Squirrel

Collusion how exactly? Do you think there is something more going on in why there hasn’t been as much movement yet?

And I also think it's worth keeping in mind as we discuss sexual harassment and assault, that we don't blur the lines between someone who is just masquerading as an awkward schmuck just to get away with it, that someone isn't just saying, 'Hey, I'm only joking' to get away with it, to 'Hey, that's just how guys are, it's human nature,' to get away with it to 'Hey, lighten up, no harm, right?' to get away with it. I could go on and on and on with examples. Where is the line, then? Where do we draw it between appropriate and not? I'm not trying to be a contrarian here, but I'm tired of these excuses that get us no where fast but into a dead end. There is a LOT of re-educating people that needs to happen, both men AND women. Cat calling, rudeness, 'awkward' pick up lines, no only means maybe ... are all examples of sexual harassment and potentially lead to far worse. I'm not saying that each and every one of these deserves or warrants any kind of criminally punitive response, but maybe, just maybe, if way long ago in grammar school or middle school or even high school, boys weren't told they were just being boys and girls were told not to take it as such, and they learned how to be respectful of one another, and stand up to wrong doing, listened to, believed and taken seriously, there'd really be no questions here. Being an awkward schmuck should not be an excuse for not knowing any better. Back to the topic, I believe Betsy, without hesitation. Because I know. I know. I know her fear, I know her hesitation, her trepidation, her uncertainty. Who will believe me? Did I do something to encourage this? Was I at fault? Oh, wait, I forgot to time it all because well, what was I thinking other than spending that time terrified that the worst was about to happen, so I guess I’m not believable. Some behavior has become so normalized some don’t even know any more that it is harassment or that they have been harassed, and that they have no recourse, or that because worse didn’t happen, it’s not so bad. I don't think this situation is about Sano being awkward, or not knowing her intent, or anything. I'm not going to go so far as to 'kick him to the curb' because I do believe in second chances, I do believe in re-education, I do believe in challenging and changing behavior. And anyway, the decision of what's to be done lies with someone else who will, hopefully, really listen and be thorough in their discovery process. Will I cheer for him going forward? Likely not, but we'll see if in time there is a change. But I hope it's a wake up call to a lot of people. I hope the teams come down hard on these things going forward and do what they can to change attitudes. Because these 'gray area' events are not acceptable. Not ever.

I’m not sure what you are saying here ... that it’s not harassment but just rude if there are no criminal consequences? Or if it’s a one and done comment? If that’s the case, I think you are wrong. It still is harassment if unwanted. While maybe it’s not ‘enough’ to subject anyone to criminal repercussions, it’s harassment. And just so I’m clear on why I say that, this is the definition of sexual harassment I’m working with: “harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.” I think ‘show me your <whatever’s>’ would qualify as an obscene remark and harassment if unwanted. Losing a lawsuit based on that one remark doesn’t make it not sexual harassment, it just means the law is such that that doesn’t make it enough to be punitive.

If you recall, I had my mind already made up after Dinger’s very efficient review. You just muddied things until I came back to a decision already made. And now, between you and glunn, we’ve spent way more time on a movie that really doesn’t seem worth it.

Um, for what?

Well, now I’m back to ‘Meh, this is sounding more and more like something that would not interest me.’ Unless I have no other options and just have to see a movie, maybe I’ll see it.

I think Dinger’s post made that pretty clear. But I just noticed it’s Golden Globe nominated for best picture, so I might go see it despite seeing a relationship between a woman and a fish man not really my thing, either.

tmi

There were so many great-pitched games by Santana in Minnesota. Then he went to the Mets. If only ...

Enlighten us ...

Lol ... when put like that, I think it’s moved down to my ‘watch at home when it’s on Netflix’ list.

It looks intriguing and has gotten some good reviews ... have you seen it or just asking because you are also intrigued? I saw the new Jumanji movie. Definitely not award-winning, but fun and had it’s funny moments, especially thanks to Jack Black and Kevin Hart. Just a fun romp in a make-believe jungle.

Concur with all of the above comments! Thanks!

I think it’s possible to admire and acknowledge the talent without worshipping the person and/or supporting their status and/or financial gain. It’s easy to see someone so talented as a youngster, chasing his/hr dream and even reaching it and think, ‘Wow, I want to be like them!’ But I learned a long while ago to be careful with misplaced admiration, to not cloud the talent and achievement with the person they are. And even in admiring and acknowledging the talent, I’m careful to know that that’s the line, and it doesn’t mean I am supporting that person’s talent through the purchase of music, Jersey, books, concert/event tickets, etc. And a hero to me is someone who inspires me to be and do better, like my parents and my siblings.

Saw ‘All the Money in the World’ today. Very well done. Not sure it’s an Oscar-worthy movie, but it was well done and entertaining. But Christopher Plummer’s performance is Oscar-worthy. And considering he was a very last-minute replacement ... spectacular.

Going to see ‘All the Money in the World’ today about the J Paul Getty’s grandson being kidnapped and him not agreeing to pay the ransom. With Christopher Plummer, Michelle Williams (who was also in Greatest Showman) and Mark Wahlberg.

This has been a very difficult discussion, one I have not entered into but very little. It has been heated and emotional, with various ‘sides’ being taken. After some discussion, we have decided to give both threads a little bit of some breathing space and to take a little bit of a break and revisit this tomorrow. Locking this is only temporary and both threads will be opened tomorrow for continued respectful discussion. This discussion has gone back and forth in its relation to Sano to a more general topic, and we’ve heard from several of you in various forms ... PM’s, reports and public opinions ... as to it’s continued pertinence in this forum, so when reopened for discussion, it’s possible this may be moved to a more appropriate forum. Thank you. I wish you a peaceful good night.

I don’t wonder, at all.

Mike gave a similar review on FB.

Who has seen what? I’m still hoping to catch Three Billboards and Lady Bird. And then there’s a whole bunch of new ones on my list. But I did see The Greatest Showman last night. LOVED it, through and through. LOVED it.

It’s so maddening ... I’m getting antsy just to know for sure one way or the other. Such an impatient I am ... I want it now!

I think Parker was being very tongue in cheek in his post, knowing everything that you’ve just reminded us all about hosting a website.

I'm wondering if re-organizing the site a little might help with traffic through the blogs. Maybe even calling it something else. Would making it a sub-forum of the Twins Talk forum (like Adopt-A-Prospect is a sub-forum of the Minor League forum is) help with traffic? You can call it 'blogs' but maybe call it ... I don't know ... 'What Others Are Saying' ... or something like that. It would still work the same, it would just be located differently to help encourage those who might interested in writing as well as drawing in readership.

I think it's important to keep saying this. A blog is meant to be about anything an individual (you, the member) wants it to be. It can be reminiscing about a great game you attended, the first game you attended, the first game you took your kid to see and seeing it all over from his/her eyes; it can be humorous takes on current or potential events/news; it can be a researched, analytical endeavor about a person's swing or arm or game; it can be an in-depth review of, well, other articles on other boards, books, movies; it can be about other teams, other sports; it can be relating your own experiences of playing or injuries to what the pros are dealing with; it can be about life and how great or how sucky it is; it can be a long rant on the game not going well. It can be about nothing or everything. And it can be whenever you want to write something. If you want the exercise of committing yourself to writing something, anything, every week, great. If you only want to write when something comes to you, great. Whether it's a regular or irregular occurrence, it doesn't matter. It's up to you. Maybe we need to call the blog area something else ... and maybe make it a sub-forum of the Twins forum ... I've PM'd a few users and have tried to encourage them to writing blogs. There are some of you who generate lengthy forum posts that I think deserve it's own space. Sometimes I agree with what you've said, sometimes I don't, but I am still impressed by what it is you have to say. Sure, you are welcome to start a forum thread any time you want instead, but forum threads can't be converted to front-page articles, blogs can.

Another thought ... for those of you who do write blogs and also comment on the various article and forum threads, self promote. If a thread or article pops up on something you've written about, jump into the conversation and say, 'Hey, I totally agree/disagree with that because of this. I even wrote a blog about it here!' and provide the link. While many won't click on the link to read what you said, many will.