Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[lookingformarket]

Originally posted by bilmore
If someone develops a new model of GA that rafts, shoots, vedls, short swings, pops, rappels, wheelies, crashes and burns, or even just klitches, please call the rest of us. At that point, you are actually doing something with the short time that you have.

Actually, I was vedling my klitch the other day and my wife walked in on me. Boy did I crash and burn. She took a short swing and popped me. Twas all I could to keep from shooting all over her wheelies.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Second, Scott Ostler kicks sand in Thurgreed's arguments about why she shouldn't at least try - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...5/SP185193.DTL

I never said she shouldn't try. I just said I didn't like how she's doing it. I've said this over and over. You can argue until your face turns blue about sponsor's exemptions and how she's earned one because she's number one on the LPGA and it's about bringing attention to the woman's game, etc., etc. In MY opinion, I don't think she should use one to cross over. I think if she wants to test her skills against (almost) the best, she should start from the beginning and qualify.

As for the article, I don't see where it kicks sand on my arguments. Please point it out. If this is really his argument:

"The difference, of course, is that Sorenstam is no female Jackie Robinson. There is almost no chance that more than one or two women in the world would be competitive with even the lower-echelon pros on a regular basis.

Of course, that's what a lot of people said about black baseball players."

I think he hasn't said much. Arguing that there are no physical differences between male and female golfers is silly. And if there are a number of women who can play competitively on the tour, okay. Qualify. I have no problem with that.

And this just makes no sense:

"No pro golfer had a problem with the PGA fighting Casey Martin in court for months, even though Casey's courage inspired everyone else.

But with Annika, the men golfers have found a social cause worth shouting about and fighting for. Or at least bitching about."

Uh...I remember the Casey Martin issue. Lots of pro golfers didn't think an exception should be made for him and the issue was huge. How is that different from what's happening now again? I don't understand his argument. Is he saying the PGA fought to keep Casey out and the players had no problem with the PGA's stance and that's different from the current situation because they have a problem with the PGA's stance allowing Sorenstam to play? If so, that's silly. The two issues are about earning your way on the tour. Casey can't do it without a cart. Sorenstam might not be able to do it unless they make an exception for her. That seems consistent to me.

I agree with his other point about golfers' lack of initiative in changing club policies with regard to their treatment of minorities and women (and I've posted about why I think Augusta National should admit women as members). But I don't think this is the same issue.

TM

Originally posted by bilmore
Sadly, this has turned into the All TV, All The Time, network.

Apparently, GA's just work and veg by the tube.

Kafka-ette bought me a really cool computer-driven telescope for Christmas and we've been watching the stars.

Last week, Mercury passed in front of the sun and was visible (using a telescope, because it's diameter is 1/200th of the sun's) if you use specialized filters (I don't have those, yet). On June 20, Venus will pass through (and then not again for decades). I hope to have the filters by then.

Last night, although obscured by clouds and rain, the lunar eclipse turned the moon red (the earth blocked most of the light spectrum, and we could have seen the earth's shadow cross the moon).

w/r/t albinos, I would think they'd be more upset about Infiniti's characterization/visualization of lily-white bobbing than about one (two) of their own playing the bad guy(s).

Originally posted by lookingformarket
Actually, I was vedling my klitch the other day and my wife walked in on me. Boy did I crash and burn. She took a short swing and popped me. Twas all I could to keep from shooting all over her wheelies.

Man, are you going to piss Paigow off. You just posted more than a one-liner. Do that more than once or twice and she's gonna have to change her impression of you.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Several women of the board mentioned that they were "at-home" brazilian waxers. My question: what home product do you use? (And how do you reach? Lots of yoga?)

You reach carefully. It is sort-of like doing your own nails--you get better with practice. But I use a razor, not wax.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
OMG! Thurgreed IS Brian Murphy! It's like they're talking out of the same ass.

I notice you didn't say shit about his points to back up your claims of ass talking.

Originally posted by NotFromHere
I did like the statistics at the end where it shows that Vijay has made a ton more $$ this year with the same number of wins.

The same number of wins against a much better, stronger, more skilled field with bigger galleries and higher television and advertising revenue. But keep pouting and implying that that is somehow unfair.

TM

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
The same number of wins against a much better, stronger, more skilled field with bigger galleries and higher television and advertising revenue. But keep pouting and implying that that is somehow unfair.

TM

I don't really understand this really. It's not like the women's game is inherently less interesting to watch. Just because women hit it about 30 yards less, or somehow get less spin on the ball does not to me make it a less interesting television experience. The same goes for women's tennis. Indeed, the argument can be made there that the women's game is far more enjoyable to watch because the men just serve and volley and the point is over in about 3 seconds. I think viewers gravitate to the men simply because they are more accustomed to watching men play sports. A lot of men also fear that they might be labeled pansies by watching girls play sports.

I like watching womens' sports by and large. It's an added bonus that there are athletic babes on the field/court/course etc.

All this being said, I agree with you that the level of pay is purely market driven and equal pay should not be required. Fpr sure the LPGA tour players make more money than the Nike tour players.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Apparently, GA's just work and veg by the tube.

You should do the things I do.]

Until then, my god, you people are doomed.

STOP THE TUBE SHIT!

We get it. You live life to the fullest. All of us who enjoy things that are different from what you enjoy are inferior and lead dull lives.

Here's the question, though. Why do you care? Why do you think you can take such a paternal position? Why do you think what you enjoy is inherently better than what others enjoy?

Even better, why do you think people who post about t.v. and movies have no other interests? There is a big difference between (i) watching absolutely no t.v., watching no movies and listening to zero contemporary music and (ii) doing some amount of all of those things. I would imagine that a lot of people on this board have widely varied interests. But, bitching about us discussing the thing that is easily most common within the group is annoying.

Barely Beagle probably can't discuss with me my love of basketball and golf because she probably plays neither. And if there are only a few of us who enjoy those things, they may be discussed here and there on the board or, more likely on IM BECAUSE it's not a common interest that we can all easily discuss.

So why don't you stop being so damn snobby about it? We understand you lead a much fuller richer life than we can possibly imagine. Do you think after you say so we're all going to go out and buy a fucking snowmobile because you say you have one?

TM

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
You reach carefully. It is sort-of like doing your own nails--you get better with practice. But I use a razor, not wax.

First, what did we decide was a brazillian? Completely bare?

Second, how many of you really have brazillians?

Third, answer DS's question if you're a home-waxer, what do you use?

[evenodds]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
And if there are only a few of us who enjoy those things, they may be discussed here and there on the board or, more likely on IM BECAUSE it's not a common interest that we can all easily discuss.

Speaking of things only a few of us enjoy . . .

today, Cipo lost the sprint with a perfect lead-out, so it looks as if he will not equal Binda's record.

Even(it's all about the giro)Odds

[Pretty Little Flower]

I have read approximately sixteen million resumes in my legal career, and I am also much smarter and prettier than all of you, so I am supremely qualified to offer a little bit of advice. I should probably post this on some Law Students board, by I do not even know if there is one here, and it is not like I give a tenth of an ass of a fifth of a rat about any of those fuckers anyway. So, here is my advice: set yourself apart. The other day, I was reading a resume, and I look down to the "Personal Interests" section, and I see that this dude is into "travel." Whoooaaaa! Travel?!? Huh. So, like, this guy enjoys vacations! By some crazy freakin' coincidence, so do I! That is great interview fodder. "I couldn't help but notice that you enjoy travel. Fascinating. Tell me about all the trips you have ever taken." Here is another good one. "Reading." Unless you are the most voracious devourer of books I have ever met, and write book reviews on the side, putting on your resume that you like reading is the equivalent of writing "I am boring" in your interests section. Finally, I am conflicted about this one: "Spending time with family." I mean, O.K., I get it, you are a committed family member, and that is nice. But how many people who have families are not interested in spending time with them? How many of those people are willing to admit that in an interview, anyway? My point being, putting that on your resume tells me as much about you as if you put down "breathing." "Personal interests: I enjoy eating, breathing, and spending time with my family (with whom I live)." Thanks a lot. We're going to spend a fun half hour together.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by evenodds
Speaking of things only a few of us enjoy . . .

today, Cipo lost the sprint with a perfect lead-out, so it looks as if he will not equal Binda's record.

Even(it's all about the giro)Odds

He predicts he'll get his legs in a later stage, and commentators are suggesting that he can still pull it off if his team stops the individualistic crap and pulls together as a group.

I'm still sad about Kivilev.

PJ

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
So why don't you stop being so damn snobby about it?

I am troubled by this apparent anti-snobbery position. Do others agree with this point of view? I just kind of assumed that we all thought we were better than everyone else. Perhaps I am mistaken, and should find a different board.

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
We get it. You live life to the fullest. All of us who enjoy things that are different from what you enjoy are inferior and lead dull lives.

Here's the question, though. Why do you care? Why do you think you can take such a paternal position? Why do you think what you enjoy is inherently better than what others enjoy?

Even better, why do you think people who post about t.v. and movies have no other interests? There is a big difference between (i) watching absolutely no t.v., watching no movies and listening to zero contemporary music and (ii) doing some amount of all of those things. I would imagine that a lot of people on this board have widely varied interests. But, bitching about us discussing the thing that is easily most common within the group is annoying.

Barely Beagle probably can't discuss with me my love of basketball and golf because she probably plays neither. And if there are only a few of us who enjoy those things, they may be discussed here and there on the board or, more likely on IM BECAUSE it's not a common interest that we can all easily discuss.

So why don't you stop being so damn snobby about it? We understand you lead a much fuller richer life than we can possibly imagine. Do you think after you say so we're all going to go out and buy a fucking snowmobile because you say you have one?

Hey Thurgreed, please send me an IM so we can discuss our upcoming camping trip. By the way, I just bought this great new kayak we can bring along.

not7yS

[lookingformarket]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I have read approximately sixteen million resumes in my legal career, and I am also much smarter and prettier than all of you, so I am supremely qualified to offer a little bit of advice. I should probably post this on some Law Students board, by I do not even know if there is one here, and it is not like I give a tenth of an ass of a fifth of a rat about any of those fuckers anyway. So, here is my advice: set yourself apart. The other day, I was reading a resume, and I look down to the "Personal Interests" section, and I see that this dude is into "travel." Whoooaaaa! Travel?!? Huh. So, like, this guy enjoys vacations! By some crazy freakin' coincidence, so do I! That is great interview fodder. "I couldn't help but notice that you enjoy travel. Fascinating. Tell me about all the trips you have ever taken." Here is another good one. "Reading." Unless you are the most voracious devourer of books I have ever met, and write book reviews on the side, putting on your resume that you like reading is the equivalent of writing "I am boring" in your interests section. Finally, I am conflicted about this one: "Spending time with family." I mean, O.K., I get it, you are a committed family member, and that is nice. But how many people who have families are not interested in spending time with them? How many of those people are willing to admit that in an interview, anyway? My point being, putting that on your resume tells me as much about you as if you put down "breathing." "Personal interests: I enjoy eating, breathing, and spending time with my family (with whom I live)." Thanks a lot. We're going to spend a fun half hour together.

I've got a better idea. I don't care about your personal interests. Don't put them on the resume. You are going to be paid to sit in a box and churn out paper that I'll bill people for. Unless your interests are "Sitting under artificial light and billing", keep them to yourself or tell your friends* about them.









*Just a hint, I ain't one of them.