Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

billhike posted:
robsutherland posted:

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera the first 100% of votes entrant into the MLB HOF. 

I’m not a huge baseball fan but how many times in sports have there been as sure-fire a lock on first ballot entrance? 

I never thought I’d see the day the pompous baseball writers would do this. Well deserved. Now if they’d just rightfully put Bonds and Clemens in also.  

vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

Timing actually works great out here and one of the biggest parties of the year among some wine friends up in OC. Well over 50 folks, an embarrassingly high end high volume bottle count and enough food to feed an army with a full lamb this year among others. While it won't come close to bringing me the joy it did last year I'll be able to focus more on the food, wine and great company. Bring it on!

robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

thistlintom posted:

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

If you saw all of hte videos circulating, not just two of them, you'd see that the boys were antagonizing a native american indian in dc, along with  other young gals minding t heir own business walking around.

you'd also see that the native americans who approached and stood 5 feet away from the steps were surrounded by the teens.

I'd have to ask, they had adult chaperones there.  If you thought  your kids were in trouble, shouldn't you have stepped in and said something?  

I know I would respectfully ask anybody approaching any child under my care to step back.

g-man posted:
robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

What g-man said! But do confess to once in my life liking Brussels sprouts. It was at Richmond Station as part of the Chef's menu. There were as small as my babfingernail, split in half, marinated in something sweet and savoury, and I ate two of them. Or two halves at least. I survived the ordeal, perhaps because they (mercifully) tasted nothing like Brussels sprouts! 

 

wineismylife posted:
jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

What brand?  I'll bring mine and we can open a good wine.  Haven't watched this game in over 20 years

bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

flwino posted:
bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfaavF1R3E

make the quarterbacks win the game =)

napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

Clicky

mangiare posted:
vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

Amen, bro

thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

vincentric posted:
csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I gave it, it's 52% chance of winning the game if you win the coin toss

vincentric posted:

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I didn't say there wasn't an advantage.  There clearly is, otherwise some people would pick going on defence if they win the toss.  That is 100% of the time choice to go on offence.

I just don't like people portraying it as both teams not getting a "chance" to have the ball.  They do.  Stop the other team on defense and you get the ball and the advantage flips to you.  It's even better that you are able to win with a FG, not a TD.  The CFL/College rules are a little too gimmicky for me, even if they are exciting. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×