Lurker > yazzy14

...Aroldis Chapman...
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Awesome stuff KCF, as always.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Kenri posted...

1) The physical act of speaking does not make something personal, and it certainly doesn't make it MORE personal than other, equally legitimate methods of communication.

Yes it is. <_<
Someone calling you and saying "Happy Birthday" is more personal than getting a message on your facebook page saying "Happy Birthday"


Kenri posted...

1.a) There are people who can't speak for whatever medical or language-knowledge reason; this does not affect their ability to communicate in a way that is personal.

In this case it is understood that the person cannot communicate verbally so any communication is more personal. Getting a text message from a friend who can't speak is more personal than getting a text message from a friend that can. Or using facetime to talk to a friend who can't speak via sign language would be more personal.


Kenri posted...

2) Speaking "immediately" does not make something more personal. Handwritten letters are highly romanticized as a very personal method of communication and nevertheless are about as not-immediate as you can get without using smoke signals or carrier pigeons.

Speaking immediately does not make it more personal. But it can make planning much quicker. If you are planning on going out with a friend but need to set a date and place a phone call can get it done in 10 minutes as opposed to an hour of texting back and forth.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

We need more robot people who can't talk to one another using their own voice.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Yeah a library is the only one that didn't fit in your list, but I wasn't going to bring that up. I'd argue it is fine to take a call at a library, you can, in fact, talk while in a library. <_<
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

sent him an email saying he was interested and asking if he should call.

I especially like this part...send an email to ask if he should call. lol
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Kenri posted...

if only there was a form of communication that cuts out the middle man!

So you are calling the middle man the voicemail? Isn't that the same as a text message just in voice form?
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Kenri posted...

If they're in a meeting, or a doctor's office, or a library, or a restaurant, or any one of a million places where taking a call is rude but they can still send messages silently after their phone alerts them that someone sent them a message? I'm not defending it in this specific instance because you need to go through the channels that your boss actually uses, but I'll absolutely defend it in a broader sense as way more convenient 99% of the time.

I'd argue that checking your phone and sending off messages in any of those situations is more rude than just having your phone off and letting someone leave you a message.

If I'm checking my phone during a meeting and replying then I'm not paying attention at my meeting which is going to be way worse for me at work.

<_<
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

tazzyboyishere posted...

Doesn't help that our pitching has been a mess.

It has been crazy, for about 2 weeks the starters were playing well and the bullpen was a mess. Since then the bullpen has been lights out and the starters have been getting rocked.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Kenri posted...

VintageGin posted...

Err, what?

Why do you say that?

It requires both people to be free to talk at the exact same time and leaves no written record of anything important that was decided. The only advantage is that it's faster than typing, but even then only if you can actually get ahold of each other. It's even more inconvenient if the conversation involves three or more people.

Oh no! Not two people free to talk at the exact same time! How remarkably inconvenient! And I don't even have a recording of the discussion other than what I wrote down as a note! If it isn't stored somewhere electronically it never even happened!

Can you imagine how meetings work in a workplace? We ALL have to be available to talk at the EXACT same time! NEVER!

<_<

>_>

Yeah, I can't say it's the most inconvenient and terrible way of communicating anything important.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Wow. Awesome friends.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Cubs currently have the highest runs per game and the highest runners left on base in MLB (2nd in runners left in scoring position by .01 to Cleveland). So not only are they scoring a bunch but they are wasting their opportunities the most.

This has obviously been bolstered by their last 6 games where the offense has started showing signs of life, but still...
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Ha.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

lol
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Sweet. Won't be there...but sweet.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Alec Trevelyan
Barty Crouch Jr.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

James Bond (James Bond)
Jason Bourne (Bourne series)
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Final AL Central Standings...

Detroit 82-80
Kansas City 81-81
Minnesota 81-81
Cleveland 81-81
Chicago 81-81

Epic season.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

21-26 btw
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Pia bump
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

"Oops"
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Up. But down with the Brewers...
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Whiskey_Nick posted...

Oh yeah its a Fantasy Draft too ... will decide a time... later

---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

DO IT! lol

If I get kicked off the Cubs I'll take the Padres.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Sounds good. Thanks!
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

How much do we do for this? I've never followed it.

I'd probably be interested in the Cubs.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Shadow Dino posted...

They desperately need Forsling and Kempny to be good next year or they are screwed.

Amen
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Love it.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Ugh, sorry to hear that. Some day it will be better...some day...
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

No opposition from me.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Cybat posted...

There was no reason for the entire plot, Crouch could have made literally anything Harry was likely to touch a Portkey.

SeabassDebeste posted...

that bugged the bajesus out of me too, but that's voldemort for you - gotta do things in the most theatrical way possible.

Well yeah, he could have made literally anything into a horcrux too. But he decided on the most extravagant items he could get. So it makes sense to me.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

I'm glad someone said it. <_<
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Yeah the Basilisk doesn't really do it for me. And the movie made me hate it 100% more.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Chamber of Secrets getting a vote is disappointing and terrible.

I pretty much agree with VI on the rankings. Sweet!
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Agreed
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

The longest time
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Tagging.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Animals
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

bump
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

up
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Just goes on the spreadsheet.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Just sharing my picks overall...

Round 1
8. Bengals - DE Jason Pierre-Paul (80)

Round 2
8. Bengals - FS Rodney McLeod (80)

Round 3
8. Bengals - LOLB Brett Mansfield (74)

Round 4
8. Bengals - CB Barry Anderson (74)

Round 5
8. Bengals - ROLB Jusstin Andrews (69)

Round 6
8. Bengals - DT Brian Copeland (71)

Round 7
8. Bengals - WR Austin Brown (68)
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Yeah, that whole 24th and 44th for the 16th just doesn't jive with everything KCF told me when dealing with me about a trade of picks. #catty
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

I was working on a post regarding the trade that KCF says is fine compared to some trades that he and I have discussed but it just isn't worth it. Ridiculous.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Loved the Wolf and the Hound traveling together. My favorite part of it was when she tried poking him with needle. Hilarious.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Up

(pun intended)
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

I'll be interested to see how the artwork works out. Don't want to flood a picture with stuff from a whole year but if you get a picture with just a game or two it might influence your vote that way.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

ShatteredElysium posted...

Trade to annouce

Brown receives
Packers 1st (Pick 16) via Steelers

Steelers receive
Brown 1st (Pick 24)
Chiefs 2nd (Pick 44) via Browns

I will be very interested to see what KCF has to say about this trade.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

Up
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute

c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that
is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely
on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock
from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

I would argue that the Hall guy used his left arm to swipe at the Arkansas guy's left arm and he put his right hand on the Arkansas guy's back. He didn't swipe hard with his left arm but he clearly put his hand in front of the guy's body. He didn't push him with his right hand, he just hit him on the back as if he was going to grab him with both hands, one in front and one in the back. The fall was because of their feet which was clearly not intentional at all.

So if you are calling that a flagrant foul then anyone who fouls at the end of a game without clearly swiping at the ball should also be getting a flagrant foul. How often do you see someone running after another player and he just runs into the back of the player or swipes at the guys back for a foul. Clearly that would be specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting.
---

Retaliation. Tit for Tit.
-Dwight K. Schrute