PDA

View Full Version : Cubune: Minnie Statue Vandalism was "Accident"


FielderJones
07-14-2005, 11:18 AM
linky (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-050713mitchell,1,5013223.column)

This in direct contradiction to the eyewitness account posted here at WSI.

SOXSINCE'70
07-14-2005, 11:22 AM
Accident my :booty: :booty: .:angry: :angry:

mjharrison72
07-14-2005, 11:22 AM
White Sox legend Minnie Minoso said he is not angry at the fan who damaged the statue featuring the likeness of the longtime Cuban outfielder. "I was told that it was an accident, he did not mean to damage it. I think he was trying to pose for a picture or something next to the statue. So why be upset about that?" Minoso said. The statue is located in the outfield concourse area of U.S. Cellular Field. …

This is absolute tripe... note how they use the ambiguous term "the fan," rather than something more specific, like "the CUBS fan." Kudos to Minnie for swallowing it, but especially after seeing the damaged statue, it's clear whoever damaged it did so intentionally.

Brian26
07-14-2005, 11:30 AM
I'm glad someone else caught this. It's like every possible chance the Cubune gets to twist any little bit of any story, no matter how insignificant, they will jump at the opportunity. An accident? That's a ****ing 2,000 pound bronze statue.

BainesHOF
07-14-2005, 11:45 AM
There's no way it was an accident. The Tribune actually thinks Sox fans will believe this?

JRIG
07-14-2005, 11:49 AM
I would equate "accidently" breaking a metal bat off a statue to "accidently" getting pregnant.

Risk
07-14-2005, 11:49 AM
Yeah, that Cubune story is almost believable. So nice to see that that fine newspaper has resorted to the mantra of "to seek the truth, and to publish" just like the rest of the media.:angry:

*****

Risk

Iwritecode
07-14-2005, 11:49 AM
An accident? That's a ****ing 2,000 pound bronze statue.

No ****. It's really difficult to break a large metal object on accident while merely "posing" for a picture. This sounds like an excuse my 7-year-old would've come up with.

Yet when a section of the weeds growing on the walls of the Urinal died it was most certain the work of a Sox fan and not an accident...

Risk
07-14-2005, 11:51 AM
I'm glad someone else caught this. It's like every possible chance the Cubune gets to twist any little bit of any story, no matter how insignificant, they will jump at the opportunity. An accident? That's a ****ing 2,000 pound bronze statue.

Gospel

Risk

Viva Medias B's
07-14-2005, 11:54 AM
Unless White Sox brass itself comes out and says it was an accident, I believe it was a deliberate act of vandalism.

Madvora
07-14-2005, 11:55 AM
Anyone know who the original poster was that witnessed this?
I remember seeing the post, but all I can find is this thread started on thursday June 28th.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53066&page=1&pp=15&highlight=minoso+statue

The games were on Friday the 24th, Saturday the 25th and Sunday the 26th.
There are references in the thread to people emailing the radio stations on Sunday and Monday after the games. Someone had to have posted in on one of those days.

skobabe8
07-14-2005, 11:55 AM
That's a ****ing 2,000 pound bronze statue.

All that needs to be said.

woodenleg
07-14-2005, 11:56 AM
As critical as I am of the media, the item takes no stand on whether it was an "accident" or not. Minnie Minoso is the one who says that he "was told" it was an accident.

White Sox legend Minnie Minoso said he is not angry at the fan who damaged the statue featuring the likeness of the longtime Cuban outfielder. "I was told that it was an accident, he did not mean to damage it. I think he was trying to pose for a picture or something next to the statue. So why be upset about that?" Minoso said. The statue is located in the outfield concourse area of U.S. Cellular Field. …

If you're looking for examples of media "bias", you might find them, but this isn't one of them. There's really no need to go through the Tribune with a fine-toothed comb like this - it's a waste of time.

This is an entirely different matter from the "Sox fans mutilating the ivy" incident, which was totally ridiculous. I have a background in art - I'd like to see what the damage looks like before I come to any conclusions. It really depends upon how the statue is put together, and I haven't seen it yet.

maurice
07-14-2005, 12:10 PM
:?:
When taken in context, the bias is apparent.

"Ivy Gate" was accompanied by a cover story reporting that the ivy was destroyed in an intentional act of vandalism by a Sox fan, despite no evidence supporting this theory. In fact, it turned out to be a gardening error.

The statute story was initially ignored, then reported as broken, now reported as done by "a fan," despite actual evidence that it was intentionally destroyed by cub fans.

There's also a logical problem. It's easy to destroy a plant accidentally. It's impossible to destroy a statute accidentally while posing for a picture.

AnkleSox
07-14-2005, 12:13 PM
I think it's quite obvious someone from the trib or of cubs brass told Minnie that it was an accident, and they asked him about it to record him saying it so that they could put it in their article without sounding like they're covering up anything.

If Minnie was told that a cubs fan did it, and he told the tribune that's what he heard, they wouldn't have published it.

Ol' No. 2
07-14-2005, 12:17 PM
It ought to be clear what's going on here. Minnie is their sock puppet. They just put the words in his mouth so it doesn't seem to be coming from them.

woodenleg
07-14-2005, 12:33 PM
:?:

There's also a logical problem. It's easy to destroy a plant accidentally. It's impossible to destroy a statute accidentally while posing for a picture.

Of course it is, but how is it any easier to destroy a statue on purpose in the same situation? Someone said that this same "fan" did it on purpose. It makes no difference - metal is metal.

Is there something I'm missing here? Any flaws that would allow for easy breaking would have to trace back to the manufacturing of the statue.

Again, I haven't seen the statue, nor have I seen the damage. All I've seen are some stories saying that the statue was damaged, and the bat came off when a fan was having a picture taken near it.

maurice
07-14-2005, 12:38 PM
Of course it is, but how is it any easier to destroy a statue on purpose in the same situation? Some people seem to be arguing that this same "fan" did it on purpose.

No, there's an eyewitness account that a group of cub fans vandalized the statute intentionally, not while "posing for a picture." Run a search and read the whole story.

This account makes a heck of a lot more sense than the "posing for a picture" BS.

Jerko
07-14-2005, 01:12 PM
I would equate "accidently" breaking a metal bat off a statue to "accidently" getting pregnant.

I agree. I guess it "just happened".

daveeym
07-14-2005, 01:25 PM
:?:
When taken in context, the bias is apparent.

"Ivy Gate" was accompanied by a cover story reporting that the ivy was destroyed in an intentional act of vandalism by a Sox fan, despite no evidence supporting this theory. In fact, it turned out to be a gardening error.

The statute story was initially ignored, then reported as broken, now reported as done by "a fan," despite actual evidence that it was intentionally destroyed by cub fans.

There's also a logical problem. It's easy to destroy a plant accidentally. It's impossible to destroy a statute accidentally while posing for a picture.

Random tribune editor - "Well boy, did we really get egg on our face with those Ivy articles, so I mean we didn't want to falsely accuse anyone this time, we're just reporting the info as it comes out as responsible journalists should."

woodenleg
07-14-2005, 01:30 PM
No, there's an eyewitness account that a group of cub fans vandalized the statute intentionally, not while "posing for a picture." Run a search and read the whole story.

This account makes a heck of a lot more sense than the "posing for a picture" BS.

Well, an eyewitness account is pretty much worthless on a bulletin board.

Regardless, it was a 2,000-pound statue! That's proof right there that it was no accident.

No, it's not. The bat itself looks pretty lightweight, now that I've looked at it. If it's endured the elements, it could probably be easily broken one way or another.

I still think this whole thing is trivial.

Ivy incident = criticizing the media
Broken statue = criticizing, at most, a bunch of drunks

If you're trying to make a case for something, it's useless.

maurice
07-14-2005, 01:42 PM
Well, an eyewitness account is pretty much worthless on a bulletin board.

Compared to the absolutely nothing that substantiated the Sox fan / ivy claim? Besides, it's not just a bulletin board report. It was reported directly to media outlets.

The bat itself looks pretty lightweight, now that I've looked at it. If it's endured the elements, it could probably be easily broken one way or another.

By taking a picture?!? That's one powerful camera.

Do you really believe that it's equally easy to break a statute by taking a picture or by actually trying to break the statue?

I still think this whole thing is trivial.

What "whole thing"? Vandalizing a statute? Alleging that Sox fans committed a crime without any evidence? The pervasive anti-Sox media bias?

You sound like George Knue. Any individual example of bias can be attacked on a numerous specious grounds. The sheer legion of examples, OTOH, speaks for itself.

Even Knue conceded that Trib bias can be proven by showing that they covered 2 similar stories in different ways. This is just the latest proof.

cheeses_h_rice
07-14-2005, 01:45 PM
Well, an eyewitness account is pretty much worthless on a bulletin board.

Regardless, it was a 2,000-pound statue! That's proof right there that it was no accident.

No, it's not. The bat itself looks pretty lightweight, now that I've looked at it. If it's endured the elements, it could probably be easily broken one way or another.

I still think this whole thing is trivial.

Ivy incident = criticizing the media
Broken statue = criticizing, at most, a bunch of drunks

If you're trying to make a case for something, it's useless.

Do you have any idea of the kind of force it would take to break off a bronze bat? It certainly wasn't accidental, and the eyewitness accounts posted on WSI (and maybe elsewhere) back that up.

Look at the photo of the statue -- the bat is vertical. At worst, someone taking a picture with it would be leaning on the statue with an arm on the bat, not hanging off it like a kid on the monkey bars.

http://mlans.dynip.com/blogpics/2004-09/2004-09-19-statue1.jpg

Besides, the eyewitness account said it was a Flubs fan, who ran and dropped the bat when caught.

[edit: this post (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=748489&postcount=32) is the text of Scott Reifort's blog on the incident...now why would an innocent Sox fan have to run away after accidentally breaking off the bat?]

fado
07-14-2005, 01:47 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52951&page=1&pp=15

Found the thread for you.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-14-2005, 01:48 PM
:cubune

:giantsnail

Hangar18
07-14-2005, 01:51 PM
:?:
When taken in context, the bias is apparent.

"Ivy Gate" was accompanied by a cover story reporting that the ivy was destroyed in an intentional act of vandalism by a Sox fan, despite no evidence supporting this theory. In fact, it turned out to be a gardening error.

The statute story was initially ignored, then reported as broken, now reported as done by "a fan," despite actual evidence that it was intentionally destroyed by cub fans.

There's also a logical problem. It's easy to destroy a plant accidentally. It's impossible to destroy a statute accidentally while posing for a picture.

CONGRATS maurice ....... This is POST OF THE DAY

TheOldRoman
07-14-2005, 02:15 PM
Well, an eyewitness account is pretty much worthless on a bulletin board.

Regardless, it was a 2,000-pound statue! That's proof right there that it was no accident.

No, it's not. The bat itself looks pretty lightweight, now that I've looked at it. If it's endured the elements, it could probably be easily broken one way or another.

I still think this whole thing is trivial.

Ivy incident = criticizing the media
Broken statue = criticizing, at most, a bunch of drunks

If you're trying to make a case for something, it's useless.
The more you type, the more I see :dtroll: .

It is insane to claim that the bat could have been broken off by accident. The bat was yanked on forcibly for a period of time, and eventually broke under the pressure. Here is the original post from ChiSoxGirl, alerting us to the incident well before the yellow Chicago media picked up on it
He told me that at Saturday's game, 8 Scrub fans were working diligently at breaking the bat off of Minnie Minoso's bronze statue out near the Fan Deck. Mission: accomplished.
The only way that a bronze bat in the position it is in breaks off accidentally is if someone was errantly wielding a wreckingball.

Jerko
07-14-2005, 02:20 PM
The more you type, the more I see :dtroll: .

It is insane to claim that the bat could have been broken off by accident. The bat was yanked on forcibly for a period of time, and eventually broke under the pressure. The only way that a bronze bat in the position it is in breaks off accidentally is if someone was errantly wielding a wreckingball.

If you think he was bad in this thread, don't read the Ronnie Woo Woo thread. :rolleyes: But if you must: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=770945&postcount=48

mr_genius
07-14-2005, 02:27 PM
screw the cubbune

what did you guys expect? a legit story about cubs fans?

c'mon

Iwritecode
07-14-2005, 02:40 PM
If it's endured the elements, it could probably be easily broken one way or another.

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this statue just unveiled earlier this year?

I don't see how enduring a few months of Chicago spring/summer weather would weaken a metal statue...

ilsox7
07-14-2005, 03:00 PM
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this statue just unveiled earlier this year?

I don't see how enduring a few months of Chicago spring/summer weather would weaken a metal statue...

But it could have been struck by lightning numerous times, thus weakening the bronze to the point where a gust of wind would have broken it!

cheeses_h_rice
07-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this statue just unveiled earlier this year?

I don't see how enduring a few months of Chicago spring/summer weather would weaken a metal statue...

It was unveiled last fall, but the notion that BRONZE of all things isn't durable is completely, utterly laughable. Only a Flubbie apologist would try to make that specious argument.

George Knue
07-14-2005, 03:19 PM
Even Knue conceded that Trib bias can be proven by showing that they covered 2 similar stories in different ways. This is just the latest proof.

I don't remember saying anything like this. I may not remember everything I ever write or say here -- but I'd be real surprised if you could produce this one. And if you're interpreting what I said, the interpretation is wrong.

Also re the Minoso statue: I still haven't seen a reference to this anyplace but the Tribune.

George Knue
ChicagoSports.com

maurice
07-14-2005, 03:26 PM
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, George:
If you can demonstrate that the Tribune behaved entirely different in the coverage of this murder, then you can demonstrate bias. But if the paper covered this murder the same way they have covered murders like this in the past, then maybe it’s SOP and not bias.

Linky (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=748718&postcount=37)

mr_genius
07-14-2005, 03:34 PM
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this statue just unveiled earlier this year?

I don't see how enduring a few months of Chicago spring/summer weather would weaken a metal statue...

there is no way the elements have already weakened the statue

as far as it being an accident...

HAHAHAHA

Ol' No. 2
07-14-2005, 04:26 PM
It was unveiled last fall, but the notion that BRONZE of all things isn't durable is completely, utterly laughable. Only a Flubbie apologist would try to make that specious argument.No kidding. Do you suppose that's why they made it out of BRONZE in the first place?:rolleyes:

Before man learned to work iron, an entire civilization was developed based on the use of bronze because of its durability. It was called the Bronze Age. It was in all the papers.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-14-2005, 04:34 PM
Before man learned to work iron, an entire civilization was developed based on the use of bronze because of its durability. It was called the Bronze Age. It was in all the papers.

Not this one.

:cool:

:cubune

batmanZoSo
07-14-2005, 05:18 PM
Not this one.

:cool:

:cubune

LMAO:cool:

PennStater98r
07-17-2005, 10:58 AM
If this has already been posted or doesn't belong here, sorry in advance, but I thought this was ridiculous to be in the Tribune - considering the fuss over the ivy a few years ago in which Sox fans took the blame:

White Sox legend Minnie Minoso said he is not angry at the fan who damaged the statue featuring the likeness of the longtime Cuban outfielder. "I was told that it was an accident, he did not mean to damage it. I think he was trying to pose for a picture or something next to the statue. So why be upset about that?" Minoso said. The statue is located in the outfield concourse area of U.S. Cellular Field. …

FielderJones
07-17-2005, 11:22 AM
As has been said many times: the search function is your friend.

skobabe8
07-17-2005, 05:36 PM
It was unveiled last fall, but the notion that BRONZE of all things isn't durable is completely, utterly laughable. Only a Flubbie apologist would try to make that specious argument.

Its actually made out of chocolate and wrapped in bronze foil.

cheeses_h_rice
07-17-2005, 05:58 PM
Its actually made out of chocolate and wrapped in bronze foil.

http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/5763.jpg

You don't say...

ThatGuyOnTheL
07-17-2005, 07:18 PM
http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/5763.jpg

You don't say...

:) LOL!!!!! Well done.

Tragg
07-17-2005, 08:59 PM
If this has already been posted or doesn't belong here, sorry in advance, but I thought this was ridiculous to be in the Tribune - considering the fuss over the ivy a few years ago in which Sox fans took the blame:

White Sox legend Minnie Minoso said he is not angry at the fan who damaged the statue featuring the likeness of the longtime Cuban outfielder. "I was told that it was an accident, he did not mean to damage it. I think he was trying to pose for a picture or something next to the statue. So why be upset about that?" Minoso said. The statue is located in the outfield concourse area of U.S. Cellular Field. …
That's called being gracious. Minoso has nothing to gain by complaining about it. He took the higher ground.

It doesn't mean that the paper should accept a preposterous explanation at face value, as they did.

Vernam
07-18-2005, 02:03 AM
That's called being gracious. Minoso has nothing to gain by complaining about it. He took the higher ground.

It doesn't mean that the paper should accept a preposterous explanation at face value, as they did.
I hesitate to say this after Minnie so kindly signed my son's cap during the Oakland series, but note that the Trib article claims he is "Cub-an." In that context, he's likely part of the cover-up.

VC