This is the thread where the fringster comes back with teeth

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

And my point, which I swear to God I will let be after your next reply no mattter how good it will be, is that presently there's no need to see women's leagues as the inferior ones, any more than it is necessary to say heavyweights are better than bantamweight and anyone who was the world bantamweight champion was only just that if the international boxing sanctioning authorities would have let him fight outside of his weight class. I may know nothing about sports, but allowing the "best" bantamweights to fight the lightweights and featherweights "if they can compete" just relegates all of the competitors in weight classes below heavyweight as second class citizens. So open divisions are good for the best individuals but bad for the newly-"inferior" sex-qualified league. That seems like a value worth putting on the table, no?

But if the board has moved on to the more interesting question of whether an NYT columnist is inappropriately elitist, or just elitist enough, I will leave my argument at that.

I sense a "Lord of the Flies" moment coming up. Specifically, the one at the end.

CDF

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Oh, come one. That was just a silly posed photo, in which she undoubtedly wished to simultaneously underscore and poke fun at her aloof image. When she's just hanging out with pals at book publishing parties, she seems a lot more laid back and fun:

See, I would hit that, but in the other photo I wouldn't. I think it's the bangs. I cannot abide bangs, or symmetrical hair of any sort. FBetties, adjust your 'dos accordingly.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the watch band is umber. Your comment is simplistic.

Her watch is from Umbria? No one in their right mind would buy an Italian watch. Not even a fashion writer.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Atticus isn't male. I thought we went over this.

CDF

Now, now. Because we are running out of subgroups who want respect (and to be able to claim victim status), the asexuals are standing up for themselves - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNC6194GN4.DTL .

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Alright, fucker. After that snide remark, I am turning the webcam OFF, do you hear?

This has been a public service announcement. So to speak.

CDF

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Now, now. Because we are running out of subgroups who want respect (and to be able to claim victim status), the asexuals are standing up for themselves - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNC6194GN4.DTL .

No, no, no. I count on y'all to be the Roundup to my struggling green shoots of conscience. It's usually quite reliable.

CDF

[LessinSF]

Neither of my schools is on here - http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/...ad.php?t=49894 .

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Neither of my schools is on here - http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/...ad.php?t=49894 .

Apparently the douchegeois did not attend my colleges either.

[Hank Chinaski]

MAD MEN Q.


spoiler- but really not necessary



Okay, Peggy is at the table when her new beau. His friend walks up and says, "Hey, we're leaving, you want to go or you need cab fare?"

The guy says, "I live right around the corner." the friend says, "Oh. yeah."

it seemed to me, at first, that the beau's friend was being honest, and the beau lied about where he lived for some reason. Then we find out he does live there.

The friend was giving the beau a way out of being "stuck" with Peggy, right?

Is she supposed to be a dog? I didn't get that part.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

MAD MEN Q.


spoiler- but really not necessary



Okay, Peggy is at the table when her new beau. His friend walks up and says, "Hey, we're leaving, you want to go or you need cab fare?"

The guy says, "I live right around the corner." the friend says, "Oh. yeah."

it seemed to me, at first, that the beau's friend was being honest, and the beau lied about where he lived for some reason. Then we find out he does live there.

The friend was giving the beau a way out of being "stuck" with Peggy, right?

Is she supposed to be a dog? I didn't get that part.

I think you're right that it was the modern day equivalent of the cell phone call to rescue you from a bad date. I don't think it necessarily means she's a dog (although frankly I find her amongst the least pretty women on the show, and that includes the switchboard girls). I think it was meant to show the relative immaturity of the college guys, and that particular individual's lack of guile (since he didn't seem to get it anyway).

Another question from that scene is why Peggy says her boss is a jerk. Was she really still pissed at Don over the Patio pitch? Or was she just trying to play along that she's a secretary because she was "trying on" a personality that was somewhere between Joan and Ann-Margret just to see if that was what men were really looking for? If it's the latter, she got her answer.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

And my point, which I swear to God I will let be after your next reply no mattter how good it will be, is that presently there's no need to see women's leagues as the inferior ones, any more than it is necessary to say heavyweights are better than bantamweight and anyone who was the world bantamweight champion was only just that if the international boxing sanctioning authorities would have let him fight outside of his weight class. I may know nothing about sports, but allowing the "best" bantamweights to fight the lightweights and featherweights "if they can compete" just relegates all of the competitors in weight classes below heavyweight as second class citizens. So open divisions are good for the best individuals but bad for the newly-"inferior" sex-qualified league. That seems like a value worth putting on the table, no?

You dodged the point I was making, presumably because you realize you fucked up. But, whatever.

I don't disagree with your point in the abstract. I suppose weight classifications in boxing are somewhat similar to gender classification. The problem is, it's absolutely true that competitors in weight classes below "heavyweight" are viewed as second class citizens, even if they never get the chance to prove otherwise. The reasons why there are weight classes are two-fold, right?

1. Fairness or, stated in a more realistic way, for the fighters' protection. A heavyweight would destroy a lightweight, so we don't put them in the ring together.

2. Money. The more divisions, the more championship fights.

One might argue that the skill sets of lighter fighters are so different than heavier fighters that, like the WNBA and the NBA, they are essentially playing different sports, but it's a hard argument to make.

The simple fact is, women do not compete with men because they cannot (or are deemed to be unable to) be successful, and in many cases, would just get hurt. Everyone knows what it means to be the best. If we play a certain sport, under standard rules and one person or team beats everyone else, that person is the best. By extension, if you compete with a group of athletes who are the best and you hold your own and succeed, you will be seen as one of the best.

So, I return to my original point. If a woman could successfully compete with and beat 30% of the men on the PGA Tour (for example), that is quite an accomplishment--one worthy of whatever accolades would be collected. And, just like in any other arena where a class of people is deemed to be too inferior to participate, the effect of such an accomplishment would not bring harm, in this case, to women's sports, it would encourage little girls to look at sports in a different way and would most likely increase participation.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Neither of my schools is on here - http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/...ad.php?t=49894 .

Any list where Duke comes in second is fatally flawed.

TM

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You dodged the point I was making, presumably because you realize you fucked up. But, whatever.

I don't disagree with your point in the abstract. I suppose weight classifications in boxing are somewhat similar to gender classification. The problem is, it's absolutely true that competitors in weight classes below "heavyweight" are viewed as second class citizens, even if they never get the chance to prove otherwise. The reasons why there are weight classes are two-fold, right?

1. Fairness or, stated in a more realistic way, for the fighters' protection. A heavyweight would destroy a lightweight, so we don't put them in the ring together.

2. Money. The more divisions, the more championship fights.

One might argue that the skill sets of lighter fighters are so different than heavier fighters that, like the WNBA and the NBA, they are essentially playing different sports, but it's a hard argument to make.

The simple fact is, women do not compete with men because they cannot (or are deemed to be unable to) be successful, and in many cases, would just get hurt. Everyone knows what it means to be the best. If we play a certain sport, under standard rules and one person or team beats everyone else, that person is the best. By extension, if you compete with a group of athletes who are the best and you hold your own and succeed, you will be seen as one of the best.

So, I return to my original point. If a woman could successfully compete with and beat 30% of the men on the PGA Tour (for example), that is quite an accomplishment--one worthy of whatever accolades would be collected. And, just like in any other arena where a class of people is deemed to be too inferior to participate, the effect of such an accomplishment would not bring harm, in this case, to women's sports, it would encourage little girls to look at sports in a different way and would most likely increase participation.

TM

This is the only story about Brett Favre that I could bring myself to read:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/n...august_24_2009

Favre plays football in the male league.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Any list where Duke comes in second is fatally flawed.

TM

Notre Dame is ranked way too low on that list. I liked their methodology.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Any list where Duke comes in second is fatally flawed.

TM

"They're probably number one. But we'd rather not rank Duke number one at anything." I don't think that's flawed.