"joey" is bad. really bad. and it boggles my mind that netcop enjoys it. I'm convinced that he is an idiot savant and his one field of expertise is wrestling. All this other tastes are way off.
He loved friends. And not just the good seasons, but all seasons. He throught that Joey and Phoebe were becoming "more developed" as the seasons went on. He's not offended at all by how dumb and one dimensional they became.
I watched the 2nd episode of joey out of morbid curiosity. It was everything i expected, and less. First, as a general aside, everytime i've "had it" with reality shows, I'm reminded just how BAD sitcoms are. I can feel the punchlines coming, and they make me cringe.
The absolute worst joke on the 2nd episode was when we were russo-swerved to learn that joey's friend/neighbor is also the super, and was the one leaving the annoying notes. Now, i figured this out from the very beginning (and i'm by no means patting myself on the back for that one. it was just so obviously the "sitcom-haha-didn't see that" trainwreck that you have to expect). So, generally it's just annoying to watch a dumb character go through all the motions of "discovering" this not so subtle turn of events. And how do you think they solved the mystery of the note writer? Of course, she happened to write down all the hamburger places that she likes for joey. And yes, the handwriting matched.
Now, here's where things got UGLY. Just in case anyone forgot that Joey is the dumbest person on earth, they had to drive the point home just a little bit further. "I got it. That means that the super and jenn {or whatever her name is} must have had the same hand-writing instructor."
I actually got the vodka shudder/twinge after that joke. I felt dirty, but was too lazy to jump in the shower so i continued to watch. I was trying oh so desperately to forget that horrid joke, but, it became a reoccuring joke for the rest of the episode!!! I can't even fathom who thought that would be funny.
Then, i went to netcops page and he liked the joke!
Forget it, i can't go on. Joey is just as bad as friends. This type of "funny" is so disgustingly degrading b/c it's forcing the audience to remove all sense of reality. No human being on earth (or even those quasi-human beings that wander the streets w/o a home or are locked up in the looney bin) would EVER come to the conclusion that two idential handwritings would be the result of a very good handwriting teacher.
They should just go for it all, and give Joey superhero powers.
now that we all have gmail, what would be the point of posting rants here? especially when NOBODY adds comments to the posts?
Not sure if you are aware of this, but pj and I are fantasy baseball experts. In fact, i'd go so far as to say we are real baseball experts. And it burns us that Steve just doesn't except our word as gospel. He'd rather quote random guys who work for espn.com even though they have no idea as to what they are talking about. From a guy who is so distrustful of the regular media, we are perplexed why he continues to rely on them for sports.
Regardless, during an espn.com chat, pj and i were posting questions for our own amusement. We might be the only two people in the world to find these funny, and maybe it's a bit weird that we'd use such a huge nationwide forumn for our inside jokes, but we try and post the most markish sports comments from "Steve (Newark)".
I got one in that said something like "why dont you just admit that Brad Wilkerson sucks and you have no idea what you are talking about". The guy disagreed with that statement and went on and on about how grade wilkerson is and how hot he's been (btw, he's one of the two guys that my vodoo worked on).
Now, usually i get a big kick out of getting a question posted. But, this took on a whole new level when i learned that steve read the chat a few days later, saw the guy's answer and FINALLY decided to pick the up guy in his league. he didn't even notice that HE was the one who asked the question!
I'm not sure why i'm taking such pleasure in this, b/c honestly, i am slightly offended that he doesn't respect our opinions enough to admit that we know more than these prorfessionals. The chances of steve reading this chat were so small to begin with. Then, to actually see the question i posted as a joke and take it as seriously is even slimmer. THEN, to not notice it was us writing it. Oh man, it makes all the hours i've wasted posting questions in chats worth it.
so, the united states men's basketball team, the "dream team" if you will, is shooting poorly from behind the arc. How poorly? well, there is only one team shooting at a worse percentage....the russian women!! Uh, that's pretty bad.
oh, and why is the nfl now going to be even stricter in terms of not allowing defensive backs to touch the wide receivers? Did they even watch the games last year? If anything, you should allow MORE contact. I'm sick of teams just tossing the ball up there and hoping to draw a flag. Yes, scoring will be up, but at what cost? It's boring and it's impossible to play defense.
blech.
and i was awaken b/c the movie on tbs was that bad that it was destroying my sub conscious. I think it's called air speed or something. a girl is in an airplane by herself and soemoen on the ground has to talk her down. this is the cheapest set i've ever seen. on the ground, they actually have the walls blacked out so they didn't have to pay for a set. I can't describe it. The guy is sitting next to what looks to be a commodore 128 and it's all black around him.
the itialian looking dude (the bad guy in godfather 3, the father in "the last don) is in this movie. what's he doing in something this bad?
It's been so long since I wrote about that bar that i can't recapture my anger. Just accept the fact that it was a corny bar that did not deserve the love that it got from part of the group. But, my main problem was that even IF it was the greatest bar in the world, going so many times in a week was just completely unjustified.
We went there on the 2nd night and it was apparent that we'd be making a late week run at it again. I didn't care for that decision, but could accept it, as the first night we were in OC, the place was packed and we assumed that the same would be true the next saturday. So that's 2 nights out of the 7 day week. Completely acceptable, given the circumstances. It's the middle night that came out of nowhere that really irked me and inevitably led to the tainting of the third night.
Without getting into the gory details, suffice to say, there were two "groups" within the house. A lame and annoying catfight basically seperated the house and created uneeded tension. Hanging out with group "A" during the day, I figured i'd might as well go to dinner w/ group A and then hopefully everyone could just meet up at the same bar later in the night. Of course, this meant i'd have to miss out on the greatest of all dinners: the prime rib / seafood buffet. Is there a bigger sacrafice one can make than to give up unlimited hunks of beef? I think not. But, as corny as it sounds, i considered the day to be a bonding experience and wanted to complete it w/ going to dinner with the group. So, as everyone left to gorge themselves at the trough of prime rib freedom, i waited [and waited. and waited. and waited.] for these other people to get ready.
Ok, i think i need a siderant within this rant. It's a combo rant on being late and taking a long time to get ready (maybe i should have written that the other way around). There are few things i find more disgusting, egotistical, and inhumane as spending insane amounts of time to get ready. I can't even fathom the amount of arrogance it takes for someone to sit there and honestly think that it takes them x HOURS to get ready. I hate to break it to you, ladies, but you aren't that important. Your existence does not define the universe. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west regardless of how perfect your mascare looks. What is the point of this vanity? Who are you trying to impress? Trust me, the 20 year old boys would come up to you anyway even if everything wasn't "just so". Any decent guy wouldn't care about the miniscule differences that you spend so much time trying to fix. That leads me to believe that it's not the decent guy you care about impressing, but the male counterpart who equals your shallowness.
Anyway, i could almost tolerate the hours of preperation that nobody cares about IF said people actually started on time. As in, if it takes you three friggin hours to get ready, then start the process three hours before we are supposed to leave!!! But oh no, that would actually require consideration for your fellow man. And that can't happen. No, what actually went on in OC was a select few complaining about "we have to leave early tonight so we can spend a super duper amount of time at Seacrets" and then THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE being the last ones to be ready. Do people not realize this irony?
So anyway, as inevitable as death and taxes, so too is the fact that this group was always late. And this night was no exception. Hmm, maybe i should stop writing in red b/c the mini rant is over. But, to recap, being "late"'when other people are involved shows a complete lack of respect for that person. There's no such thing as a person who is always late. Rather, that person is just someone who refuses to consider other people over themselves. Clocks exist. Figure out how much time you need, and then count backwards from when you need to leave by. It's not brain surgery!
i'm going to stop for now, but i'll be back in a few....
does anyone really know what it's like not to sleep? It's a cruel fate. Currently, I'm going through a cycle where I don't have a problem falling asleep, but then i wake up in a panic within 20 minutes. I'm having a reoccuring nightmare that is beyond ridiculous (it's not even "scary" per se). Then i wake up completely confused trying to figure out if i'm in OC or not. I would say no less than 10 times in the past week I've waken up trying to figure out how many people are staying in this room with me. Then i realize it's my apartment in newark. Then i realize said apartment is NOT in OC. Then i realize it's only 20 minutes from when i tried to go to sleep.
This feeling of not quite asleep and not quite awake is brutal. The actual "going" to sleep makes me tired, but then the panicy waking up makes me alert. Or at least quasi alert. I feel too tired to sleep, if that makes sense. I want to dig a hole and crawl into it. Hours mean nothing to me at this point. Next time i look at hte clock, it will be 4 am and i'll think i have the whole day ahead of me. Then it will be 7 pm and i'll wonder where the day went.
I need to win the lottery. I can't exist in a normal 9-5 world.
[and yes, i'm writing this at 11:30 pm. leave me alone]
Before the ocean city trip, i had two concerns: 1) nobody would want to go out and we'd spend the week drinking in the house. and 2) we'd go to a "good" bar the first night, and love it so much that we'd waste the rest of the week going back there.
Now, luckily, OC didn't turn into the debacle that the skiing trip apparently was. The people I went on vacation with actually wanted to enjoy life and such and such. However, on a 7 night trip, we somehow managed to go to this corny bar/club "seacrets" a whopping 4 times!!!
The best way to describe Seacrets was that it was "like Disney World wrapped up in a bar". Why is that the best way to describe it? B/c not only did i say that (as a negative), but someone actually said that as a positive. That's right, apparently people want to go to a bar that reminds them of the cliched corporate interpretation of what a beach bar should look like. It's like going to Italy and looking for an Olive Garden to eat dinner.
It's hard to describe the physical layout of Seacrets, but here it goes. When you first walk in, there is a huge area where bands play. I was mildly impressed with the fact that there were two mini stages for the bands, so as one was finishing the next band could start right away. The corniness factor kicks in immediately, though, when you look down and realize the floor is all sand. Lame. Then, there all fake palm trees under this tent to give the "atmosphere" of a beach bar. The only thing that was missing were the mechanical jamberee bears that we found all so entertaining at eight years of age.
The trickery of Seacrets continued as there were tons of small bars scattered around the pathway. I will fully grant that this "complex" was enormous for a bar/club, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Under no circumstances would anyone go to these little bars scattered around the water. They were litterally a little shack w/ bar stools around it. Oh, actually, people would actually stop at these bars if they were bored out of their minds and wanted to get away from the "seacrets scene". I know b/c Dan and I couldn't wait to leave the niteclub area the first night.
But regardless, the point of these bars was to show off how big the place was w/o actually putting the land to any good use. "oh look at how big this place is, we should spend the entire week here exploring". And by exploring, i mean of course going to the club and dancing there for 4 straight hours.
Ok, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, there was a night club as the "2nd" attraction. It was decent, relatively speaking. There were several very corny gimmicks that certain people just ate up. First, there was confetti that fell down every few minutes. At best it was a mildly entertaining visual the first 20 times it happened. At worst, it was painfully annoying as the stuff got caught on your shirt and fell in your drink. 2nd, there were gigantic balloons that would slowly decend onto the dance floor. This led to the inevitable need to punch the balloons back up in the air. I have to admit that I enjoyed doing this as well. Then again, I'm the type of person who can spin a roll of masking tape up in the air in my apartment for 3 straight hours and not think twice of it.
The final gimmick was by far the most overated. The floor "bounced". The way it was described, you'd think we'd be on a trom-bumb-balino. However, the "bounce" was basically what you would find by walking on those metal doors that lead to basement entrances on the street. Yes there was some give and when the whole crowd did it at once, you could actually feel it. Big deal. Next.
[to be continued. i need to go to school now.]
Is there an athlete worth rooting for more than Carlos Delgaldo? You have to respect anyone who refuses to salute the flag. His political views are so inspiring. But, his greatness is even apparent on the field.
In last night's game, he tried to break up a double play by plowing into Mienkewitz at 2nd base (yes, he was playing 2nd). The redsox were all crying like the girls that they are. Delgaldo just put his head down and walked to the dugout.
Later in the game, when Delgaldo came up again, he got hit. Did he charge the mound? No, he put his head down and ran to first while everyone out went nuts.
Carlos Delgaldo: my hero.
I've been meaning to write something since the bar's been over. I feel bad for all of you who have been checking this site in these past two months. Actually, substitute the word "bad" for "freaked out". What is wrong with you people? I told you I wasn't going to post.
I'll try and think of something to write tonight and post again. I feel like i need to pick something extra rage-inducing to make up for lost time.
Later
it seems like i can't watch a game without seeing something really dumb.
top of the 9th, giants score three runs off of dotel w/o getting an out. first and second still with no outs. guy bunts them over to 2nd and 3rd. i can live with that.
now you have durham up with one out. i'm already thinking "man, i bet the giants wish they had bonds batting third instead of cleanup."
that's the first mistake. then oakland one ups them by intentionally walking durham!!!
walking the bases loaded....already ranted on that. but now it's twice as bad b/c it gets that much closer to getting bonds up. you should NEVER want bonds up and should do everything you can to avoid it. this game is over, i'm not even bothering to watch.
i hemmed and hawed on saturday night whether to write a rant on SNL. it sunk to an even new low in terms of lack of comedic value. I can't even explain how unfunny it was. donald trump was the host. in every skit, he was donald trump. his costume changes consisted of changing his tie. one skit involved "amerosa" getting hit with stuff in the head. for about 5 minutes. with no punchline.
but alas, i chose not to rant on this. i'm just too busy to be wasting my time on rants on tv shows. but, and this is a huge but, what i saw tonight was just mindboggling.
"the casino" is supposed to be a show about two guys who took over a casino and the stuff that goes on with running it. here's the only problem: IT'S FAKE.
something was a little off within 2 minutes of it. the cameras were all in the right place a little too much. then i actually started listenign to the dialogue. it was so corny and fake. i can't really describe how bad it was. There was a "high roller" who was losing tons of money. and when the cards would come up, all of a sudden there was a camera giving an above shot of it. Then at a club, there were about 10 cameras all positioned perfectly to get close up of the people dancing.
everyone needs to see this show. As you are watching it, no that people are sitting there too dumb to realize it's fake.
don't have time for full rants, so i'll just discuss the subjects and you can fill it in yourselves
- not fouling the other team when you are up by 3 is beyond dumb. what's really sad is that i really think that the reason coach's don't do it is b/c they don't want to be second guessed. kobe makes the shot and then lakers win in ot, brown can say "hey, it was a nice (but lucky) shot and we just got out played in OT". If he calls for the foul and (the even less likely scenerio occurs) they lose {those () don't make the sentence flow, i know} then everyone points their finger at brown and says "why did you do that". very sad really
- does everyone realize that the only reason we have 9th inning closers is b/c sutton got hurt in '82. I've read that before, but even joe morgan commented on it recently and i find it mind boggling.
- everyone is talking about how the red's manager is doing a great job, and will probably get the MOY award. they are also talking about the reason for success has been the great team chemistry. I haven't heard this kind of gushing since the '03 royals. BTW, how's the team chemistry there this year?
- roberto's is dead. No more 2 dollar subs. no more 7 dollar pie. new management. I'm both sad for the loss of a dear friend and somewhat pleased with myself b/c i contributed to his death. go figure
- if it wasn't for the 2-1 wednesdays, i would ban carvel. they charge 35 cents for toppings. that's pretty ridiculous, but some of the toppings could be good. what i don't understand is that sprinkles are on that list. can you imagine paying 35 cents for sprinkles. I should hang around outside there and kill any person that orders them. they don't deserve to live.
- gagne for lieber.
- rich harden = craig wilson.
- 6 beers for 20 dollars.
i really don't want to be ranting during these two months, but i couldn't let this one slip by w/o comment.
cubs up 4-1 in the top of the 9th. two outs.
ball hit to center field, alou misjudges it at first, then comes charging in. At the last second he pulls up and gets it on one hop.
the announcer makes a big deal about how great it was that alou at least prevented it from getting by him.
why????
that run means nothing. the cubs need to get one out before giving up three runs. a single is basically as bad as a homer at that point. The only benefit from keeping it in front of him was that with a guy on first, it's possible to get the force out at second.
now, what % of balls in play are of the nature where you can make the out at second but not at first? 3%? it would have to be something like up the middle where the 2nd baseman dives towards the bag to stop it. Very rare.
I imagine that the chance that alou had of catching that ball should he have dove for it is much much higher.
oh, the same announcer then went on to say "i have to keep trying to explain this to baseball fans. outs 25, 26, and 27 are just DIFFERENT than any other out". Yeah, i guess a random bloop single proved that.
1) before today's game, freddy garcia had received a total of 13 runs of support the entire season.
2) before today's game, no team had recorded a save against the redsox at fenway.
now, while trying to find good reviews of the greatest movie of all time (windy city heat), i've found basically two camps.
A) It can't be real. nobody would actually believe that. it's too over the top.
B) it has to be real. Eddie (is that his name?) can't be in on the joke b/c he's not a good enough actor to pretend to be "real".
as for A), that's not "proof". These people make these statements like it erases all doubt.
It's B) that bothers me more though. Assuming, arguendo, that the "joke is on us" and he's in on the joke, then why on earth would he assume that his bad acting is "real"????? Maybe he really is a good actor. in fact, i imagine playing a bad actor is pretty easy. The cliche that always annoyed me is when people would talk about lisa kudrow and say "oh, it must be tough for her to play dumb b/c she's so smart in real life'. come again? is saying "i don't get it" or "huh" really that hard a concept to master? By that definition, there could be no such thing as acting. litterally, people could only play themselves.
this movie HAS to be real. i think i would cry if i learned otherwise.
A good indication of a person's character is how they react when getting punked. Of course they all laugh after they know they were punked, but that's just saving face. Oh no, what i'm focused on is how quickly they become beligerant towards the punker.
to the surprise of no one, sapp became very upset from the very beggining. Obviously, the punker gets more and more ridiculous as the scene goes on. At the beginning, the guy wasn't even THAT bad. It could have easily been "real". And sapp was just so arrogant and pompous towards the guy.
i don't want to go on. i dislike the guy.
why is it that i root for defensive teams? on some level, defense is a good sign of "effort" instead of a skill. Of course, all things being equal, i would objectively like to root for a team that is overachieving through effort instead of just being super talented.
but i'm starting to wonder if my obsession with defense is no different than CW's desire to see small ball. To get a Win, you need to score more points than your opponent. that's it.
I'm sitting here watching the pistons destroy the nets, and the announcers keep excusing kidd's horrible shooting with "well, he does so many other things to help them win. he doesn't need to score." Is this true? would we be as accepting as someone who was lights out shooting but couldn't play defense for his life? If not, why not?
Allan houston is terrible at defense. but i don't think it's a lack of effort in his case. He's just not athletic enough. But i hold it against him. I wrongly blame him for his lack of defense. It's a double standard, i know, but i can't stop.
sportcenter or some espn basketball show, i'm not sure...
dan patrick: "fact or fiction, tonights game will be the last time we see THIS kings team play together"
leiger: "fiction. sure, they might tweak their line up a bit. a role player here or there, but the core will be the same. webber, bibby, stoiakavich (SP) and miller, they aren't going anywhere"
other guy" "i disagree. they've spent tons of money (blah blah blah) and they haven't even made it to the finals. if they don't win this year, i could see webber and/or christie being traded. you at least have to LOOK at trades should they not make it to the finals."
patrick: well, then if they win tonight but then lose to the lakers, will that keep the team together?
leiger: No, this team is going to get broken up if they don't make the finals.
WHAT??
Moderately interesting news segment on child labor in India. How kids are forced to work like slaves and whatnot while the rich kids go to school.
at the very end, peter jennings says:
"There is hope though, as in the region of _____, where litteracy is nearly 100%, kids don't work as much and stay in school more."
ugh, i'm not getting the sentence exactly right. he was saying that litteracy will save everything. that it will cause kids to work less and instead keep them in school.
now, wouldn't a rational person think, "hmm, if the kids are in school and not working, they will have a higher litteracy rate"
how could peter have it the other way around (and especially have the latter two things independent of each other?)
