March 11, 2010

Everybody Loves A Contest #7

It's time for the Red Sox W-L Contest!

Correctly guess the team's 2010 regular season record and win an exciting prize that I cannot tell you about, because I have no idea what it will be, though I'll come up with something by October 4.

Entries must be emailed to me -- though you can also post your entry in comments if you feel like it. Tiebreakers (regular season only, obviously):
(1) How many runs will the Red Sox score?

(2) What will their run differential be? (In 2009, with 872 runs scored and 736 runs allowed, it was +136)
Tiebreakers will be the closest guess, either over or under. If there is still a tie after (1), we'll go to (2).

Deadline: Sunday, April 4 at Noon.

*And I'm repeating the grand [sic] prize! The winner is invited to watch a 2011 Red Sox game+ at Chez L-Sock. Game night will include dinner in our backyard, alcoholic beverages, copious canine attention, and overnight accommodations. Transportation to the Toronto area not included. [+: Monday-Thursday only]

15 comments:

blogtard said...

I thought for SURE that said, "copious cocaine attention". WOW! Bold party.

I'm not a dog person, but I'd still prefer copious canine attention to the alternative. ;)

L-girl said...

Personally, I'd rather have both the canine and the cocaine attention, but that is not to be.

Another asterisk: please also note we have a regular old 26-inch, non-plasma, non-flat screen TV.

nick said...

L-girl said...
please also note we have a regular old 26-inch, non-plasma, non-flat screen TV.


how barbaric!

L-girl said...

how barbaric!

I know. I am so old-fashioned. I prefer to spend money* on travel and tickets and other out-of-home experiences than on large, energy-sucking technology.




* money I don't have

redsock said...

I thought for SURE that said, "copious cocaine attention". WOW!

An invitation would not be extended to that kind of party.

We could snort some Clyde, though.

Ish said...

No worries, L. I've got a 27" non-all of that TV. Yay standard def!

9casey said...

L-girl said...
how barbaric!

I know. I am so old-fashioned. I prefer to spend money* on travel and tickets and other out-of-home experiences than on large, energy-sucking technology.





I beileve that old TV sucks more energy than a new one would, sports in HI-Def is worth it and the new TV's are very moderatley priced...

L-girl said...

I beileve that old TV sucks more energy than a new one would, sports in HI-Def is worth it and the new TV's are very moderatley priced...

"Worth it" is a point of view. Definitely not worth it to me. Beyond not worth it - more like I'd do a few hundred other things first. Buy a better camera, take a few trips, pay tuition, etc. etc. Many etcs.

(Also big screen TVs do use much more energy than ones w/ smaller screens. Not my main reason, but they do.)

Zenslinger said...

I think 9Casey's right that newer displays use less energy in general than traditional tube TVs. I know that's true of computer monitors.

But...yeah, we have a old style TV and it doesn't bother us. Could an inexpensive sound system more than anything else. The picture's fine.

L-girl said...

I think 9Casey's right that newer displays use less energy in general than traditional tube TVs. I know that's true of computer monitors.

Bigger screens use more power. I'm sorry to be so argumentative, but this is a fact.

I could post half a dozen links on this, it's well documented. Here's a good one: link. Chart on page 2.

You may be confusing energy efficiecy with raw energy use. New appliances may be more energy efficient, but large appliances use more power than smaller ones.

L-girl said...

It's not only bigger screens, it's also HD. HD requires more power than standard digital.

Zenslinger said...

Well, sure, a 46" flatscreen's going to burn more than a 26" old fashioned one. I guess I have heard, and read something somewhere enough to believe it, that given the same size computer monitor, a newer LED one uses less electricity than old CRT (cathode ray tube?). I didn't take HD into account.

I'm sure a $2500 awesome HD TV that does the dishes and gives handjobs would indeed suck a lot of energy. I'm sure your money is better spent elsewhere. But it may have been part of 9C's point that if one needed a new TV, a flatscreen that fits your needs is probably a good deal.

I don't plan on buying anything like that anytime soon either.

L-girl said...

Right, LCD is more energy efficient than the old technology, for sure. But when you factor in size plus HD, you're using 4x the energy.

I'm sure if I wanted one (which I don't) and could afford it (which I can't), I'd rationalize the energy use somehow.

9casey said...

L-girl said...

Right, LCD is more energy efficient than the old technology, for sure. But when you factor in size plus HD, you're using 4x the energy.




Both my tv's are only 32in , I don't have to have a huge screen..........size has never been an issue with us, thank God, or I would have been gone a long time ago.....

L-girl said...

:>)