More pie

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
He can go on and on about how he's faced these allegations before, there's nothing new, he's never had a positive test, etc. But don't try to tell me it's not true because you're a cancer survivor and are inherently good and couldn't possibly have cheated and then lied repeatedly for enormous sums of money.

TM

Don;t get me wrong. I agree with you. He doped. He is also hiding behind his St. Lance image. No question about it to me. He created a brand, part of the brand is cancer survivor, and they utilise that to the hilt.

Call me cynical, I just don't ever expect his line to change. Otoh, I don't have a huge issue with the doping in his sport because I think everyone does it. Doesn't mean he's not lying now though.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I'm a champ!

GWNCSC!*

TM

*great white north cock sucking champ

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
If I resort to that, why not just get a few choice snippets from the Fox Sports World Report. For that matter, I can give you a few choice snippets already.

- Cristiano Ronaldo totally took a dive. Should have been a yellow card.

- What a strike by Giggs! It looked like it would take the keeper's head off.

- Rooney did not seem to gather any rust on suspension. His second goal was sheer force of will.

- Another clean sheet for Van der Sar. Man U is looking strong this year.

Nice, but Ronaldo is suspended. "Rooney Rumbles Ref In Red Card Riot" has a nice ring to it, no?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Are the Champions League gaves on FSC or GolTV?

The FSC line up has kind of been sucking recently, except for the weekend. Last Wednesday night, instead of getting a replay of France-Italy, we get Germany-San Marino. 13-0 Germany, in case you missed it. Yes, 13. Here is a link to a link to FSC's line up. Tomorrow night? Women's college soccer!

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/920998

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Why not do it for free?

TM charges by the hour after his free initial case review.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
2. I think everyone has a geekitude for something and very few people's geekitude is satisfied by law. Fortunately for me, I do have a (hopefully well-hidden) geeky bent that gets excited about certain things about my job (I don't generally like the people too much, except the partner I currently work with, who is super-fantastic). But most people don't. And if absolutely no part of you gets excited about your job, then you should get out. If some little part of you does, then you can maybe find a way within the law to build on that, but if no part does, it's just never going to happen. imo, anyway.

I agree. I don't hate what I do. I don't love it and get out of bed excited every day for it, but I don't hate it. I manged to find a job that keeps me relatively interested, and there's enough variety that I don't get that bored. I also don't make as much as a lot of other lawyers because I got out of the billable hours gig a long time ago. But I generally can stroll in here at 9:30 or so and leave by 6ish. I haven't had to work a weekend in three years. And I have a geeky little area of law that also gets me excited. I'm one of the few people around here that understands it, which gives me a lot of job security.

I think about getting out. I think about writing something that gets published or made into a movie. I think about my empire of sex toy shops. I think about a wine bar/bookstore. I think about running away to New Mexico and doing god knows what. But right now, this works for me.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is this notice of an impending divorce? If she takes the kids, I will reopen my crush list.

If not, what sucked about her job? I like knowing what sucks about non-law jobs. ETA no need to answer this if she is also in law.

Non-law job, insane micro-managing boss, working nights and weekends for the kind of money Hank uses to pre-wipe his ass with, a "fluid" job description that took her further and further from the job she wanted to do when she went there, etc.

If she ditches me and takes the kids that means I can finally realize my dream of living in a van down by the river. Wanna come over?

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
She looks a bit like Nigel Tufnel.

Christopher Guest has a new movie out. It's starring himself, Parker Posey, Eugene Levy, Catharine O'Hara, (do I really have to say the rest? Ok, Fred Willard, Jennifer Coolidge, Jan Michael Huggins, etc. etc. etc.). It's about Hollywood awards. It's called "For Your Consideration." It sounds very Guffman -- cast and crew of an indie feature called "Home for Purim" get very excited when a couple of them are mentioned on some website as potential candidates for Oscar nominations.

Some of my family saw this at the Toronto Film Festival and said it was hilarious -- but not as hilarious as Borat.

[nononono]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Why are you assuming that a man has anything to do with bnb's situation?

(again, sorry everyone)

And for that matter, how does being with another successful person necessarily equate to ceding control?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which is to say that if Bledsoe's contract were guaranteed, he'd be making a lot less.

Here's where you lose me. He would not be making a lot less. He would make $15 mil this year if he's worth it. He would never make $15 mil in year five of a contract because only a lunatic would sign a huge long term contract under a salary cap for an NFL player (especially a quarterback).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And the teams would be paying more players -- those that can play and those who became injured and now can't. The payroll is just as large, but it's spread across more people.

Exactly.

TM

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by nononono
And for that matter, how does being with another successful person necessarily equate to ceding control?

No guaranteed contracts. They want to keep the money free for younger, more exciting players. You have to go for the signing bonus, but only a few superstars get that.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
And for that matter, how does being with another successful person necessarily equate to ceding control?

I think that the hypothetical had her resigning her job and staying at home after marrying said successful person.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I think that the hypothetical had her resigning her job and staying at home after marrying said successful person.

Nonetheless, NotBob, isn't there some saying that goes "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world"?

Something like that, right?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The team is not backing out of anything if the deal was that they could walk away.

And now we're back to where we started. I bet the players would want guaranteed contracts if they could get them, but it's not set up that way and I think the owners are delighted about it. Do you think the players would reject it if the owners suggested it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the team needs 50 people on the roster, and if it's going to have to pay another 10 who would not be paid if their contracts were not guaranteed, it's going to have a payroll of 60 instead of 50. There's no reason to think that teams are going to be willing to spend more money on their player payroll than they do now, so they're going to divide up the money under the cap 60 ways instead of 50 ways.

Possibly, yes. But if you don't think the players would want to even salaries out a bit in exchange for some sort of security, why aren't major league baseball and basketball players falling all over themselves to do away with their guaranteed contracts?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why not just hook?

She wants to make money.

TM