formerly33

Assorted Twins fans frantically scramble to put Frinkiac to good use. http://www.virginmedia.com/images/longest-running-the-simpsons-431x300.jpg (Not sure why they seem to need a little assistance, but ... ) The ultimate plight of every TD member who chooses to ignore the head man's warning:

No.

I wouldn't normally post in here, but everyone the world over seems to have agreed that 2016 is NOT the year of the musician. Believe it or not, I feel partly responsible for this disaster. Not personally, but by association. Towards the end of 2015, my sister confessed that there were three celebrities whom she always assumed were dead until fairly recently: Bob Dylan, David Bowie, and Pierre Boulez. All musicians. On January 5th, the world grew a bit dimmer upon hearing the news that Pierre Boulez had died. In honor of his memory, I wrote a password in the intended style of his music and still use that password to this day. (If you knew how often I change my passwords, that fact might be a little more surprising. Anyone besides myself who tries to log into my computer is going to have little success, but they'll have the satisfaction of seeing "Password hint: BOULEZ" when at first they fail.) Just five days later, another musical legend passed away: David Bowie. I had in fact never heard him before (though he was on my list of people to listen to), so I don't have much to say on the subject, but since then I've listened to several of his albums. I feel it is my civic duty to reverse this curse my sister has inadvertently brought on musicians. Only one remains on the list, Bob Dylan. In the past six months, I have learned to appreciate Dylan's music in a way I'd never thought possible before. If he also dies this year, I will feel wholly responsible for having done nothing in my power to prevent it. I'm a great believer in jinxes, and if my sister has somehow jinxed him, perhaps I can unjinx the jinx by predicting his death in 2016. It's risky business because I may end up being the deciding factor in the jinx, but desperate times call for desperate actions, and if Bob Dylan dies this year after Boulez (and Bowie, too, I guess), I'll be hurled into the depths of despair and will probably kill myself in my grief. If I may, I would like to decline from compiling the other 24 celebrities ... it just doesn't seem ... ethical. In this one instance, however, I hope my seemingly lowly actions are at least slightly principled. I am, in fact, only trying to prevent the death of a beloved, Minnesotan legend.

If you peruse the dusty archives of Questions About MinnCentric, you might be surprised to discover that a majority of members here vehemently abhor the merging of threads. Just sayin' ...

What if you're already synesthetic? Like Rimsky-Korsakov, Scriabin, Messiaen? Or my beloved Hélène Grimaud? Or the woman I took piano lessons from last summer before I decided to focus entirely on the flute? She was as frustrating and amusing as Liszt: "O please, gentlemen, a little bluer, if you please! This tone type requires it!"

That's it, I'm changing my alarm. Besides, who wouldn't jump at the opportunity for an extra three minutes of sleep?

While I do believe you were well-meaning in your post, this does somewhat confirm Dave's point. If Joe had hit .330 last year and said this year that he's been having issues with his eyes all along, etc., there would have been a single short article and it would have blown over quickly. So yes, I do seriously believe that your reaction would have been different had Mauer hit .330 last year. You do express a valid concern for Mauer, though, and I appreciate that. However, in answer to your "And now we are hearing about sunglasses and keeping one eye open and one eye closed between innings to conserve your eyes .... This sounds like a solution ... somewhere between a nap and desperation," I must point out that we shouldn't view this as an ineffective, quack remedy as it falls into the exact same category as stretching. Finally, What Is Bilateral Weakness? A straightforward, easy to understand explanation I found just for Hosken Bombo Disco.

I'm totally on board with the Pictionary idea! lol

Amen to that. Chi's about the last person on here I'd suspect of lying about their intentions ... light years above that sort of nonsense, really. And trying to blame Chi for what a bunch of Twidiots said? Really.

Okay, I gotta ask ... your name's not *really* Smith, is it? // "It's a curious thing," said Tommy, "how very few people there are whose real name is Smith. Personally, I don't know anyone called Smith. But nine men out of ten who wish to conceal their real name give that of Smith. I am writing a monograph upon the subject." ~ Agatha Christie, Partners In Crime.

http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/lears_daughter/gifs/Disney/mulanclimbing.gif

That comes as no surprise as your member title leads one to assume that you find everything to be not only disgusting but disgraceful as well.

So much so that when Jeb Bush attempted to explain that "The so-called 'gun show loophole' ... doesn't exist," he ended up confusedly resorting to the confession that yes, it does exist, but it should because "people ought to have the right to [sell guns] without being impaired by the federal government." Which brings us right back around to the beginning. The nonexistent aspect of the issue lies only in the fact that many guns offered at gun shows come from federally licensed dealers. However, a federal license isn't a prerequisite to selling guns at gun shows, and therein our problem remains pertinent.

You seem unaware of the "gun show loophole." And I'm not sure what difference it makes if it was Ronald Reagan or John Doe as long as it happened. But that's not the point, is it?

Just as no amount of treatment is going to help an alcoholic until they identify the problem themselves, until the other half of the populace stops digging in their heels and recognizes this as an actual problem, no solution will ever be attainable. Having lost most of my faith in humanity, I sincerely doubt we are capable of any real solution. However, background checks could be a step in the right direction if the right would stop squealing about them infringing their rights as free citizens of the United States. Rather than attempt to paint a beautiful picture like Ruben's "Allegory of Peace and War," I'll be real: nothing we can do will ever completely expunge crime and shootings from the face of the earth, but the main thing is we continue to do our best to move forward. If we came up with a solution that lowered the percentages by just a small number, made our country just a tiny bit safer to live in, I would count that down as a tiny step in the right direction.

Because it's not a big deal and the US quite obviously has it all together.

No, but steps are made to prevent drunk and reckless driving. We can't say that since DUI has room for improvement, we can ignore other issues. To sum up your beliefs, this may be wrong, but so is that, so why bother trying to change anything? Essentially, you are saying the US is beyond hope. Yet you insist that we are the ones who are trying to destroy the nation.

What? Did I ever remotely suggest such a thing? I suppose since one person's interpretation of the Bible differs from another's, the less conservative person is suggesting we strike a match to it? I mean, since I don't wear head coverings, have short hair, don't think women should be silent in church, believe we're equal, da di da di da, am I suggesting we burn the Bible? Or is my opinion justified by Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.")? Also, I thought the cops, the secret service, and the military were supposed to form a well regulated militia ... ? You keep pointing out my dishonesty. I'd appreciate an example in place of, "Liar, liar! Pants on fire!"

Because there's nothing in the Constitution about social workers? idk ... //for the record, Mike, you didn't need to go and like this. I was only trying to point out the irony.

Boy, if everything we did was based off whether something else was worse, imagine where we'd be now. Statistically, the number of abortions and the number of deaths caused by car accidents are pretty similar. However, that's leaving out the 20-50 million people who are injured/disabled due to car accidents. Does that justify abortion in your mind? I sincerely doubt it.

I personally feel like they're desperate to figure out what's up (familiar, huh? ), and they're jumping at this possibility. Could be the problem, but it might also not be (in the long run, that is). It doesn't sound good, though. Morneau ... ?

We're not talking about banning AR-15s. It's a much bigger problem we have at hand here, brother mine. And when Marucci, Rawlings, and Louisville report a sudden increase in sales, not because Sao Tome and Principe started a professional baseball league, but because some wacko Americans decided they needed to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that's when we discuss that problem. And, if it really boils down to baseball bats being banned, we'll be known as an eccentric citezenry who enjoy watching recreational cricket and stab rape offenders with cello endpins.

I'll have you know rapists frequently make use of guns to carry out their molestation. Also, when you look at the statistics, many rapists are not first time offenders, so here's where background checks come into play.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that we're going to ban guns. My bad. Forgive me, please. Oh, and since you want me to repeat my lies over and over, who on earth is going to decide they want to seduce Always after hearing she doesn't have a concealed weapon? Not that I'm anyone's wife ... my mom, perhaps? If my mom had an affair and my dad shot the guy, do you seriously think he would get off? Maybe he felt threatened ... someone was stealing his "property" or something like that.

You sound just like my brother. But you know, we stupid people find your easy going conceit somewhat amusing, too.