Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wanna make $100 the hard way?

What way is that? I don't get it.

[tmdiva]

Both my first love and my last have beards. First love also has long hair, and had it for part of the time we were off-and-on together. Last love (aka the SFC, aka my husband) does not have and never will have long hair. When we were first married he tried (at my encouragement) letting it grow a little shaggy, but it just looked dumb.

Both my sons have long-ish hair, too (not ponytail length, but pushing the boundary for skater-shaggy). Whether they will someday have beards depends on whether they take after my side (more or less hairless--neither of my brothers have chest hair or can grow much of anything on their faces) or my husband's (total gorilla).

tm

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wanna make $100 the hard way?

If you are involved, isn't it more accurately called the soft way?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Both my first love and my last have beards. First love also has long hair, and had it for part of the time we were off-and-on together. Last love (aka the SFC, aka my husband) does not have and never will have long hair. When we were first married he tried (at my encouragement) letting it grow a little shaggy, but it just looked dumb.

Both my sons have long-ish hair, too (not ponytail length, but pushing the boundary for skater-shaggy). Whether they will someday have beards depends on whether they take after my side (more or less hairless--neither of my brothers have chest hair or can grow much of anything on their faces) or my husband's (total gorilla).

tm

I have never dated, etc. anyone with a beard. My dad had a beard when I was growing up (too lazy to shave everyday and, like the diva family, not naturally hairy, so he had a goatee, without having to shave the cheeks because hair just didn't grow there) and I always wanted him to shave it. No dice. Only picture I even had of him without it was an early 1960's military photo. I thought he looked way better in that photo.

I like one day's worth of scruff. But not more than that.

I've also never dated any long hairs. Both my ex- and Mr. Man had long hair and some point in their adolescence, but (lucky for them, if they wanted to be with me) they outgrew those phases before I ever saw them.

I guess I like my boys less jazz man (or worse, hippie weirdo pothead) and more geeky-collegiate looking. Example - sexiest guy in a movie for me (before I learned that he is too short for me) - Paul Rudd in Clueless. Sigh.

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
(before I learned that he is too short for me) - Paul Rudd in Clueless. Sigh.

Height-ist.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by dc_chef
Height-ist.

I know!! I suck. But I've never liked dating anyone under 6' tall. That is how tall a person has to be in order for him to be taller than me even when I'm wearing 3-4" heels. One of my only super girly requirements in a date. Well, also no hippie weirdo potheads. Normal looking short-haired potheads are okay though. As long as they bathe on a regular basis.


ETA: I realize that the hippie weirdo pothead disqualifier pretty much destroys my aspiring hippie chick cred. Consistency is a fucking drag.

[Tables R Us]

Simpson just raised salaries. The other top NYC firms will fall into line in the next couple weeks, all retroactive to Jan 1. Simpson's memo anticipates 2007 bonuses will match 2006 bonuses (30k to 65k).

Boo Yah!!!

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by dc_chef
Height-ist.

Quit your griping, big boy. Everyone likes you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Simpson just raised salaries. The other top NYC firms will fall into line in the next couple weeks, all retroactive to Jan 1. Simpson's memo anticipates 2007 bonuses will match 2006 bonuses (30k to 65k).

Boo Yah!!!

Class of 2006 - $160,000
Class of 2005 - $170,000
Class of 2004 - $185,000
Class of 2003 - $210,000
Class of 2002 - $230,000
Class of 2001 - $250,000
Class of 2000 - $265,000
Class of 1999 - $280,000
Class of 1998 - $290,000

wonk is class of '61. what would he be making?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wonk is class of '61. what would he be making?

A lot more than he was making six months ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A lot more than he was making six months ago.

Yay!

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Quit your griping, big boy. Everyone likes you.

It's nice to be reminded every so often.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there's a borderline call on a pass play in the end zone at the end of a close game, the ref should avoid blowing his whistle, and let the players decide the play. This awards physical play in the playoffs, and I'm OK with that, particularly if everyone is on the same page ex ante.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Because if you think that penalties or fouls that should otherwise have been called should not be called at the end of the game, then I have to ask, what's the point of having rules at all?

And if a player fouls another player, they are deciding the play. They have actively fouled someone. Telling me that they only decide the play if they get away with it makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For example, I think the refs made the right (non-)call on the pass play to Reche Caldwell in the back right corner of the end zone in (I think) the fourth quarter, on a possession where the Pats settled for a FG. There was contact. It could have been called interference, if the refs were calling a tight game. Better not to blow the whistle there.

If you think that wasn't a play that needed to be penalized in any quarter, that's one thing.* If you think they should have flown a flag in the first quarter, but not in the fourth, you're nuts.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Banta-Cain really whacked Manning, then maybe it's a personal foul. I didn't see it that way. It seemed pretty marginal to me, and not a call that should be made at the end of a tight play-off game.

You keep saying this. What you really want to say is, "I don't think a defender should be automatically penalized for putting his hands on the face of the quarterback. Referees should have the discretion to determine if it was intentional and/or significant. So, I have a problem with the rule itself, not its application in the final 90 seconds of the game."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
With the Tuck Rule play, the refs can't avoid injecting themselves into the play. It's either an incompletion or a fumble. I think you get this distinction.

Actually, I don't think you understand what "automatic" means. In this case it means the refs can't avoid injecting themselves into the play.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
eta: And just so we're clear: IMHO, the refs blew that call, but the Colts won the game and the Pats lost it. The Pats could have converted on the 3rd-and-4 with 2:30 left; the game would have been over. The Pats didn't make their plays, and the Colts made theirs.

You're right. And the Pats committed two boneheaded penalties in a tight game.

TM

*And if you think that, you necessarily think there was no foul at all.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2 type fouls-

a basketball shooting foul- which does change the play, it makes the shot less likely to go in;

which is different from a foul intended to discourage behavior that doesn't really change the game (inadvertent facemask or the hit on Manning yesterday)

Ty could make an argument of the malum pro se malum prohibitum (I know these are spelled wrong but big deal) variety- maybe a late hit call shouldn't decide a game unless it is blatant.

No late hit on a quarterback, short of one that injures, changes the game. Neither does helmet-on-helmet contact. Are you telling me that if someone nailed Manning as hard as he could without hurting him 5 seconds after he let go of the ball, it shouldn't be called because game play was not affected?

No. Because that would be blatant, right? And the player should be punished. But a player who disregards a rule at the end of the game and takes a chance and smacks a quarterback in the face (but not too hard), hoping the refs don't make the automatic call shouldn't be punished because that is even farther away from affecting play than the above hypo?

I think the whole argument is ridiculous. And the Patriots may be upset with the call, but inside, each one of them is thinking, "What the fuck was he thinking? There are 90 seconds left and he knows he can't put his hands on the face of the quarterback. He fucked up."

What if there was an inadvertent five yard face mask on the receiver that didn't affect the play? Should the ref swallow his whistle there too? How about if another player flattens a receiver all the way on the other side of the field after the ball is already in the air? Swallow the whistle because he was nowhere near the play? This is all stupid. A penalty is a penalty.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
No late hit on a quarterback, short of one that injures, changes the game. Neither does helmet-on-helmet contact. Are you telling me that if someone nailed Manning as hard as he could without hurting him 5 seconds after he let go of the ball, it shouldn't be called because game play was not effected?

No. Because that would be blatant, right? And the player should be punished. But a player who disregards a rule at the end of the game and takes a chance and smacks a quarterback in the face (but not too hard), hoping the refs don't make the automatic call shouldn't be punished because that is even farther away from affecting play than the above hypo?

I think the whole argument is ridiculous. And the Patriots may be upset with the call, but inside, each one of them is thinking, "What the fuck was he thinking? There are 90 seconds left and he knows he can't put his hands on the face of the quarterback. He fucked up."

What if there was an inadvertent five yard fask mask on the receiver that didn't affect the play? Should the ref swallow his whistle there too? How about if another player flattens a receiver all the way on the other side of the field after the ball is already in the air? Swallow the whistle because he was nowhere near the play? This is all stupid. A penalty is a penalty.

TM

as I said, the D-line guy who hit Manning is at fault. I was trying to help Ty frame the argument I thought he wanted to make.