imaginary friends to fill the void that is your gaping gash.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Already exists. Gay straight man. See for example, Niles Crane and the assistant from Caroline in the City

I agree. One of my best friends is a gay straight man.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find it curious that most of the Midwest says "pop," but that around St. Louis and Milwaukee, it's "soda." Anyone from those places have any idea why?

I'm Chicago born and raised and I've called it soda all my life.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dtb
Not the kind that they serve in kosher restaurants, bub.

Why don't you and your good pal Sidd go and practice your goose-stepping? Sheesh.

Actually, it was the goose-steppers at Nestle who appear to be responsible for bringing us non-dairy creamers.

And we were talking about what they serve in law firms. How many Kosher law firms you been to, sister?

[tmdiva]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And gatti, in my experience, law schools are overrun with mormons.

Not as much as dental schools. Our local one's student body is between 30 and 40% Mo, from what I've heard.

tm

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Not as much as dental schools. Our local one's student body is between 30 and 40% Mo, from what I've heard.

tm

Mmmmm, teeth.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Already exists. Gay straight man. See for example, Niles Crane and the assistant from Caroline in the City

Isn't Niles Crane a gay gay man?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Fringey, I think it might be time for you to find a new group of people to annoy. I am patient and tolerant to a fault, and I make every effort to bridge communication gaps and help people understand each other. If my patience with you is exhausted, I can't imagine how others on this board feel. I like this board, but I'd like it a lot more if you weren't around it so much.

Whoa. A get off the board ultimatum. I can't wait to witness this eventual trainwreck. str8's put his Jeep on the tracks.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Not to agree with str8 or anything, but Snowbird is the Dartmouth of Ski Resorts.

Since I'm not Ivy, you'll have to clarify for me whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't go skiing to get drunk and laid (especially at the kind of resort that Str8 would frequent) so maybe that's why I didn't like Snowbird.

I do, however, enjoy a nice buffet after skiing, which is why Deer Valley is my favorite ski resort in the Park City area.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No. I am implying that you date women with plastic strap-ons that have been specially modified to keep you in your place by cutting up your mouth if you are careless.

Again, I didn't go to an Ivy school so you are going to have to elaborate. Why would a woman enjoy me giving oral sex to her strap-on? Did we cover this one day when I wasn't around?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
I'm so tempted not to respond to this . . . but here we go.

1. LFM disputed my assertion that I was being paid "1/3 below market value." Underlying his post were the following assumptions, common in micro economics.

(a) People are rational actors
(b) There is free movement in labor markets

Based on (a) and (b), LFM said there's no such thing as somebody working for below market value. Everyone works for their market value by definition.

2. I then explained that I was in a lengthy employment contract. There's a risk that I would be sued for breach if I left early. Thus the common assumption about free movement does not apply to my situation.

But furthermore . . .

I also explained that I think it's fair to say that someone's salary (e.g. mine) is below market-value, and (implicitly) that person need not be behaving irrationally, if there are non-salary factors (experience, benefits, ease of job) that make the entire package the best available option at the time for the worker. It is still correct, in such a situation, to say that someone is being paid a salary below market value. At the same time, I would acknowlege that the total (monetary and non-monetary, economic and non-economic) benefits being received by that worker reflects his market value, assuming free information about other opportunities, ability to move freely between jobs, and zero transactions costs (as we all know, however, the transactions costs involved in changing jobs are huge).

3. You posted the crap I quoted above, which does not actually bear at all on our semantic debate about whether it is ever accurate to say that a worker is working for less than market value. And then you call me a moron? What the fucking fuck is wrong with you. Go fuck yourself.

Fringey, I think it might be time for you to find a new group of people to annoy. I am patient and tolerant to a fault, and I make every effort to bridge communication gaps and help people understand each other. If my patience with you is exhausted, I can't imagine how others on this board feel. I like this board, but I'd like it a lot more if you weren't around it so much.

Please tell me you're kidding. Or that mmmmmm3587 stole your log-in. Or that you overdosed on sincerity soda.

You asked for it, and Fringey is really fucking funny.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
I'm so tempted not to respond to this . . . but here we go.

1. LFM disputed my assertion that I was being paid "1/3 below market value." Underlying his post were the following assumptions, common in micro economics.

(a) People are rational actors
(b) There is free movement in labor markets

Based on (a) and (b), LFM said there's no such thing as somebody working for below market value. Everyone works for their market value by definition.

2. I then explained that I was in a lengthy employment contract. There's a risk that I would be sued for breach if I left early. Thus the common assumption about free movement does not apply to my situation.

But furthermore . . .

I also explained that I think it's fair to say that someone's salary (e.g. mine) is below market-value, and (implicitly) that person need not be behaving irrationally, if there are non-salary factors (experience, benefits, ease of job) that make the entire package the best available option at the time for the worker. It is still correct, in such a situation, to say that someone is being paid a salary below market value. At the same time, I would acknowlege that the total (monetary and non-monetary, economic and non-economic) benefits being received by that worker reflects his market value, assuming free information about other opportunities, ability to move freely between jobs, and zero transactions costs (as we all know, however, the transactions costs involved in changing jobs are huge).

3. You posted the crap I quoted above, which does not actually bear at all on our semantic debate about whether it is ever accurate to say that a worker is working for less than market value. And then you call me a moron? What the fucking fuck is wrong with you. Go fuck yourself.

Fringey, I think it might be time for you to find a new group of people to annoy. I am patient and tolerant to a fault, and I make every effort to bridge communication gaps and help people understand each other. If my patience with you is exhausted, I can't imagine how others on this board feel. I like this board, but I'd like it a lot more if you weren't around it so much.

It's okay. I can't get a better job either.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by tmdiva
Not as much as dental schools. Our local one's student body is between 30 and 40% Mo, from what I've heard.

tm

Do Mormons watch Rudolph?

I want to be a dentist.

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Please tell me you're kidding. Or that mmmmmm3587 stole your log-in. Or that you overdosed on sincerity soda.

You asked for it, and Fringey is really fucking funny.

Great! Can we have a poll on who we want to leave the board more? And the person who loses has to leave forever?

I vote to evict Str8. Now, if I can just get Penske and his socks on board, we should have a majority and nobody else will even need to vote.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by barely_legal
Since I'm not Ivy, you'll have to clarify for me whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I don't go skiing to get drunk and laid (especially at the kind of resort that Str8 would frequent) so maybe that's why I didn't like Snowbird.

I do, however, enjoy a nice buffet after skiing, which is why Deer Valley is my favorite ski resort in the Park City area.

I was actually just talking out of my ass about Snowbird, I've never been there. If there are better Utah resorts, so be it. My point that Utah has great skiing cannot seriously be in doubt, though, can it? I mean, maybe compared to the Alps, it's not great, but in the context of these United States, I think it's a no-brainer. Go Utah!

Oh, and I forgot to mention Alex Smith and the BCS-bowl-winning U football team. Huzzah to the Utes. I could have also mentioned that Toronto Raptor centre Rafael Araujo and his wide load played and studied at BYU. Excellence personified. What a state!

Oh, and the South Park episode about how bonkers mormons are is a top-5-er.

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Please tell me you're kidding. Or that mmmmmm3587 stole your log-in. Or that you overdosed on sincerity soda.

You asked for it, and Fringey is really fucking funny.

Please elaborate on "you asked for it." This whole thing started over a comment I made, in response to Diane Keaton, about Renee Zellweger being the one true lollipop head, and ltl/fb and ncs started attacking me. Then, in a back-and-forth between me and LFM, fringey again comes in with an attack.