More pie

[nononono]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but it seemed like she was saying the hand that rocks the cradle rules whatever domain is in question, and if she was totally in charge and got whatever she wanted, why would she need the divorce?

[I know, lots of reasons -- it just seemed like given the topic and the fact that she didn't want to have husband around, saying that the stay-at-home parent controls more than the working-for-the-money parent seemed . . . silly.]

Fair enough. It didn't read quite so pointed to me, but you know, my brain's been addled today trying to make sense out of nonsense.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I know. We get our bonuses at the end of December, and they are, relatively speaking, larger than average (to make up for the below-average salary). I need to suck it up for four months, plan an exit and be out by early 2007.

Start planning now. The "big bonus at year-end" thing is how we keep you on the treadmill.

Please don't tell anyone I told you.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
YOu know what? I agree with fringe here. lots of people get divorced. some are stay at home moms that have been out of the work force a long time. Perhaps the JD helps cushion that but 8 years or so out is still 8 years.

Like I might have mentioned I took the train one night with this older attractive woman who told her tale of woe--she was selling makeup out of her home in Chappaqua since her CEO hubby dumped her for a younger woman. It HAPPENS. don't deny it. in fact it happens a lot.

I deny that it happens. Adamantly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
Okay, rewind. She quoted Wallace saying, "the hand that rocks the cradle," etc. The point of the poem was the power that motherhood holds. Okay? So let's stick with that instead of leaping onto some other way of trying to rip into other people's lives, shall we?

But to your (new) point, you're out of your fucking mind. Divorce does not change the role a mother plays in children's lives, number one. Number two, you're fucking naive and either completely obnoxious or completely obtuse to talk about divorce as necessarily "doing something" to the children. I'm not going to waste much more time (famous last words) explaining to you how these things can go down, except to say that you have no clue (I presume) about the ins and outs of another person's marriage and the reasons for opting to end it. Plenty of people, by the way, would say you're "doing something" to your children by not staying at home with them. You agree?

if some of you are doing this to win an argument, understand that any arguments with ppnyc are non-competition, exhibition only. they do not count towards your record.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Every player should want a guaranteed contract. Top players in baseball and basketball have a little more negotiating clout to get them, because individual players make more difference to a team's success and because careers are longer. NFL careers are so short that many more football contracts are signed when no one has a particularly good idea whether the player will be any good at all.

Okay. So then I don't even see why we're arguing. Owners want the system the way it is because they can get out of it at will. Players would prefer to have guaranteed contracts. I think they should get them. You do not. I think it's shitty that players get 100% of the negative media attention when they have outperformed their contract and want to be paid market value and teams are looked at as prudent and well-run when they shit all over a player they use up and toss aside.

What happens in college? If a player gets a scholarship and gets injured (or isn't as good as the coaches thought he would be), is he in danger of losing it?

TM

[nononono]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
MY husband is at home SHORT BUS

Wait - wasn't it you (illogically, as usual) going off on someone for making fun of the poor, retarded kid (when they were actually mocking you), just sometime in the last 24 hours or so? Nice work.

Anyhoo, I know that. That was my point. I know plenty of people who believe *the mother* should be at home. I already know you don't believe so.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I deny that it happens. Adamantly.

I wish that you had fervently denied it. Being fervent is so much hotter than being adamant.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yes, but it seemed like she was saying the hand that rocks the cradle rules whatever domain is in question, and if she was totally in charge and got whatever she wanted, why would she need the divorce?

[I know, lots of reasons -- it just seemed like given the topic and the fact that she didn't want to have husband around, saying that the stay-at-home parent controls more than the working-for-the-money parent seemed . . . silly.]

That's not at all what I was saying. I was merely trying to clarify that not in all cases does staying home with a child instantly equal ceding control. In fact, lots of couples choose to have one parent stay home and still manage to have a fairly equal partnership.

As I said earlier, my divorce had nothing to do with issues of control.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if some of you are doing this to win an argument, understand that any arguments with ppnyc are non-competition, exhibition only. they do not count towards your record.

Compete with a paralegal? Surely you jest!

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by nononono
Wait - wasn't it you (illogically, as usual) going off on someone for making fun of the poor, retarded kid (when they were actually mocking you), just sometime in the last 24 hours or so? Nice work.

Anyhoo, I know that. That was my point. I know plenty of people who believe *the mother* should be at home. I already know you don't believe so.

OK gloves off. Fuck you. why would a father's love be any less effective than the mother's YOU are fucked up and not a feminist not I.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by nononono
Compete with a paralegal? Surely you jest!

where are you from the deep south where like staff is beneath you? again....you are way off base.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
They also seem to want to take the risk. Why don't they buy a massively expensive insurance policy with the huge bonus, that pays if their career ends? Apparently they like the risk or are willing to take it.

Exactly. Most of these guys are flush with money and are willing to spend it on a huge insurance policy to play a game where their careers could end after the first fucking play. They also presumably never have other family members who live in squalor to take care of and probably aren't trying to come up with a long-term financial plan to provide for their families should their careers end for reasons other than injury. What a stupid fucking thing to say.

TM

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
...or wish to get in a car wreck on the way to work so that I don't have to go.

Speaking from experience on this matter, I think I'd rather just go to work.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
What happens in college? If a player gets a scholarship and gets injured (or isn't as good as the coaches thought he would be), is he in danger of losing it?

TM

Assuming the athlete is there for the school in the first place, yes. They can't yank it away, but they will apply all kinds of pressure to relenquish.

I agree with your point on the negative media attention on hold-outs. I think that is changing somewhat. I think people made a big deal out of it with TO because he was already a superstar before going to Philadelphia and his deal was only a year old.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
where are you from the deep south where like staff is beneath you? again....you are way off base.

You know, some of us from the south may take offense to your broad generalizations, especially given that they are completely off base in a) the applicability of the generalization and b) as a response to the post in question.