A fashion board in which sometimes we'll remember to post spoiler warnings - Page 57

Replaced_Texan · 03-02-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Ugh. Worse yet is companies moving toward on-line applications, that expect the cover letter to be typed into a little box on the on-line form. Completely unfair. I didn't feel I could refuse to put it in the little box, but nonetheless included a pdf with my uploaded resume.

We've been interviewing people for the last week or so (last one today, I hope), and a few things stand out. First, since we got innundated with about 150 resumes, I didn't bother to read cover letters during my sweep through the stack, .pdf or in the little box. I don't know if anyone else did. I did read the e-mails that directly came to me about the job, and I read the cover letters of the handful of candidates that the search committee recommended we interview. Second, people that didn't bother to fill out some of the blanks on the online form (especially previous salary information) were irritating. Finally, one of my colleagues needs to shut the fuck up in interviews. He spends ten minutes rambling on about the job and then asks a yes/no question about his ramble. I've learned more about him in this process than I have any of the candidates and I'm not sure I'd hire him.

Sidd Finch · 03-02-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think so.

Recent example. The contestants were supposed to do their best to replicate a recipie that they had tasted earlier that day. Each contestant got a different dish. One contestant, who frequently won previous challenges and generally came in at the top in most of the challenges, fucked up in braising celerly and over salted her dish. The other contestant, who earlier that same episode simply gave up on something because she found it too difficult, totally missed the basic premise of her recipie (something involving miso).

Personality obviously comes into play on how you root for these things, as I liked the fucked-up-celery chef and would very much like to eat at the restaurant where she is the executive chef (Absinthe in San Francisco) and the miso chef irritated the shit out of me and I blanked out whatever restaurant she's a sous chef in.

So the question to the judges was whether or not it was worse to know what you were supposed to do and fuck that up or not have a clue what you were doing and fuck that up?

The answer, of course, is keep the contestant who has been fooling around with another contestant who is still on the show.

You're dead right on that one, and I'll take you to Absinthe next time you're here.

ThurgreedMarshall · 03-02-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It's not keeping me up nights, if that's what you mean.

We all know you grab Del Boca Vista's early bird special and hit the sheets at 8:30.

TM

barely_legal · 03-02-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I question how anyone can get pissed off at the outcome of any reality show, unless, of course, one is a contestant thereon.

Isn't this like saying that you question how anybody can get pissed off at the outcome of a sports event, unless they were actually participating in the event?

greatwhitenorthchick · 03-02-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barely_legal

Isn't this like saying that you question how anybody can get pissed of at the outcome of a sports event, unless they were actually participating in the event?

I'd just like to add that I can't be the first girl to go and get drunk and laid on a speed bump.

Hank Chinaski · 03-02-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

I'd just like to add that I can't be the first girl to go and get drunk and laid on a speed bump.

Thank You. Up until this post I was directing all of my "I am missing out" energy to wondering if I should start watching top Chef.

bold_n_brazen · 03-02-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barely_legal

Isn't this like saying that you question how anybody can get pissed off at the outcome of a sports event, unless they were actually participating in the event?

Nope. I completely see how someone can get pissed off at the outcome of a sporting event.

Sidd Finch · 03-02-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thank You. Up until this post I was directing all of my "I am missing out" energy to wondering if I should start watching top Chef.

2. I'm going to stop watching Top Chef, and start trying to get laid on a speed bump.

Adder · 03-02-2009, 05:48 PM

Can anyone explain to me why any self-respecting team would trade a fourth round pick for Sage Rosenfels when a second round pick could land you Cassel and Vrabel? Okay, so maybe your pick is lower than the Chiefs' so you have to offer a first rounder, and maybe you don't particularly want Vrabel, but still. I would much rather trade a first round pick for Cassel than a fourth for Rosenfels.

Cletus Miller · 03-02-2009, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Can anyone explain to me why any self-respecting team would trade a fourth round pick for Sage Rosenfels when a second round pick could land you Cassel and Vrabel? Okay, so maybe your pick is lower than the Chiefs' so you have to offer a first rounder, and maybe you don't particularly want Vrabel, but still. I would much rather trade a first round pick for Cassel than a fourth for Rosenfels.

What's Rosenfel's cap number? Who would the Vikes need to cut to take on Cassel (at $14mm+) and Vrabel (at whatever)?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-02-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

What's Rosenfel's cap number? Who would the Vikes need to cut to take on Cassel (at $14mm+) and Vrabel (at whatever)?

If your cap is such that you can afford only Sage Rosenfels, don't you need to make some cuts elsewhere? Sage Rosenfels? Sorry, Adder.* And sorry that your team didn't bid up Cassel's price, since the Pats got ripped too.

*BTW, the irony is that Sidwell Friends was *still* closed today, even though OPM decided not to incur Obama's wrath.

Adder · 03-02-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

What's Rosenfel's cap number? Who would the Vikes need to cut to take on Cassel (at $14mm+) and Vrabel (at whatever)?

I think they are supposed to be $30 mil under the cap.

Replaced_Texan · 03-02-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Can anyone explain to me why any self-respecting team would trade a fourth round pick for Sage Rosenfels when a second round pick could land you Cassel and Vrabel? Okay, so maybe your pick is lower than the Chiefs' so you have to offer a first rounder, and maybe you don't particularly want Vrabel, but still. I would much rather trade a first round pick for Cassel than a fourth for Rosenfels.

I think Rosenfels will probably do you guys very well. He could have very easily been a starter here had we not already had a massive contract in on Schaub. He had a good record in the ten games he started for us, and we almost had a quarterback controversy earlier this year. I'm sort of irritated that we let him go, because Schaub has been hurt for at least four games in each of the seasons that he's been with us. Course we now have Hank's old quarterback, so everything's gonna be ok. So long as he doesn't step out of the end zone again.

As for Cassel, remember that he's still a free agent. The deal was between Kansas City and the Patriots, and according to the NFL network last night, KC didn't expressly talk with him and his people about it. If KC can't come up with the deal he wants, my understanding is that he can walk away from that and seek a better deal elsewhere. I'm not sure that's such a good thing for a team trying to rebuild. When we got Schaub from Atlanta, we made sure that he had a lot of years on his contract left. Cassel will have at most one.

Adder · 03-02-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think Rosenfels will probably do you guys very well. He could have very easily been a starter here had we not already had a massive contract in on Schaub. He had a good record in the ten games he started for us, and we almost had a quarterback controversy earlier this year. I'm sort of irritated that we let him go, because Schaub has been hurt for at least four games in each of the seasons that he's been with us. Course we now have Hank's old quarterback, so everything's gonna be ok. So long as he doesn't step out of the end zone again.

As for Cassel, remember that he's still a free agent. The deal was between Kansas City and the Patriots, and according to the NFL network last night, KC didn't expressly talk with him and his people about it. If KC can't come up with the deal he wants, my understanding is that he can walk away from that and seek a better deal elsewhere. I'm not sure that's such a good thing for a team trying to rebuild. When we got Schaub from Atlanta, we made sure that he had a lot of years on his contract left. Cassel will have at most one.

I would be happy with getting Rosenfels for a fourth pick if there weren't better options, like Cassel, available. I think he is an upgrade over Jackson, and you are right, he will be a lot cheaper than Cassel. But when you have a good defense, one of the best running backs in the game, and just need a QB to make you a contender, I think your goal should be set higher than, "well, he isn't Travaris Jackson or Gus Ferrote."

Hank Chinaski · 03-02-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

I would be happy with getting Rosenfels for a fourth pick if there weren't better options, like Cassel, available. I think he is an upgrade over Jackson, and you are right, he will be a lot cheaper than Cassel. But when you have a good defense, one of the best running backs in the game, and just need a QB to make you a contender, I think your goal should be set higher than, "well, he isn't Travaris Jackson or Gus Ferrote."

If I were the Lions I would skip the money for a Quarterback and focus on defense. Next year I would limit our offense to falling on the ball three times, and letting the clock run down then punting. I figure that way I can limit the magnitude of the losses.