Cup of Coffee

November 4, 2011: Deadlines

120 Comments

Today was one of many deadlines for things related to my gig running a Spookymilk Survivor-type game for high schools. I had a "Spooky Milk" logo made as part of the project. It's pretty thrilling.

120 thoughts on “November 4, 2011: Deadlines”

  3. I was informed last night by my daughter that (a) there was a fatality in the garage and (b) the wife did not want to take it out of the trap. I won't be home for another five days. It could get pretty ripe!

      1. I had a bird get inside my attic space a few years ago and couldn't get out. After shatting all over the blown fiberglass insulation, it eventually died and mummified. Hurrah for 100+ degree summer days with very little humidity.

    3. I had a successful kill on Wednesday night...heard the trap and had it reset in under 7 minutes!
      My wife: "Is it dead?"
      Me: "Yep!"
      My wife: "Is it cute?"
      Me: "Used to be. Now it's dead."
      My wife: "Oh. Poor thing..."
      Me: "Umm....yeah."

      1. It could be he just wasn't interested in the job and asked the Twins to deny permission so it doesn't look like he doesn't want a GM job.

        1. @TwinsGeek: Holy crap. #Twins deny #Orioles a GM interview because of internal reorg? That's big news.

          But I don't know what the underlying source of that is, if any.

              1. dido. he doesn't claim to be an insider, although he's more inside than any of us. plus, he's a fellow Carl, so I'm required to love him.

              2. I like him just fine, too. I'm just making a crack about how he sounds when sitting with Aaron. He doesn't have Aaron's media credentials.

              3. I like the Geek, but mainly because he was the first guy out there and he led the way for the Twins blogosphere. He was also a big part of making GameDay what it was. I respect his contribution. I think Aaron's miles and miles ahead of him in just about every way. Sure, Aaron's an NBC employee now, but he passed Geek in terms of his analysis when he was just a college kid still bitter about not getting a gig with the school newspaper.

                1. also, gleeman's... aesthetically better on the radio/podcast. let's just say the geek doesn't have a voice for radio.

          2. Two ways to take that:
            1. A la Angels organization. Basically what all of the knee-jerkers want: everyone fired (yearly probably).
            2. Just rearranging things. Work just went through a reorg where no one was fired, it was just to rearrange how things were divided in the company.

            Now, knowing the Twins, it feels like #2 is what is happening, if a reorg really is happening. The Twins had a bad year and a considerable amount of blame does belong on the front office, but I just don't see an organization that prides itself on stability blowing up things after one year. Perhaps there are other tensions behind the scenes that surfaced because of the bad year.

          3. To me, it looks like he's extrapolating. Maybe the Twins gave him a raise to stay in his current position and not interview with the O's. Socaltwinsfan could be right about Radcliff wanting the Twins to run interference for him. Maybe Radcliff bogarted the last joint and this is payback. I think you'd probably have to be pretty high up to really know.

            It's officially the offseason when "Twins deny Mike Radcliff the chance to interview with the O's" can escalate to "big news."

          5. Okay, here it is.

            The Twins have denied the Orioles permission to interview Mike Radcliff for the position of president of baseball operations, according to an industry source.

            According to the same source, the Twins denied permission because of internal reorganization and promotions that could be in the works.

            Interesting.

              2. I am torn on this. On the one hand, I find it kind of fascinating. On the other hand, I think the Twins' overall success will be determined more by their organizational philosophies than the specific men executing those philosophies. And on that hand, this seems more like housekeeping than anything.

  6. I just caught the last Walking Dead. I spookied that ending from early in the episode, but it was still shot powerfully.

    The last two episodes have been slow-burning affairs after that opener, but I suppose anything would seem slow in comparison.

    1. in my television watching news, i just finished the first season of breaking bad. i'm undecided if i want to keep watching or not...

      3. For what it's worth, season 1 kind of ends poorly because it was a victim of the SAG Writer's strike. The first 3 episodes of season 2 kind of wrap up season 1 if I remember correctly. The show has gotten better as it's gone along, so it's worth giving it another shot, I'd say.

        1. that would make sense. i thought the last episode of season 1 was a little... non-finale-y.

      4. heh, don't worry, everybody. was joak. i indeed intend to keep watching. wouldn't be shocked if i finished up season 3 before the weekend's out (jane and Pete are gone).

        1. Given what you said the other day, I figured this was the case.

          I doubt I'd blame anyone for stepping away because of how it increases their heart rate, though.

            1. That'll be an even better idea between 3 and 4, too.

              I almost always take breaks between seasons just to let the season's narrative sink in as a single story, but the tension was a nice secondary reason with BB.

          2. i don't feel that was so much the case in the 1st season, but i have a feeling that will change in subsequent seasons.

            1. Yeah, it's the least true in that season. The narrative has been as such that it's gotten more tense and stressful with every season and with every episode. I don't know how they keep doing that, but I suppose when you start out with an ordinary man and plan on having him end up where Walt's going to end up, it can't help but be the case (unless your writers suck...not a problem).

        2. also, i have to say how ashamed i am that i didn't know where i'd seen anna gunn before. after 2 episodes i gave up and looked it up. i knew it wasn't just some movie i'd seen her once in awhile ago either; i knew her well, i just couldn't remember where the hell from. well, i'm an idiot.

          1. Does it make you feel any less stupid if I also didn't realize the same thing until just now?

            1. i agree with that statement, but i don't mean it quite like that. anna gunn has a very obvious face and very obvious mannerisms. it wasn't so much, "wait, that's her?", as it was, "oh man, who the hell is that? i should know this!"

              edit: on that topic though, i had absolutely no idea about garret dillahunt's dual roles, and probably wouldn't have, until someone pointed it out to me

              1. That launched him. He's a regular on Raising Hope, which my wife has recently gotten obsessed with. I'm glad to see him doing well...his turn as Jack was, I think, my introduction to him and he played it masterfully. Up until that show, he was just a successful actor who kinda did stuff and people sorta recognized his face. I still think people don't know his name for the most part, but he's got a great, stable(?) gig and obviously a ton of respect in the industry.

                    2. You gotta keep going, man. I thought each season got progressively better (although I could have done without the weird sideplot in season 3 that never got developed but was obviously leading somewhere before the show was canceled and my opinion will probably further infuriate you based one a few of our discussions the past few weeks).

                    4. he had a very nice turn on Burn Notice as the psychopath Simon Escher, and had the role as the heavy in the late, lamented Life. Plus, you know, he was Cromartie.

                    6. @hj Langrishe and the theater. Outside of a few great interactions with Al, the rest of the theater sideplot went no where. Actors, why do they have to ruin everything?!

                2. I am also way into Raising Hope. I enjoy every single character on the show, and I'm glad he was in Deadwood so he could land the Raising Hope part.

                  1. I love "Raising Hope" as well.

                    My first exposure to GD was as Tommy Lee Jones' deputy in "No Country for Old Men", then "Raising Hope", then "Deadwood". The fact he played two characters threw me for a loop so bad.

  7. Moss' disdain for the douchebag known as "Dark Star" (who Moss calls "Dim Wit") cannot be overstated.

    It's in the news today that the Vikings' lease contains a clause providing that the lease is extended by a season for every season that they miss games at the Dome due to "partial destruction" rendering the stadium "not suitable for playing."

    Dim is on the air saying, with complete conviction, that the Vikings can easily get out of that clause and out of the lease. Seriously, this guy would be a worse lawyer than he is talk-radio personality...and that's pretty awful.

    (Note that Moss is not saying there's no chance the clause or lease doesn't hold, but simply that it's not as cut-and-dried as he thinks it is, especially where the language appears to be pretty much dead-on.)

    1. I can't believe he landed a guest gig on the radio after finally being booted off the Good Neighbor.

    2. I listened to Dark Star one time, about three years ago. He went on and on advocating getting rid of "dead weight," by which he meant Scott Baker. Nothing that anyone said got through. He was wrong and everyone could prove it, but that didn't bother him.

      2. Who the hell is Dark Star? Do I even want to know or should I just be happy I live outside of MN sports talk radio territory?

    3. I made the switch from KFAN to 1500 ESPN a while back. I tune into PA every once in a while, but dropped Comman Man and Barriro altogether
      the only problem is that 1500 barely comes in down here in the hinterlands while The Fan has a Mankato affiliate and comes in pretty strong

    4. It's in the news today that the Vikings' lease contains a clause providing that the lease is extended by a season for every season that they miss games at the Dome due to "partial destruction" rendering the stadium "not suitable for playing."

      what dumb@ss on the Vikings' legal team agreed to that clause? "We have to pay more when your facility is unusable through no fault of our own? Why, sure!"

      1. Without knowing better, I'm going to say it was Mike Lynn who got that in there. After all, he was the guy that got a personal stake in the luxury box revenue.

    1. For $1.25 a week, you can get the Sunday dead tree edition and unlimited online access. Since my wife insists on a Sunday paper, I might just go that route.

      1. No Yankees. No Red Sox. Big payroll.

        If you're going to put your money on an organization winning one, Philly would be it.

    1. Have you ever seen Joe Rogan's standup? He made so much fun of it. "People ask, what happens on next week's episode? I'm like, I don't know, I can't even figure out how this shit is a show."

      1. A friend of mine was on that show but lost (he had to escape from a sinking car; he didn't beat the time limit). He also played, briefly, for the Packers. Practice squad, or something. He's danced in a few movies too. The dude is so amazingly powerful and agile I was stunned when I learned he didn't win.

      2. Hell, for what they spend to produce that show, I'm sure it makes plenty of money, so I'm just surprised it ever went away. I don't really mind some of the challenges (I remember some sinking car ones, those would be tough), but some of the gross-out stuff is way overboard.

        1. I liked the basis of the show, but instead it was grossness rather than fear-inducing. Meh.

          The episode Julius was on was the only episode I ever saw, but yeah, I assume it's pretty cheap. Producers love reality shows because there are no regular actors (besides the host) to pay and minimal scripting.

          1. By "reality shows" you mean "game shows," right?

            The closest to "reality" that Moss can think of that was ever on network TV is Cops. Then there's "unreality" like Real World, and then there's game shows like Fear Factor, Survivor, and American Idol.

            1. I find it easier to just categorize them all together as "crap I won't watch"

              The only "reality" show that was worth watching was the old Eco-Challenge that ran (on the Discovery Channel?) many years ago -- of which Survivor is a bastard stepchild.

                  1. Also, that's why Moss used the "network" qualifier...the cable channels now have many that are based in some way on "reality." But the traditional networks mostly haven't, except for Cops and maybe a couple others. But they have cleaned up by slapping the "reality" label on game shows.

              2. Survivor is derived from a Swedish show. Is that the one you mean?

                I watch very little of what's classified as reality, but I love Survivor. I just can't get enough of watching people deceive people for money.

                1. Nope, Probst and Burnett used to run Eco-Challenge, which was a team-based race under extreme conditions. There wasn't the voting off and deception, but there was the typical bickering between sleep-deprived exhausted team members whether they should camp out on the mountainous snow slopes or try continue on, for example. Google it sometime; it really was entertaining when they had it.

              1. and how much are you paying for law school? Just get a cable subscription and study for the bar on your own!!!111one111!!!!

            3. Well, yeah, but I don't think the distinction is that important. I say "reality" in the way the industry means it - that it's in a mostly unscripted format. If you want to be pedantic about it, no show in that case would be a reality show because there's nothing real about a bunch of cameras breathing down your neck.

              1. Moss isn't poking at spooky, just at the label. Moss is just down on the whole idea...who came up with the term "reality" TV?? There could hardly be a worse descriptor for the crap that they slap that tag on. There is nothing real about it. Fear Factor...reality TV! Survivor...reality TV! It's 180 degrees opposed to what
                it really is. Might as well go with "CSI...reality TV!"

                Why not call them what they are -- game shows. What is wrong with that label?

                1. We definitely agree, Moss. I didn't think you were swiping at me...I only wanted to point out why I use the term, despite the fact that it's an obvious misnomer.

                2. Cops maybe came the closest to being reality TV that had any modicum of interest.

                  C-SPAN and Court TV have reality TV and nobody watches them.

Comments are closed.