Merry Generic Winter Day-Off With No Religious Content

[Replaced_Texan]

My sister's best friend is getting married, and my sister volunteered the womenfolk in our family to host a wedding shower. A guest list instructing us who to invite* just arrived via e-mail, which led to this e-mail from our mom:

I thought the list would be all girls and chicken salad and napoleans.
Your father was not planning to attend. I guess showers have changed.

My poor dad. He's been sending condolence cards to the father of the bride since the engagement was announced. I fear they're both going to be in a corner, drinking heavily at this event.

*The bride has been planning this wedding since she was approximtely six or seven years old. I thought that seafoam green no longer existed, but I have since been proven wrong.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My sister's best friend is getting married, and my sister volunteered the womenfolk in our family to host a wedding shower. A guest list instructing us who to invite* just arrived via e-mail, which led to this e-mail from our mom: My poor dad. He's been sending condolence cards to the father of the bride since the engagement was announced. I fear they're both going to be in a corner, drinking heavily at this event.

*The bride has been planning this wedding since she was approximtely six or seven years old. I thought that seafoam green no longer existed, but I have since been proven wrong.

we went to a "bridesmaid dress party" where all the women got to wear the most outrageous thing they had been forced to wear. It was pretty amazing how extremely bad some people's taste is.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My sister's best friend is getting married, and my sister volunteered the womenfolk in our family to host a wedding shower. A guest list instructing us who to invite* just arrived via e-mail, which led to this e-mail from our mom: My poor dad. He's been sending condolence cards to the father of the bride since the engagement was announced. I fear they're both going to be in a corner, drinking heavily at this event.

*The bride has been planning this wedding since she was approximtely six or seven years old. I thought that seafoam green no longer existed, but I have since been proven wrong.

I was once in a wedding where the bridesmaids' dresses were this horrible mix between seafoam green and silver. We could not understand what the bride had been thinking...

until, that is, we walked into the church and learned our dresses matched the carpet.

I hated that bridesmaid's dress more than any other I've ever worn. It's only saving grace was that it was funny when we put it on the dog.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I don't think anyone declined to discuss normal sexual talk here because MR got labeled an ass-licker by paigow.

Anyone who has avoided talking about deviant sexual behavior isn't going to start posting about such behavior using some idiotic insert like [toe-sucking].

Whoever it was the other day (nonono?) who declined to give details about the non-vanilla sex she was having with her new boyfriend (or wasn't having with her ex-husband) is either (i) full of shit about the differences between the two types of sex, which means she couldn't post details about it because we'd all call her on it and/or (ii) just wanted some attention. Or maybe she didn't want to discuss it at all. But if that's the case, it surely has nothing to do with being labeled. And even if it did, what would a redacted description of such activity do for anyone here anyway?

As for your question, I think you try to protect people who are adults and can think for themselves. And because you want everyone to conform to this nicey nice standard so that they can avoid any pain or shame that comes along with whatever label we (read: paigow) could attach to a colorful post or conversation, you are trying to rob us of interesting posts -- making the board boring and homogenous.

Who the fuck wants to read through posts like, "Okay, since you asked...I really enjoy [toe-sucking] and last night, I was so sore because my boyfriend decided [toe-sucking] no longer did it for him, so he [toe-sucked] the shit out of me instead."

And as far as I can tell, you're the only one on the board who wants everyone to be nice to each other all the time anyway. I know it's part of your schtick, but what's the point?

TM

I miss paigow [sniff] and mr [sniff]

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Adder
Yeah, but you could try. How about showing a little effort once in awhile?

Originally posted by GWNC
I am aware of your busy schedule. But I am not every electrolyte-depleted, cock-hungry girl, you know.

You're right. I will try to make my cock more available for sucking.

TM

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You're right. I will try to make my cock more available for sucking.

TM

Never mind my prior post, Adder; I guess you may be in luck.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
And now for something very vanilla -- Gatorade. I just love it after a workout. It tastes like manna from heaven. But it is full of high-fructose corn syrup and probably very bad for me. Anyone know of a sports drink with no caffeine that has electrolytes like Gatorade and tastes yummy and has a better sweetener, like sugar, for example?

Are you looking for calories or hydration/electrolytes? If you can live without calories or minimal calories (eat something small with a mix of protient, healthy fats and carbs instead) I have some recs that are essnetially sugar free (some glucose-no fructose or sucrose).

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You're right. I will try to make my cock more available for sucking.

TM

You're not going to start walking around Grand Central with your dick hanging out again, are you? It won't just be a ticket this time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Except that the correct term is malum in se.

that may have been my sock. fd.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Gatorade doesn't have HFCS:

http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/gatorade/facts.asp

do they sponsour you?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Are you looking for calories or hydration/electrolytes? If you can live without calories or minimal calories (eat something small with a mix of protient, healthy fats and carbs instead) I have some recs that are essnetially sugar free (some glucose-no fructose or sucrose).

what are your recs? We can take this to PM if you would like (wink wink)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ironweed
You're not going to start walking around Grand Central with your dick hanging out again, are you? It won't just be a ticket this time.

1. 2.5!

2. That's illegal now? Man, New York has so much less character since Rudy cleaned the place up.

3. That really wasn't very nice, Ironweed. Tell Thurgreed that you're sorry that you made him cry.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
That's odd. My bottle in front of me right now says that the ingredients are:

Water
sucrose syrup
high fructose corn syrup (glucose-fructose syrup)
citric acid
blah blah blah

Wait. Did you tell them you were Canadian when you bought it?

[notcasesensitive]

Stuff that makes me happy: receipt of nordstrom.com package today (used up Christmas gift certificate buying two nice sweaters* and a new pair of Reef flip flops**)

Stuff that makes me totally not happy: spending hours and hours on the phone trying to dissect really confusing and poorly drafted contract provisions that make my head hurt

I would feel bad about my recent purchases in light of my need to get out of this grind (and save more money to do so) but (1) they were subsidized by gift money and (2) I decided to get some nice transitional clothes that work both for business casual (ugh) and for wearing with jeans when I get out of this racket. So in a way, they are an investment in my future. My non-lawyer future.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing. Carry on.




*I actually bought some designer (though not top collection) stuff, in hopes that the sweaters would not pill/hole as quickly as some of my more recent sweater purchases - I'm hoping Marc by Marc Jacobs and Michael by Michael Kors don't let me down on this one.

**Best flip flops ever! Wearing them is like walking on velvet (ok, maybe velveteen). I cannot emphasize enough how great I think Reef flip flops are. Rainbow lovers can suck it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I get the concept, but I take it with a grain of salt.

Bullshit. Your "grain of salt" completely eliminates the concept altogether.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Overlooked? No. Applied with a different burden of proof, perhaps.

Wow. It's fun arguing with lawyers. You said they should swallow their whistle and now you're telling me you meant they should apply rules with a different burden of proof. In either case, you want them to ignore certain calls.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes. That is what the rules say. A fact which impresses you more than me, apparently.

A fact which is significant since you think "automatic" necessarily means "at the ref's discretion," which brings us right back to the fact that you don't like the concept of automatic calls.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Probably best to send that list by PM. This time, send it to my Pretty Little Flower sock -- I'm pretty sure that Inbox isn't full right now.

. Ooh. Good one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That doesn't sound inadvertent at all.

Are you being intentionally stupid? If a player is running and trips and unintentionally runs into a punt returner who has called for a fair catch, what the fuck is it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But if there's contact between the player on the kicking team and the blocker, I'm saying ref ought to be more certain that the player wasn't blocked into the returner at the end of the game than he is at the start.

Completely changing the hypo to suit your argument. Have you met your friend Spanky?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because the rules serve different goals. One is to ensure an appropriate level of caution. Another is to establish a regime where the players decide the outcome rather than the referees. At the end of a play-off game, these factors weigh differently. And let's face it: What I'm saying applies with much more force to a conference championship than it does to the first game of the season, or, for that matter, to a pre-season game, even though the same rules ostensibly apply.

No. If the rules were actually supposed to serve different goals, they would be written that way. The League has determined that quarterbacks need to be protected from being hit in the head for the entire game. They have created a rule to try to address this concern. A player who violates that rule has participated in the deciding of the outcome of that game just as much as a player who pulls up short of creating that very same penalty. And a ref who intentionally doesn't call an automatic foul where a penalty will punish one team and reward another has done as much to decide the outcome of the game as a player.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Reward" in the sense of "punish less."

This could be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. "Reward" as in not apply the rules of the game for behavior that should result in a penalty.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've played plenty of sports, and watched plenty of sports, and I don't think that's the most infuriating thing.

Way to address the point by saying absolutely nothing. It may not be the most infuriating thing to you, but you are flat-out lying if you're telling me it isn't infuriating.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Moreover, the NFL is surely more interested in how the fans perceive the integrity and quality of the games than it is in how infuriated the players are, and having playoff games' outcomes affected by the refs' calls is a Bad Thing.

You're drunk. The NFL is concerned with the integrity of the game and the equal and fair application of its rules. If the rules are clear and one is called at the end of the game, they can say "the ref applied the rule as it is written."

Fans like you can whine about the spirit of the rule or how rules should be tossed at the end of the game all they want. But if they believed that a ref making a call the League has specifically designed to be automatic would interfere with the integrity and quality of the games, those rules wouldn't be automatic or there would be another section of rules to be applied at the end of games. And yes, that last sentence sounds as stupid as your argument.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In my experience, players adjust their play in response to the refs' calls, so (from the refs perspective) if you call a decent game there's less to call at the end.

This last statement sounds good, but has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. If the refs apply the rules accurately and effectively during the game, they have less to do at the end because people aren't making stupid fouls. Okay. So what? They could be calling the greatest game in the history of referees and still have to make a call at the end of the game that you think they shouldn't.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe that's more a basketball thing. I have reffed my share of basketball.

Good for you. I reffed and ran intramurals. I went to a number of refeering training sessions. And if I'd ever met a ref who admitted to swallowing his whistle in favor of more physical play at the end of a game, I'd have been shocked. Because that amounts to "I throw out the rules set forth for me in favor of my interpretation of what is important during what I have decided is the most important part of the game."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you put it this way, you convince me.

Actually, no. I was just kidding.

Doh! You got me! Good one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said before somewhere, what I am describing tends to reward physical play, especially in the play-offs. I'm OK with that.

. No. You reward illegal play, whether inadvertent or not. You're ok with that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, when you put my views in absurd way, they sound absurd. Have you met my friend Spanky?

Your views are absurd. And yes, I met your friend Spanky. After this conversation, I'm surprised you guys aren't living together.

TM