sfaJack

I don't mind being asked to show an ID, but I have a problem with being asked to remove it from its clear protective sleeve. Every time I get asked for ID, it's "Could you remove that from the cover please?" Why? What the hell is the difference? It's clear...you can see my picture from inside the sleeve. It's a pain in the ass to do take it out, and all they ever do is just glance at it for no more than half a second. Why do I have to take it out? Why? Why? Why?

Heh. I've been known to actually pull back into my parking spot, turn off the engine, actually get out of the truck, and then rummage around in my tool box in the back like I'm looking for something until they get tired of waiting and just drive off. Bunch of lazy bastards. Doing that just makes my day. Me too. My neighbor and I were standing in his front yard a couple of weeks ago talking when this asshole who lives down the street came screaming down our little residential street (that kids play in all the time) at about 40 mph. Randy (my neighbor) threw his nearly full can of Coke and nailed the guy's back fender as he went by. Dude didn't even slow down; he just made the right at the corner and floored it again. I hate being at a restaurant when the check comes and I put my credit card in the little book they give you and stick it on the edge of the table. Inevitably, the waiter will come by and say "Are you ready for me to take that?" No, stupid...I was hoping somebody would come by and steal my credit card.

Did you even read my other post? Or did you just not understand what I said? I'm not saying TO should have to do any more than any other athlete would (i.e. actually fill out the paperwork and file it with the league himself). But is it unreasonable for TO to pick up his damn cell phone, call his agent, and say "Did you file that paperwork yet?" I don't think it is. All TO had to do was make a call. He doesn't have to do any of his own paperwork (except for maybe signing something he's required to...I don't know what all is involved). As you say, the agent works for TO. If TO called him and says "Did you file that paperwork? No? DO IT!," then he's done all that can be reasonably asked of him. If the agent fails to do it then, well, then that's the agent's fuck-up. (EDIT: nl5xsk1 gets what I was saying.) But that still leaves my point of wondering why TO didn't have all this filed ASAP. If free agency was really that big of a deal to him, wouldn't he (i.e. his agent) take care of all the formal stuff and be done with it? I'm just wondering why it took him all the way to March 2 to do this when it could have been done on Feb. 2 and had the same effect. Why wait until the deadline day? I'm not a lawyer so I can't even begin to speak on how players' individual contracts hold up when they contradict the collective bargaining agreement, but this is what the dispute is about, from what I gather. Was the date in TO's contract valid, or does the league date specified by the CBA supercede it? I have no idea. But your point here doesn't make any sense, for two reasons. One, the salary cap doesn't force anybody to take a pay cut. Any player can make as much as he can negotiate out of a team; there just isn't as much left over for the other 52 guys on the roster. Second, the CBA (and salary cap) was in effect before TO even came in the league. Unless the Feb. 21 date was recently changed from another date (and if it was, feel free to inform me of that because I don't know), I'm not sure how valid that date in TO's contract is. That goes back to the legal question at the center of this debate. You can't say that the Niners weren't within their rights to trade him. We don't know who he belonged to exactly, because the arbitrator never ruled. But IF he was the Niners' property, fuck TO, they have (had) the right to trade him to Baltimore and deserve some compensation from the Eagles for this mess. If he didn't in fact belong to the Niners and was a free agent, then they don't have any right to compensation. It's simple. All indications at the time were that he WAS the Niners' property. I would have traded him to Baltimore, too, since the Eagles' offer was weak in comparison. We'll never know now. I don't hate TO. I LOVED the Sharpie thing; thought it was hilarious. But his whining and crying because he missed his chance to lose in the NFC Championship game with the Eagles just turned me off. If Peyton Manning were doing this, I promise you I'd be saying the same thing. Listening to a bunch of overpaid athletes whine and cry about what a raw deal they got just doesn't appeal to me at all, no matter who it is.

Yes, I know about that. I know that Owens' camp said March 2, and that the NFL said February 21. I mentioned in my post that there was some controversy about the exact deadline date. But my point was that why does the specific deadline date matter so much? If TO was so desperate to get out of San Fran and play for Philly, why did he wait until the very last minute to file this paperwork? Why didn't he do it on Feb. 2, the day after the Super Bowl? Wouldn't that make sense? You avoid any chance of any of this mess happening that way. Why wasn't it done immediately? I just have no sympathy for the guy. We don't know what the arbitrator did/was going to rule (or at least I haven't found any articles revealing that information), but wouldn't you agree that it makes sense that if free agency was so important to TO that he would have taken care of all of this way before either of the disputed deadline dates approached?

TO is a whiny bitch because as soon as things didn't go his way, he pouted and flat out said many times that he was not going to honor a contract he signed and play for Baltimore. San Francisco was well within their rights to trade him to whomever they wanted, and that's tough shit for TO. He should have been mad at Philly for not ponying up a more comparable trade offer. As far as his paperwork not being filed on time: boo-fucking-hoo. There is a bit of controversy about when the exact deadline date is/was, but that's irrelevant. The real point of the matter is that TO didn't pick up the damn phone, call his agent, and tell him to file the paperwork ASAP. There is no rule that says they HAD to wait until the deadline day to file it - why didn't it get turned in the day after the Niners' season ended (or whenever league rules allow that sort of stuff to begin)? Why did TO allow this to drag on and on and then have this happen? Sure, it's maybe not his responsibility to actually fill it out and file it himself, but there has to be some degree of responsibility on TO's part to make sure that it IS done. All that takes is a phone call - the agent works for TO, so TO could have demanded it be done ASAP. He didn't, and he missed the deadline. End of story. TO belongs to Baltimore, and he should have to play for the Ravens. His "winning" the right to play for the Eagles is a black mark against the league and potentially sets a very dangerous precedent. And how were the Niners "working a loophole?" By trading TO to the highest bidder when he belonged to them? By demanding compensation from the Eagles after the trade they made was (apparently) unjustly overturned? I don't get what you mean there.

What a crock of shit. TO, the little whiny bitch, gets what he wants. How pathetic. I hope he breaks his leg in his first game for Philly.

You complain about this now...just wait until they start selling sponsorship rights to it and it suddenly becomes the "Cingular Wireless East Rutherford Regional." That will really be obscene. Oh, and I hate this new thing too; "East Rutherford" regional just doesn't sound right.

Pittsburgh got screwed. A 3 seed for them? How the hell does that happen? They should have been a 2, and Gonzaga a 3. On my first look at the brackets, I think Texas Tech has a shot to upset St. Joe's in the second round, if they get past Charlotte. Andre Emmett could have a very big game against them, and I think it'd be possible. Digger Phelps' picking Texas to win it all makes no sense. I'm a big UT fan, but no way does that happen. Oklahoma St. showed how vulnerable they are yesterday; their guard play isn't going to be good enough to go very deep in the tourney. T.J. Ford is going to be missed.

Hell yeah. I'm probably heading to Austin next Thursday night and staying through the weekend. Definitely going to have to drop in on SXSW.

This is why I have a strict "hands off" policy for my pc. Nobody plays on it but me, generally. Sucks for you LJ, but you should take Ripper's advice. A blowjob seems adequate compensation for your losses.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/features/2442008 Telemarketing calls can really pay off By DON OLDENBURG Washington Post Before the national Do Not Call Registry reduced the barrage of annoying telemarketing calls, you could hear some consumers say, "I wouldn't buy from a telemarketer if they paid me!" But what if they did pay you? You may soon get that chance if business innovator Daniel Shifrin's plan to reinvent telemarketing works. Shifrin founded his New York-based company Adnoodle last fall based on his brainstorm that what had been missing from those loathsome phone solicitations was incentive for the consumer -- a little something to make up for the inconvenience. Now Adnoodle has signed up 15,000 consumers who have agreed to listen to recorded telemarketing pitches, speak with telemarketers and respond to e-mail solicitations -- for a price. He says 500 to 1,000 people are enrolling daily, and he is planning a promotion campaign on college campuses this month before he "hard-launches" the program this spring. "It's all about getting value for the consumer -- because consumers have value, right?" says Shifrin, 35, whose other company, AutoWraps, pays consumers to put advertising on their cars. To enroll, consumers go to adnoodle.com and decide the minimum per-minute payment they would accept -- generally, the lower the payment, the more companies will contact the consumer. The recommended range is 10 cents to $1.20, but registrants are advised that "bids" of 10 to 50 cents are likely to draw more ad calls. Participants also have the option of being paid in entries to a $5,000 Adnoodle sweepstakes. Registrants also choose the ad vehicles -- telemarketing, e-mails or both -- and they can choose the window times they'll receive the ads. They complete a survey that asks gender, age, number of children, interests and consumer behavior, so companies can target products and services. The typical Adnoodle sales call is a recording and states up front its cash offer for listening. Not enough coin? Too busy right now? You can accept or decline -- no obligation. Each ad runs a minute or more. The consumer must correctly answer a multiple-choice question at the end to get paid. "Knowing that the person who heard that message understands the content is really a leap in advertising," says Shifrin. At the end of the call, consumers can opt to receive a coupon for the advertised product or talk to a live representative -- or hang up. Payment is via PayPal, the online payment company. "For 2 1/2 minutes a day, if your average price is $1 a minute, you make $80 to $100 a month," says Shifrin. "Not bad, right?" Actually, it's more like $75. Shifrin says he's learning from them. "We're trying to make it easy for the consumer to earn money and not take too much of their time," he says. "We're doing it smart." For more information about Adnoodle's pay-the-consumer ads or to enroll, see www.adnoodle.com. ------------------------- No way I'd do this, but is there anyone here who would?

What do you mean? Like in a gay way? Anyway, I used to be a pretty good baseball player. Not good enough to ever earn any money from it, but good enough to play in college.

*hugs his Time Warner cable box* This sucks for you guys. What a ripoff.

Heh. Sounds like she's trying to intimidate you.

Sourdough bread

If that's the quote, then, no. I don't find anything there to be offensive or otherwise indecent. He didn't call them "21 innocent Charlie" or Slant-eyed's or anything...where would the problem be? Having to backtrack like that makes Limbaugh look like an idiot, but there's nothing to fine him over there. Being an idiot isn't illegal.

It isn't just Howard Stern, man. There are other shock jocks, you know? Stern's just the most prolific figure being tossed around right now because he won't shut his mouth about it. But yes, I would say that there's a pretty good chance that there are at least a few kids listening to him somewhere. (BTW: I've never listened to one of Stern's shows; he's never been in the Houston market as far as I know. I've seen his TV show a time or two, but it really didn't interest me, so I can't speak on how "fit" he is for kids to listen to).

No, "banning" a show for an occasional slip-up would be ridiculous. But increasingly stiff fines should be the rule of the law and, if a particular show keeps "crossing the line," well, then a banning probably wouldn't be out of the question.

Hey, wow, I didn't think I'd ever agree with you on something, but here it is. I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a fairly strict set of broadcast standards from say, 7 a.m. - 8/9 p.m. Outside of those hours, it should be pretty free and clear...but really, is it THAT bad to have some decency standards on public airwaves?

I would, but, sadly, I doubt it would matter with you. I've never seen you address anything that anybody presents seriously to you with anything but a dismissive "Bush is evil and he sucks!" or a lame smiley, accompanied with that "duder" phrase. I guess that's either because you realize that you don't really have a valid point or that you're too dumb to understand what is being pointed out to you (i.e. Cerebus trying to explain McCain/Feingold to you)...I don't know. Either way, I'm done with it. True, Jobber. Lay has past ties to Bush as well, but my point was really just to remind some people here that most of their illegal doings happened on Clinton's watch. Not that Clinton personally had anything to do with their dealings or permitted them to carry on - it's just that popular opinion seems to be to just blame Bush for something that he really doesn't/didn't have a whole lot of control over. Agreed about Martha, too. Her case is overblown.

Thanks, "duder." We like to keep it simple for you.

Uh, duh? Obviously no one knew it was going on. Otherwise, wouldn't it have been stopped? The question you should be asking is why wasn't it detected/uncovered earlier? I suppose. But then you could also argue that maybe the economy was so great under Clinton because it was full of fraud and was really just "on paper," it'd carry about as much weight as your argument. The number of corporate scandals that have come to light and the sheer amount of personal bankruptcies filed over the last few years would lend at least some credence to THAT theory, instead of wide-eyed speculation on your part. Enron isn't some grand Republican conspiracy though like some liberals are making it out to be. Completing the case against Fastow, Skilling, and Lay will take some time; their high-priced lawyers will protect them well. If the feds rush this case and screw up any of the damning evidence, they'll walk.

You guys all seem to be forgetting that while Enron blew up during Bush's administration, they rose to prominence and made the majority of their money on Clinton's watch. But I guess it's easier to say OMGEVILREPUBLICANNS~!!!111!!!11 in an election year.

I recently got a new machine and freed myself from the shackles of Win ME. I'm liking XP a whole lot, but there are a couple of annoyances that I can't figure out how to fix: 1. Windows messenger: how can I get rid of/disable this thing? I think it's a cause of some security risks, and as far as I can tell, it serves no purpose whatsoever (I don't have a home network). 2. The menus in various programs/Windows: most all of them "hide" certain features/applications with a little downward-pointing double arrow that I have to click on to show all the "hidden" items. This is getting quite annoying because it never fails that the feature I want to use is hidden under these arrows. Is there any way to disable these things? Thanks in advance.

Yet another reason to hate the fat motherfuckers who started all those ridiculous lawsuits. This does not make me happy.