squally1313

I think that's an arbitrary StubHub thing, there may be more to it but otherwise it's probably about their ability to guarantee delivery. Here's a link with some aggregated results: https://seatgeek.com/giants-at-cubs-tickets/8-7-2015-chicago-illinois-wrigley-field/mlb/2414124/ Yeah that makes sense. This looks good....thanks.

Might be a dumb question but does anyone know why all the Cubs tickets are yanked off Stubhub the day of the game? And as a follow up, does anyone know of something besides Craigslist to find tickets? Need to get two for today and I figure there has to be a better way than refreshing CL every 5 minutes.

In general, yes. Specifically for the press conference, I think was alright, given the reasons Banedon mentioned above.

Nice press conference.

From some HFboards poster Any chance you could post a better link? For whatever reason that hyperlink is including the "..." from when it got shortened. EDIT: Here it is: http://wgnradio.com/2015/08/06/kap-haugh-8615-jill-perkins-tim-graham-patrick-kane-update-from-buffalo/

Your entire posting history has me incredibly confused on why you would have any Cubs players on your team in the first place, since they apparently all suck. That field looks awesome, by the way.

What situation would you have where it is illegal, then legal, then illegal again? Agreed, if anything it would only be the opposite.

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane. When did I say it was insane? You said "insanely strict gun laws" and then lumped restrictions on ownership into that group. And nobody is talking about total gun recall except for those working on behalf of gun companies to convince idiots to buy more guns before it becomes illegal and unavailable. Alright since you're a big fan of snipping apparently, I'll state my personal viewpoint so I don't look like a total monster. I have never owned a gun and I don't really see a reason why anyone does. If you want to take one word of what I said, miss the actual point, and completely change the discussion, sure. If a group of terrible people (rapists, murderers) cause things to get incrementally worse for the majority (normal sex havers, responsible gun owners), that is almost always good for society in general. But (on a less important scale) it does mean that things get worse for those normal people.

I assumed that was what you were talking about and can only laugh at the notion that people calling for strict qualifications is somehow insane. When did I say it was insane? If there were a total recall on guns, it'd be bad for those responsible gun owners, and good for society as a whole. If we reach a point in society when every rape victim is comfortable to step forward and go after their rapist, I think it's fair to say that there would be instances of false accusation. Sucks for that person, good for society as a whole.

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions. I meant the gun laws that people are calling for, not the ones that are enacted. Well, most gun nuts think any gun law is insane so I'm still not sure what you are talking about. I might have said it wrong. I was talking about the other group of people (to simplify, the 'non-gun owners') who, every time there's a mass shooting, take the position of "Look, we know most of you (the gun-owners) are responsible and sane people. But this has happened too many times, and these idiot shooters have ruined it for the rest of you." and call for regulations in the range of very strict qualifications for ownership to total gun recall.

I'm also not sure where these insanely strict gun laws are. Seems to me it's easier than ever to be a complete [expletive] white person and walk around town with assault weapons with no repercussions. I meant the gun laws that people are calling for, not the ones that are enacted. But the original post is true. I wholeheartedly support our society developing in any way that discourages any sort of sexual assault. Every time I've said this it's been from his perspective, not from my viewpoint on how we should handle sexual assault. If he raped her, he belongs in prison and I don't want him in any jersey ever again. If he didn't rape her, he will forever have this attached to his name. If that is the price to pay to encourage women to report rapes and to discourage men from committing rape, it was entirely worth it for the benefit of our society. For him (and just him), it's less than ideal.

I snipped it for effect, not because I thought it was all you care about. It was a very strange and completely inaccurate statement. I think most guys live their swinging singles time with the thought in the back of their head that one word from her could ruin your life. But it's mostly an unfounded fear. and at the same time most girls live their lives with the knowledge that there are a bunch of rapists out there that never get caught or punished. The laws are not tilted in favor of women when it comes to the crime of rape. Yeah you're right, I think I was misguided in what in what I was going for, and as Exile points out below, it is much more common that an actual rapist goes free. I think I was going more for your point when I was talking about 'rape law'. It's similar (or at least I hope I'm right in thinking this way) to those people who are calling for insanely strict anti-gun laws, not because they're against guns in general, but because enough people went out and ruined it for everyone else. I think with rape, it's become (with good reason, thanks for the actual rapists) very easy for a woman to make a rape accusation and at the very least attach a stigma to that person for the rest of their life. With other crimes, there are consequences for false accusations. Given the nature of rape crimes and the fact that they are hard to definitively prove one way or another once sexual contact is established, that's not the case here. Not saying I disagree with the standards, but as I said in my original post, from his perspective he's in a tough spot (again, totally secondary to her well-being).

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1ddf7RjFi1qc3759o1_250.gif Yeah you're totally right, I didn't phrase that right, or at least that's far from the main issue. And I'll stop after this, as I'm guessing even this will get criticized, but if this case is with a girl he met at the bar, that means all that really needs to be proven is A. she was drinking (and therefore unable to give consent), and B. they had sex. While, again, the overwhelming priority is to ensure the well-being of the victim, I just always found it a little...tough that if they were both drinking (and both unable to give consent) it still falls out the way it does. I think you are misinformed. That's not really "all it takes". I think that is the theoretical message you might want to get across to your son if you are trying to reinforce to the stupid little [expletive] how important it is to not rape, but in the real world it takes a whole hell of a lot more than just proving there was sex and she had a drink. Yes, it's not that simple. While I still think it's fair (if not PC) to say that if it came down to a he said/she said, 'he' isn't going to like his chances, I understand that being the guy on that side of this argument isn't the best position to take, especially in a thread where you snipped off the rest of my post so it looks like this is all I care about. If it was rape, I feel terrible for the girl and he should never step foot on the ice again.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1ddf7RjFi1qc3759o1_250.gif Yeah you're totally right, I didn't phrase that right, or at least that's far from the main issue. And I'll stop after this, as I'm guessing even this will get criticized, but if this case is with a girl he met at the bar, that means all that really needs to be proven is A. she was drinking (and therefore unable to give consent), and B. they had sex. While, again, the overwhelming priority is to ensure the well-being of the victim, I just always found it a little...tough that if they were both drinking (and both unable to give consent) it still falls out the way it does.

A rape kit is pretty incriminating It can certainly confirm they had sex. Depending on the circumstances of the sexual encounter it may not be conclusive enough to prove rape. We're likely dealing with an acquaintance rape where alcohol was involved. If it wasn't a very physical and forcible rape, you are in a he said she said without other evidence or reliable third reliable witness. Yeah that's going to be the tough part for all of us. If she's willing to submit to a rape test, it makes it very likely that something sexual happened. But we'll likely never know what actually happened. While the overwhelming priority should be and is making sure the truth is reached and the girl is ok, from Kane's perspective, he's in trouble given his reputation and the fact that rape laws are set up to be tilted against the guy in any given situation.

Damn you "In Play - Runs"

Fake rally, probably, but like someone else said....tough to get too mad about this game.

Today was a good day.

Please please please don't blow this, mostly for purposes of making the playoffs and being a good team but also a little so I don't have to watch sontesei and downsr textually fellate themselves after.

fangraphs baseruns is what you're looking for Thank you....figured it was somewhere obvious. So we've slightly underperformed on offense, but made up for it on the pitching side (thank Maddon or our 'terrible' bullpen?).

Is there somewhere that eliminates sequencing from offensive production? I know it's out there somewhere, because I've seen people talk about how Oakland should have scored X more runs this season than they actually have. I know the offense is bad, but to call it an outright failure is probably a little over the top. Bryant and Rizzo are 21st and 22nd in offensive WAR league-wide this year, Dexter is BAPIPing 55 points below his career average (just slightly below his career LD%), I don't think you really expected anything more out of the catching position (especially after you knew Ross was going to be a factor), Russell and Coghlan have been fine. Soler was hurt and Castro fell off a (potentially predictable) cliff, but it's not like anyone wanted to slot anybody else in those spots. This isn't good, but I'm not going to blame roster construction.

It seems like you only post when you have something to criticize, so making the team worse would probably be right up your alley. Even with the last couple weeks being pretty much a disaster, we're at a 42% chance to make the playoffs in late July. Please, like everyone else, just enjoy meaningful baseball for the first time in five years. (After this, I'm done giving him attention.)

The Cubs are dead middle of the pack in defensive efficiency, 7th in the NL and 15th in MLB. No man, you can't look at stats. You need to watch the game. They just don't have it. Prove me wrong.

Hooray?

Yeah I mean, just only show up when one of our bullpen pitchers gives up runs. Don't bother when they throw 7 shutout innings like they did on Wednesday (zero posts in that game thread, shockingly). That sounds like a really awesome way to be a Cubs fan.