thread every day with inaccuracies, it's only fair that I can post a new thread every day with corrections. Here's the post from the other thread:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry Hangar I come up with a different count.

 

If you're going to do this I think you should be required to document story titles. Your counting has been repeatedly proven to be iffy. Im beginning to think you just don't know how to count.

 

Even though this "recount" ends up favoring the Cubs, I think it's worth noting because it shows you are inaccurate with your counting, and therefore this whole mess is just that ... a mess ... a worthless mess at that.

 

Here are the story titles from the Tribune

 

Cub Stories:

 

1. "Wood Unable to Turn Corner"

 

2. "Ryan Dempster" (Out Loud with Steve Rosenbloom)

 

3. "Maddux off a little and it costs a lot"

 

4. "Lee's return gives Cubs a roster dilemna"

 

I really don't care that an accurate count gives the Cubs one more story. The point is, Hangar either can't count straight, or he's counting at the wrong time of the day (as he alluded to on Tuesday) or there is some other problem.

 

All I know is, Hangar's numbers have now come into question multiple times.

 

Therefore, how can anyone believe Hangar's numbers?

 

What do you say about this Hangar? How can SoxTalk believe anything you say when you:

 

1. Won't answer legitimate questions

 

2. Get the story count wrong more often than not

 

?????

[Gregory Pratt]

Hey Greg,

 

He's not stating an opinion, he's said he's proven a media bias.

 

Maybe you should read a little more before you start feeling sorry for him.

 

That's the way SoxTalk has always been. State things definitively and refuse to back them up, you will be questioned.

 

No, Jim, I don't think I have to read more to feel sorry for him: I know his credibility isn't very well, and deservedly so because anyone who won't answer questions deserves scrutiny and criticism. I've looked at your posts calling him out and criticizing him, and by all means, there's very little credibility in his posts. My defense of him isn't a defense of his journalistic integrity or anythign of the sort! Your recent recount of Tribune stories that showed his failure at counting properly was a good bit of research on your part, and I'm sure there are a ton of things he's been wrong about.

 

If it's true that he's said he's proven a media bias, but then refuses to back it, then I can understand your scrutiny. By no means am I saying you should stop recounting stories when he's off, or criticizing him, and I'm sure the Administration is going to take some sort of action. I'm just saying that I feel bad for the kid, both because I think he might be feeling a little alone and...well, it's silly. As I said, I've always had a sad sympathy for people who bring things like this on themselves -- you know, and if you don't you will, that I was a huge Boone Logan apologist. I'm glad he's in Triple A now, and it's obvious he belonged there, but I'm a softie. Sometimes.

 

All I'm saying is that I hope the Administration takes it a bit easy on him. I suggest that the Staff should warn him to, I don't know, attach a disclaimer saying it's a chronicle of what he believes to be media bias instead of a declaration of PROVEN bias, and I think we could all put this to rest without much of a fight and to minimize hurt feelings all around.

 

He's been given free reign to post a story count every single day, he gets the count wrong more often than not, but he's not accountable for that? Especially when he says he's "proven" something?

 

Oh, ok.

 

I re-addressed that in my post, I believe, and did it better (not better than you -- although I think I've got a solid compromise on my hands for the site) -- but better than what I'd posted previously, as in less vague and abstract.

[Guest JimH]

No, Jim, I don't think I have to read more to feel sorry for him: I know his credibility isn't very well, and deservedly so because anyone who won't answer questions deserves scrutiny and criticism. I've looked at your posts calling him out and criticizing him, and by all means, there's very little credibility in his posts. My defense of him isn't a defense of his journalistic integrity or anythign of the sort! Your recent recount of Tribune stories that showed his failure at counting properly was a good bit of research on your part, and I'm sure there are a ton of things he's been wrong about.

 

If it's true that he's said he's proven a media bias, but then refuses to back it, then I can understand your scrutiny. By no means am I saying you should stop recounting stories when he's off, or criticizing him, and I'm sure the Administration is going to take some sort of action. I'm just saying that I feel bad for the kid, both because I think he might be feeling a little alone and...well, it's silly. As I said, I've always had a sad sympathy for people who bring things like this on themselves -- you know, and if you don't you will, that I was a huge Boone Logan apologist. I'm glad he's in Triple A now, and it's obvious he belonged there, but I'm a softie. Sometimes.

 

All I'm saying is that I hope the Administration takes it a bit easy on him. I suggest that the Staff should warn him to, I don't know, attach a disclaimer saying it's a chronicle of what he believes to be media bias instead of a declaration of PROVEN bias, and I think we could all put this to rest without much of a fight and to minimize hurt feelings all around.

I re-addressed that in my post, I believe, and did it better (not better than you -- although I think I've got a solid compromise on my hands for the site) -- but better than what I'd posted previously, as in less vague and abstract.

 

Greg ...

 

"Kid" ????

 

He's 45, for what it's worth. He's my age.

[Gregory Pratt]

Greg ...

 

"Kid" ????

 

He's 45, for what it's worth. He's my age.

 

Huh. I didn't see his age on his profile, and so I assumed him a bit younger than that. Just a bit.

 

I guess we all have to have our own hobbies, even as we get older...

 

...oh, dear.

 

I still, you know, recommend that he be forced to disclaimer his posts and leave it at that, but I'm going to back out now because I've had my say.

 

I do take back the "bullying" statement, since he's not exactly a kid here.

[Guest JimH]

If you want to have any validity at all

 

Hangar doesn't care about validity, what he cares about is having a forum where he can heave enough BS against a wall and see what sticks.

 

So far, he's got one. I have been busy scrubbing the walls as a result.

[RME JICO]

Hangar has been doing this Media thing for awhile (mainly on another site) and it for the most part has went unquestioned until recently.

 

JimH along with a few others were just looking for the legit answers behind the numbers and they have yet to get them.

 

I feel that he should still be able to post what he wants, but he needs to put it in green text or back it up with valid references. If he really feels that the Sox are media maligned, start a blog (takes about 5 minutes) and post to your hearts content. This is really not the place to do that if you cannot back it up with facts (see mlbtraderumors.com).

 

Soxtalk is only as good as its members, and it has become a pretty credible source for White Sox information. I can tell you on numerous occasions where I found/read information here first before it even hit the media outlets. Very few forums are this well managed, and that is what makes this site so successful.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

JUST STOP IT ALREADY.

 

 

Your posts get more rediculous and petty by the minute around here. In the context of the Sox being the defending champs and having an even money shot to repeat this season your constant droning about this perceived media bias of yours shrinks to total insignificance.

 

The Chicago media has said bad things about the Sox.........and the Cubs........and the Blackhawks...........and the Bears..........and the Bulls and will go on doing so whenever they think its deserved.

 

The Chicago Media has said good things about the Sox.........and the Cubs..........and the Blackhawks...........and the Bears.........and the Bulls and will continue to do so when they think its deserved.

 

Posters on this site don't care about your crusade against this alleged bias and the fact that you only chose to start posting here because WSI got tired of you makes you look even more foolish. If you want to contribute something useful to our discussion of what is shaping up to be another magical season on the South Side then please do so.......if you cant then do 99.9999999% of the posters on this board a favor and go somewhere else.

[RME JICO]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

[SnB]

if you'd stop reading and responding to his threads, that would get your point across better.

 

That's what i've done.

[Heads22]

I'm going with snb.

 

For those of you that don't want to read Hangar's posts or when he's quoted, put him on your ignore list. Even if we don't believe a lot of the stuff he says, he's not going out of his way to insult people.

 

Use the ignore list, because it's sickening that a lot of people are taking the same approach (constant, and I mean constant, repeating, badgering and following around of him and tracking what he talks about) that he uses when following the "bias".

 

The staff here is getting sick of a lot of this to be honest, and I wouldn't imagine it will continue much longer. Personal issues can be handled thru PM, email or the Soxtalk staff. We're not here as a place to throw crap at each other.