A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For those of us who are home sick, yesterday was all about Liverpool-Chelsea and Bayern Munich-Barcelona, and today is all about FC Porto-Manchester United and Arsenal-Villareal.

Isn't there a 20th anniversary that soccer lovers are, er, marking today...?

[John Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Any suggestions?

I enjoy some port. I don't really like grappa. Can't stand scotch. Too old for car bombs.

Baileys on the rocks.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Maybe I haven't had good scotch. I had grappa (twice) in Positano. Disliked it both times.

I have had grappa a similar number of times and not really enjoyed it. Another candidate that I would put in a similar category is limoncello. I have had decent varieties, but don't really like it.

I really like the noble rot wines, but pricing and other reasons means I don't have it that often.

But I think for you I would recomment raki. Because it is almost undrinkable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

"sick," eh? Bastard.

I would gladly change GI tracts with you right now. Oh so gladly.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why isn't the question, what did they intend when they agreed to get married? California was a community property state then, no? He made his choice.

Your ability to read a post and flip it to mean something you would prefer to argue about is unparalleled.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe she is a super talented person who could have been worth $950 million had she not put her career on the shelf to be his wife.

Yes. And maybe she would have earned two billion dollars, so we should give her all of it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seems unlikely, but so was the prospect that he would make so much money.

Uh...But he did. And she had very little to do with it.

But this response (and the one directly above) are beside the point, since the idea of community property is not being debated. I'm taking issue with the fact that she wants spousal support on top of $450,000,000.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Looking at what's happened since they married to try to build a sense of the equities seems like an impossible task for a divorce court.

Again, we're not arguing about community property (even though I don't think she deserves 50% of what he made during the marriage either). Or, at least, I'm not.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

cognacs? or eau de vie (sp?). fruit (especially pear) brandies are nice too. port? but I cannot imagine not liking grappa or scotch, let alone disliking both, so i may not be helpful here.

I had Grappa in Grappa, once. Tastes like shit there too.

TM

[Jack Manfred]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Uh, what if you believe that and voted that way but don't want to make it part of your wedding ceremony -- is that so terrible? Seems to me Americans have a lot to be thankful for, but something tells me Dan Savage would take umbrage at the order that everybody say grace before meals at home. Maybe he meant his thing as a suggestion, but anything more strongly stated than a suggestion and I'm with Manfred.

I have been to weddings that were turned even briefly into some kind of political theater, including the high school friend who announced at the wedding that they were giving all of their wedding presents to the poor. Thanks, dude, but wouldn't it have been more thoughtful if you'd registered at a sammich shop? WTF are the poor going to do with a fucking porcelain gravy boat and a set of Wüsthof knives? It was motivated by the best of intentions, but the effect was appallingly self-congratulatory and perversely self-indulgent, and it soured the mood like Vanessa Redgrave at the '77 Oscars. I think everyone has a special duty not to take unexpected advantage of a captive audience, and Savage (who I agree is usually a very helpful intermediary between gay and straight) is out to lunch if he thinks straight people owe the gay community any duty other than to vote.

It was phrased as a moral imperative - that a donation and a statement about gay rights during the ceremony was the least that someone could do. Dan Savage's response was prompted by a gay man who felt insulted by getting invited to straight weddings and was considering turning down every invitation. I agree with Dan Savage that declining all wedding invitations is a counterproductive, douchebag move. Instead, the caller should have taken Dan's advice, brought a date, had a good time, and acted like it was no big deal to be gay at a wedding, and that he and his boyfriend posed no threat to the marriage occurring that day or to anyone else's marriage.

I have relatives that are vegetarian. At my theoretical wedding, I'll serve a vegetarian meal option. I won't make a donation to PETA or ask anyone else to make a donation during the service. I have friends that a gay. They will be encouraged to bring their partner or a date, to dance with them, and to feel welcome. They don't get a donation or an equal-time sermon. If I was theoretically marrying an evangelical, her family would be welcome. I'd serve them sparkling apple cider for the toast. But they wouldn't get to have an altar call during the service, and I wouldn't give them veto power over the drinking and dancing at the reception. I see all of these scenarios as morally equivalent, and I reject any attempt to politicize my theoretical wedding.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I almost forgot that you read every post as a request for advice from you. I'm sure I'll keep your preferences in mind.

TM

Not advice, just a commentary on the videos.

When I'm in advice-giving mode, you'll know: there will be more words. Many. More. Words.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your ability to read a post and flip it to mean something you would prefer to argue about is unparalleled.

Yes. And maybe she would have earned two billion dollars, so we should give her all of it.

Uh...But he did. And she had very little to do with it.

But this response (and the one directly above) are beside the point, since the idea of community property is not being debated. I'm taking issue with the fact that she wants spousal support on top of $450,000,000.

Again, we're not arguing about community property (even though I don't think she deserves 50% of what he made during the marriage either). Or, at least, I'm not.

TM

I'm not sure I'm saying anything different from Atticus. Maybe we both reconciled to California law. If marriage is a contract, then it's reasonable to hold parties to what they agreed ex ante rather than what seems just ex post. If she had won the lottery during their marriage, they surely have both expected to share in the proceeds. Mel won a different kind of lottery.

But all I'm doing is defending community property, or their failure to opt out. I'd be surprised if a judge gave her continuing support on top of half of the estate, and I suspect that the lawyer just used a stock template complaint.

[Replaced_Texan]

Heh:

For the most part, Hair has made the transfer from Central Park with its high spirits intact. But during the famous mass-nudity moment, my companion noticed a lack of hair that helped crystallize what feels just a little off-kilter about this production: “I didn’t think,” she whispered, “that hippies had Brazilians.”

Yeah, it’s skeezy to judge a musical by its pubic hair. But those cultivated landing strips are emblematic of Hair’s improbably gorgeous, irrepressibly sunshiny cast. The hairless armpits and pecs; the gym-toned six-packs diving into low-rise jeans; the highly polished smiles; the high notes bursting with melisma: All are reminders that this time around, the hippies are being played by ambitious actors and singers, some of whom are wearing shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen wigs.

I think it's perfectly valid to judge a play called Hair on the lack of hair.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Heh: I think it's perfectly valid to judge a play called Hair on the lack of hair.

These people aren't actors. Real actors would commit fully to the role and go full bush.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

These people aren't actors. Real actors would commit fully to the role and go full bush.

Indeed. If my 50 yo friend can shave her head and appear fully naked for her part in a community theatre production of "W;t" that played to an audience of 10 in Buttfuck, New Jersey, I think actors for whom it is their full-time job can grow their pubes.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Any suggestions?

I enjoy some port. I don't really like grappa. Can't stand scotch. Too old for car bombs.

If you like coffee, try it with a liberal dose of amaretto and some milk.

CDF

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Maybe I haven't had good scotch. I had grappa (twice) in Positano. Disliked it both times.

maybe someone was getting rid of some swill to the ugly american? like what happened to Thurgreed?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Indeed. If my 50 yo friend can shave her head and appear fully naked for her part in a community theatre production of "W;t" that played to an audience of 10 in Buttfuck, New Jersey, I think actors for whom it is their full-time job can grow their pubes.

It's not like it takes much effort.