After spending ten years working in a Superior Court in California, I learned to never write electronically or say on a recording anything that I would not post on a church bulletin board. Before email and the internet, I'm sure I said/did/wrote many things that someone would have found hurtful or offensive, but after seeing many examples of the consequences of a lack of caution or restraint, I have since desisted.
My first manager when I was a stockbroker told me to never do (or write) anything I did not want to see on the first page of the Washington Post. I took it to heart (never had a complaint in over 25 years as a broker.)
That the Sox could FAIL to be the worst reminds me of a joke (stop me if you heard this).
Wife says to hubby: “Harold, you’re such a schmuck! You talk like a schmuck, you walk like a schmuck, you dress like a schmuck. If there was a contest for biggest schmuck, you’d come in second”
In the early 2000s, I blogged about my young children and motherhood and was writing to be funny. And in the early 2000s, funny was a little meaner and non-respectful of privacy than I’m comfortable with now. I mean, it was funny and my now-adult kids are funny and would likely laugh…but it still might hurt them, which would hurt me
Hurt me? No. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words only make me crazy." (Galaxy 1950's) And I have posted lots of opinions, but I am retired and close to being independent of others. How hurt? I may regret some comments. But that is another story. G4B
I said no in the poll. I've never found myself in an internet search other than in a white pages search. Turns out my name is surprisingly (to me anyway) common. Also, it's the Wolverine's name, so first you have get through all of those hits.
There are some other Suzanne Barnhills out there, but if you search for "Suzanne S. Barnhill," every hit will be me. I'm not especially ashamed of anything I've posted, though on occasion I've been intemperate. The things I'm ashamed of are things I've done--long in the past but devastating if they came out.
There is, or was, a Sam Mertens with the same middle initial as me. He’s about the same age, and when I found him we were both college students with the same major, though different institutions. “Awesome,” I thought, “there’s my go to if I ever need resume fodder,” but he’s since disappeared, and I’ve never ‘borrowed’ any of his credentials. If he’s borrowed mine, at least it’s never come back to hurt me.
There are surprising numbers of me. We are evidently legion. We are not, however, sufficiently organized to keep emails straight, which is how the lot of us became self aware, as it were.
Well, how appropriate that the Sox are now looking to the Angels for more losses. Hmmmmm, I think they hit 120 a little early, TBH, in order for this contest to come to fruition. :)
Support. I am with Gene on this stack. "Duration plus 90 days at least." I had so much fun when he was a Washington Post chatter. As long as my Social Security works I am here.
Might not have to be daunted by the logistics of getting to Detroit and Comerica Park for that would-be historic game. The ChiSox have now tied the AL record at 119 losses (as of last night, 09/21) and could (somehow) fittingly rise to the all-time nadir at home during a three game series against the lowly Angels before that potentially fateful weekend. But then the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be escorted out of a major league ballpark by security with a two-time Pulitzer winner loudly complaining about freedom of expression would forever be gone.
"There Will Be Poop: The Gene Weingarten Story" The biopic you've been waiting for. Coming soon to a screen near you. Speaking of which, "caca" derived from the Latin, is the overwhelming favorite in Romance language countries and many other places. And Tater Tots® are made up of what's left over from the manufacture of frozen french fries. Used to be sold only as livestock feed. And so ends another episode of "You Don't Say?!"
When I was going to college in the early 60's I was in Lubbock, Texas and the local drive in had tater tots. And they were good. Just easier to fry and keep than fries with less labor. Did they even have frozen potatoes then? I guess so, but I am not sure that was the only source. OOPS "Invention
In 1953, brothers F. Nephi Grigg and Golden Grigg, along with Ross Erin Butler Sr., invented tater tots while working for the frozen food company Ore-Ida. They were trying to find a way to use leftover potato slivers from making French fries." NEVER MIND!!
No, your execrable "thesis" is NOT solid---at least not based on the article you linked. Exactly two (not "many") of the 1962 Mets are quoted on the possibility that the White Sox might break their record, and the only reason given for hoping that it doesn't happen is, "I wouldn't wish it on anybody. Why would I wish that somebody is terrible?" In other words, there is zero evidence of perverse pride in owning the record for futility, just evidence of empathy and decency---qualities that your "Badwagon" clearly lacks. Apparently, it's also lacking in honesty.
But as the saying goes, you do you. I saw the results of your poll about resuming your prank calls to harrass customer service representatives, so evidently, many of your readers are just fine with the "humor" you find in punching down. I'm disgusted, but obviously I'm in the minority here.
I'm curious as to why a humorless person who clearly despises Weingarten's work is here at all. Odd, that.
With respect to "punching down" on the customer service reps -- I guess you fail to catch that what makes them funny is the complete professionalism of the customer service reps, who do exactly what the employer wants them to do with sticking to a positive tone and representing the company in the best possible light. None of them are built on the premise of making fun of the CSR personally, nor do any of these calls require that the CSR lie on behalf of the company or fumble to explain away some genuine problem with the product. It is the contrast between the lunatic caller and the calm and cheerful demeanor of the CSR that makes the humor. The only person being humiliated is the caller (Gene).
So, despite humor's famous subjectivity, someone who fails to agree with you that something is funny is "humorless"? Odd, that.
To satisfy your "curiosity." I like some of Gene's work just fine, but I'm mainly here for the Invitational. (I'm #175 in the nrars.org ranking---obviously no Chris Doyle, but maybe not entirely humorless, hm?) The previous time I complained about a Gene Pool I found objectionable, I suggested that maybe I should just stick to the Thursday Invitational posts, but Gene replied something like "Nah, stick around. We can use the occasional adult around here." (Can't find the exchange to quote it directly.) It's still a tough call; the main contribution of my allegedly adult presence seems to be eliciting snark from people like you and Dale of Green Gables.. I can say that I wouldn't have bothered to rant about the Badwagon again today if the linked article about the 1962 Mets said what Gene said it did; the blatant lie pissed me off.
I appreciate your take on the prank-call columns. I don't know if Gene thinks he's humiliating himself, but looking at it that way is more palatable to me. But I still come back to the view that he's giving these low-paid, low-level employees a hard time for his own enjoyment.
I've been one of those low level employees and I'd've been amused and delighted with such a call. Please be assured, as long as he is not getting personal, and probably even if he did, they don't give a fuck. Doing exactly what they are told and having it not work out for the company would be satisfying.
I also voted against the prank calls, but mostly because I find them tiresome. You may be right about “punching down,” but it seems like a lot of customer service reps are in on the joke.
What I wish would happen is that Gene could obtain contact information for Executives and Board members so he might ask stupid questions for which there would be no reply.
I said no to the poll but I assume under a dictatorship many of us have amusing social media posts that the dear leaders wouldn’t find so amusing.
After spending ten years working in a Superior Court in California, I learned to never write electronically or say on a recording anything that I would not post on a church bulletin board. Before email and the internet, I'm sure I said/did/wrote many things that someone would have found hurtful or offensive, but after seeing many examples of the consequences of a lack of caution or restraint, I have since desisted.
My first manager when I was a stockbroker told me to never do (or write) anything I did not want to see on the first page of the Washington Post. I took it to heart (never had a complaint in over 25 years as a broker.)
That the Sox could FAIL to be the worst reminds me of a joke (stop me if you heard this).
Wife says to hubby: “Harold, you’re such a schmuck! You talk like a schmuck, you walk like a schmuck, you dress like a schmuck. If there was a contest for biggest schmuck, you’d come in second”
“Why only second?” He asks.
“Because you’re a SCHMUCK!
Well, there’s this weekly online contest I sometimes shoot my mouth on…
In the early 2000s, I blogged about my young children and motherhood and was writing to be funny. And in the early 2000s, funny was a little meaner and non-respectful of privacy than I’m comfortable with now. I mean, it was funny and my now-adult kids are funny and would likely laugh…but it still might hurt them, which would hurt me
If my kids knew how many literary punches I’ve pulled for their sake…
I would suggest “But first, White Sox, a little snu-snu” for the demoralization factor, except I don’t they’d get the reference.
Hurt me? No. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words only make me crazy." (Galaxy 1950's) And I have posted lots of opinions, but I am retired and close to being independent of others. How hurt? I may regret some comments. But that is another story. G4B
I said no in the poll. I've never found myself in an internet search other than in a white pages search. Turns out my name is surprisingly (to me anyway) common. Also, it's the Wolverine's name, so first you have get through all of those hits.
There are some other Suzanne Barnhills out there, but if you search for "Suzanne S. Barnhill," every hit will be me. I'm not especially ashamed of anything I've posted, though on occasion I've been intemperate. The things I'm ashamed of are things I've done--long in the past but devastating if they came out.
There is, or was, a Sam Mertens with the same middle initial as me. He’s about the same age, and when I found him we were both college students with the same major, though different institutions. “Awesome,” I thought, “there’s my go to if I ever need resume fodder,” but he’s since disappeared, and I’ve never ‘borrowed’ any of his credentials. If he’s borrowed mine, at least it’s never come back to hurt me.
There are surprising numbers of me. We are evidently legion. We are not, however, sufficiently organized to keep emails straight, which is how the lot of us became self aware, as it were.
Hm-m. I took the poll to include bad behavior that may be immortalized, not simply my rants and raves.
Well, how appropriate that the Sox are now looking to the Angels for more losses. Hmmmmm, I think they hit 120 a little early, TBH, in order for this contest to come to fruition. :)
Support. I am with Gene on this stack. "Duration plus 90 days at least." I had so much fun when he was a Washington Post chatter. As long as my Social Security works I am here.
Might not have to be daunted by the logistics of getting to Detroit and Comerica Park for that would-be historic game. The ChiSox have now tied the AL record at 119 losses (as of last night, 09/21) and could (somehow) fittingly rise to the all-time nadir at home during a three game series against the lowly Angels before that potentially fateful weekend. But then the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be escorted out of a major league ballpark by security with a two-time Pulitzer winner loudly complaining about freedom of expression would forever be gone.
The Magic Number for the ChiSox is down to two.
The Magic Number for the ChiSox is down to one.
Magic indeed. They've "peaked" a little early.
"There Will Be Poop: The Gene Weingarten Story" The biopic you've been waiting for. Coming soon to a screen near you. Speaking of which, "caca" derived from the Latin, is the overwhelming favorite in Romance language countries and many other places. And Tater Tots® are made up of what's left over from the manufacture of frozen french fries. Used to be sold only as livestock feed. And so ends another episode of "You Don't Say?!"
When I was going to college in the early 60's I was in Lubbock, Texas and the local drive in had tater tots. And they were good. Just easier to fry and keep than fries with less labor. Did they even have frozen potatoes then? I guess so, but I am not sure that was the only source. OOPS "Invention
In 1953, brothers F. Nephi Grigg and Golden Grigg, along with Ross Erin Butler Sr., invented tater tots while working for the frozen food company Ore-Ida. They were trying to find a way to use leftover potato slivers from making French fries." NEVER MIND!!
Who knew? I thought it was a local treat.
No, your execrable "thesis" is NOT solid---at least not based on the article you linked. Exactly two (not "many") of the 1962 Mets are quoted on the possibility that the White Sox might break their record, and the only reason given for hoping that it doesn't happen is, "I wouldn't wish it on anybody. Why would I wish that somebody is terrible?" In other words, there is zero evidence of perverse pride in owning the record for futility, just evidence of empathy and decency---qualities that your "Badwagon" clearly lacks. Apparently, it's also lacking in honesty.
But as the saying goes, you do you. I saw the results of your poll about resuming your prank calls to harrass customer service representatives, so evidently, many of your readers are just fine with the "humor" you find in punching down. I'm disgusted, but obviously I'm in the minority here.
I'm curious as to why a humorless person who clearly despises Weingarten's work is here at all. Odd, that.
With respect to "punching down" on the customer service reps -- I guess you fail to catch that what makes them funny is the complete professionalism of the customer service reps, who do exactly what the employer wants them to do with sticking to a positive tone and representing the company in the best possible light. None of them are built on the premise of making fun of the CSR personally, nor do any of these calls require that the CSR lie on behalf of the company or fumble to explain away some genuine problem with the product. It is the contrast between the lunatic caller and the calm and cheerful demeanor of the CSR that makes the humor. The only person being humiliated is the caller (Gene).
So, despite humor's famous subjectivity, someone who fails to agree with you that something is funny is "humorless"? Odd, that.
To satisfy your "curiosity." I like some of Gene's work just fine, but I'm mainly here for the Invitational. (I'm #175 in the nrars.org ranking---obviously no Chris Doyle, but maybe not entirely humorless, hm?) The previous time I complained about a Gene Pool I found objectionable, I suggested that maybe I should just stick to the Thursday Invitational posts, but Gene replied something like "Nah, stick around. We can use the occasional adult around here." (Can't find the exchange to quote it directly.) It's still a tough call; the main contribution of my allegedly adult presence seems to be eliciting snark from people like you and Dale of Green Gables.. I can say that I wouldn't have bothered to rant about the Badwagon again today if the linked article about the 1962 Mets said what Gene said it did; the blatant lie pissed me off.
I appreciate your take on the prank-call columns. I don't know if Gene thinks he's humiliating himself, but looking at it that way is more palatable to me. But I still come back to the view that he's giving these low-paid, low-level employees a hard time for his own enjoyment.
I've been one of those low level employees and I'd've been amused and delighted with such a call. Please be assured, as long as he is not getting personal, and probably even if he did, they don't give a fuck. Doing exactly what they are told and having it not work out for the company would be satisfying.
I also realize I'm a bit late to the party here.
Better late than never! ;-). Getting your take on those columns helps me feel better about them.
I stand corrected. My position on the stats is way further down.
I also voted against the prank calls, but mostly because I find them tiresome. You may be right about “punching down,” but it seems like a lot of customer service reps are in on the joke.
What I wish would happen is that Gene could obtain contact information for Executives and Board members so he might ask stupid questions for which there would be no reply.
Now THAT might be worth reading.
My, my, those 'roids acting up again?