Jump to content

PappyVanVinceYoung

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PappyVanVinceYoung

  1. 24 minutes ago, Irish Wrist Watch said:

    I'm sure you'll get a link, but in the meantime...

    Bases loaded. Low liner near the bag. Profar gets it on a short hop and goes to tag third. Runner on third apparently thought he caught it before the bounce and went back to third. He steps on the bag, but unfortunately for him, he couldn't keep his balance and fell backwards. Profar tags the bag from his knees, tags him, turns around. He's got a runner trapped between second and third. He throws to Elvis, I think, who instead of running down that guy, goes after the runner between first and second. He goes out of the baseline. Inning over.

    Not exactly. As you described, the bases were loaded. Profar fields the grounder right next to third base and steps on third for the force out, he then tags the runner who had been at third (who ran back to the base but then stepped off) for the secound out. He throws to Odor covering second for the force out, for out three. Odor then ran over to tag the runner between first and second, but he didn’t need to as the third out had already been made. 

    • Like 3
  2. 1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    I don't recall that but I do remember one of the writers mentioning in an interview that they didn't envision Petra being that attractive when they wrote that scene.  And they didn't realize how odd it seemed until after the movie was shot.  

    Here you go.

    http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060420

     

    Quote

    Question No. 1: After Mike McD's wet blanket girlfriend from hell moved out on him -- and thank God, you guys should have had her get run over by a cab on her way out -- and he was hanging out in his empty apartment watching the old Johnny Chan footage and feeling sorry for himself, the smoking-hot Russian chick (played by Famke Janssen, who should be much more famous than she is) comes over to collect some money, gives him a break on the figure, flirts with him, shoves her tongue down his throat ... and Mike McD basically gives her the Heisman.

     

     

    What the hell? Seriously, what the hell?

     

     

    First, what guy on the planet would turn down some revenge-against-my-ex sex with Famke Janssen? Second, what guy on the planet would turn down sex with Famke Janssen? (I asked this in a column four years ago, and I'm asking again now: How was Johnny Chan the only man in that room who ended up flopping a nut straight?) And third, the movie was rated "R," anyway ... you guys couldn't have thrown in a gratuitous sex scene for no real reason? Would that have killed you? Or was there some sort of underlying homo-erotic context with the Worm-Mike McD friendship that you were going after that I missed? Please explain yourselves. Part of me will never forgive either of you for this.

     

     

    Koppelman and Levien: We plead guilty. Biggest mistake of the film, probably of our entire career (please leave out the requisite "Walking Tall" joke, thank you) if only because we were on set and would've gotten to gawk at it for eight hours. As written, the character was a much more regular-looking girl. When John Dahl ended up casting Famke (the producers Ted Demme and Joel Stillerman knew her well), we were too green to see our opportunity. Now, today, believe us, Mike nails her, then after lots of gratuitous nudity, she casually mentions that Worm rang up the debt and Mike is off. It's not that we're monks, just idiots. If you want to know our logic, our admittedly misguided logic, here it is:

     

     

    A. Mike has already slept with her. You're a guy, so you understand what that means. The edge is off of it, just a little bit.

     

     

    B. Mike has just found out that he is, after driving the truck, walking the line, staying away from the tables, right back in a giant hole. Worm has put him in serious financial debt to people who know how to collect.

     

     

    C. For the plot of the film to work, we figured that the debt of money had to seem so important to Mike, so dangerous, so huge, that Mike had to deal with it right away. In hindsight, we were totally wrong. (By the way, neither Ansen nor Travers picked up [on] that one.)

     

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

    Jordan Peterson thinks that the existence of DNA was subconsciously revealed to ancient peoples because there exist old depictions of snakes having sex.

    This would be an example of a misrepresentation of his.

     

    Quote

    Q: Hi Dr. Peterson, earlier you showed a picture of Fuxi and Nuwa.

    Jordan Peterson (interrupts😞 Yeah! Right! (points to the person asking the question).

    Q: …and Osiris and in your Maps of Meaning lecture you also explain that cultures around the world have these twin snakes that

    Jordan Peterson (interrupts😞 Yeah, they are everywhere man!

    Q: … yeah and so you mentioned that you believed this is a representation of DNA

    Jordan Peterson (interrupts😞 You would bring that up too, Jesus what is it with you guys tonight? Hah. Well, yeah, no, I wouldn’t say that I believe that. I have my suspicions that that might be it, yeah because believe is too strong a word but those representations, are everywhere, and…Read this book…this is a good one. Um,..Now I have to remember the book. It is by an anthropologist who went down to the Amazon jungle and experimented intensively with ayahuasca. I think it is called The Cosmic Serpent. I think that is the name of the book. You could read that. There’s another one called Breaking Open The Head, which is also pretty damn interesting and there is something to those books. I mean The Cosmic Serpent kinda goes of on a bit of a tangent, I would say, although Breaking Open The Head is better. It seems to stay more constrained, but there is…We do not know the limits of our perception, especially under certain conditions and I think people have had intimations of DNA as the cosmic serpent forever. So…yeah…

    But that is way out on the frontiers of my knowledge, right…I’m guessing in a dream-like way when I am making statements like that.

    Q: … but you didn’t mention that you did believe in that they where sort of maybe some dreams and interpretations that might have emerged but I don’t see how we could have perceived DNA as it is.

    Jordan Peterson: Right!

    Q: [inaudible]

    Jordan Peterson: We didn’t objectively, but I am not so sure we didn’t subjectively. But I mean it is very strange that these double helices in so many places and are often utilized as healing symbols with the snake, so…anyways like I said that’s…what do you call that…I am uh…it is not hypothesizing…it is one thing worse than that..speculating! Those are speculations. I am operating at the edge of my understanding, but our perceptions are very mutable and they can…we can see things under some conditions that you would not think that anyone could see, so…okay, yep.

    The guy was essentially thinking out loud and said something kind of goofy. Unless he's claiming to be an expert on DNA, which I'm pretty sure he's not, I'm not really seeing how that should discredit him in the fields in which he is an expert, or at least claims to be.

  4. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

    Quote

    The left has an obvious and pressing need to unperson him; what he and the other members of the so-called “intellectual dark web” are offering is kryptonite to identity politics. There is an eagerness to attach reputation-destroying ideas to him, such as that he is a supporter of something called “enforced monogamy,” an anthropological concept referring to the social pressures that exist in certain cultures that serve to encourage marriage. He mentioned the term during a wide-ranging interview with a New York Times reporter, which led to the endlessly repeated falsehood that he believes that the government should be in the business of arranging marriages. There is also the inaccurate belief that he refuses to refer to transgender people by the gendered pronoun conforming to their identity. What he refuses to do is to abide by any laws that could require compelled speech.

     

    There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

    Good article on Jordan Peterson from The Atlantic. The guy does seem to be misrepresented often and the subject of ridiculous criticisms, including in this thread above.

    • Like 2
  5. 37 minutes ago, huge said:

    I want some MWND but doubtful I could tempt you with the things I have unopened. Also I saw your post on Facebook, one of my coworkers already bought from you.

    I have some interesting stuff but l don’t know what you would have interest in.

    Want me to start naming?

    I’ve got an opened MWND in addition to a couple unopened bottles. I can part with some samples or the whole opened bottle. What do you have?

    Was that my post on HWE?

     

  6. I’ve got the following bottles available for trade in Houston. Let me know what you’ve got. 

    Elmer T. Lee

    EH Taylor Single Barrel

    Rockhill Farms

    Old Weller Antique 107 1L

    1792 Full Proof Liquor Hut Store Pick

    Four Roses Single Barrel OBSF Debb’s Store Pick

    A Midwinter Night’s Dram

    Yippee Ki-Yay

    Rebel Yell 10

    Blanton’s Single Barrel

  7. Anybody in Houston want any of the below bottles? I’m trying to clear some space. I believe all of these are below retail cost.

     

    Makers Mark 1.75L $30

    Johnny Drum Private Select $35

    1792 High Rye $40

    Barrell Bourbon Cask Strength Bt 12 $70

    Noah’s Mill $50

    High West Double Rye 375ml $25

    Four Roses Small Batch $30

    Elijah Craig Small Batch $35

    Willett Pot Still $35

    George Dickel Barrel Select 2x $30 each

    Hirsch Reserve Small Batch $35

    Metze’s Select 2015 LE $70

    Yellowstone Select $35

    1835 Limited Reserve LE $50

    Yellow Rose Premium Port Barrel 2X $40 each

    Bone Bourbon 3X $25 each

    Rio Brazos Texas Bourbon 2X $40 each

    Ranger Creek .36 Texas Bourbon $25

    1920 Prohibition Bourbon $15

    Bourbon 30 It’s That Time $25

    Bourbon 30 It’s That Time Barrel Strength $30

    James Oliver Rye $30

    Straight Edge Bourbon 2X $35 each

    Slaughter House $35

    Rittenhouse Rye $40

    Evan Williams Single Barrel $35

    Buffalo Trace Bourbon Cream $15

    Buffalo Trace White Dog Mash #1 375ml $15

    Hudson Manhattan Rye 375ml $30

    Hudson Baby Bourbon 750ml $40

    Old Bardstown Sour Mash 2X $30 each

    1816 Chattanooga Single Barrel $30

    1816 Chattanooga Cask Strength $30

    Rebellion Bourbon LE 8yr $35

    Grand Thoroughbred Single Cask $30

    Backbone Uncut $40

    Old St. Pete Sweet Corn Whiskey $30

    Rowan’s Creek $30

    Jack Daniel’s Winterjack Cider 4X $10 each

    Murray Hill Club 3X $90 each

    Jos. Magnus Royal Seal Vodka 2X $20 each

    1920 Prohibition Vodka 2X $15 each

    Wheatley Vodka $20

    Midnight Moon Vodka $20

    Kirk and Sweeney Dominican Rum 12yr $30

    105 Simonton Rum $35

    Dogfish Barrel Honey Rum $30

    Flor de Cana 12yr Rum $20

    Vizkaya VXOP Cuban Formula Rum $35

    George Bowman Dark Rum 2X $30 each

    Bad Bitch Rum $35

  8. 1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    That basically sums it up. 

    Has anybody had the Eagle Rare 17? I've read disappointing reviews. 

    ER17 is very good for what it is. It’s a phenomenal lower proofed bourbon. I really like it, but it is not something I would pay big money for. 

  9. 28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Look at the indictment.  $849K of payments directed to clothing retailers.  A shitload of others for real estate purchases, cars, landscaping, remodeling, etc.  That's why I say that the clothing items are the only tangible product of his expenditure that can be brought into court to demo to the jury that these expenditures were highly personal in nature and not justifiable business expenses.  So yeah, I can see a bit of this.  It can certainly be overdone and I think the government may be making a mistake to call it evidence of his lavish lifestyle rather than, "look judge, these are frivolous items of clothing that he's trying to claim are legitimate business expenses, we can't show them the landscaping services and only photos of the real estate and cars, so the prejudicial effect here is outweighed by the probative value."

    I guess I just wish they brought out some of the big guns of evidence early in the trial. I wish we were seeing the bank statements, tax statements, wire transfer records, etc early on. I hear what you're saying though, and I think you are right. I tend to also think the judge is right to try to move the case along.

  10. 56 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

    It also may go to the tax fraud, i.e. he claimed to have earned x amount of money on his taxes, but then spent way more than that on ostrich coats.

    There's got to be a shit load of ostrich coats. Aren't we talking about something like $60 million in income?

  11. 14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    It would still be income to Manafort, though, and thus reportable on his taxes.  They're having to show that all these various foreign LLCs that he conducted business through were either paying him a salary (doubtful) or making distributions to him at his whim, beck and call, so that, effectively, every dollar they earned was income to him, or at least all the distributions.

    And I think the Gates defense is that Manafort relied on Gates to tally the various and sundry distributions and "took his word" for their accuracy.  They don't really need him to take the stand for that, and, if he does, he will surely deny that that was the case, at which point they get to point out that he's a snitch for the government and ought not be believed.

    I think he is talking about a hypothetical situation where the entity was not an LLC or similar pass through entity but instead a corporation.

  12. 5 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    This format is roughly 1000000000x better than the old one you're talking about. The time and head/head creates so much more fun, drama, and intensity. Just look at how much the crowd gets into it when it's down to the wire. 

    It seems so unfair though. Hasn’t been the case this year, but last year Bour got eliminated in the first round hitting 22 while Sano moved on hitting 11. That just seems absurd. 

    Also, the time limit penalizes players that hit high homeruns since it takes longer for them to land. What kind of sense does that make?

     

  13. I don’t like this format. I don’t like them doing head to head. Just have the top 4 move on. I also wish it was a 10 out limit instead of a time limit, with outs being any swing that is not a homerun. 

    • Fuck You 1
  14. Right, they need to increase the size of these releases and bring the price point down. Old Carter batch 1 only had 1,269 bottles, and batch 2 only had 1,289 bottles. There were 7,000+ bottles of Kentucky Owl batch 1 released.

    For now, I think I would buy Old Carter at $200 way before I'm buying Kentucky Owl batch 2 at $200.

    • Like 1
  15. 5 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    You’re right. There’s not a darned thing we can do about it. If it’s not good, I’m sure another distillery will raise up and take the Owl’s place. 

    Need them to start making more Old Carter Rye.

×
×
  • Create New...