What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

GM's thread about nothing (31 Viewers)

'Aaron Rudnicki said:
'Bob Sacamano said:
'dharmapunk said:
I'll take a pm.
Um, yeah. Does she speak French?
:lmao:
Ok, I'll bite. How is this funny?
guess you had to be there.
I'm not even sure some people who were technically there would get it. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well I'm glad you two had a good laugh.Oh wait. Let me take a stab. "French" because some Canadians speak French. I'm (barely) Canadian. So me asking my ibuddy to see the pic of the girl he's dating is like me asking to hook up with her. Or something. Got it.

Oh Bob. You so funny. ;)
I got it. You had to be there.

 
So who's setting up the GMTAN Secret Santa?
I could, if someone explains the rules and what I need to do... :shrug:
Secret Santa is a Western Christmas tradition, in which members of a group or community are randomly assigned a person to whom they anonymously give a gift. Often practiced in workplaces, or amongst large families, participation in it is usually voluntary. It offers a way for many people to give and receive a gift at low cost to those involved.1. Collect FBG names and actual addresses from interested parties2. Assign each FBG someone to give a gift to (don't tell the recepient who that person is)3. Send the receipients address to the FBG who needs to send the gift4. So at the end of the day, each FBG has to buy a gift for 1 other FBG.Suggest a $20 limit and as much schtick as possible.
If charv doesn't/can't do it, I guess I will. I'll set it up tonight.
 
It's not about you, woz.

Some people went to Vegas. One of them was from Canadia. He brought Canada money. He paid for his share of the room with it. It was good shtick.

At some point most people wander off and it’s just a few of our GB hanging out. One of them, Hockey_Sam, really wants to go to the jiggly pub. I mean REALLY. And the guy outside O’Shea’s is pimping free transportation and free cover. And Building_Castles has all this Canadian money he received for payment on the room, so…

… off to Olympic Gardens they go. On a shuttle. With a couple. Who our GBs are fairly certain are getting paid to make the ride there interesting. There was a debacle. Problems at the door. They weren’t honoring what our GBs were sold. The chick got pissed. Maybe she wasn't on the payroll. Building_Castles was ready to leave, when suddenly Hockey_Sam pays his cover and pulls him back inside the door. The first two $12 beers – yeah – were comped as part of the cover. So our GBs were giving them $25 either way. OK. Whatever. Boobs.

They're barely seated and there are 4 women on their laps. Yes, there are only 3 of them. I don’t think Sleepy_Paco's ### hit the chair and he was giving this woman $20. Hockey_Sam finds someone he likes and he’s pulling out money. And the Vietnamese twins plop down on Building_Castles' lap. One has her hand down his shirt giving him the Wonder Woman treatment, while the other has her hand up… places (And THAT is why you don’t get your money’s worth wearing jeans to a strip club)… and he hasn’t even had a chance to say hi to these people yet.

They sat there for several minutes building… interest… before they made the, um, hard sell. Something more private? Building_Castles really just went there for the beer. He really shouldn’t. $100? Each? EACH!? In East St. Louis it used to cost fifty cents. So he hangs out for a bit until another woman has a seat. BC couldn’t tell you anything about her, except that she happened to be the one who sat down when he looked over and saw Sleepy_Paco, well, sleeping.

Our non-sleeping GBs had a good laugh. They took a few pictures. And then BC gave the chippie a couple of maple leafs to wake Paco up. And then this Russian woman has a seat. And she’s handsy. And apparently went to the Kitty Cat Club Pole School, along with a woman encountered by Wolverine_Traitor the night before, as she keeps purring and growling in BC's ear. It would be one thing if he were doing something to her to maybe elicit that kind of response, but his phone’s not even ringing for her at this point. So she introduces herself as Natasha… Natalia… Natsavavodka… I don’t know… and asks BC's name and where he's from.

“Sacramento Bill. From Quebec. Just got in. Haven’t even had a chance to exchange my money yet.” :pointstowadofbackbaconontable:

“Oh!!! Purrr! Parlez-vousfrançais?"

What? Half-naked Russian woman purring and speaking French to our GB? WTF? So he had to explain to her that he was FROM Michigan (I don’t know. Don’t ask) and had moved to Quebec and was just a typically ignorant American who didn’t speak anything but English. That seemed to satisfy the Russian stripper who was more educated than him, so he ordered another $12 beer, sent her on her way, and she went to take her clothes off for somebody else. Seems reasonable. He told the next one he was from Edmonton. She giggled and things in the world seemed more balanced again.

Yada yada... they were all really tired the next day.

 
I wasn't impressed with OG last time I was there. I kept going to the VP machines up at the bar so I could win more beer money.

 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.

 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
"in light of""in connection with""in conjunction with""due to""because of"
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
Paragraph 20 is redundant on account/because of Paragraph 30. Redundant to doesn't make sense to me. But then again, not much does.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
oh- that's different than what I just wrote- you're saying they're both redundant? or that one is redundant because the other is already there?
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
oh- that's different than what I just wrote- you're saying they're both redundant? or that one is redundant because the other is already there?
the latter.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
Technically, only one is redundant.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
Technically, only one is redundant.
then shouldn't it be redundant to or with something?
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
Technically, only one is redundant.
then shouldn't it be redundant to or with something?
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
"in light of""in connection with""in conjunction with""due to""because of"
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
Technically, only one is redundant.
this has made me go back and change it again. thanks.
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
No idea if it is "correct" or not but it sounds clunky to me.
Yeah, that's why I balked at it. It sounded funny. I ended up just going with "paragraphs 20 and 30 are redundant." Just got me curious whether you could actually use it like this.
Technically, only one is redundant.
this has made me go back and change it again. thanks.
changing it is redundant to what it already was before the first change
 
grammarguys: is it ok to put a preposition after "redundant"? If so, is it "redundant to" or "redundant with"? There are two redundant contract provisions. I wanted to say something like Paragraph 20 is redundant to/with Paragraph 30. I avoided it by rephrasing the sentence, but now I want to know if this is acceptable or not.
Paragraph 30 renders paragraph 20 redundant FTW
 
Rock and Roll Fun Facts That I Didn't Know:

Rick Derringer ('Rock and Roll Hoochie, Koo') was the founder and guitarist of The McCoys ('Hang on, Sloopy').

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top