Re: Literally Awesome

1

Another one for the Apu File.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
2

You think that's awesome?
The first video on this page from Swedish Children's television, is truly <John Wayne voice> awesome.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
3

A disembodied vulva seems more weird than a disembodied penis. I don't know why.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
4

Patriarchy. All the way down.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
5

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.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
6

The Snipp being a vagina dentata?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
7

toothless -- nothing strange about these creatures


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
8

Not nearly as awesome, but oddly strange, a Russell Wilson/ Richard Sherman PSA for Washington HealthPlanFinder.

(the picture in the OP is fantastic.)


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
9

Allow me to say: that was a catch.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
10

Certainly should have been a catch. NFL needs tof change its rule.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
11

They could redefine set of arms so that it includes the ground.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
12

It seemed pretty clearly not a catch, under the NFL's definition of a catch.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
13

Proposed new rule: If you catch the ball, that counts as a catch.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
14

pretty clearly not a catch

His right elbow is on the ground before the ball hits the ground.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
15

Maybe the receiver should just do a head stand and have the quarterback try to hit their foot.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
16

If that's not a catch, then a very substantial portion of all catches I've seen were invalid.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
17

||
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.
|>


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
18

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.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
19

14: That's not what matters under the rule.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
20

I thought we were talking about the other game.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
21

17 probably belongs on the thread about Jim's, um, regle de maises?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
22

19: ok, then he took three steps and stretched for the end zone before the ball came out.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
23

Whatevs. Football sucks.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
24

I mean, go Ducks! Go Hawks!


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
25

21: That sign would work for lots of things people tend to just not protest about because of the confusion and hypocrisy.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
26

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
27

I was taking about a different play. In my defense, the play I was thinking of was from the game pictured in the OP.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
28

Damn it, FA, that's no fun.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
29

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.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
30

THE PEOPLE=Wisconsin dot commers


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
31

30: True enough, but I just want to shit on the Cowboys while they are down.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
32

Whether or not the call was correct under the rules of professional football, it went against the Cowboys, so it is just in a cosmic sense.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
33

||

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.

|>


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
34

As long as your parents were happy.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-11-15 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
35

I actually felt sad for the Cowboys.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
36

Rather, sad for the Cowboys' fans, I guess. The players are professionals and can presumably deal with the loss.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
37

I don't want to overreact, but Cowboys fans should rot in hell for all eternity.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
38

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."


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
39


||
This is sensible and fair.
|>


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 10:06 AM
horizontal rule
40

39: EXCEPT that pic cuts off right before one would see an absolutely stony-faced Bill Murray. (Pout.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
41

38 is a level of spite I've never encountered, but may be adopting for future use.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
42

Here's a bigger pic.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
43

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
44

That said, Green Bay-Seattle is going to be a match-up of the two most entertaining running backs in the NFL.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
45

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
46

Pay attention to the early part of this replay.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
47

I prefer my current state of complete ignorance.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 5:22 PM
horizontal rule
48

I prefer knowing that the call pissed off my BIL. Je suis Gene Steratore.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 5:46 PM
horizontal rule
49

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
50

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.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
51

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
52

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?


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:39 PM
horizontal rule
53

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
54

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
55

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
56

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.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
57

Thiis game is unwarchable interminable breaks.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
58

Thiis game is unwarchable interminable breaks.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
59

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
60

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:10 PM
horizontal rule
61

I think a lot of the NFL refs are moonlighting lawyers, in fact.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:18 PM
horizontal rule
62

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.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
63

He clearly doesn't have control over the disposal of the ball. Not out.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
64

Out?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:50 PM
horizontal rule
65

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.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 7:52 PM
horizontal rule
66

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
67

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
68

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
69

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
70

The good guys are up at the half, but I can't watch it either.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:24 PM
horizontal rule
71

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:25 PM
horizontal rule
72

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:28 PM
horizontal rule
73

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:30 PM
horizontal rule
74

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.


Posted by: T"R"O | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
75

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
76

Probably would lead to fewer concussions.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:01 PM
horizontal rule
77

In its quest to survive, syphillis can now break the water system.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
78

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.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
79

77: False advertising there. Could've been any number of STIs.


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
80

Gonorrhea doesn't have the brains.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-12-15 9:30 PM
horizontal rule
81

||

This one's for Moby,

|>


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 5:02 AM
horizontal rule
82

You should have put that up for ttaM. He could have a nicer commute if he did the same as that guy.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
83

That guy seems a little too folksy for me. But maybe the newspaper people dressed him up folksy for the photos.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 6:36 AM
horizontal rule
84

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.)


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:03 AM
horizontal rule
85

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
86

"Going to the ground" would be a good term for making a cob house. Or death.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:26 AM
horizontal rule
87

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
88

Or a rural version of "going to the mattresses", which if I remember my genre fiction is what happens in an organized crime war.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:28 AM
horizontal rule
89

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.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
90

They're mesomorphs. The ectomorphs are the ones playing basketball.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
91

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.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
92

89: Nah, it was obviously not a catch. Everyone else commenting on the thread has clearly never watched football before.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
93

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.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
94

Mesomorphs?


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
95

94->89


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
96

93: And just for this day, my opinions on football are authoritative! Hurray!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
97

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?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
98

We should ask Janet Jackson. She'll know.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
99

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"


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
100

I can have somebody send me the cow dung from Nebraska.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
101

Also, the cob books I have don't mention dung in the mix. I think maybe the British just enjoy it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
102

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.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
103

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).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:14 PM
horizontal rule
104

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.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
105

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
106

In any case, I'm completely on your side of the argument, and damn anyone who disagrees with us!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
107

104: There are in fact specific technical considerations in the rules that would lead those using an intuitive understanding of "catch" astray.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
108

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.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
109

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
110

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 11:55 PM
horizontal rule
111

(please don't apply this standard reciprocally, however)


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-13-15 11:56 PM
horizontal rule
112

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".


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 12:31 AM
horizontal rule
113

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:28 AM
horizontal rule
114

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:37 AM
horizontal rule
115

||
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.]
||>


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:11 AM
horizontal rule
116

115: It's prophecy.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:23 AM
horizontal rule
117

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.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:42 AM
horizontal rule
118

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
119

118: Was this the kind of beautiful dream had you watched football before, and were therefore familiar with what counted as a catch?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
120

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
121

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).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
122

If the football team you cheer for has the most wins you get the really hot virgins in heaven.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
123

122: Are the virgins also underage boys?


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
124

Good one Too soon.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
125

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
126

125: Yes, some people are driven to make these calls based not on the actual rules, but on how they personally feel.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:24 AM
horizontal rule
127

120: oh, thank god. Our long, national nightmare is over.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
128

||

Speaking of American sports that nobody else understands, is this kind of thing at all typical?

|>


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
129

No. Usually just residual racism.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:37 AM
horizontal rule
130

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.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
131

The Boehner thing:

"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,"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:47 AM
horizontal rule
132

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.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 7:49 AM
horizontal rule
133

Is there a known poison that turns you orange?


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:24 AM
horizontal rule
134

Self-tanning lotion and eating a ton of carrots.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
135

It's all ocming together, John Boehner's position on the Terrorist Color Chart.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
136

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
137

Chicago has a "311" number for non-emergency calls, to keep 911 for emergencies.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
138

What is it about NASCAR that's hard to understand?


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
139

Oh, we understand the sport OK. We have it here too. It's the cultural references that seem strange.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
140

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
141

128: Your sports stars date fashionistas. Our sports stars date assassins. Advantage: America.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
142

Isn't that what "WAGs" stands for? Wives/Assassin Girlfriends.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
143

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
144

How many pro assassins are there in the world?

More of a sideline than a vocation, right? I mean Seal Team Six and their equivalents at other major military powers are all trained assassins, but that's just part of their portfolio.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
145

143: Perhaps this documentary has an associated website with raw data.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
146

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.


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
147

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?


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
148

143: Is there a distinction between assassin and hit man? I'd figure there have to be more hit men than that.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
149

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.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
150

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
151

150.last: Don't go soft on us, Ripper.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
152

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.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
153

So a hit man is a sort of folk assassin.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
154

Probably most assassins need to pad out their hours with garden variety spying and intimidation.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:24 PM
horizontal rule
155

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
156

Assassin requires a degree (preferably a masters), hitman is "or equivalent experience."


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
157

(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.).


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
158

Come to think of it, they must have the most interesting thesis defenses.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
159

There are some very high-end, professional hit men. It does not mean untrained assassin.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
160

159: Do go on.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
161

urple's got long experience in the food chemistry industry-- he'd tell you more, but he can't.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
162

This is one of the more entertaining thread convergences in a while.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
163

I thought the difference was just whether or not the target was some kind of leader.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
164

162: Prompted by the same link, though (128 here, OP there).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
165

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.)


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
166

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.


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:08 PM
horizontal rule
167

An assassin is an artisinal hit man.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
168

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.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:15 PM
horizontal rule
169

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.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
170

So, Forest Whitaker in Ghost Dog still just a hit man? Borderline case.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
171

12 Things Successful Assassins Do Differently.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
172

163, 166: Yeah, the difference depends on the "value" of the target. Slobs behind on the vig aren't assassinated, they just get murdered.


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
173

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.


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
174

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.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
175

I'd think "hit man" would be an occupation better suited to, say, a tweaker or a dry drunk.

Though perhaps not Ben Kinglsey.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
176

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).


Posted by: Tim "Ripper" Owens | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
177

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.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
178

276: Are You TREADSTONE?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:48 PM
horizontal rule
179

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?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
180

surely there's a lot of "$100 and consideration in hand", as I remember real estate transactions phrasing it.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
181

And then hokey found $400.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
182

Because chris y pwned your OP in 128.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
183

Post timestamps aren't visible to the masses. I probably pwned him but you all were too busy to see.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
184

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.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
185

Sure, maybe. If it took over 3 hours for the first person to comment.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
186

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.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
187

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
188

|| |>


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
189

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.)


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
190

Or maybe I'll sew my own.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
191

Isn't ajay an assassin? I thought he did the Wellstone job.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:22 PM
horizontal rule
192

185: I'm so ignored.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
193

The first new post of the day is just up.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
194

How many assassinations happen in a given year? Probably not that many. And some of those would be amateur jobs.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
195

194: But many would appear to be accidents or from natural causes. Ducky and those people in Vegas can't do every death.


Posted by: biohazard | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
196

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.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:07 PM
horizontal rule
197

179.2 Too many carbs in his diet.


Posted by: David the Unfogged Commenter | Link to this comment | 01-14-15 6:46 PM
horizontal rule