You think that's awesome?
The first video on this page from Swedish Children's television, is truly <John Wayne voice> awesome.
A disembodied vulva seems more weird than a disembodied penis. I don't know why.
The lyrics, in unpoetic English:
Popi-dopp-pop snippedi snopp!
Here comes the snopp in a full gallop! If you haven't any pants then your snopp will dangle with your bare bum.
Snippe-dipp-dipp-snippedi-do!
The Snipp is just awesome, and you better believe it. Even on an old lady the snipp sits there so elegantly
So different with almost the same thing: you pee your pee through the snopp - or the snipp if you're a girl.
The snopp and the snipp - what a wonderful pair! The Snipp and the snopp singl along with our song. The Snopp and the Snipp are found on our bodies.
Snippe-dipp-dipp-snippedi-snopp!
Popi-dopp-op-snippedi-snopp
Hangs down and swings on a little body
Snippe-dipp-dipp-snippedi-do
The Snipp is just awesome! , Baby I Love You.
I should add at this point two things. The programme is aimed at children between 3 and 6, and one of the columnists writing abot it complained that it was heteronormative and transphobic.
toothless -- nothing strange about these creatures
Not nearly as awesome, but oddly strange, a Russell Wilson/ Richard Sherman PSA for Washington HealthPlanFinder.
(the picture in the OP is fantastic.)
Certainly should have been a catch. NFL needs tof change its rule.
They could redefine set of arms so that it includes the ground.
It seemed pretty clearly not a catch, under the NFL's definition of a catch.
Proposed new rule: If you catch the ball, that counts as a catch.
pretty clearly not a catch
His right elbow is on the ground before the ball hits the ground.
Maybe the receiver should just do a head stand and have the quarterback try to hit their foot.
If that's not a catch, then a very substantial portion of all catches I've seen were invalid.
||
Probably no longer news, and like everything on the internet a sure fake, but this "I'm marching but I'm conscious of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation" sign cheers me up for real.
|>
I wasn't watching, but if you're talking about the play that resulted in the Cowboys' loss, the ultimate call was certainly the right one.
14: That's not what matters under the rule.
I thought we were talking about the other game.
17 probably belongs on the thread about Jim's, um, regle de maises?
19: ok, then he took three steps and stretched for the end zone before the ball came out.
21: That sign would work for lots of things people tend to just not protest about because of the confusion and hypocrisy.
22: It didn't look to me like he had enough control early on to take that many steps while in control of the ball, but if he did, then sure, it was a bad call.
I was taking about a different play. In my defense, the play I was thinking of was from the game pictured in the OP.
I just want to observe that those cheering for the team owned by a clique of billionaire assholes over a team owned by THE PEOPLE should not call themselves liberals.
Also, fair call and fuck the Cowboys. "America's Team" my sweet hairy ass.
30: True enough, but I just want to shit on the Cowboys while they are down.
||
Report from suburbia: 20- and 30-something children who live in cities bringing their parents pot as Christmas gifts seems to be a thing. Also, in at least one scene of the first teenage mutant ninja turtle movie, Shredder seems to be an effective, supportive organization leader.
|>
As long as your parents were happy.
Rather, sad for the Cowboys' fans, I guess. The players are professionals and can presumably deal with the loss.
I don't want to overreact, but Cowboys fans should rot in hell for all eternity.
32, 37: I used to work with a guy who, when a hated team (often the Tennessee Volunteers) lost a game, would remark: "The only thing that would've been better is if they'd been cheated out of it."
39: EXCEPT that pic cuts off right before one would see an absolutely stony-faced Bill Murray. (Pout.)
38 is a level of spite I've never encountered, but may be adopting for future use.
If you had told my 12-year-old self that I would have pulled for the Cowboys in any situation, for even one play, I'd have assumed you were insane or didn't understand basic English. But I will admit that I liked this year's Dallas team despite the total jackwagons sitting up in the fancy seats, and would make time to watch Dez Bryant play no matter what uniform he had on.
That said, Green Bay-Seattle is going to be a match-up of the two most entertaining running backs in the NFL.
I agree with 43. And also upon further reviews, the NFL and all the "moral equivalent of the Federalist Society" armchair QBs have it wrong. Most of the stills etc. focus on the very end of the play instead of the *3* steps he takes (all this "in the air" stuff is errant idiocy and beside the point in this instance). I was in fact prompted to re-watch it more closely after hearing Bryant's own explanation that he was reaching for the goal line*. Ogged has it right up thread.
In conclusion, it was one of the whitest calls in NFL history.
*And yes, sure that is a self-interested explanation, but in looking to see if he really was doing that (debatable) it was pretty clear to me that he had caught the ball, stumbled forward a few steps and then lost it at the end when it hit the ground.
Pay attention to the early part of this replay.
I prefer my current state of complete ignorance.
I prefer knowing that the call pissed off my BIL. Je suis Gene Steratore.
I saw the part of the Seattle game where the blocked field goal happened. That was pretty cool. But I don't understand why they redid things so many times.
46:Sorry. Bob in Dallas who would have liked to watch a Superbowl says he never had possession and control. He was looking at the goal line and never tucked the ball in. I see the ball just kinda floating around in there, I don't see the receiver ever moving the ball intentionally.
Doesn't he need to maintain possession throughout, not only in the early portions of the play? I understand that moving forward can be a "football move" and therefore part of the game, but he pretty clearly doesn't maintain possession until the end of the play. I think the focusing on only the early part of the play misses the import of the rule, which is that he has to maintain possession throughout the play and therefore it's an incomplete. I'm not an NFL rules lawyer/guru however.
That's a formal football law argument, separate from the moral/just deserts argument of suck it Cowboys fans how did you get into that game to begin with?
I don't see the receiver ever moving the ball intentionally.
This is one of the places where the TV guys have misled. Read this guy.
Actual relevant part of the rule says control long enough to perform an act common to the game, but he does not actually have to perform. Actual rule (including Note 1 which is specifically on point):
Article 3
Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete
(by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
51: The question is whether the catch was complete before the ground stuff. The question is in fact, when he "secures control of the ball" in the sequence.
ESPN has *four* different channels doing the college championship game!
1) Regular.
2) Film room (Xs and Os)
3) Off the ball (line play and matchups)
4) Analysts discuss the game.
Wait, on a touchback in college you start at the 25? What is this bizarre contest? Why not just have a 55 yard line too.
Thiis game is unwarchable interminable breaks.
Thiis game is unwarchable interminable breaks.
54 -- Lord knows I should not get into this, but the interpretation of the guy linked in 53.1 seems pretty weak as a way to read those two rules together based on a quick glance (admittedly the Mike Pereira argument as he describes it is also a pretty unconvincing reading of the rules). The rules have a specific provision for what happens when the receiver falls to the ground in the act of making the pass complete, which requires continuous control, which Bryant did not have. If the ball touches the ground when you are in the process of doing things that would otherwise make the pass complete, then that rule (Art. 3 Item 1) applies. Here, even assuming that he does briefly have control of the ball in the very early part of the reception and moves forward, he then falls to the ground as part of the same
In other words, he's still quite clearly still in the midst of the "act of catching" the ball when he goes to the ground, even if (had he not gone to the ground) he would have a winning argument that the pass was complete because the forward steps were a "football move." Or, to be formalistic about it, he is still in the process of fulfilling Art. 3(a) and (c) when he goes down, thus clearly bringing Art.3 Item 1 (and, maybe Art. 3 Item 4) into play.
What the hell, tags and incomplete sentences. Let's try this all-important argument again:
54 -- Lord knows I should not get into this, but the interpretation of the guy linked in 53.1 seems pretty weak as a way to read those two rules together based on a quick glance (admittedly the Mike Pereira argument as he describes it is also a pretty unconvincing reading of the rules). The rules have a specific provision for what happens when the receiver falls to the ground in the act of making the pass complete, which requires continuous control, which Bryant did not have. If the ball touches the ground when you are in the process of doing things that would otherwise make the pass complete, then that rule (Art. 3 Item 1) applies. Here, even assuming that he does briefly have control of the ball in the very early part of the reception and moves forward, he then falls to the ground as part of the same set of actions that constitute the completion of the pass under Art.3(a) and (c). That means that Art. 3 Item 1 applies. And that means that it's an incomplete, because he didn't have continuous control of the ball. At a minimum, according to the rules, if you hit the ground as part of the actions that would entitle you to have a "complete" pass you need to have continuous control of the ball.
In other words, he's still quite clearly still in the midst of the "act of catching" the ball when he goes to the ground, even if (had he not gone to the ground) he would have a winning argument that the pass was complete because the forward steps were a "football move." Formalistically, he is still in the process of fulfilling Art. 3(a) and (c) when he goes down, thus clearly bringing Art.3 Item 1 (and, maybe Art. 3 Item 4) into play.
I think a lot of the NFL refs are moonlighting lawyers, in fact.
receiver falls to the ground in the act of making the pass complete
This is what's at issue. I don't think you can see it from the angle of the linked video, but if I remember correctly, the defender actually got a hand on the ball, and Bryant pulled it away. He had complete control of the ball and even in the linked video, he has control until he hits the ground. The question is whether he hits the ground as part of the catch, or as part of a football move after the catch. I think it's pretty clearly the latter. He takes three steps, as we've noted, and even putting that aside, think about what receivers do when they're falling while trying to hold on to the ball: they curl up and bring the ball to their chest or belly. Bryant turns, puts the ball in his dominant hand, and stretches to the endzone.
He clearly doesn't have control over the disposal of the ball. Not out.
I get that the play can be argued either way, but a rule that says that wasn't a catch is a bad rule. That aside, the amount of downright freakish receiving talent that has come into the NFL over the past two or three years (and especially this year) is ridiculous. Half the wideouts look like they could play small forward in the NBA.
The question is whether he hits the ground as part of the catch, or as part of a football move after the catch.
That's not quite how I read the rules. The "football move" is part of making the catch complete, so if you go to the ground as part of the "football move" (that would otherwise be necessary to make it a complete pass) you need to maintain control during both the initial taking of control and during the space necessary to create at least one "football move" before you hit the ground. Otherwise, you haven't really completed the football move, and it's not a complete pass. Here, Bryant is clearly trying to move forward, but at best he first (a) has some control of the ball but then (b) loses the ball while attempting to make the football move that would otherwise make it a complete pass, but not succeeding in doing so. The "football move" is attempted, but not successfully competed with control, and he has to maintain control throughout that process (or, at a minimum, regain control before hitting the ground, which he doesn't). That's what I was long-windedly trying to say above. This could be wrong, but it looks (to me, what do I know) like the best reading of the rules.
62 has it right. If the catch is made as the two feet come down, subsequent "going to ground" is irrelevant. And sure it is a judgment call on control, but the fact that he is stumbling forward during the initial catch is not part of "going to ground" if he catches the ball during that time.
The rules have a specific provision for what happens when the receiver falls to the ground in the act of making the pass complete, which requires continuous control, which Bryant did not have.
The actual clause is "he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground". The fact that you are stumbling when you catch and control the ball is not part of going to ground unless you do not control it. So all the fancy lawyering is irrelevant. I agree that if had not caught by the 2nd (really the 3rd) foot coming down, then the going to ground stuff comes into play. It is a simple judgment call.
Completed pass. Down by contact inside the 1.
66 is my understanding as well.
think about what receivers do when they're falling while trying to hold on to the ball: they curl up and bring the ball to their chest or belly.
Sure, he acts the way receivers act once they've caught the ball and turn up field. He thought he'd made a catch, but that's not what makes a catch. Had he curled up with the ball and just gone down, Dallas would have had a first down. But he got ahead of himself. Receivers turn up field too early and drop the ball all the time. What makes this unusual is that he came so close to completing the catch.
I haven't tried yet, but I'm assuming you can't watch the college game without cable? My past attempts to watch ESPN through their site have all led to them asking me to login through my tv/cable provider, which I don't have.
The good guys are up at the half, but I can't watch it either.
66: OK. Understand that. IN my read the actual football move* is completed with the 3rd "step", which is when pushes off with his left foot towards the End Zone even before he stretches out. at the very end.
*Per discussion, actually just long enough to have completed the "football move". I will argue that his actually making a football fulfills that.
I think the fancy rule in got in the way of people's eyes. Control of ball*, left foot, right foot, left foot, reach , ball hits ground.
*To me this is the debatable point.
That replay gif conveniently shows the angle that makes it hard to see him bobble the ball initially, and being a gif also makes it hard to slow the frames down. He takes three steps after the ball first touches his hand, but he doesn't have control at the first step, so it comes down to maybe two steps (still debatable) as he goes to the ground.
Fortunately, I don't care enough to go track down other replays or I'd waste a bunch of time on this. I wouldn't watch a Dallas - New England Super Bowl, so I'm biased, but I also agree with the sentiment above that if Dallas loses on a bad call, that's fine too, so it's possible I'd change my mind about the call if I looked further.
This really is exactly like real lawyering. What is the purpose of the "football move"'rule -- to make sure that there's sufficient real control of the ball to be firmly in control throughout somas to make a play, or to allow receivers to make spectacular catches followed by anything that's arguably like a "football move"? Presumably this interpretation changes over time. For me, I generally watch sports (particularly football) to shut down that part of my brain (man smash man! Man catch ball! Man smash!) not to indulge it, but there it is.
Between this and a play in the later game where the announcers started talking about "an act common to the game" I wondered if the NFL would eventually just be a series of mock trials.
Probably would lead to fewer concussions.
In its quest to survive, syphillis can now break the water system.
If anyone else is trying to watch the game without cable, it turns out that some of the ESPN3 stuff works with some ISPs. I can get the "Spidercam" feed, but not the regular tv with commentary.
77: False advertising there. Could've been any number of STIs.
You should have put that up for ttaM. He could have a nicer commute if he did the same as that guy.
That guy seems a little too folksy for me. But maybe the newspaper people dressed him up folksy for the photos.
This could be wrong, but it looks (to me, what do I know) like the best reading of the rules.
The best reading of the rules is one that calls that a catch because he, you know, caught the ball.
Bryant clearly knew where he was on the field, and he bobbled the ball because he was pushing toward the end zone - a football move by any sensible definition.
The problem is, the NFL has established that its definition of "football move" isn't sensible. Under very clear NFL precedent, that's not a catch.
The one that gets me is when the receiver falls out of bounds, a part of his body hits the ground, and then he loses control of the ball. (Or he does that same thing in the end zone.) Also not a catch. It's crazy.
Here's Calvin Johnson. (I'm not in a position to listen to the commentary, but the video speaks for itself.)
It kills me listening to a technical argument about something where I don't have the background to follow it or have a strong opinion. I really want to be arguing a side of this, but I honestly don't know what 'control', 'football move', or 'going to the ground' means in context.
"Going to the ground" would be a good term for making a cob house. Or death.
Building a cob house for 150 pounds seems very affordable. The trick for me is that it would cost considerably more to buy a piece of land that would be nice enough for me to want to visit a cob house on it. Scenery costs money.
Or a rural version of "going to the mattresses", which if I remember my genre fiction is what happens in an organized crime war.
This discussion reminds me why I have not gotten into American football previously. Too many rules, too much specialization. It's really a game for insect lawyers. Still fun to watch testosterone poisoned ectomorphs clobber the shit out of each other, though.
They're mesomorphs. The ectomorphs are the ones playing basketball.
85:
There's a dramatic point of departure: I don't like to argue even, or especially when I know the subject well. Now I don't have more than the former teenaged player's knowledge of football, so I'm only amazed at the technicality of the argument.
Apparently a disinclination to argue is a baffling trait in a lawyer, to some people at least.
89: Nah, it was obviously not a catch. Everyone else commenting on the thread has clearly never watched football before.
85: If you were a truly great attorney, not knowing anything wouldn't stop you.
Anyway, those aren't really technical terms -- except maybe "football move". That is a term similar to "art" -- defined as what is created by artists. A "football move" is a movement done by a football player while playing football.
93: And just for this day, my opinions on football are authoritative! Hurray!
Well, the one that's getting me is 'control'. From the clip, it looks as if he's got the ball pretty securely palmed in one hand all the way down to the ground (that is, the ball isn't sort of falling as he touches it, he's really holding onto it), but people seem to be agreeing that that isn't clear 'control'. Is the fact that hitting the ground makes him drop it proof that it's not control?
We should ask Janet Jackson. She'll know.
87: Maybe you could get a Kickstarter for the cow dung or something? My favorite line from the linked piece: "This includes the names of three cows - Marigold, Crystal and Mist - who provided dung which helped to make the walls"
I can have somebody send me the cow dung from Nebraska.
Also, the cob books I have don't mention dung in the mix. I think maybe the British just enjoy it.
97: Not sure, but I think the distinction here is that control is insufficient for a catch. He doesn't just have to get control; he has to maintain control.
85: I take that as LB supports me in spirit (but I could certainly use her rhetorical skills against the hegemonic sophistry of the other side).
On a naive watching of the clip, based on vague recollections of things I thought I knew about football (mostly that the play ends when the guy with the ball goes down), it looks like a catch to me, but I really do accept that there are technical considerations that I don't understand at all. (And, fundamentally, don't care about. It just looked like a good argument and it burns me not to have a strong commitment to one side or another.)
I was going to post a scurrilous insult-filled rebuttal, but lack the caringness to do so, but will just leave a few final assertions.
In any case, I'm completely on your side of the argument, and damn anyone who disagrees with us!
104: There are in fact specific technical considerations in the rules that would lead those using an intuitive understanding of "catch" astray.
To me - as a not American football person - that doesn't look like a catch to me - I guess using the cricket rule gestured to in 63, he clearly doesn't have sufficient control over the ball to determine its further disposal, given that it pops out of his hands as he's going down. No idea what the actual rules are.
1) Per fa in 73, I a did link a view somewhat favorable to my viewpoint, but merely to counter the crap most places are showing. For instance, have been looking for a good series of stills but instead ESPN has this bullshit showing none of the actual relevant action for determining whether the catch had actually been made. It's just more clever "going to ground" pron for white fan boys with their big symbol system manipulation brains.
2) So, here are several angles, about 1:00 in shows what fa is alluding to--the "bobble" is right before/as the first foot touches down. In my view for the clever rule monkeys position to hold up one little bit, the bobble must extend past when the first foot comes down. Debatable. (And from the rules: Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession)
3) On the side of those defending the ruling there is in fact the Calvin Johnson 2010 call. However, that was called incomplete on the field, while this was called complete. Switches the burden of proof significantly. Oh, and the ref making the call on the field in this game? A black guy.
4) The interpretation that yields the result involves expansive definitions of "going to ground" and "the act of catching a pass." And that seems to be what the league is using (albeit quite inconsistently if you look across the bulk of plays).
5) None of the league or media defenders I have found have correctly noted that rule does not require an actual "football move", but rather merely control for the time required to do so: "... maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."
Much less:
"Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."
6) So Blandino (VP of officiating) is out there with this BS: "In order for it to be an act common to the game, a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that: reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line," Blandino said. I will invoke d2's maxim about what kinds of arguments require falsehoods.
7) Reiterate that call on field form a ref in good position to see the whole play was complete.
I was going to respond, and then I remembered that in the morning we'll both be awake, but only one of us will have composed a seven-paragraph defense of the Dallas Cowboys the night before.
(please don't apply this standard reciprocally, however)
I'm a bit drunk and might have LOL'd at 110. I will admit to having a hard time judging this situation fairly due to an inherent tendency towards "fuck the fucking Cowboys".
Ah yes, I forgot that in Tim "Bob McCulloch" Owens' world which team you are on determines the nature of the justice that you are due.
But he reminds me that it was meant to be 8 paragraphs as here is Dean "Wormer" Blandino blathering on about consistency but implicitly acknowledging that this one is different (see my emphasis added) and trying to obscure that at the heart of it there was a judgment call.
"But I think it's about consistency and it's about, OK, if we make that a catch, then we have to look at all these other plays where receivers go to the ground, and where do we draw the line?" Blandino said. "Currently we have a line where it's control, both feet, and do something with it. If we make this a catch, where do we draw the line with a lot of other plays where it's clearly incomplete by rule and it will become even more inconsistent.
And Antonin Scalia was happy.
||
Just had a long dream about being a sadistic, small-town MN sheriff's deputy, and Democrat, who was imprisoning and torturing two thuggish Republican activists. Not sure how to classify that? Good? Bad? Weird?
Line from dream:
Other deputy: "And then you can eat Nutriloaf for three weeks!
Deputy Natilo: "How about three months?!
[This is probably all due to watching most of Supertroopers a couple of nights ago.]
||>
115: I had a dream that somebody tried to steal my cat. I woke up screaming. I perhaps need to recalibrate my attachment to the moggies.
I have a dream that one day on the green fields of the NFL, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to agree on the definition of a catch.
118: Was this the kind of beautiful dream had you watched football before, and were therefore familiar with what counted as a catch?
Speaking of football, it sounds like they are making a deal to give Penn State its wins back. Which I still maintain was the part of the punishment that bothered the fans most.
Yes, one where the VP of officiating was familiar with the actual wording of the rule (or at least publicly acknowledged what it actually said).
If the football team you cheer for has the most wins you get the really hot virgins in heaven.
122: Are the virgins also underage boys?
Some day when I really want to despair of the human race, I'm going to go to the wikipedia discussion page where they decided that Paterno's wins could be listed as they were when we was still coaching with the vacated wins indicated parenthetically instead of listing his record after the NCAA ruling with a parenthetical note about how the record reflects the vacated wins.
125: Yes, some people are driven to make these calls based not on the actual rules, but on how they personally feel.
120: oh, thank god. Our long, national nightmare is over.
||
Speaking of American sports that nobody else understands, is this kind of thing at all typical?
|>
So, Kurt Busch's ex-girlfriend and John Boehner's bartender. It's like the gumball rally, the black Muslim in the White House has given the go signal. We'll all be dead in a month.
"Hoyt told the officer he was Jesus Christ and he was going to kill Boehner because Boehner was mean to him at the country club and because Boehner is responsible for Ebola,"
128: Well, the ex-gf saying the athlete hit her, and athlete's friends claiming she's just a gold digger and/or out for revenge -- that's all very typical.
Athlete claiming ex-gf was a trained assassin -- that one I have not heard before.
Is there a known poison that turns you orange?
Self-tanning lotion and eating a ton of carrots.
It's all ocming together, John Boehner's position on the Terrorist Color Chart.
The tanning salon by my house never shovels the walk on the side of the building. It's been eight years of slogging through snow and ice to get to and from the bus. They only shovel the part where the customers might walk. I thought about trying to have them cited, but that would involve calling 911. Which is probably why the city makes you call 911 for almost any problem. If you have to call 911 to deal with a petty problem, you'll just ignore it so you don't feel like an ass.
Chicago has a "311" number for non-emergency calls, to keep 911 for emergencies.
What is it about NASCAR that's hard to understand?
Oh, we understand the sport OK. We have it here too. It's the cultural references that seem strange.
We have a 311 also, but they won't come cite people. Speaking of which, I should call 311 before the eroding storm drain eats somebody or a dog.
128: Your sports stars date fashionistas. Our sports stars date assassins. Advantage: America.
Isn't that what "WAGs" stands for? Wives/Assassin Girlfriends.
How many pro assassins are there in the world? I'm not talking "has once assassinated someone once for money" I'm talking "assassinations are my main job and primary income stream, I am for real a professional assassin." I'm going to say maybe 20 worldwide, it doesn't seem like a sustainable business model. Hours are probably good.
143: Perhaps this documentary has an associated website with raw data.
133: Yes, there is. I've always wondered about how much of that color is spray tanner (probably a lot), and how much of it is a result of Boehner's well known and very serious alcoholism.
143 would cross over with people who collect debts, especially debts associated with illegal business.
Oh, and of course with Democrat party fundraising-- remember that staffer whose "suicide" seemed awfully convenient?
143: Is there a distinction between assassin and hit man? I'd figure there have to be more hit men than that.
Anyway, the issue sounds like mostly one of marketing. I'm sure there's plenty of demand for high-quality assassination services, but it has to be very difficult getting your name out there as a reputable service provider.
I was thinking of an assassin as more highly trained than a hit man (a hit man is more like the regular guy in a gang that you assign the task of doing murders, but the murders needn't be particularly difficult). But not active military, maybe an ex military guy or intelligence operative who sometimes contracts with the government to take out a well guarded, high value target without leaving a trace. But could also "go rogue" and work for a nefarious international conglomerate or drug cartel. And would probably have more high end equipment than a hit man, including more tactical stuff and clothing and what have you. I admit this might not be the most analytically solid or realistic of distinctions.
150.last: Don't go soft on us, Ripper.
Ripper, have you ever considered getting really into league? It's pretty much just SMASH, and there's almost no lawyering involved. (People get sent to the judiciary but that's just cause they SMASHED too much.) Or maybe AFL, although that's a bit confusing.
So a hit man is a sort of folk assassin.
Probably most assassins need to pad out their hours with garden variety spying and intimidation.
I don't know. It's probably basically the same as dentistry for obvious reasons. And it used to be that all dentists would do root canals, but now they all refer their roof canals to a very limited number of specialists.
Assassin requires a degree (preferably a masters), hitman is "or equivalent experience."
(a hit man is more like the regular guy in a gang that you assign the task of doing murders, but the murders needn't be particularly difficult)
No, that's not a hit man. A hit man is just an assassin that gets paid by the job. (As opposed to being, e.g., a salaried government professional, or an unpaid assassin acting for political reasons, etc.).
Come to think of it, they must have the most interesting thesis defenses.
There are some very high-end, professional hit men. It does not mean untrained assassin.
urple's got long experience in the food chemistry industry-- he'd tell you more, but he can't.
This is one of the more entertaining thread convergences in a while.
I thought the difference was just whether or not the target was some kind of leader.
162: Prompted by the same link, though (128 here, OP there).
I propose that an assassin should be capable of murders that aren't recognized as such. This is mostly so I can mention the recent exhumation of a Renaissance prelate who turns out to have been poisoned. (Suspected in his day, but they couldn't rule out accident.)
I feel like 163 is the key difference. But I'd change "leader" to "hard to kill" (there's overlap there but it's not perfect). Are you just some guy who as part of your regular work for the mob, or even on a contractor/piecework basis, does things like kill some poor alcoholic plumber who let his sports gambling get out of hand? Then you are a hit man, not an assassin. Are you taking out the heavily-guarded kingpin of a drug cartel with a sniper rifle? Assassin. Some assassins might serve as hit men for some of their work, so they're not mutually exclusive categories. But what I want to know is how many people earn most of their money from being for-real assassins, not just hit men or mob enforcers or similarly second-tier gigs.
An assassin is an artisinal hit man.
I throw the weight of my experience behind Ripper's conjecture.
A hit man would probably do a lot of violent enforcement in addition to his murderous duties. I don't think you'd hire an assassin to break knees.
Slate says there is no one in the world that meets T"R"O's strict definition of an assassin. That alone should tell you that T"R"O's definition is wrong.
So, Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog still just a hit man? Borderline case.
12 Things Successful Assassins Do Differently.
163, 166: Yeah, the difference depends on the "value" of the target. Slobs behind on the vig aren't assassinated, they just get murdered.
There was an early Ian Rankin novel - Witch Hunt, maybe? - about a female professional assassin. Start of the book lays out the previous few years work - a Japanese executive, a politician somewhere, etc, and when I was thinking about it, I was like I dunno, I don't think there's really that much freelance work going in the field.
An assassin is an artisinal hit man stoned on hashish. Per JRoth's 168, I'd think "hit man" would be an occupation better suited to, say, a tweaker or a dry drunk.
I'd think "hit man" would be an occupation better suited to, say, a tweaker or a dry drunk.
Though perhaps not Ben Kinglsey.
The reasoning in the article in 169 seems off. It seems sound to conclude that there are few for-real assassins in the world (indeed, that's why I guessed 20 worldwide). But it's unreasonable to guess "zero" -- surely a few of the Russian contract killers they mention, for example, are able to gin up enough income from high value targets to make a good living. As for the estimate that the average job pays only $100 obviously that suffers (a) from being about hit men, not assassins, if you are spending $100 on a target obviously that target is super easy to get to and kill, ergo you are a hit man and no assassin; (b) suffers from the bias of those who get caught (obviously, if you cheap out on your assassin or hit man, for example by being stupid enough to hire a "first time killer" for $100, both you and the hit man are much more likely to get caught).
As for the estimate that the average job pays only $100 obviously that suffers (a) from being about hit men, not assassins, if you are spending $100 on a target obviously that target is super easy to get to and kill, ergo you are a hit man and no assassin
It's so thrilling to witness such lofty heights of logical reasoning being scaled by human thought.
1. Why is the assassin conversation in this thread (which I haven't read)?
2. Why did hokey pokey get FOUR incident reports today, and it sounds like he attacked some kids pretty viciously?
surely there's a lot of "$100 and consideration in hand", as I remember real estate transactions phrasing it.
Because chris y pwned your OP in 128.
Post timestamps aren't visible to the masses. I probably pwned him but you all were too busy to see.
2. Why did hokey pokey get FOUR incident reports today, and it sounds like he attacked some kids pretty viciously?
Because he's a born hit man. Or maybe assassin, if he can class up his act a bit.
Sure, maybe. If it took over 3 hours for the first person to comment.
Everything I know about assassins I learned from watching The Assassination Bureau. I think it covers all the basics, plus Diana Rigg in her knickers at the bottom of a laundry chute.
I am now in possession of a 3-person tent that is lighter than my sleeping bag. So, I think I need to buy a sleeping bag.
There are some very high-end, professional hit men. It does not mean untrained assassin.
This is goign to end up being like that time the would-be "courtesan" showed up, isn't it? (Cue teo saying that he liked her/that thread.)
Isn't ajay an assassin? I thought he did the Wellstone job.
The first new post of the day is just up.
How many assassinations happen in a given year? Probably not that many. And some of those would be amateur jobs.
194: But many would appear to be accidents or from natural causes. Ducky and those people in Vegas can't do every death.
An anti-bullying organization in my hometown is raising money with a dodge ball tournament. I can't decide if they're being ironic or not.
179.2 Too many carbs in his diet.