Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, I tend to agree more with Thurgreed than Ty on this. A foul is a foul, no matter how much time is left on the clock.

You know how SNL used to be funny, but then, it sort of went way, way downhill, in large part becasue they just didn't know when it was time to let it go?

Please don't encourage the new cast to make the same mistake.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no offense, but i'm the only one posting here that had the chance to get 6 fouls a game*

*and that was from a clerical error.

Current league fouls you out after 6 fouls.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ironweed
You're not going to start walking around Grand Central with your dick hanging out again, are you? It won't just be a ticket this time.

I said I was sorry. I only had enough on me to get me out of a night in jail.

TM

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
what are your recs? We can take this to PM if you would like (wink wink)

A "friend" of mine, (who apropos of none of this, had a bad habit of ducking under the tables at meals to engage in bad behaviours, <wink> <wink>), can't ingest sugar. She is also an active athlete, but cannot outrun me, ftr, and given all of that started using Ultima! as an electrolyte replacement hydration drink, post exercise. From her, I got turned onto it, platonically, and hereby endorse.

The sweeteners are maltodextrin, stevia and lo han guo (also one of my socks, fd). See here




For muscle recovery for running/aerobic exercise I recommend:

EnduroxR4
see here . It has no fructose or sucrose.

FD: none of the above sponsour me, although I am open.

best regards,

Penske

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Your views are absurd. And yes, I met your friend Spanky. After this conversation, I'm surprised you guys aren't living together.

TM

It is creepy of you to imply that Spanky might or might not be willing to participate in an off-board non-platonic relationship with any other poster.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
A "friend" of mine, (who apropos of none of this, had a bad habit of ducking under the tables at meals to engage in bad behaviours, <wink> <wink>), can't ingest sugar. She is also an active athlete, but cannot outrun me, ftr, and given all of that started using Ultima! as an electrolyte replacement hydration drink, post exercise. From her, I got turned onto it, platonically, and hereby endorse.

The sweeteners are maltodextrin, stevia and lo han guo (also one of my socks, fd). See here




For muscle recovery for running/aerobic exercise I recommend:

EnduroxR4
see here . It has no fructose or sucrose.

FD: none of the above sponsour me, although I am open.

best regards,

Penske

Aha! I always thought that Ultima had artificial sweetner in it, but I guess not. Perhaps I will give it a whirl. thanks.

I note I have one more post to go before post 5555. (holy shit). Then I guess I'll have to retire or something.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You know how SNL used to be funny, but then, it sort of went way, way downhill, in large part becasue they just didn't know when it was time to let it go?

Please don't encourage the new cast to make the same mistake.

I've been finding 30 Rock laugh-out-loud funny lately. I was not a huge fan when it first came on, but lately, it's hit a groove.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Penske_Account


FD: none of the above sponsour me, although I am open.

best regards,

Penske

A friend of mine is related by marriage to a minor starlet. Last fall, she decided she was going to run a half marathon, and Nike sent her unsolicited 6 pairs of running shoes.

Since then, I've been kicking around sending out press releases for my various activities to see what kind of swag I can score.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Current league fouls you out after 6 fouls.

TM

XBox or Play Station?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I've been finding 30 Rock laugh-out-loud funny lately. I was not a huge fan when it first came on, but lately, it's hit a groove.

2! Alec Baldwin is a comedic genius.

And the ridiculously hot admin is an added bonus:









Holy shit she's only 18.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is my last post on this subject, unless I change my mind. You can have the last word, which probably will be "it."*

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Bullshit. Your "grain of salt" completely eliminates the concept altogether.

Yes. What I am proposing is an anarchic, rule-less world in which referees throw flags -- or not -- as their whims move them.

Wow. It's fun arguing with lawyers. You said they should swallow their whistle and now you're telling me you meant they should apply rules with a different burden of proof. In either case, you want them to ignore certain calls.

You have a digital view of the referee's function. They either blow the whistle or they don't. I have an analog view. They call a loose game or a tight game. I say they should call it looser at the end of a close game, especially in the play-offs.

You've watched too much sports to have missed that some refs call games tight and some let stuff go. Perhaps you disagree that they do so consciously, though.

A fact which is significant since you think "automatic" necessarily means "at the ref's discretion," which brings us right back to the fact that you don't like the concept of automatic calls.

You are pretending that refs don't exercise discretion, and I am not.

Are you being intentionally stupid? If a player is running and trips and unintentionally runs into a punt returner who has called for a fair catch, what the fuck is it?

Completely changing the hypo to suit your argument. Have you met your friend Spanky?

You have the same attention to text that Spanky does. You didn't say he tripped. You said he ran into the returner. That didn't sound intentional. If he trips, I would agree that it's unintentional but it's also probably such a clear penalty that it should be called.

No. If the rules were actually supposed to serve different goals, they would be written that way.

No. Rules, like laws, have purposes that need not be expressly stated in the text. This is why -- analogously -- courts turn to something outside the text of the law when they have a hard question of interpretation.

But then in your world, there are no hard questions. Something is a penalty, or it isn't.

The League has determined that quarterbacks need to be protected from being hit in the head for the entire game. They have created a rule to try to address this concern. A player who violates that rule has participated in the deciding of the outcome of that game just as much as a player who pulls up short of creating that very same penalty. And a ref who intentionally doesn't call an automatic foul where a penalty will punish one team and reward another has done as much to decide the outcome of the game as a player.

No. I'm not going to pretend that the ref's actions can be ignored, but that's just stupid. The outcome of the play was decided when the Colts scored the final touchdown. Fans watch games to see players play, not to see the refs.

This could be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. "Reward" as in not apply the rules of the game for behavior that should result in a penalty.

This is like arguing with Spanky, since he loves to redefine words in ways that we English-speaking people would never use them. If the refs don't blow the whistle on Banta-Cain in that situation, no one who is not in danger of flunking ESL would say, "Gee, the refs rewarded the Patriots there." They might say, had they noticed, that the refs let the Pats off easy, or something like that. But they probably wouldn't noticed, because they would have been busy watching the Colts drive down the field for the winning TD. Which is as it should be.

Way to address the point by saying absolutely nothing. It may not be the most infuriating thing to you, but you are flat-out lying if you're telling me it isn't infuriating.

In the league I play in, I expect that a whistle blown in the final 2:00 is blown with for a good reason. More so than earlier in the game.

You're drunk. The NFL is concerned with the integrity of the game and the equal and fair application of its rules. If the rules are clear and one is called at the end of the game, they can say "the ref applied the rule as it is written."

I may be drunk, but even so I can tell that what you say here is not a response to what I said. If you like, you can try again, though.

Fans like you can whine about the spirit of the rule or how rules should be tossed at the end of the game all they want. But if they believed that a ref making a call the League has specifically designed to be automatic would interfere with the integrity and quality of the games, those rules wouldn't be automatic or there would be another section of rules to be applied at the end of games. And yes, that last sentence sounds as stupid as your argument.

Fans like me don't want to be parsing the rule book at the end of a play-off game. But, hey, maybe you enjoy it.

This last statement sounds good, but has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. If the refs apply the rules accurately and effectively during the game, they have less to do at the end because people aren't making stupid fouls. Okay. So what? They could be calling the greatest game in the history of referees and still have to make a call at the end of the game that you think they shouldn't.

It has nothing to do with my argument, but only because the stupid point I was responding to didn't either.

Good for you. I reffed and ran intramurals. I went to a number of refeering training sessions. And if I'd ever met a ref who admitted to swallowing his whistle in favor of more physical play at the end of a game, I'd have been shocked. Because that amounts to "I throw out the rules set forth for me in favor of my interpretation of what is important during what I have decided is the most important part of the game."

I don't believe I used the word "swallow." The point I'm making is that the ref should be more hesitant to blow the whistle late in a close game, not that he should send it to the locker room early. But you know this.

Doh! You got me! Good one.

Thanks.

No. You reward illegal play, whether inadvertent or not. You're ok with that.

No. I think "illegal" play is "rewarded" only if it has an impact on the game. In this case, and in our hypotheticals, it didn't.

The hypos with a borderline pass interference call, or with contact in the lane that may or may not be a foul, go to a slightly different point, which I put in that PM. The rules are not good at specifying how contact is too much. It's a judgment call. It's hard for even the best refs to get them right. So a ref should err on the side of letting the players decide the game by catching the ball or hitting the shot, rather than deciding the game for them by awarding a first down at the 1, or two free throws. Obviously, this, too, is a judgment call, and not an absolute. I don't think the DB gets to clock the WR, and I don't think you get to hammer the guy taking it down the lane.

* The penultimate word probably will be "suck."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
A friend of mine is related by marriage to a minor starlet. Last fall, she decided she was going to run a half marathon, and Nike sent her unsolicited 6 pairs of running shoes.

Since then, I've been kicking around sending out press releases for my various activities to see what kind of swag I can score.

Indeed! Scoring swag is a whole separate event. A righteous one indeed!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
It is creepy of you to imply that Spanky might or might not be willing to participate in an off-board non-platonic relationship with any other poster.

Careful with your tone. Not Bob is watching.

TM

[nononono]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
This reminds me of an etiquitte question recently asked of me by a male friend of mine. He is notoriously into a variety of kinky shit*, so not much should suprise him, yet this did.

First date (they always are). She's on top. Without asking or warning, she starts choking him. He thinks "ok, I'll try for a little while, I have friends who are into this and they have told me this is awesome." He lets her go for a little while then takes her hands away from his throat. He said it hurt like hell.

The "do you bring your kinks out on the first date" discussion ensued, and everyone agreed that it's probably a good idea to lay it all out there early on so six months into dating, you're not hit with a "I'm into the furries" fetish.

But, should a) bring out your knink on the first date/fuck? and b) isn't it polite to warn someone about the kink before engaging in the kink? Does it depend on the kink?

Frankly, if I were to let someone choke me (and I'd have to think a little about that before it were to happen) it'd have to be someone I trusted, and I don't think most first date/fucks are in that category.

She sounds like an idiot who is probably dangerous. And rude!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is my last post on this subject, unless I change my mind. You can have the last word, which probably will be "it."*

Let me start off with "Suck it."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. What I am proposing is an anarchic, rule-less world in which referees throw flags -- or not -- as their whims move them.

No. What you propose is a world where the rules on the books, especially the ones that specifically remove referee's discretion can be removed because the game is almost over at the referee's whim.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have a digital view of the referee's function. They either blow the whistle or they don't. I have an analog view. They call a loose game or a tight game. I say they should call it looser at the end of a close game, especially in the play-offs.

No. I have a consistent view of the referee's function. You have an inconsistent view.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You've watched too much sports to have missed that some refs call games tight and some let stuff go. Perhaps you disagree that they do so consciously, though.

I don't understand this. When they let stuff go per your theory of how a game should be called, they are wrong.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are pretending that refs don't exercise discretion, and I am not.

No. You are pretending that automatic calls are not automatic. And you whine when an automatic call is made at the end of the game because you don't want them to be automatic.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have the same attention to text that Spanky does. You didn't say he tripped. You said he ran into the returner.

Awesome. I can't wait til you start drawing comparisons to yourself and Spanky when you go back and read the post. I said he tripped and ran into the returner. Maybe you should have gone back to read it before posting this one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That didn't sound intentional. If he trips, I would agree that it's unintentional but it's also probably such a clear penalty that it should be called.

Interesting. And a blow to the head that is as unintentional as tripping and running into someone is somehow less clear to the referee who is standing right there?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Rules, like laws, have purposes that need not be expressly stated in the text. This is why -- analogously -- courts turn to something outside the text of the law when they have a hard question of interpretation.

Bullshit. In this context the rule would be equivalent to the law of statutory rape, where the judge has no choice but to apply a penalty no matter what the circumstances. You don't look outside the text of the law when the law is abundantly clear on its face.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But then in your world, there are no hard questions. Something is a penalty, or it isn't.

No. An automatic penalty should be called. That isn't a hard question. It is one with an automatic answer. Other fouls or penalties are open to discretion and interpretation. You are arguing that they should all be. The rule we are discussing specifically prohibits exactly what you're whining about.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. I'm not going to pretend that the ref's actions can be ignored, but that's just stupid. The outcome of the play was decided when the Colts scored the final touchdown. Fans watch games to see players play, not to see the refs.

Uh, no. The outcome of the play was the catch and the 15 yards tacked on to that catch.

And fans watch games to see players play within the stated rules of the game. Otherwise there would be no refs.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is like arguing with Spanky, since he loves to redefine words in ways that we English-speaking people would never use them. If the refs don't blow the whistle on Banta-Cain in that situation, no one who is not in danger of flunking ESL would say, "Gee, the refs rewarded the Patriots there." They might say, had they noticed, that the refs let the Pats off easy, or something like that. But they probably wouldn't noticed, because they would have been busy watching the Colts drive down the field for the winning TD. Which is as it should be.

You're whole argument revolves around whether the fans have noticed what the ref has noticed? If they're watching a running play and no camera catches a late hit, this changes the discussion of the call?

Call it whatever the fuck you want. You're the one who is trying to make it about a definition. If a team engages in activity that can and should be penalized (as the rules clearly state), and the ref intentionally doesn't call a rule that he is supposed to call, he is giving that team an advantage.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the league I play in, I expect that a whistle blown in the final 2:00 is blown with for a good reason. More so than earlier in the game.

In every league I've ever played in, if a ref called a foul one way the whole game and switched it up at the end, everyone found it annoying.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I may be drunk, but even so I can tell that what you say here is not a response to what I said. If you like, you can try again, though.

Actually, it was.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fans like me don't want to be parsing the rule book at the end of a play-off game. But, hey, maybe you enjoy it.

Ah. Fans like you = fans who don't know the rules? I don't think anyone cares what fans who don't know the rules want.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It has nothing to do with my argument, but only because the stupid point I was responding to didn't either.

Whatever. I'm not going to go back and connect the dots for you on this.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't believe I used the word "swallow." The point I'm making is that the ref should be more hesitant to blow the whistle late in a close game, not that he should send it to the locker room early. But you know this.

Hey! There's great use of a spankyism! "I didn't say exactly that. I used a synonym for that. Show me where I said that!"

The point you are making is that he should call the game differently, specifically, he shouldn't call certain fouls at the end of the game.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. I think "illegal" play is "rewarded" only if it has an impact on the game. In this case, and in our hypotheticals, it didn't.

The fact that an illegal play is not called has an impact on the game. If it didn't, you wouldn't be so upset about a penalty being called against your team that amounted to 15 yards being assessed.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The hypos with a borderline pass interference call, or with contact in the lane that may or may not be a foul, go to a slightly different point, which I put in that PM. The rules are not good at specifying how contact is too much. It's a judgment call. It's hard for even the best refs to get them right. So a ref should err on the side of letting the players decide the game by catching the ball or hitting the shot, rather than deciding the game for them by awarding a first down at the 1, or two free throws.

When the rule is discretionary, I almost agree with this. However, I don't see how calling a possible game-changing pass interference call in the 3rd quarter should be looked at any differently than one that happens at the end of a game. You haven't addressed this, because it can't be done.

But that is neither here nor there since we are talking about an automatic call. Again, if anyone involved in the game of football agreed with you, it wouldn't be an automatic call, would it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
* The penultimate word probably will be "suck."

Not in this case.

Suck it hard.

TM