The CardBoard
We may not get this recruit . . . - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We may not get this recruit . . . (/thread-9167.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Bruce Wang - 05-06-2015

(05-05-2015, 10:18 PM)rastaman85 link Wrote:Love ya, Hulk, but it's Ujamaa, not Ujimbo. Don't think Harbaugh ever lived there.

Speaking of which, great movie.

[Image: 0l.jpg]

Re: Destruction Frisbee - PrinceLightfoot - 05-06-2015

(05-04-2015, 05:37 PM)Mick link Wrote:We used to call this "Destruction Frisbee," but we'd play it with half a dozen guys at each end of the hall, with about a dozen Frisbees of different shapes.  We figured out that you could bounce a Frisbee off of at least three surfaces before it significantly lost velocity.  We kept track of head shots, bruises and the like.  Great fun until someone bounced a Frisbee off of the fire alarm and caused a very unhappy fire chief to have a very unpleasant conversation with the head of our housing...said unpleasantries filtering down to us.  So much for destruction Frisbee.

We did something similar with only two people at each end of the hallway in Casa Zapata back in 1993. Unfortunately, it ended the exact same way and cost the dorm $300(?) for the firemen visit. That was the end of all full-length hallway shenanigans, but throwing people into the showers and dog piling those who made silly comments or bad jokes carried on without consequence.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - terry - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 08:53 AM)garvin link Wrote:Hulk can be forgiven this lapse. I think he was long gone when Magnolia became Ujamaa in fall 1974.

My recollection is that the African American theme house still was called Olivo-Magnolia in 1975. I think the name was changed to Ujamaa in 1976 or 1977.

That male pre-frontal cortex/ executive function thing - Redrum - 05-06-2015

I participated in an ad-hoc mixed-gender group discussing  men v. women debate.  A completely random and unstructured discussion on the strengths/ "value"  of men vs. women.  Surprisingly un-dogmatic, often humorous group-think session.  Conclusion:  Men in general and young men in particular are good at and clearly superior to women in three things (or put another way: only three things):

--Combat (war). Young men relish it and have to be taught or un-trained by experience to see it for what it is.
--Necessary half the contribution to continue the species
--Humor.  Men are just funnier and more prolific with humor.

Only three things.  And, yes, these were generalities.  The list of women's characteristics and superiority was much longer and more serious. 

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - CornFed - 05-06-2015

This thread is becoming an "off-topic" paradise.  Is there some way to generate a metric to know if this level of "off-topicness" is record-setting?

Men vs. Women, argument with sister - Mick - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 09:48 AM)Redrum link Wrote:I participated in an ad-hoc mixed-gender group discussing  men v. women debate.  A completely random and unstructured discussion on the strengths/ "value"  of men vs. women.  Surprisingly un-dogmatic, often humorous group-think session.  Conclusion:  Men in general and young men in particular are good at and clearly superior to women in three things (or put another way: only three things):

--Combat (war). Young men relish it and have to be taught or un-trained by experience to see it for what it is.
--Necessary half the contribution to continue the species
--Humor.  Men are just funnier and more prolific with humor.

Only three things.  And, yes, these were generalities.  The list of women's characteristics and superiority was much longer and more serious.

My sister is highly intelligent and received her PhD from Stanford's School of Education.  Not surprisingly, she opines that women as a rule are smarter than men and more successful in school for behavioral reasons.  I countered that men higher average SAT scores (true, by 1510 to 1485 last year) and the fact that there are more males scoring perfect 2400s than females (despite the fact that 105,000 more women take the test), ditto for 2390, 2380, 2370 all the way down to 1900, which is the first result with more women than men.  The same is true for the bottom end of the scale at every score from 600 up through 850.  So men have a flatter bell curve than women, at least insofar as SAT scores are concerned.

https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/sat-percentile-ranks-composite-crit-reading-math-writing-2014.pdf

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Nan3cy - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 10:06 AM)CornFed link Wrote:This thread is becoming an "off-topic" paradise.  Is there some way to generate a metric to know if this level of "off-topicness" is record-setting?

It probably isn't, at least until someone brings in the Civil War.


Once again, women... and curves - Redrum - 05-06-2015

Leaving boring test scores aside,  I know of no incidents of women throwing all the lounge cushions down a stairwell and then launching themselves down it just to see if it could be done.  Only males could be that looney.

My wife, a Smith grad, described her all-women residence and how, at the end of a long New England winter,  they would go up on the roof and... sun themselves.. topless (!). Shocking and daring for the time but hardly like doing something like free-climbing the Roble walls on psilocybin or latching on to the back of an MGB sports car while riding a kitchen trolley just to see how fast one could go around the asphalt circle walk in the center of the Cowell houses [next to Vaden Health]. Well...there was (mostly) grass or landscaping on the outside of the circle so it was figured it couldn't be that bad when the critical speed limit was encountered.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Hulk01 - 05-06-2015

Well, perhaps I should be only partly forgiven.  I spoke at the Biz School to State Farm University back in 2001, and the company put me up in a dorm.  By sheer coincidence, it was Magnolia.  By even greater sheer coincidence, they booked me into my old room: The second floor room that looked out onto the courtyard from the right side of the brick staircase. 

Not luxe at all--carpeting and a sink, as I recall--but a lovely view those last sunny quarters: the lovely legs of Jackie Norton ('72, ASU law '75, and arguably more beautiful today than then, a near-miracle) and the various freshwomen who competed for the attention of Steve Collins and his brand new 240Z.

By further semi-coincidence, my significant other lived in Eucalpyto and hashed there, no doubt serving my table several times. But we never met then. 

And one final add:  Every day, she reminds me why I regard Stanford so highly.  It's been the gift that never stops giving.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Rally - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 12:17 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12082.msg117772#msg117772 date=1430931980]
This thread is becoming an "off-topic" paradise.  Is there some way to generate a metric to know if this level of "off-topicness" is record-setting?

It probably isn't, at least until someone brings in the Civil War.
[/quote]

Why do some of you insist on referring to the War Between the States as the Civil War?  There was nothing civil about it.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - washingtonismoney - 05-06-2015

Calling it the War between the states endorses the (bogus) Southern interpretation of the war.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Rally - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 01:53 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Calling it the War between the states endorses the (bogus) Southern interpretation of the war.

Then why not call it The War to Preserve the Union?  Or, The War to Subjugate The South?  Or, The War Between Good Americans and Bad Americans (leaving each side their own designation of the titles?). Shirley, are their any Southerners who who can comment?

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Papa John - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 01:53 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Calling it the War between the states endorses the (bogus) Southern interpretation of the war.

Calling it The War between the States is a euphemism, per some Southerners I've met. They call it The War of Northern Aggression.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Papa John - 05-06-2015

And perhaps we should vote on our favorite? There are so many from which we can choose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_American_Civil_War

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - washingtonismoney - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 02:12 PM)Papa John link Wrote:Calling it The War between the States is a euphemism, per some Southerners I've met. They call it The War of Northern Aggression.

Rather rich for a war the South fired the first shots over.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - BostonCard - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 01:49 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Nan3cy link=topic=12082.msg117782#msg117782 date=1430939827]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12082.msg117772#msg117772 date=1430931980]
This thread is becoming an "off-topic" paradise.  Is there some way to generate a metric to know if this level of "off-topicness" is record-setting?

It probably isn't, at least until someone brings in the Civil War.
[/quote]

Why do some of you insist on referring to the War Between the States as the Civil War?  There was nothing civil about it.
[/quote]

civil |ˈsivəl|
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] of or relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters: civil aviation.
• (of disorder or conflict) occurring between citizens of the same country.
• Law relating to private relations between members of a community; noncriminal: a civil action.
• Law of or relating to civil law.
2 courteous and polite: we tried to be civil to him.
3 (of time measurement or a point in time) fixed by custom or law rather than being natural or astronomical: civil twilight starts at sunset.

"Civil" in the context of "civil war" does not refer to the second definition of "civil"; it is not a courteous and polite war.  "Civil" in the context of "Civil war" refers to the first definition.  Thus it was a war occurring between citizens of the same country.

BC

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Langdude - 05-06-2015

I remember a conversation in grad school over a meal in the cafeteria. At the table was a woman from Georgia on the one side, and on the other was a history major, though I can't remember where he was from. Somehow the topic of slavery came up.

Southerner: The War of Northern Aggression was not about slavery! It was about states' rights!
History major: Yeah. States' rights to own slaves.

-m.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - CornFed - 05-06-2015

Well, that was pretty predictable!  :D  What do you think, Nan3cy?  Do we have a thread drift record?

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - CornFed - 05-06-2015

DeToqueville's remarkable "Democracy in America" described the dynamics that were already unfolding at the time he wrote, well before the start of the War That Shall Not Be Named.  It developed deep insights to the cultural, economic and racial elements of the differences between the regions and how they contributed to the eventual start of the conflict.  I am constantly amazed at the power of his observations.  Triggers a desire to read it again.

Re: We may not get this recruit . . . - Rally - 05-06-2015

(05-06-2015, 02:54 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Well, that was pretty predictable!  :D  What do you think, Nan3cy?  Do we have a thread drift record?

Speaking of records, does anyone know who holds the Stanford record for tackles in a single game, season, and career?