Manager schedules me for almost 30 hrs one week, schedules me for sub-15 hrs the next because he got in trouble with Corporate for scheduling too many hours to non-managers.
Fuck fast-food.
Also, allow me to rant for a bit.
In logic, when someone provides a set of objective facts while debating a particular subject, one would (or should) logically consider such facts when conducting a counter argument, or concede the argument when the case utilizing said objective facts proves to be too strong. This is especially true when you're debating something involving pure, objective statistics.
With that said... something about the whole Andrew Luck vs. Russell Wilson debate (as well as the value of Wilson as a whole) feels juuuuuuussssssst a teeeennny bit racist, considering how people are ignoring raw stats for... reasons?
Am I wrong? Because in the context of that particular debate, the only statistical differences between Wilson and Brady/Manning's early years is rushing yards and pass attempts/yards. Yet, people are acting as if it's Luck that's on that level (EDIT: He is in terms of yards and output, but nothing else), and Wilson is a mobile version of Trent Dilfer and doesn't even belong in the same conversation as Luck...