The New And Improved Fashion Board

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This is also bullshit because the circle of people you actually interact with is no bigger in New York than most anywhere else in the world. It's all bullshit.

TM

Maybe she is arguing that New Yorkers are a more sickly lot than people from the rest of the country. The average New Yorker may have some sort of constitutional deficiency that makes him or her more susceptible to cancer and other horrible diseases. Or maybe she is just saying that New Yorkers are much bigger whiners than, say, the stoic non-complainers of the Heartland. PPNYC, can you clarify?

[nononono]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This is also bullshit because the circle of people you actually interact with is no bigger in New York than most anywhere else in the world. It's all bullshit.

TM

I think the only possible difference might be that NYers (office workers, anyway) may tend to be more "sharing" of personal details (and opinions, and everything else). Where I am now, someone could lose a leg in the morning, have it bandaged by noon and be in the office with nothing to say about it at 2 (before they leave at 4, which is already rush hour, but that's a different issue altogether).

But none of that improves the original point.

eta, dammit plf

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by nononono
Where I am now, someone could lose a leg in the morning, have it bandaged by noon and be in the office with nothing to say about it at 2 (before they leave at 4, which is already rush hour, but that's a different issue altogether).

Showing up at 2? That's ridiculous. It's only a flesh wound.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
I could never be a nurse for that very reason. And the money for RN's is good/great.

I bet the inability to keep a thought focused for more than 2 seconds might also make it hard for you to be in a medical position.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Maybe she is arguing that New Yorkers are a more sickly lot than people from the rest of the country. The average New Yorker may have some sort of constitutional deficiency that makes him or her more susceptible to cancer and other horrible diseases. Or maybe she is just saying that New Yorkers are much bigger whiners than, say, the stoic non-complainers of the Heartland. PPNYC, can you clarify?

First off, I have no statistical data, but I know in places like Long Island there is a high incidence of breast cancer. It seems, again no data to be prevelant in areas of NJ and the tri state area. When I worked in Boston, there seemed to be less people with cancer, and less talk of relatives of cancer than while in NY, but that could be a) that they chose not to share and b) we're talking about a city with 9 million.

NYers are very needy and lonely although they operate under a facade of toughness. They trap you in the bathroom and the coffee kitchen and let it pour out. I have that face that makes it seem like I am sympathetic and that wears on me when I'm trying to kick out work and deal with my own shit.

I think if someone has a terminal illness it is of course, horrible and I am sympathetic but I do not think at work I should have to hear the intimate details about it from casual co workers I am not close with.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by patentparanyc

Also, re: bnb: Why does everything have to be sexual? maybe he had a huge schlong--hung like a horse, but for some reason he was just a twisted, damaged, dysfunctional small little man.

1. Aren't you ignoring me?

2. Why on earth would you think that my imagining that he had a tiny penis be at all sexual? There's a well-known theory that certain men (Napolean, for example) have a complex about their small member (or other physical shortcoming), and because of this complex (aptly named the Napolean Complex), sometimes act inappropriately towards others.

3. The point of my story was not that he had a small penis. It was that thinking that he had a small penis made me feel better. I would not have felt better had I imagined him to be a well-hung, albeit a "twisted, damaged, dysfunctional small little man".

4. If you would like me to stop thinking you're an ass, and to stop calling you an ass, you're going to have to stop mentioning my name in your posts. Period. That'd at least be a good start.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
First off, I have no statistical data, but I know in places like Long Island there is a high incidence of breast cancer. It seems, again no data to be prevelant in areas of NJ and the tri state area. When I worked in Boston, there seemed to be less people with cancer, and less talk of relatives of cancer than while in NY, but that could be a) that they chose not to share and b) we're talking about a city with 9 million.

NYers are very needy and lonely although they operate under a facade of toughness. They trap you in the bathroom and the coffee kitchen and let it pour out. I have that face that makes it seem like I am sympathetic and that wears on me when I'm trying to kick out work and deal with my own shit.

I think if someone has a terminal illness it is of course, horrible and I am sympathetic but I do not think at work I should have to hear the intimate details about it from casual co workers I am not close with.

I hear ya. Isn't it weird when people share intimate details with people to whom they are not close? Issues, dude.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Maybe she is arguing that New Yorkers are a more sickly lot than people from the rest of the country. The average New Yorker may have some sort of constitutional deficiency that makes him or her more susceptible to cancer and other horrible diseases. Or maybe she is just saying that New Yorkers are much bigger whiners than, say, the stoic non-complainers of the Heartland. PPNYC, can you clarify?

I think she means that since so many young people relocate to NY, and maybe it is also hard to maintain relationships there, so when most people need sympathy they don't have any family as a support base. they are thus forced to look to co-workers to cry to.

That may be okay for most NYs, but if you recall PPNYC has a loving family at home.

edit: i posted the above before reading her explanation. impressive?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I hated them as a kid, but that's b/c my mom didn't cook them the way Hank has suggested. The wife cooks them that way. A world of difference.

If before you roast or fry brussels sprouts, you chop off the bottoms and boil for 4 minutes in a boiling mixture of water, 1/2 cup or so of white distilled vinegar and a tablespoon of sugar, it takes the bitterness out and makes the sprouts taste delicious. Then you season them and roast them or do the Hank thing. Ancient family secret.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
I have that face that makes it seem like I am sympathetic and that wears on me when I'm trying to kick out work and deal with my own shit.

If you could see my face, you would realize I do not have that face.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
Sigh. you are back and already tiresome. And the money would be better if paras go to law school your point it? It does not detract from the fact that the money for RN's is good.

And hedge fund and private equity guys make more than most attys. point? none.

Perhaps The Flower can explain it for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
If before you roast or fry brussels sprouts, you chop off the bottoms and boil for 4 minutes in a boiling mixture of water, 1/2 cup or so of white distilled vinegar and a tablespoon of sugar, it takes the bitterness out and makes the sprouts taste delicious. Then you season them and roast them or do the Hank thing. Ancient family secret.

brussel sprout tops? do you give the stubs to a shelter?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

I don't know why this photo was included in your post, but the girls are cute, so thanks.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) NESN came well before YES. It was created in the mid-80s by the Red Sox and Bruins. It was some sort of partnership originally, but they now own the entire thing. YES came along in, what, 2000?

See my last post on this.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) Yesterday your point was the Red Sox are as spendthrift as the Yankees. Now you're saying you just question the economics of the move. Which is it? The Yankees are never going to get away from the mantel of being the highest spending team, because they'll probably be a high revenue team for the forseeable future. The Red Sox will always be playing catch-up, and will, at least in the near term, always be a distant second (or maybe third) in spending to the Yankees. How does this change anything? Even if the Sox are paying $90M for the guy over the next four years, they're still $40-50M back in payroll. As for the Sox bid, while it was way above the others, at least the Mets were within 10-12M of it, which suggests other see some value too, which probably is essentially represents the discount they can get because he's not a free agent.

1. I don't even know what your first sentence means.

And I'm not saying it's just a question of economics, dumbass. I'm trying to understand why the Red Sox would spend $90 million dollars on this guy. It doesn't make sense to me for a number of reasons, all of which I've laid out.

2. Clearly the guy has overseas marketing value. Clearly there is value in that you don't have to compete with other teams to sign him and his salary won't be driven up. Is there $51 million in value? I don't think so. But since you're so convinced, you tell me why he brings the Sox $51 million (above the cost of his salary) of value to the team.

3. How does this change anything? Like I said, it should change Boston fans' attitudes about Yankee spending and you should shut the fuck up about it from now on because you're spending $30 million dollars a year on one player. If you're going to argue that it's a good business decision, maybe you will understand why it's been a good business decision for the Yankees all these years. If you're going to argue that it's a good baseball decision, maybe you will understand why it's been a good baseball decision for the Yankees all these years. Either way, spending this kind of money should mean you shut the fuck up about spending from here on out. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That said, I'm skeptical on the economics as well, which is why I suspect a mixed motive here. If they can sign him at a reasonable, not Boras-inflated price, they will. If the numbers get too rich, well, the Sox don't get him but neither do the Yankees. A consolation prize to be sure, but a consolation prize of consequence.

And again, I say that the amount of money they're throwing around combined with a perception that they never intended to sign him will do them harm. And I don't feel like repeating my argument on this, so scroll back if you need a detailed response.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
If before you roast or fry brussels sprouts, you chop off the bottoms and boil for 4 minutes in a boiling mixture of water, 1/2 cup or so of white distilled vinegar and a tablespoon of sugar, it takes the bitterness out and makes the sprouts taste delicious. Then you season them and roast them or do the Hank thing. Ancient family secret.

Nooooooo. I like the bitterness.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Nooooooo. I like the bitterness.

See? Now this is a board motto I could get behind.