Fashion Board 2-3-04 to 3-5-04

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know this is piggish but a girl with a leg that strong i wouldn't mess with. She could give you a monster kick in the nuts.

You heard the coach: she couldn't kick the ball between the uprights.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So what he really was saying was not just that she sucks, but that of course she was going to get raped because the players hated her for being a sucky chick yet still being on the team.

What he was really saying was "I want to be played by Tim Matheson when they make the inevitable Lifetime movie about this."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You heard the coach: she couldn't kick the ball between the uprights.

yeah, but he never said the ball didn't fly far enough- she makes contact.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Does division 1 level college football actually have difficulty selling tickets?

Football is only a money-making venture for a small percentage of even Division I schools. It's been a while since I've looked at the statistics, but I recall a number less than 1/3 to 1/4 of schools have profitable programs.

As for not selling tickets, you don't have to go far: neither of your two local Division I schools exactly racks up the sell-outs, especially since the demise of the SWC (which eliminates the visits from UT and TAMU, and more importantly, their alumni).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Football is only a money-making venture for a small percentage of even Division I schools. It's been a while since I've looked at the statistics, but I recall a number less than 1/3 to 1/4 of schools have profitable programs.

As for not selling tickets, you don't have to go far: neither of your two local Division I schools exactly racks up the sell-outs, especially since the demise of the SWC (which eliminates the visits from UT and TAMU, and more importantly, their alumni).

Actually, you just reminded me. The rumor going around historical preservation types around here is that Rice is thinking about tearing down Rice Stadium and building something smaller. Apparently all of that unused real estate on the second tier is demoralizing to the players.

[Jack Manfred]

Envious of Seb D's Chappellistic signature, I've decided to append a new one.

As more people on the board probably watch Chappelle's show than read Dear Prudie, I offer this link.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So what he really was saying was not just that she sucks, but that of course she was going to get raped because the players hated her for being a sucky chick yet still being on the team.

That any of this is shocking is, well, shocking.

This entire program has been riddled with scandal ever since Sal Aunese [the starting QB] knocked up Coach McCartney's daughter.

Burn the damn thing down for 10 years and drain the bad blood.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
Dear Prudie, I offer this link.

a few letters down:

Dear Prudie,
I have a difficult family situation with which I need some help. I have been married for five months now, but we've been together for five years. His father has always been rather "complimentary" toward me, but over the past year his behavior and comments have gotten worse. He is divorced from my mother-in-law but has since remarried. He makes comments about my body and tells me that I'm beautiful (not in the nice, father-in-law sort of way either). At a family gathering where I was wearing a slightly low-cut evening gown, he tried to take a picture down my dress. I am not the only one he does this to, either. He comments about my brother-in-law's girlfriend, and he even made comments to my mother at my wedding shower. To make matters worse, his behavior humiliates my husband and my sisters-in-law. How do I deal with this? So far all I have done is start to wear turtlenecks whenever I am around him. Is it OK to say something?

—Disgusted Daughter-in-Law

Dear Dis,
Turtlenecks will not solve your problem. This is a long shot, but you say that only in the last year has the inappropriate attention heated up. It is often a tip-off (for men and women) that there has been a change in brain function when sexual banter or acting out is noticeably intensified. Because your father-in-law is married, you and your husband might suggest to his wife that he have a physical exam. Should his behavior prove not to be tied to an illness, Prudie gives you permission to avoid spending time with him. If the whole family feels as you do, this should not be a problem. Good luck.

—Prudie, proactively

You guys got that ;

It is often a tip-off (for men and women) that there has been a change in brain function when sexual banter or acting out is noticeably intensified. Because your father-in-law is married, you and your husband might suggest to his wife that he have a physical exam.

An increase in talking dirty means you might be seriously ill. I'm new here so I can't say with certainty who has increased, but some of your might want to recommend tests to any poster who has.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I'm getting bored with this, but can't help it. I understand what you are saying and it is probably true. But I don't see how that helps Barnett. My point was that it is demonstrable that she wasn't totally and completely "awful". If he relies on the fact that using her was a publicity stunt in Colorado/New mexico, it makes football programs look not credible. I don't think undermining the credibility of football programs helps him. It maybe helps him that he proves she is awful, but it makes him look like an idiot. Why didn't he cut her right away?

Well, he didn't sign her and probably didn't want to be the asshole who cut the girl.

And none of that undermines the credibility of his or any other program. Either you win or you don't. Miami could have a 3rd string female quarterback and it would only be an issue if they didn't win football games. Similarly, if she played for a shitty program, it wouldn't matter either.

Whatever. I don't want to argue about it. The guy is an idiot. No matter how you look at his comments, they're stupid. I just wanted to point out that I don't think he intended to imply that his response to the rape allegation was, "Well, she sucks, so it doesn't matter." His recent response was just as bad, though and was something like, "I don't believe her and will support my player." Dumb.

TM

[dtb]

This is almost certainly not the right place to post the following question, but I'll take my chances:

Does anybody know what "stapled financing" is?

(I'm too shy to ask at a meeting where everyone else seems to know what it means...)

[SlaveNoMore]

dtb
This is almost certainly not the right place to post the following question, but I'll take my chances:

Does anybody know what "stapled financing" is?

(I'm too shy to ask at a meeting where everyone else seems to know what it means...)

Does the deal have anything to do with a stapled or paperclip REIT? Otherwise, no idea.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Jack Manfred
Envious of Seb D's Chappellistic signature, I've decided to append a new one.

As more people on the board probably watch Chappelle's show than read Dear Prudie, I offer this link.

Prudie's most recent column deals with the pathelogical liar issue:

Dearest Prudie,
Any advice you could send my way concerning the following would be much appreciated. I have of late been in the company of a pathological liar who is soon to be family and is very much adored by my significant other, as they grew up together. At first I found the constant tales entertaining, as they were quite harmless. In fact, it never bothered me until he started making up criminal stories about family members. There's quite a difference between saying, "I was just at so-and-so's house," and, "I was just at so-and-so's house, and he was making threats and roughing up his girlfriend." (You'll have to take my word for it; I know for a fact this is 100 percent false.) My significant other refuses to confront said lying family member, saying he's always been like this and nothing you say will make him stop—"it's just who he is." I say he's crossed a line and needs to be called on it. Or do I just grit my teeth and tune him out?

—Pathologically Piqued

Dear Path,
This kind of stuff is murder to listen to, and Prudie well understands your wish to let this person know you believe not a word of his reports. The problem is that people who are actually pathological liars do not respond to anyone "calling them on it." They do not call it "pathological" for nothing. While you may think your significant other is being passive, he is actually being realistic. Talking to an inveterate prevaricator (OK, habitual liar) with a "cure" in mind is like telling a kleptomaniac to simply cut it out. The ray of hope in all this is that most people probably know that this chap is not to be believed. The next time you hear some invented piece of information, rather than trying to set him straight, you might casually respond that what he has just said sounds a little off to you. In short, you can't "fix" him, my dear, so tune him out.

—Prudie, pragmatically

It is like she knows in advance what topics we will be discussing here. Freaky. Or coincidental.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Prudie's most recent column deals with the pathelogical liar issue:



It is like she knows in advance what topics we will be discussing here. Freaky. Or coincidental.

Like a free ride, when you already paid.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
It is like she knows in advance what topics we will be discussing here. Freaky. Or coincidental.

Sometimes coincidences are freaky.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by dtb
This is almost certainly not the right place to post the following question, but I'll take my chances:

Does anybody know what "stapled financing" is?

(I'm too shy to ask at a meeting where everyone else seems to know what it means...)

It can have different meanings in different contexts. The one I am most familiar with is where a company issues debt along with warrants and/or preferred equity. The two instruments are "stapled" in that one cannot trade or hold the debt without also holding the equity, or vice versa.