Lamest k race win ever

[barely_legal]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are probably right.

ETA: Also, I should have said thank you. I appreciate the advice even if I'm not smart enough to take it.

You're welcome. I hope I'm wrong and that she ends up being just lovely and you get married and live happily ever after.

[barely_legal]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't think this is right. It is no longer a common assumption that if you have sex with someone after a week, that you are exclusive from that point on. If you (woman or man) have that expectation, you need to make it clear before (or right after) having sex with them. You can't just walk around with that expectation, fuck guys and then be all hurt when you find out they might be seeing someone else. This is why Hank made a point of saying Adder did nothing wrong.

If Adder truly wants to be exclusive, he'll say so at the point when he feels that way. If the women he's seeing feel that way before him, it's incumbent on them to say something when they feel that way. They can't just assume that once they give it up it's understood.

TM

This may all be true but is mooted by the fact that the girl knew for a fact that Adder was seeing other people. It's one thing to assume that the person you are having sex with is dating and maybe having sex with other people. It's another thing to know that for certain.

In the future, if Adder ever dates again, the best lesson he can take from this is to never ever discuss dates with other women.

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

how many orgasms did she have when you "hooked up?"

if none, then move on- if any?

How does that affect his decision to move on or not?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by J. Fred Muggs

How does that affect his decision to move on or not?

my advice? He'll ignore it. He'll ignore all of our advice. People seem to forget a week ago he said he "finally has a plan for this one," about A.

[J. Fred Muggs]

Times when it is rational for Adder to call Woman A

1. He finds out that he left something worth more than $200 at her house when he was fucking her.

2. He realizes in the near future that he has an STD.


Times when it is not rational for Adder to call Woman A.

1. Any time not discussed above.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

my advice? He'll ignore it. He'll ignore all of our advice. People seem to forget a week ago he said he "finally has a plan for this one," about A.

He fucked her, didn't he? And managed to get her--a woman who was radiating crazy--to want to cut off contact. Seems like enough of a plan, even tho it's headed sideways today.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

my advice? He'll ignore it. He'll ignore all of our advice. People seem to forget a week ago he said he "finally has a plan for this one," about A.

I did not say plan. I said "how to play" and specially that seeking immediate sex didn't seem like the right strategy (for what, right?).

The thing is that this girl feels much more familiar to me that other more recent relationships (or potential relationships). She reminds me of women that I used to date, oddly enough, when I was last in Minnesota.

Yes, I am apparently attracted to crazy women. She really does seem less crazy in person, though, and obviously when I bring these things here I don't exactly shy away from the worst possible interpretation (helpfully recounted by TM).

You all have helped me realize just how manipulative today's little drama was, and I'm wary of that, but I may still ride this one to the likely trainwreck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

He fucked her, didn't he? And managed to get her--a woman who was radiating crazy--to want to cut off contact. Seems like enough of a plan, even tho it's headed sideways today.

I'm okay with dating crazy-light. I typically looked for women less mentally healthy than i was so I felt better about myself. not to marry but for a few months it was fine. of course I never went to the completely crazed, but I'm not sure that's where Ms. A is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I did not say plan. I said "how to play" and specially that seeking immediate sex didn't seem like the right strategy (for what, right?).

The thing is that this girl feels much more familiar to me that other more recent relationships (or potential relationships). She reminds me of women that I used to date, oddly enough, when I was last in Minnesota.

Yes, I am apparently attracted to crazy women. She really does seem less crazy in person, though, and obviously when I bring these things here I don't exactly shy away from the worst possible interpretation (helpfully recounted by TM).

You all have helped me realize just how manipulative today's little drama was, and I'm wary of that, but I may still ride this one to the likely trainwreck.

It appears you are taking my relationship advice. Are you fucking crazy?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It appears you are taking my relationship advice. Are you fucking crazy?

Yes, and he's hoping for a repeat.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Grant Hill's response to the Fab Five in today' NYT...

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/201...se/?ref=sports

I thought it was a bit of an empty, bullshit, defensive response. And that's understandable. Grant Hill is a good person. But he's missing the fucking point. Jalen Rose is no genius. And I think he placed too much of the focus on the black players who have played for Duke. What he should have said is, Duke looks at white players first. Then, they look at elite black players who fit Coach K's mold. And that mold sure as hell is not urban, street, ghetto-type players (no matter what their grades). It's the same with most firms. Are you an Uncle Tom if you accept an offer at Wachtell* and you're the only black guy there? Of course not. But Wachtell isn't looking for black associates who aren't the absolute cream of the crop at the top of their Ivy league classes. They have the defense of saying, "We only recruit those types of associates," but we all know what that means. That means they know exactly what type of mix they're going to get and it's lilly white.

If Grant Hill had any fucking balls at all, he would question the number and type of black players that Coach K recruits. He could do that and still confirm the character of his teammates (whether we agree with him or not). But there is no way Grant Hill does that because it's easier to write a fluff piece that ignores Rose's underlying point. It's well-written, talks about family and his teammates, but avoids any criticism of self or school. And I hate to say it, but it's just the kind of piece that makes white people happy. He's one of the good ones, that Grant Hill.

TM

*And I'm using Wachtell as the generic SuperEliteBigLaw firm.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/201...se/?ref=sports

I thought it was a bit of an empty, bullshit, defensive response. And that's understandable. Grant Hill is a good person. But he's missing the fucking point. Jalen Rose is no genius. And I think he placed too much of the focus on the black players who have played for Duke. What he should have said is, Duke looks at white players first. Then, they look at elite black players who fit Coach K's mold. And that mold sure as hell is not urban, street, ghetto-type players (no matter what their grades). It's the same with most firms. Are you an Uncle Tom if you accept an offer at Wachtell* and you're the only black guy there? Of course not. But Wachtell isn't looking for black associates who aren't the absolute cream of the crop at the top of their Ivy league classes. They have the defense of saying, "We only recruit those types of associates," but we all know what that means. That means they know exactly what type of mix they're going to get and it's lilly white.

If Grant Hill had any fucking balls at all, he would question the number and type of black players that Coach K recruits. He could do that and still confirm the character of his teammates (whether we agree with him or not). But there is no way Grant Hill does that because it's easier to write a fluff piece that ignores Rose's underlying point. It's well-written, talks about family and his teammates, but avoids any criticism of self or school. And I hate to say it, but it's just the kind of piece that makes white people happy. He's one of the good ones, that Grant Hill.

TM

*And I'm using Wachtell as the generic SuperEliteBigLaw firm.

kids out of this city play their entire school careers playing with no white kids, and against few. it seems to me they carry the bias that white kids, and black suburban kids, are soft. in a way they're right. Detroit kids are tougher (not more skilled, rougher harder meaner), although the suburban kids can play to that level, they are playing tougher since they're on a court with city kids- the city kids are playing ball the way they play all the time. they walk onto courts knowing as much.

I also feel Grant Hill is soft, he can play, but when he was the Pistons' savior he was not tough- need a big shot? don't count on it-2 free throws to ice a game? Hill will miss one.

My sense is the toughness is mostly an economic/lack of hope thing- who knows.

Jalen did say he was wrong about Laetner and Duke, so the overall thing could have been ignored by Hill-

But if Hill was to respond, I sort of think he did okay. First, as to trash talking, the number one "win" is "scoreboard" and Grant called that.

As to what Grant defended, the Fab Five guys called out Duke not by citing player racial stats over a decade, but by questioning Hill's family and heart. How does he respond to that by saying Jalen has a good point?

And understand, I am a Rose fan, and I dislike Hill, but I think you perhaps call on him to do more than he could be expected to do- the man was defending himself.

Coach K's choices? Fuck I don't know- I agree with Jalen, but I'm not sure that Grant had the ability to defend his background while calling out K (assuming grant feels the same way I do (and the way you do)).

edit: rereading you said his thing was understandable, so maybe you were making a point beyond his statement

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I did not say plan. I said "how to play" and specially that seeking immediate sex didn't seem like the right strategy (for what, right?).

The thing is that this girl feels much more familiar to me that other more recent relationships (or potential relationships). She reminds me of women that I used to date, oddly enough, when I was last in Minnesota.

Yes, I am apparently attracted to crazy women. She really does seem less crazy in person, though, and obviously when I bring these things here I don't exactly shy away from the worst possible interpretation (helpfully recounted by TM).

You all have helped me realize just how manipulative today's little drama was, and I'm wary of that, but I may still ride this one to the likely trainwreck.

it's now 10 PM Minnesota time and we have no report, meaning Adder's getting his dick wet, or maybe he's been stabbed to death?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

kids out of this city play their entire school careers playing with no white kids, and against few. it seems to me they carry the bias that white kids, and black suburban kids, are soft. in a way they're right. Detroit kids are tougher (not more skilled, rougher harder meaner), although the suburban kids can play to that level, they are playing tougher since they're on a court with city kids- the city kids are playing ball the way they play all the time. they walk onto courts knowing as much.

-2. [outable]I grew up in Indiana (in an area that was not a suburb of anything)...where basketball is religion. Every time I played against or with "hard" city kids (white or black), they always called ticky-tack fouls whenever they missed a shot. It was the opposite of tough.

We called fouls on ourselves. No ticky-tack BS. Contact was normal. It wasn't a foul unless you absolutely hacked someone. Same thing happened at college - people would call shit that never would have been called in my hometown.

Maybe Indiana is just different that way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

-2. [outable]I grew up in Indiana (in an area that was not a suburb of anything)...where basketball is religion. Every time I played against or with "hard" city kids (white or black), they always called ticky-tack fouls whenever they missed a shot. It was the opposite of tough.

We called fouls on ourselves. No ticky-tack BS. Contact was normal. It wasn't a foul unless you absolutely hacked someone. Same thing happened at college - people would call shit that never would have been called in my hometown.

Maybe Indiana is just different that way.

ok. but where you can call your own fouls is a whole different thing. I'm talking about tournaments/games where fouls ain't called much. there are guys that foul on purpose, intentionally.

also, it sounds like you're saying the kids you grew up with didn't call shit on each other- that's different-