OT - Even Charlie Sheen think's Mallet's partying is out of control
I don't even know what to say here. Sheen make's fun of Ryan Mallett's partying at the end of his interview with Dan Patrick saying:
“Hey, can you call Ryan Mallett back and tell him that he left his bong, he left his herb, his sensimilla, he left it all at my house,” Sheen said with laugh, “and I’m like, ‘I’m drug-free – come get this stuff, young man!’”
My guess is that when your reputation allows for Charlie freaking Sheen to make fun at your expense you've gone just a wee bit over the top and need to pull back a bit.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/charlie-sheen-ryan-mallett-dan-patrick-drug-use-joke-030811
If Sheen ever had 1/10th of the talent Mallet had, this would be funnier.
Right now it's just petty and sad.
I bet Charlie Sheen runs a faster 40...
Hell, I bet MARTIN Sheen runs a faster 40.
Fair point, but I'm still not going to watch another Two and a Half Men episode. I saw one and I couldn't believe how accurate the satires were about it. They didn't have to exaggerate at all.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^
I still can't find anyone who actually watches that show. I know it's a popular show and all which is why it's so baffling. My friend had a theory that it might be s regional thing, but I don't buy it.
Kind of find it amusing to be honest. I mean its not really a stretch for the show when Sheen is like that anyways. In my opinion it was a terrible move to let him go. Pay the man what he wants and do the show live. From a marketing perspective the ratings would have never been higher.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
TV viewing habits are pretty segregated by social circle. Hell I barely know anyone who didn't watch Arested Development. Given its ratings, I think I know every one of its viewers though.
Question: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
Answer: Enough to kill two and a half men.
Don't quit your day job.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
That clip is loud. As in - can be heard down the hall at work loud.
I'd put money on Martin Van Buren over Mallett...
Dude, Martin SHORT runs a faster 40 these days...
March 10th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
March 10th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
Did something happen to Ed Grimley?
And yet you don't need any talent at all to make boat loads of money.
Case in point: The Black Eyed Peas, or anyone who's ever been described as a "boy band".
Matthew Mcconaughey would also fit that description.
To be fair, Elephunk was pretty decent, although someone still needs to die for My Humps. That might be the worse song ever recorded. But yeah, I agree.
And what did you learn? Come on, share with the rest of the class here.
I learned that the most sure-fire way to be a successful composer of classical music is to be white, male, and dead. Also, musicology is the most bullshit, hybridized field of study since anthropology.
Haha, that's a good lesson I guess, please don't try to follow it. As to hybridized fields, Political Economy always got me, as an undergrad major I mean. That's about as hybridized as I could imagine, though I don't know much about musicology.
Anything to take a break from studying anatomy. It's one of those emergent fields that grew out of the conservatory system. With so many good music departments around the country with good music historians, professors at these places were bound to start getting into polemics with one another, especially with the tectonic shift in Western music during and after WWI. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (1914) really blew the door open to modern music as we know it today. In some quarters, anything written since about 1920 is still "new music." That's how polarizing the debate is to some people.
Unfortunately, since it's freakin' music, any idiot with a DMA (doctorate of musical arts) can put together a thesis proposing a new way of looking at music previously thought to be understood, or criticizing some aspect of the Western musical establishment, or talking about racism/sexism/politics of culture in general and how they affect musical performance, or just about anything you can think of as long as it has some relation to the creative arts or performance. As a result, the field is a big mish-mash of ideas, and there are some HUGE egos out there. Woe beside you if you have to take Musicology 239 at U-M. The professor is a tremendous human being, and he knows a heck of a lot about Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque music, but he goes into such ridiculous detail for subject matter that you will never, ever use again under any circumstances. Musicology 139 is freshman indoctrination, involving a lot of "world" music intended to broaden your ears, and judging whether something is valuable or not is very subjective and up to the professor in a lot of cases. You read a lot of articles talking about how the conservatory system is terrible and biased, how our understanding of musical history is sexist and one-sided, etc. etc. etc. It honestly makes your head spin at times. I learned a lot from it, but majoring in musicology, unless you're doing fieldwork to collect data on native cultures' musical traditions, seems kind of crazy to me. It just seems like the field combines the worst aspects of history, anthropology, comparative cultures, and academic hubris.
Wow, never thought I'd have Musicology 101 here on MGoBlog. I can imagine the hubris; basically anything that can't be proven is ripe for huge ego's to come along.
Musicol is a very subjective field. Some people make their bones just talking about how our historical awareness of different composers/time periods/uses of different orchestrations, ensembles, styles etc. shifts through time as our prejudices and values as a society shift. Is that hopelessly general, or is that hopelessly general? :-)
To be fair, they do good work, such as researching disputed works and trying to ascribe them to different composers. The cataloguing work is very important, and I liked learning about the history of how Western music developed, but a lot of it just felt like an academic peeing contest.
Try reading days worth of economics journals or Supreme Court opinions on campaign finance regulation and obscure interpretations of legislative code that need a single number changed before there's chaos in a city. Talk about academic pissing contests; that's all public policy is.
And then studying economics, jeez. These guys write their individual opinion on everything, where 95% of the time, if they write where they got their PhD, I can tell you what the work is going to say based on their paper topic.
/rant.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:11 AM ^
Is supply-side economics still considered up for debate, or does it really depend, like you said, on where you got your degree? Not trying to get political but I personally feel that whole vein of thinking is BS, but that's just my personal prejudices talking. Sorry if I disagree with what you believe/have been indoctrinated into.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:18 AM ^
Basically,
Saltwater coast (Harvard and Berkeley mainly)= demand-side, heavy regulation, you know the drill.
Freshwater (basically UChicago)= supply side, interest rate manipulation, you know the drill.
Then there are some other places that have alternatives, like George Mason (my school of thought), but they are few and far between.
And no, you don't necessarily disagree with me, but even though that wasn't political, I can probably make an informed guess where you're coming from. You can tell where I'm coming from too; I figure it's okay as long as we're not debating it here.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:55 AM ^
I'm just replying to this thread within a thread so I can see how skinny my post will be.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:56 AM ^
Now I'm replying to my own post to see how much more skinny it will be. Plus I get a point.
March 10th, 2011 at 12:58 AM ^
Read my words!
Since we're breaking the cardinal rule of MGoBoard, I always wanted to ask you how we both joined like two days apart and you're at ~8600. I know I didn't post a lot when I first joined, but what the hell man?
I deployed a lot of wit during the CC, which wasn't hard to do with all the idiots posting on the board. If you write well, you could get 50-point bumps for a dozen posts just through random people up-voting you. The late-night party threads were fun too; we would post random stuff and it almost always turned into a pos-bang. Plus laying the wood down on fools is one of my specialties and you post a lot when dealing with the hardcore cases. There's some other stuff you can do to farm points.
Wooo I'm even skinnier. I love the sarcastic stuff too. Honestly the CC was probably it. I hardly posted then and there was a lot of dumb shit going on. I spent most of it upvoting (probably) you and Profit and Hackney (where the hell is he anyway?) and some of the other people who had sane thoughts.
But you're right, I'm not above a little point-whoring when they were on, but I do like the serious stuff too.
I think the board, overall, has gotten better since negs and pos-bangs are off-line. The site runs smoother and people don't get gang-negged like they did before. We have more folks posting, and some people who in another time would have been sent to Bolivia are allowed to keep their points and in some cases step their game up and become productive members of the MGoCommunity.
I disagree. While I think it has allowed some people to come out of the woodwork and gain confidence, who then turn into very productive posters, it has allowed others to circumvent the system. We're getting more posters who don't have to think about what they say before they post. The poster you and I ganged up on after the MSU game never has to answer for a lot of the things he says, even though a lot of them simply don't make sense.
Which MSU game? I remember there was one guy after M lost at Munn, and there was another one after basketball. But yeah, no negs is definitely a mixed bag. I do like seeing more confidence, as you put it, from some longtime members who don't post as much as they have a right to.
This is so stupidly thin. I was talking about the basketball game. It must have been before though because I made a snarky comment about not being The_Knowledge. I'm looking forward to points being back up, I think it did a good job rewarding good content and keeping the bad to a minimum. Then again, this is coming from the guy with like fifty negs in this thread.
I vaguely remember you saying something about The Knowledge. Honestly trolls just kind of blend together after awhile, seems like. Don't worry about the negs. TomVH gets negged sometimes, for gosh sakes.
I'm in straight F5 mode man. We gotta keep pushing :-)
That's what she said. Although I hope she didn't say "we".
BTW I don't really care. I'm fine with some newbie jagoff negging me; the only time it sucks is when I know it's people that I like on here, or like their posting most of the time.
It always sucks when a big kahuna comes after you. It's always an honor though, to have one of them respond to one of your posts.
My avatar's escaping the box!
March 10th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
#Winning
I wonder what would happen if we put a cat picture in here.
Fair enough.
Wow, did I just break on through to the Other Side?
Do you remember the Meta thread about this? The guy figured out that the reply would just be a line with the text on the other side, like yours is now.
Vaguely. I remember he started experimenting at about 2 AM with one of those late-night threads and I wanted to go to bed instead of seeing what would happen. Hey, you broke out of the box too!