shall i tell you what would please me?

In the event that Steinbrenner fires Joe Torre, I would find it incredibly satisfying if all the players who can -- the free agents, player-options, old guys who could retire -- leave too. They should go with him, if they can (if he goes somewhere that can afford them), or retire if they're just old and exhausted. Because the same guys not wearing pinstripes? At least then if people hated them, it would be for individual reasons, and not for their uniforms.

And then let him be the Boss of whatever's left.

grand-scheme-wise, this is a minor frustration.

So the task I've been on for what seems like the past hundred years on this project is transcription of interviews and focus groups for this project. There have been five researchers conducting these, and I've fobbed off most of the interviews on my minions, because they're shorter and easier (one interviewer and one subject); the focus groups have usually about four subjects (though one memorable one had 18; I did not even attempt to keep track of them - normally I number the subjects, though this is not strictly necessary, but in that instance I called them all "subject"). Each interviewer's sessions are characterized by different features. Two of the interviewers (the two who spoke the quietest, as it happened) didn't do very many; the majority of the recordings belong to the other three.

One tends to speak very quickly, and also makes student subjects feel comfortable and relaxed (which is good!) so that they have little compunction about talking all at once (which is very, very bad).

One tends to have good rapport with officers and teachers (which is good), and to demonstrate this with occasional displays of how well he speaks their jargon, which is not always actually as well as he thinks (which is just annoying and a waste of time).

And one, who ironically is the one I get along with best in person, speaks clearly enough that I can understand her and seems to set the subjects at ease, but has the infuriating tendency to confirm that she understands the subject's point by repeating it. I mean, I know there are discourse markers and politeness strategies that involve this, and it wouldn't do to misunderstand the subject's point; I get it. And the first researcher, the fast-talking one, she did some of that too. But I think she rephrased more? Because this one, I mean seriously, they will say something, and she will say the same thing.

A: Tell me about your shoes.
B: My shoes are brown, and they lace up.
A: So you're wearing brown shoes that lace up?
B: Yes.

The subjects don't seem to be frustrated by this, but it's making me crazy. This is a 44-minute transcript, and I swear it could be half an hour if there weren't all this repetition. I like her a lot, but damn.

(I will now spare you all the trouble of being Extremely Clever by posting the first comment myself.)

tee hee, movie commercials

Coming soon is "Gone Baby Gone" "We Own the Night", with a variety of people in it, including Mark Wahlberg, Academy Award Nominee Joaquin Phoenix, at least one other Oscar nominee, and Academy Award Winner Robert Duvall.  They pitch it with a couple of the nominees, then Wahlberg, and then Duvall last, as you would of course -- and it's not great for Wahlberg, being the only one without an epithet, but in general it looks like they're saying "here's a company of good solid well-respected award-nominated people, and one guy who won!"

So this other movie coming soon, with Robert Redford and Meryl Streep?  The VO and the captions say "Academy Award Winner Robert Redford.  Academy Award Winner Meryl Streep.  Three-Time Academy Award Nominee Tom Cruise."  In that order.  Don't you think they might just as well have gone ahead and called him "Academy Award Loser"?