Jump to content

harpercollins

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by harpercollins

  1. Or you know in the first sentence she could have said free response questions, and then abbreviated thereafter 

    Obviously. But I’m guessing he just got irritated at the first non-obvious bit of jargon and decided not to care what a FRQ was.

    For context, this is the convo that inspired my post:

    Me: “the guy said—“
    Him: “wait. What guy?”
    Me: “I’m about to freaking tell you what guy. The guy said that when he comes to do the trees he’ll need to start with the ones around the downed power lines.”

    Could I have said “the tree guy?” Sure.
    Would that have been better? Sure.
    Would you treat a coworker or buddy that way? Probably not.

  2. Or…she could be remotely polite when the person she’s talking to asks a question so they can meaningfully understand what the speaker is telling them.
    Shit, Friday night at dinner, I was telling my wife about something that happened related to my work (a public thing that I could talk about). The topic had some legally technical points. She asked me a couple of different times what something meant. I appreciated that she was listening enough to realize she needed that context, so I explained those things to her so she could be an actual part of my conversation. I wasn’t offended - I felt the opposite. If she asked a question, it meant that she was listening and engaged, which makes me feel heard, and pleased that she gives enough of a shit to want to understand what I’m talking about.
    I could think “I’ve been a lawyer for decades, you know what I do, surely you can tell what XYZ is from context,” but I didn’t, because I’m not a fucking asshole (well, at least I wasn’t at that moment).
    A conversation, even to someone who is primarily intended to be the listener, is a two-party process. Not giving a shit about the audience’s desire and request for context is rude AF.

    Totally. What you’re describing is a conversation between two people genuinely interested in what each other has to say.

    What I’m talking about is the opposite. “Say the last part first so I don’t have to engage more than I feel like.”
  3. Here's the problem with that:

    My wife (a teacher) will often start out by saying something like, "So today we were told that the new FRQ will completely change and we'll now have to start documenting everything..."

    Me: What's...

    Her: Will you let me finish? You always interrupt! Just let me finish!

    Me: Fine. Go ahead.

    Her: So anyway, I was talking to...

    She talks for 25 minutes straight without me saying a word. Finally she stops and doesn't make a sound for two whole minutes.

    Me: Are you done? Can I talk now?

    Her: Yes. Thank you for letting me finish.

    Me: OK. I have no idea what FRQ is or what anything you just said means in regards to it so you basically just talked for 25 minutes and I stopped listening 23 minutes ago because I couldn't understand any of it. If you didn't want to talk about the nail, you should have said so in the beginning so I'd know that the entire point is for you to vent and unload and I can ignore it all. But if you want me to actually pay attention, then you either need to communicate better or let me ask for a clarification IN THE FIRST MINUTE rather than waiting 25 minutes later to ask WTF you're even talking about. Now I don't give a shit and I don't want you repeating everything after you explain what you were even talking about. And quit acting all pissy over my "attitude". Either you're going to be mad I interrupted or mad I'm not going to listen to any more. I'm not getting laid either way so it doesn't matter.

    Here's the problem with that:

    My wife (a teacher) will often start out by saying something like, "So today we were told that the new FRQ will completely change and we'll now have to start documenting everything..."

    Me: What's...

    Her: Will you let me finish? You always interrupt! Just let me finish!

    Me: Fine. Go ahead.

    Her: So anyway, I was talking to...

    She talks for 25 minutes straight without me saying a word. Finally she stops and doesn't make a sound for two whole minutes.

    Me: Are you done? Can I talk now?

    Her: Yes. Thank you for letting me finish.

    Me: OK. I have no idea what FRQ is or what anything you just said means in regards to it so you basically just talked for 25 minutes and I stopped listening 23 minutes ago because I couldn't understand any of it. If you didn't want to talk about the nail, you should have said so in the beginning so I'd know that the entire point is for you to vent and unload and I can ignore it all. But if you want me to actually pay attention, then you either need to communicate better or let me ask for a clarification IN THE FIRST MINUTE rather than waiting 25 minutes later to ask WTF you're even talking about. Now I don't give a shit and I don't want you repeating everything after you explain what you were even talking about. And quit acting all pissy over my "attitude". Either you're going to be mad I interrupted or mad I'm not going to listen to any more. I'm not getting laid either way so it doesn't matter.


    This is what I mean. In 25 minutes of her talking about FRQ and the implications of the new FRQ, you were not able to use any contextual evidence to determine that FRQ is a type of assessment? I feel like you just decided not to care what FRQ means. Especially because if your wife has been an AP teacher for any length of time you would already know that FRQ means free response question.
    • Haha 1
  4. Wife here. I understand from this thread that most guys would prefer to have all the information at the onset of a convo (who/what are we talking about). Say the last part first yada yada.

    But FOR THE LOVE can you let me get a half sentence out before you interrupt with clarifying questions? Like, are your contextual listening skills so poor you literally cannot even listen to a single sentence without prior knowledge of the parties? I mean, that’s fine if you are really that limited in communication skills I guess, but let’s not act like I’m the lunatic here for not saying the list of characters in advance.

    • Haha 1
  5. Do you even empirical research bro? Why would athletics be exempt from something so well documented in the corporate and education spheres?

    Again, I don’t even think it’s a necessarily bad thing. It is most definitely a thing.

  6. 6 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

    kim mulkey gets called an asshole because she’s an asshole. it has nothing to do with her being a woman. that is the beginning and end of this conversation.

    wow. case closed. a master of rhetoric.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. you think these guys are on the same level as mulkey? how? oh and by the way, lots and lots of people call those guys assholes! 
    listen, you guys are the ones who have made the sexism claim, and it is on you to back it up with something substantive. kim mulkey is not being treated any differently than a man, she’s being treated like she’s an asshole because she’s an asshole.

    Then explain how you equate her behavior with that of Marshall and Knight.

    Wow it’s almost like I predicted there would not be a consensus about another male coach in her category.
    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. Why don’t you say that she’s not as bad as knight and Marshall?

    Gregg Popovich, Kelvin Sampson, Tom Izzo—all act like jerks but it’s perceived as a benefit to their teams (and themselves by extension).

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. kim mulkey has been such a giant, gaping asshole for so long that you don’t have to ardently follow women’s hoops to have been made aware of her behavior for decades now. you’re only helping me make my point. name any male coach who you see as kim mulkey's equal behavior wise who isn’t seen as an asshole. i can’t name one. 



    What on earth are you talking about?

    I’m so irritated you’re putting me in the position of defending one of my least favorite coaches.

    You’re equating Mulkey with bob knight who was verifiably abusive, throwing a chair on the court during a game, choking a player on video, and arrested for assaulting a peace officer and Gregg Marshall who also had multiple accusations of assault and racist verbal abuse. I have never heard anything remotely like that about Mulkey. You’re proving the point.
    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. examples? i can’t think of a male asshole coach who isn’t seen as an asshole when he constantly behaves like one. in fact there are plenty of great coaches out there who people call scumbags and assholes when they aren’t nearly as bad as kim mulkey. coach cal, bill self, rick pitino, bruce pearl, jim boeheim, john chaney, bob knight, and on and on and on. people keep repeating what you’re saying as if it’s a fact, but i’ve been following this sport my entire life and i just don’t see it. an asshole is an asshole, male or female. 

    can’t really prove a negative, because there’s no consensus on which coaches are jerks. Name a male coach you think is a good guy.

    And how much women’s basketball are you actually watching to say that these guys “aren’t nearly as bad as Mulkey?”
  11. Comparing her to other tough female coaches like Staley and Summit does not address the claim of Mrs. [mention=2700]TreatyOak[/mention] which is:

    If Mulkey does the exact same thing as a male coach, it is perceived differently (and reflects more negatively) than if a male coach does it. She is violating cultural norms backed by empirical research.

    There’s actually much more of a disparity at lower levels and it’s actually one of the reasons why I stopped coaching my kids’ sports teams. Moms just cannot get away with what dads can. I don’t even think it’s a bad thing, necessarily. But it’s a fact.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. Wow. Whole lot of nothing. I wonder how much the libel lawyer retainer was.

    She’s certainly not likable, but nothing out of the ordinary for coaches at the level. I am willing to admit a little sexism in that I think some of things I don’t like about her I would likely find less irritating in men. I’m surprised the article didn’t address that.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. A good chuckle this morning, and a new twitter follow. 
     
    You KNOW Tyrone's mom is a fuckin' menace! I would be, too!

    Wellll there’s always more to the story. The day after this went viral, another post on Tyrone from an ex-girlfriend went viral in which he supposedly admits to domestic violence.


    Here’s his interview addressing it.
  14. It's weird that the state department only cared about what Kim Mulkey said about it and not about what any other coaches or players said about it.

    Yep that’s exactly what I said/meant.
  15. I’m sorry, I missed her “aggressively hostile and shitty” response to the situation.  What did she do?  I thought the complaint was she just ignored it. 

    But the tone of voice AND the facial expression she used when she said “no comment” WAS aggressively hostile and shitty!!!!!!1

    The official line was that the state department told them all not to comment.
  16. Lol, I’m pretty sure she didn’t go on an angry five minute tirade about suing the Washington Post because of some language.
     

    I have no idea. I don’t follow wbb, I’m basing that on reddits interpretation of this thread.

×
×
  • Create New...