Jump to content

That Aud Smell

Members
  • Posts

    24,515
  • Joined

Posts posted by That Aud Smell

  1.  

     

    Serious question: why do you have faith in him? He hasn't shown any glimmer whatsoever of being able to keep up with the NHL game, let alone be an effective player.

     

    I agree it's oddly placed faith. OTOH, the reports on his fitness and attitude this summer are heartening.

  2. Ha - fair enough. I grew up on the tail end of the huge family demographic in an urban neighborhood. So none of the Duffy kids nor the Pozzuli kids were indentured farm workers. They did, however, fill a pew on Sundays - so there's that.

     

    But, point taken. It's also true to say that, in families of that size, the kids have a way of occupying and policing themselves.

  3. "we confirmed through law enforcement sources that Vanek was at the court building Monday because he is connected to the on-going gambling investigation centered on the Marina Restaurant and Bar. Three men, including restaurant co-owners Paul Borrelli and Joseph Ruff are facing 23 counts of illegal gambling."

     

    any relation?

     

    How the heck does TV wind up being a witness to a gambling ring?

     

    good question.

     

    the most benign possible version of events: he got roped into something by someone he thought was trustworthy (he wasn't), TV didn't pay much attention to it, then got out when stuff got weird.

     

    there are many other possible versions of events.

  4. There's no question that Pettine fielded a fun D that created gaudy numbers. But the Rex disciple didn't have all the answers. That was a boom or bust unit that got exposed by stout run games. Belichick figured that out PDQ - they ran it like 35 times in each of the two games last year and were right around a 4.5 YPC clip.

     

    I get the concern with another guy coming in and talking about how the front 4 is going to have to create the pressure, especially given how that went with Wannstedt (sic? (don't care)). But from what I heard about Wanny (and I'm honestly not sure where - it's in the nature of message board/AM radio nonsense), he was a guy who did not put in the hard work to understand how the game had changed and was changing - he was content to rely on schemes and systems that had brought him success in the past.

     

    The Giants succeed with a pressure from the front 4 scheme. I'm hoping Schwartz can do the same, if that's what he's planning to do.

  5. The Red Wings are widely and commonly held out as a model franchise.

     

    Check out the comment (and embedded message board hearsay) left on the Deadspin write-up on the Cleary signing (of which I was unaware, and was specifically unaware that it's sort of an odd deal): http://deadspin.com/...upid-1603671213

     

     

    As a once-a-lot-more-loyal-than-I-am-now Red Wings fan, it's sort of like what I imagine watching someone go senile is like. From the outside looking in, I can't fathom why on earth Ken Holland would make the moves that he has.

    And maybe it's only worth a grain of salt, but I also read this on a Red Wings fan forum earlier:

    "I called and canceled my half-season ticket plan yesterday over voice mail as well as gave my great displeasure, directly but professionally, over the mismanagement and lack of professionalism of this organization.

    I actually received a follow up this morning from the head of ticket services telling me, 'If you don't believe in the vision or management style of the best GM in sports, perhaps you might think about following another team.'"

  6. 11 -- I love the phrase and the thread title, but isn't the point of it kinda missed by this type of list? i.e. when GMTM buys out Ehrhoff with zero f---s given, isn't the point more like "Whoa -- he just tossed his best defenseman to the curb with zero f---s given! He's an animal!"?

     

    OTOH, if someone here just says he's not interested in the Kardashians (and no offense is intended to whomever did so) -- my reaction is more of a yawn -- i.e. no kidding -- i.e. of course you're not interested in the Kardashians, or non-fat peach yogurt, or the governor of Saskatchwan. But that doesn't make me say "Holy mackerel -- that guy really gives zero f---s about the Kardashians! He's dangerous!"

     

    I think "zero f---s given" should only be used when using it makes you sit up and take notice.

     

    Something like "PASabreFan doesn't care what nfreeman thinks about the Pegulas' daughter's twitter feed! Even though nfreeman could ban him or change his avatar anytime he wants! What a madman! Zero f---s given there!"

    This.

     

    Zero Funks Given is specific and fairly awesome. It requires an element of irony in order to apply to a situation. Like all such devices, if it gets thrown around and over-used, it loses its rhetorical force.

     

    The last time I actually saw someone conduct themselves such that I could have said -- "Ha. Man - zero ###### given right there." -- was on a camping trip that was dudes only -- a beer, bourbon, cards, grilled meat fest of sorts. We were in cabins. The running water was in a central "comfort" station, where there were some showers. As it happened, the only other group near us was a varied group of adults -- almost all women (somewhat younger than us actually). One of our crew went to take a shower in the middle of the afternoon (a cool October day), and someone pulled the old camp gag of taking all of his clothes and towels, and leaving him with nothing more than a hand towel to his name. And this dude was a big fella. And then we waited, tittering and fist bumping. It was perfect timing: Some of our lady neighbors were out front, setting up a badminton net or something. And then out strolls our hero: Hand towel draped jauntily around his neck (with him holding onto each side of it). He walked toward his cabin, in no particular hurry. Not amused, but not unamused either. He might have been quietly whistling. Zero ###### given.

     

    I had this conversation with probably the smartest all-around person I know last night who is a top MD. At least the Gluten part. Humans are pretty much allergic to any foreign substance. Salt and wheat have been the basis of survival for millennia. It's a fad.

    Smartest MD guy might be aware that the wheat that we eat now (thanks, Monsanto!) is very, very different from the wheat that our ancestors -- shoot, that our grandparents -- ate. My niece was a chronic GI mess until my brother and sister in law got her off gluten -- she's the picture of health now.

     

    TrueBluePhD, on 10 July 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

    I chuckled.

×
×
  • Create New...