Welcome to BigFlax.com!

February 24, 2004

   I've had like five hours' sleep in the last two days. I wish I were kidding about that. Don't ask me why. I've been just not tired enough to end up awake most of the time, and able to sleep only sporadically. It's building up, though. I expect to sleep freaking great tonight, and not having class until two tomorrow is making me do a happy dance. A really, really tired happy dance. Everything seems to be happening in some sort of dream-state, though.
    In other news, the BigFlax.com 2004 NCAA Tournament Challenge has a couple more sign-ups. Here's who I've got (asterisks have already [!] paid):
    Robert Flaxman, David Flaxman, Andrew Reinbold, Andrew Rudnik*, Justin Moles*, Tyler Johnson, Rich Ramberg (?).
    To add your name to this illustrious list, just let me know. And remember, just because you don't go to NU anymore is no reason you can't enter. *eyes Nemo suspiciously*

February 23, 2004

Catching back up, it's the reviews for The Fog of War and Miracle.

I was at White Hen the other night and they had another new product: Caramel Ho-Hos. It's such a wondrous age in which to be a fat loser. Anyway, they taste pretty much like regular Ho-Hos (which actually, I rarely if ever eat), except they have some runny caramel in the middle. Tastes fine, but nothing special.
The girl in front of me was buying a 32 ounce bottle of Lipton Brisk and a four-dollar jar of pickles. I have no idea. She didn't look pregnant...

Out of the "Crazy Fucking News" department: five teams have declined so far, putting Northwestern at #2 on the waitlist in Division I for the NAQT ICT (the national championship tournament). Eight teams have yet to accept or reject their bids, three of whom are from the UK (not since the second year of the ICT have three British teams played in D-I) and two of whom are additional teams of schools already sending one or more other teams. There's a very real chance that we go, despite a 4-12 record (in a pretty damn strong region, and we did upset Chicago A, but 4-12 nonetheless). I hope this doesn't jinx it... whatever.

February 20, 2004

The Internet can truly be a strange beast sometimes. For example, it leads people to this page who would probably never find out what I was saying about them if I didn't publish it here and there weren't subsequently search engines that let them Google themselves. I've had at least three professors e-mail me about being quoted, and now comes a response to last month's update in which I sang the praises of the Millburn Deli (actually, not the first time I'd done so, but in more detail):

milldel79 (2:35:57 PM): hey hey
milldel79 (2:36:00 PM): you don't know me
milldel79 (2:36:08 PM): But I read your site about the Millburn Deli
milldel79 (2:36:20 PM): my parents own it
milldel79 (2:36:24 PM): I work there
milldel79 (2:36:35 PM): so yea thanks for the praise
BigFlax29 (2:36:43 PM): thanks for the sandwiches
milldel79 (2:37:11 PM): wish i knew who you were so i could make sure u get the xtra vin lite oil and white onions
milldel79 (2:37:12 PM): LOL
BigFlax29 (2:37:16 PM): heh
milldel79 (2:38:36 PM): Next time you come in you should make yourself known!
milldel79 (2:38:38 PM): ;-D
BigFlax29 (2:38:41 PM): heh
BigFlax29 (2:39:11 PM): if I'm back in town I'll drop you an IM, eh? :-D
milldel79 (2:40:55 PM): sounds good
BigFlax29 (2:41:32 PM): and keep up the good work :-)
milldel79 (2:45:12 PM): thanks, gotta work for that #1 spot
milldel79 (2:45:13 PM): lol

The #1 spot, if you've already forgotten, is the chips and salsa at Toro Loco. Great as the Millburn Deli is, I have to say it's not going to beat that - but take heart! The sandwich is the #1 thing that actually can pass for a meal (no matter how many chips I eat, it doesn't make them more than an appetizer). So enjoy your first place in the "Actual Meal" category, boys.

In other food-related news, my mission to find White Chocolate Reese's Cups took me to the 7-11 at Church and East Prairie. They didn't have them either - this "massive popular demand" for their return doesn't seem to have brought them to Evanston/Skokie convenience stores just yet - but they did have another limited edition product, "Honey Roasted Reese's Cups." While tasty enough, they weren't much different from the regular kind - and almost tasted weak, somehow, as though they weren't that nutty. Kind of a let-down. But they were on sale. To see the wrapping, you can click here - the guy on this page actually said almost the same thing I did. I endorse his review as accurate.

February 18, 2004

Oh man, it's so nice out. It's over 40 degrees. I went out in just my NU jacket (as opposed to the big winter coat, which even in the 30s was starting to get a bit warm) for the first time since... I can't remember when. Certainly the first time in 2004. The breeze actually feels warm - coming off of, even for Chicago, a damn cold winter, this is utterly fucking balmy.

Reminder: The BigFlax.com 2004 NCAA Tournament Challenge is happening again. We've got four people committed so far, but I'm always looking for more. You don't have to be near me to play, just so long as you can get your entry fee in somehow.

February 17, 2004

The northwest and Great Plains, primarily, have yet to see the Flax. Or maybe it's that I have yet to see them. Not like I'd have any real reason to find myself in the Dakotas.

create your own visited states map

TRASHionals will fill in one of the few east of the Mississippi gaps when I add Tennessee. It does bear mentioning that two states make it just due to stopovers in airports and two more only because of train trips (one of those, Kentucky, will join the fully legit squad on the way to Tennessee, though I think train trips count about as much as car trips do).
I haven't seen much of the world either, but at least I've seen varied bits.

create your own visited country map

You can't see Cape Verde on this map, but oh well, that was only an airport stop. It's rather amusing that I've been to just eight countries but five continents. And I've never even been to freaking Canada.

February 16, 2004

   Not only did they cut scenes out of "Gum, Disease," the reason it wasn't on the DVD - and this proves it won't be on future ones - is a merchandising clause in Branford Marsalis' contract. Only my favorite Space Ghost episode. Damn you, Marsalis.
    I went to White Hen after dropping Alma off on Saturday. Hershey's evidently has this new S'mores candy bar, and you know me. So, of course you're better off eating real S'mores. But as far as candy bars go, it wasn't bad. It's probably the most interestingly textured candy bar I've ever eaten, between the industrial-produced marshmallow puff and the strangely candy-wafer graham cracker part. As Alma said, tastes about as much like a S'more as you could expect from a candy bar.
    I also got an Oreo cookie bar, which, to overuse a descriptor, tastes about as much like an Oreo as you could expect from a candy bar. Really, it's an Oreo for people who like the chocolate cookie the best, as you can barely taste the cream and the whole thing is coated in another layer of chocolate for good measure.
    Hershey's also appears just to be going nuts with "Limited Edition White Chocolate varieties" these days. I reviewed the Kit Kat last year, and I just saw they've got a Reese's Cup variety coming out (actually, it seems to have already come out - the website claims it's "back to stay by popular demand"). I must have it. I'll let you know how that one turns out.

February 14, 2004

No fancy GIFs this year, kids, but the BigFlax.com NCAA Tournament Challenge will return for another year. I don't know if I'll get as many people as we had last year, but I hope to secure a reasonable turnout. I know Rudnik's in. Rules are pretty much the same as they ever were; as far as eligibility goes, I just have to know you and you can be in. Let me know.

February 10, 2004

   It wouldn't be quiz bowl without some good old-fashioned controversy, and we've got no exception emerging out of the past weekend's SCTs. It's already been something of a rough year for NAQT - after it turned out that it was not as difficult as they thought to attend two tournaments using the same questions, they tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to sweep the entire DUNCE affair under the rug. That, however, was massively small potatoes compared to this train wreck.
    To summarize: Basically, at last year's ICT, a team dropped in Division II at the last second. Rather than put up with the scheduling fiasco that is 31 teams, NAQT solicited schools in southern California to send an "exhibition team" to fill the 32nd slot. UCLA, the host school, opted to fill that hole.
    The problem arose because NAQT apparently assumed UCLA would just send four scrubs who would lose every game, and UCLA sent, evidently, the best Div II players they had. The team they fielded went on to a fifth-place finish, and Charles Meigs was the tournament's leading scorer.
    However many people were aware of this, it wasn't many - as the whole thing exploded when Meigs and Co. competed in Division II at this year's West SCT and won the title, at which point someone wondered why exactly they were playing in D-II in the first place. It seems that part of the deal was that this "exhibition" team would retain their D-II eligibility, despite playing at ICT. Thus it is now quite possible that Meigs could win the D-II scoring title two years in a row, which should be impossible (except for a community college player, as the rules are different for them).

    Clearly someone is to blame. Is it:
    (a) NAQT, for failing to consider that UCLA might field a team that didn't totally suck, and/or for not just having them compete as a true "exhibition team" and not counting their stats (NAQT's website certainly lists UCLA's stats as though they were any other team)?
    (b) UCLA, for unfairly taking advantage of the offer by entering a good team?
    (c) a bit of both?
    (d) neither one?

    It's hard to blame UCLA. Certainly if I were offered a deal like that, I'd take it, and it seems unfair to instruct them to tank. Yes, they sent a team that I'm sure they knew to be pretty good, but it's not clear that they knew NAQT expected a team that wouldn't be competitive, and they - according to R's post on the Yahoo group - did not attempt to pretend they were sending a bad team. For all the bitching and moaning about how UCLA could do such a thing, it's hard to imagine any team turning such a deal down.
    With (b) and (c) removed from contention, this leaves it to decide whether NAQT is at fault or not, and I think the clear answer is that they are, though the reason why needs to be delineated. R explains that the point was to have an "exhbition" team that would be entered for free and would not be expected to compete, and would essentially have the next year as though it had never played at ICT at all. That being the case, it's unfathomable that NAQT would count UCLA's stats as though they were any other team, as they certainly did. Furthermore, while some teams knew, on the whole the affair seems to have been markedly underpublicized.
    What makes the whole thing so egg-on-your-face for NAQT is really the big deal they make about eligibility rules in the first place. See this page, especially the Division II part. Last year, NAQT made an exception to the rules by allowing a team that they invited too late for that team to go to remain Division II. This in itself seems okay, but check out the language on the page describing the exemption:

    "NAQT is restoring Division II eligibility to players on teams that received, and declined,
    invitations later than 28 days before the tournament. This affects Kansas and every team
    that was invited, and declined, after them. Players on teams that received invitations on
    or before March 7, 2003, remain Division II ineligible, regardless of whether they attended
    the ICT or not, as do all teams that attended the ICT, regardless of the date of their
    invitation."

Bolding mine. The semi-covert nature of the UCLA deal would be less of a problem if there weren't language all over NAQT's website specifically stating the opposite case. In theory, UCLA was not "invited" in the sense that since they didn't even play a Division II team at the 2003 Sectionals, there was never any pretense that they had actually qualified a team - but they still sent a team, and that team still played. It sounds silly to say "Well, we'd give them back their eligibility if they hadn't been good, but I guess since they were we should take it," of course - at least NAQT is sticking to the deal they made rather than stabbing UCLA in the back just because Meigs is a good player, but they messed up when they didn't make it well-known that this was an exhibition team. R says in his post that NAQT will not allow such an exemption again; I think they could, it would just have to be announced and the team's stats should not count. At the very least. However, I think the blowback from this will keep it from happening again regardless.

February 10, 2004

Duck Bowl summary now up. I had to decide whether or not to include my three 130-point rounds and my 230-point round on my top personal scores list - I went with "no" because it doesn't seem fair to compare a theme packet against two people (or even one person) with a balanced (more or less) packet against a full team (not to mention with a full team shadowing you). I did add the stats in to this year's total, however; it inflates it a bit, but that's the way these things go. I'm probably the only one who reads those pages anyway.

February 9, 2004

Happy birthday to Alma! This seems as good a time as any to point out to anyone who didn't already know - how much of this page's readership that constitutes, I have no idea - that we're dating. Damn the torpedoes.

The summary for NAQT Sectionals, at which we did not do so well, is up. Sunday's Duck Bowl summary hasn't been written yet but should be up tonight; we did better at that one.

February 4, 2004

Finally finished the Big Fish review. NAQT Sectionals and Duck Bowl this weekend, so you know now where I am if you're curious then.

February 2, 2004

Super Bowl. As Nemo notes, the Panthers sort of blew it by going for two too early. After the first time they went for it and missed, they sort of had to go for it the second time - but of course had they just kicked both times and everything else played out the same, Vinatieri's kick would only have sent things to overtime (and as we've seen, woe unto him who picks against the Panthers in OT).
As far as this "best Super Bowl ever" goes, slow down. I realize there's a shortage of contenders due to all the blowouts over the years, but while this one got exciting in the second half and was close the whole way, neither team seemed capable of playing defense for the last 30 minutes, which sort of made it the equivalent of calling the second period of the NHL All-Star Game the best Stanley Cup final in history. That said, the five best Super Bowls for my money were XXXVI, XXXIV, XXV, XXIII, and then one of the ones from the 70s, probably either V or X. (People love III for Namath's guarantee, too, but apart from the upset it probably wasn't quite as good.) XXXVIII is up there in terms of competitiveness, of course, but that doesn't make it the greatest Super Bowl ever (as Jim Nantz quickly proclaimed it to the milling crowd at Reliant Stadium, causing me to roll my eyes).

There's more! View last month's updates.

Thanks to Tabnet for the domain name and my parents for paying it off.

Want to send me mail? Here.

BigFlax.com is probably not legitimately copyrighted under the laws of any country. Just don't steal stuff and claim it was yours, please.

This page last updated: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:49:35 PM