Fashion Board 1-08-04 through 02-03-04 - Page 46

Shape Shifter · 01-12-2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I think Bilmore would appreaciate a Reality Rundown. Whats on? Whats hot? Whats not? Whats wroth watching?

For example, is tonight the second or third Average Gentile and is it worth jumping in on at this late point? Does AI start tonight? Is there some new shit I should be watching?

I was up late last night pondering how I should respond to an email I got that just didn't make any sense. While up, I caught something on one of the cable channels where 16 people are building a house. The "winner" gets to live in the house. There's a key ceremony and it's hosted by Norm from Cheers. It's about as interesting as watching a house get built.

bilmore · 01-12-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Next time I'm in MN, you and I can play dodgeball* one-on-one if you like. And I can have it filmed for the FB.

TM

* As long as there's no rule against headhunting.

Are you NUTS?! Waste my time doing that in real life when I can see it played on TV?! By random strangers?! No way. We'll find a sports bar somewhere, and watch. (Gosh, I'm all a'quiver now . . .)

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 01-12-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Dodge is German, though, IIRC.

Only in name.

Shape Shifter · 01-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Considering that a few plays later Philly was facing a 4th and 26, I'd consider Green Bay's punt on 4th and 1 an excellent call.

That 4th & 26 conversion was overrated. Nothing but media hype.

01-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Of course. And when it replies, I will be unable to see the reply and will only see a pesky phantom message and will have leagl or e/o clean out my box* to get rid of said phantom message.

*not that one.

ltl

When I said, how many posts til he is shipped to the Land of FU, I meant, how many posts til TM announced that he is ignoring the guy? Your ignore list is not the Land of Fu. Just so we are clear.

That said, I am interested in knowing what sent this guy to my fellow spinstrix's ignore list. Was it the annoying parenting posts, or was it the post for the sake of posting?

my guess was three so I win.

notcasesensitive · 01-12-2004, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Right you are, Ken. The Monsters vs. the Commercial Characters is hilarious the first time you see it. Fifth time, not so much. The commentary stays pretty fresh, though.

I've watched it twice now. Really I could miss the whole first part of the show and just tune in for the top ten worst wipeouts part and I'd be happy.

I didn't realize that blow-up dolls could write e-mails.

Shape Shifter · 01-12-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I didn't realize that blow-up dolls could write e-mails.

And teach. So talented, so lovely in so many ways . . .

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 01-12-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is this? No wife to nix the mega-TV purchase? Are you coltrane's roommate too?

And coltrane, how does it feel to be dropped to the level of Snowball I?

Everyone is my roommate.

Better than Snowball II.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 01-12-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparklehorse
In my (limited) experience, it plays out more like your second example.

Yeah, usually. People are barbarians. In that case, the best I can offer is "my schedule is fairly eratic. Let me know when you have a specific time in mind."

Quote:

Just curious, do you apply the mailbox rule to dating? If A asks B out via email, is it okay for B to decline/dump A via email?

Yes, more or less. General rule is you must always respond to an invitation in at least as formal a style as it was issued, you may never respond in less formal a manner, but going more formal is OK (except: never issue a formal response to anything but a formal invitation, formal being third person wording with the lines centered on the page - typical wedding invitation/response format). So, in declining steps of formality: formal response for formal invitation, letter for letter, e-mail for e-mail (e-mail being more formal than a phone call, since it is quasi in writing, though no one realizes this, least of all clients who send bad things to distribution lists), phone call for phone call, in person response for in person invite. I haven't decided where an e-vite falls in all of this - it is in writing, I guess, but suffers greatly for being an impersonal mass-thing. I guess e-mail suffers from that, too, unless your list is all bccs. Hmm.

Very gracious people will respond to everything by letter - even phone invitations are met with "We got your message - Max and I will be delighted to come to dinner on the 8th. Look forward to seeing you then. Bunny" If you keep stationery and stamps around as a rule, the observant will notice that scrawling these few lines is actually much more time efficient than calling up and getting roped into a whole conversation about not much, and no less efficient than typing out an e-mail, and therefore is highly recommended for the busy lawyer. I wish I could say I do this, but I somehow cannot manage to keep stamps around.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 01-12-2004, 04:21 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tv/tv_frasier

Thank fucking god.

01-12-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Everyone is my roommate.

Better than Snowball II.

Sebby once did a snowball.

str8outavannuys · 01-12-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Considering that a few plays later Philly was facing a 4th and 26, I'd consider Green Bay's punt on 4th and 1 an excellent call.

It's not an excellent call. It's a terrible call, because had they gone for it, they only needed 2 feet to win the game. (Eagles were down to 1 time out), fresh set of downs after the 2 minute warning = game over). And if they miss, then the Eagles are only 20 yards closer to the tying field goal than they'd have otherwise been.

Here's my model:

Going for it scenario:
1) Packers make first down and get sure win 70% of the time. I think this is too low, but I'll use it. Actually I'd put the number closer to 80%.
2) 30% of the time, Eagles get ball back at 41 yard line with 1:50 left and 1 time-out, probably results in turning over on downs about 45% of that time, a tie game about 1/2 the time, and Eagles win in regulation 5% of the time (I'll give credit to Andy Reid and ignore the scenario dumb coaches often face where Eagles kick the FG too early, and GB comes back and wins in regulation).
3) Overtime: Let's posit that the Eagles have a 55% chance to win in OT (home field, momentum).

Packers' chance of victory in Going For It: 70%(immediate win) + 30%*45%=13.5%(Don't make first down, Eagles turn ball over on downs) + 30%*50%*45%=(Packers win in OT)=6.75%. Add up those scenarios, Packers win a little over 90% of the time by going for it.

Whereas punting away, let's say Eagles' chances of kicking the tying field goal are now reduced to 30% because of the 20 extra yards they need (20 yards they got in the very first play after the punt, mind you), and winning in regulation is reduced to 2%, and Eagles still have a 55% chance of winning in OT.

Packers chance of victory by Playing Chicken: 68%(win in regulation)+30%*45%=13.5% = 81.5% of Packers' winning.

So given these numbers, which I think are actually unfair against me, it's a 9% better decision to go for it on 4th and less-than-1.

01-12-2004, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tv/tv_frasier

Thank fucking god.

Why Thank Fucking GOd? Is the roomie still subjecting you to this show on the really big tv?

I havent seen the show in five years, but let me guess how it ends: the sexual tension between frasier and roz results in a hookup, hten a weird, "oops" period, but ultimately they admit their undying love and have a wedding. Eddy is the ring bearer. and daphne is poisoned (we hope).

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 01-12-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Sebby once did a snowball.

It's a good thing I had selectively deleted this fact from my memory. Past recollection refreshed.

evenodds · 01-12-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Going for it scenario:
1) Packers make first down and get sure win 70% of the time. I think this is too low, but I'll use it. Actually I'd put the number closer to 80%. . . . .

Packers' chance of victory in Going For It: 70%(immediate win) + 30%*45%=13.5%(Don't make first down, Eagles turn ball over on downs) + 30%*50%*45%=(Packers win in OT)=6.75%. Add up those scenarios, Packers win a little over 90% of the time by going for it.

This is why I will never gamble with you for money.