From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #567 Dead-Flames Digest #567, Volume #48 Thu, 13 Oct 05 09:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans (Brad Greer) Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... (JC Martin) Re: Genesis Reunion in the works? (JC Martin) Re: How do you tell the character of a person? (JC Martin) Re: why baseball sucks? ("Guillaume") Re: why no JGB on archive.org (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: why no JGB on archive.org (diethylether@gmail.com) Good Yom Tov ("Stuart Sockol") Re: 37 years ago tonight... ("LP") Re: why baseball sucks? (JC Martin) Re: your favorite road trip songs? favorite blaster song? (brew ziggins) Re: How do you tell the character of a person? ("DGDevin") Re: Hey Brew... (brew ziggins) 8/8/82 Satisfaction ("Dylanstubs") Re: why baseball sucks? ("A & W") Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... ("Carlisle") Re: How do you tell the character of a person? ("Carlisle") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:04:03 -0400 On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:44:16 -0400, JimK wrote: >On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:05:35 -0400, Brad Greer >wrote: > >>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:34:18 -0700, DG wrote: >> >>>Brad Greer wrote: >>>> >>>>DG wrote: >>>> >>>>>wyeknot wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>DG wrote: >>>>>>> wyeknot wrote: >>>>>>>>DG wrote: >>>>>>>>>Rogues Island's finest wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I stayed up until midnight just to watch them lose. Good job, Arod! >>>>>>>>>Thankfully, the Yanks outlasted the BoSox. Beat them in a come from >>>>>>>>>behind division victory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah, their marathon-like stamina is stunning. ### >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imagine that... Sox fans back to their bitchy whiny ways. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pointing out dumbass analysis is neither bitchy nor whiny. Both teams >>>>>>were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. And the Yankees >>>>>>looked nearly as bad as the Red Sox as they embraced defeat again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Red Sox got swept. Yankees took it to the final game. Sure the Yanks >>>>>screwed up but they will reload. >>>> >>>>The Yankees massively under-achieved. They had the same >>>>regular-season record as the Red Sox and finished one game worse than >>>>the Angels. They have been "re-loading" for the past five years >>>>without succeeding, given how much money they have tied up in players >>>>who are not producing (especially their pitching staff) it's hard to >>>>see how they will be able to re-load effectively. Even Steinbrenner >>>>has limits to how much he will spend. They appear to be reverting to >>>>their style in the '80s - get expensive free agents with no real >>>>thought to how they will perform as a team. >>> >>> >>>They lost a close game 5. No big deal to this Yankee fan. >>> >>It certainly seems to be a big deal to Yankee fans here in the New >>York/New Jersey area. There is a lot of discussion on whether Torre >>should be fired, how much A-Rod sucked in the playoffs (again), how >>disappointing Randy Johnson was, how "the Angels didn't really beat >>us, we beat ourselves", etc. The Yankees are in decline and have been >>so for the past 5 years. Yes, there version of "decline" is better >>than most other teams, but declining they are. They have emptied the >>farm system to a great extent to make mid-season trades and >>Steinbrenner is allowing the Tampa braintrust to have too much input >>in the free agent buying decisions instead of relying on the solid >>baseball people (such as Stick Michaels) who built the dynasty of the >>late '90s. If you fail to see the parallels to the teams of the '80s >>it's because you're in denial. > >All of the above is pretty much true, but the decline and emptying of >the farm system, was something that was almost inevitable when you >finish at the top for a decade. Although the draft in baseball doesn't >have the immediate impact it does in sports like basketball and >football, it's become much more important than it was twenty to thirty >years ago. It's difficult to keep the farm system stocked with quality >players when you're drafting at the bottom year after year. In >addition, when you're in contention every year, you're in a position >where you're pretty much forced to trade off some of your young talent >in mid-season to acquire veterans who will be more useful in a pennant >race. And if you look at the young players the Yanks have let go >during the last ten years, you'd be hard pressed to find many who have >become regulars in the majors, much less stars. The Atlanta Braves would disagree with this. In fact, it is because of the quality of their farm system that they were able to win the division title this past year (and they have won more consecutive division titles than the Yankees, so they are certainly accustomed to drafting towards the bottom). >Another factor that's often overlooked when people talk about the >Yankee payroll is that winning inflates salaries. Look at what happens >repeatedly in the NFL these days. Players on teams that win >championships command higher salaries when they become free agents, >based not just on their individual performance but also that of the >team. If you want to keep your team together you have to overpay or >let them go to stay under the cap. In baseball, where there is no cap, >you overpay if you have the money to do it. The Yanks have the money. >What you end up with is a $200 million payroll with players who, >individually, are worth much less. > I don't disagree that winning inflates salaries, but what, exactly, have Carl Pavano, Jared Wright and Kevin Brown won? That's a lot of money the Yankees paid for pitchers who weren't on their post season roster, don't you think? ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:06:35 GMT Ray wrote: > JC Martin wrote: > >>Ray wrote: >> >>>So Saddam - a 'Hitler of the Middle East' when the Bush II >>>Adminstration was gearing up to attack him in Gulf War II, the sequel? >>>That'd be nothing short of laughable, except for the fact that far too >>>many far too credulous people took it seriously. >> >>Hitler wannabe? That's a fact. But while I didn't support this war, >>the timing and the WMD tale, Saddam was no one to be ignored. As long >>as he was in power and the U.N.'s capitulation remained, Saddam was a >>threat. >> >> >>>Saddam was a brutal >>>dictator and a cold blooded killer, yes, and also Hitler wannabie. But >>>again, so what - in this world cold blooded killer Hitler wannabies are >>>a dime-a-dozen. >> >>Given Saddam's resources and the weak-kneed, profit driven U.N, Saddam >>certainly posed a threat to the west IMO. How to deal with that and >>when was a complex issue, but France and Russia in particular had >>economic needs which trumped European and U.S. security. Iraq certainly >>posed a future threat more so than any other dictatorial regime I can >>think of outside of North Korea. > > > I agree that Saddam was a threat, and that he had to be addressed in > one way or another at some point. However: > > 1) Bush Administration propaganda notwithstanding, Saddam was no > Hitler, not even close. Not even when limiting the context to just the > middle east. > 2) Pre-Iraq invasion, North Korea and Iran were IMO both bigger threats > to U.S. security than Iraq. And arguably Pakistan too. And, arguably, > Saudi Arabia, with it's massive and ongoing support for Islamofascism. > And then there's that little thing known as the Israeli/Palestinian > conflict - as long as that continues to fester it will remain a very > serious threat to U.S. security. > > And then there was, and remains, the greatest threat to U.S. security > post 9/11 - the people that headed the organization attacked us on > 9/11. And those people are still out there, in all probability > planning to attack us again. And by invading Iraq and taking their > nemesis Saddam out of power and destabilizing the region, and moreover > by piss-poor planning that lead us into getting ourselves bogged down > in a quagmire there (which, perhaps, couldn't have been avoided after > we invaded in any event), we played straight into their hands. > > Saddam, a 'Middle East Hitler'? What a ridiculous, sick joke. And > unfortunately the joke is on us. All of these points however don't take into account that it was sanctions and the previous Gulf war that weakened Saddam's grip on the Middle East. The U.N. body as a whole wanted to lift those sanctions. France and Russia had deals with Saddam in place to build nuclear reactors when those sanctions were lifted. Sorry, but Saddam could have been a lot worse than Hitler with nuclear capacity. There is documentation which points to him wanting to control the entire Middle East and was willing to go to war and use any weapon at his disposal to do so. Certain U.N. countries were willing to risk this for profiteering purposes. Historically, that is the same dilemma Hitler posed. If you give), DKell, Kurt, Theresa (cause I'm curious that way ;-)), Sue W. >> and many others I'm forgetting. >> >> So far I've met only Joe and Gary. Joe is actually a pretty nice guy. >> Not all of us are capable of expressing our full selves in a Usenet >> forum. >> >> -JC > > > Uh.... that wasn't someone in a Walter costume Gary introduced you to at > Studio E a few Halloweens ago...... You're right. I apologize for my lack of immediate recall. That was a strange moment since Joe refused to meet me at the time (at least according to Gary) and apparently you were upset (heard this from Gary as well) that I may have demeaned your Jewish heritage in an argument about Saddam. Probably wasn't the most comfortable meeting, though both of us displayed good will. I do apologize if what I said way back when hit that deep. I'm sure we both share some similarities in our family history...concentration camps, Iowa central, and beyond, etc. So yeah, I met Walter, and he seems to be quite a character. I only regret it wasn't under better circumstances. Peas, -JC ------------------------------ From: "imsjry" Subject: NDC-Pearl Jam with Plant video-This rocks! Date: 13 Oct 2005 08:01:05 -0700 Thought you guys might like this. Plant singing Fool in the Rain with Pearl Jam from a Katrina Benefit in Chicago. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-647877711444041939&q=pearl+jam ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:04:03 -0400 On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:44:16 -0400, JimK wrote: >On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:05:35 -0400, Brad Greer >wrote: > >>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:34:18 -0700, DG wrote: >> >>>Brad Greer wrote: >>>> >>>>DG wrote: >>>> >>>>>wyeknot wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>DG wrote: >>>>>>> wyeknot wrote: >>>>>>>>DG wrote: >>>>>>>>>Rogues Island's finest wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I stayed up until midnight just to watch them lose. Good job, Arod! >>>>>>>>>Thankfully, the Yanks outlasted the BoSox. Beat them in a come from >>>>>>>>>behind division victory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah, their marathon-like stamina is stunning. ### >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imagine that... Sox fans back to their bitchy whiny ways. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pointing out dumbass analysis is neither bitchy nor whiny. Both teams >>>>>>were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. And the Yankees >>>>>>looked nearly as bad as the Red Sox as they embraced defeat again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Red Sox got swept. Yankees took it to the final game. Sure the Yanks >>>>>screwed up but they will reload. >>>> >>>>The Yankees massively under-achieved. They had the same >>>>regular-season record as the Red Sox and finished one game worse than >>>>the Angels. They have been "re-loading" for the past five years >>>>without succeeding, given how much money they have tied up in players >>>>who are not producing (especially their pitching staff) it's hard to >>>>see how they will be able to re-load effectively. Even Steinbrenner >>>>has limits to how much he will spend. They appear to be reverting to >>>>their style in the '80s - get expensive free agents with no real >>>>thought to how they will perform as a team. >>> >>> >>>They lost a close game 5. No big deal to this Yankee fan. >>> >>It certainly seems to be a big deal to Yankee fans here in the New >>York/New Jersey area. There is a lot of discussion on whether Torre >>should be fired, how much A-Rod sucked in the playoffs (again), how >>disappointing Randy Johnson was, how "the Angels didn't really beat >>us, we beat ourselves", etc. The Yankees are in decline and have been >>so for the past 5 years. Yes, there version of "decline" is better >>than most other teams, but declining they are. They have emptied the >>farm system to a great extent to make mid-season trades and >>Steinbrenner is allowing the Tampa braintrust to have too much input >>in the free agent buying decisions instead of relying on the solid >>baseball people (such as Stick Michaels) who built the dynasty of the >>late '90s. If you fail to see the parallels to the teams of the '80s >>it's because you're in denial. > >All of the above is pretty much true, but the decline and emptying of >the farm system, was something that was almost inevitable when you >finish at the top for a decade. Although the draft in baseball doesn't >have the immediate impact it does in sports like basketball and >football, it's become much more important than it was twenty to thirty >years ago. It's difficult to keep the farm system stocked with quality >players when you're drafting at the bottom year after year. In >addition, when you're in contention every year, you're in a position >where you're pretty much forced to trade off some of your young talent >in mid-season to acquire veterans who will be more useful in a pennant >race. And if you look at the young players the Yanks have let go >during the last ten years, you'd be hard pressed to find many who have >become regulars in the majors, much less stars. The Atlanta Braves would disagree with this. In fact, it is because of the quality of their farm system that they were able to win the division title this past year (and they have won more consecutive division titles than the Yankees, so they are certainly accustomed to drafting towards the bottom). >Another factor that's often overlooked when people talk about the >Yankee payroll is that winning inflates salaries. Look at what happens >repeatedly in the NFL these days. Players on teams that win >championships command higher salaries when they become free agents, >based not just on their individual performance but also that of the >team. If you want to keep your team together you have to overpay or >let them go to stay under the cap. In baseball, where there is no cap, >you overpay if you have the money to do it. The Yanks have the money. >What you end up with is a $200 million payroll with players who, >individually, are worth much less. > I don't disagree that winning inflates salaries, but what, exactly, have Carl Pavano, Jared Wright and Kevin Brown won? That's a lot of money the Yankees paid for pitchers who weren't on their post season roster, don't you think? ------------------------------ Somewhere I read that if you want to know what kind of a person someone really is, watch how they treat waiters in a restaurant. If they think that waiters, shop clerks, secretaries et al. don't deserve decent treatment, then they really aren't very nice. ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: Hey Brew... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:44:35 -0400 Thus spake mthitch@aol.com... > Did you happen to hear some outdoor Cheese from your window the other > night? > > Apparently they had a fire alarm at the State and they broke into an > impromptu acoustic set on the street, short video at this site: SCI hasn't been doing much for me lately, so I was 15 miles away in my living room grooving to Debashish Bhattacharya's "Calcutta Slide-Guitar, Vol. 3". If you like Steve Kimock and Indian music, I suspect you'd like this CD. -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: 8/8/82 Satisfaction Date: 13 Oct 2005 08:44:41 -0700 Never heard this show before streaming it at work today. Bob sings the first verse of Wang Dang Doodle in the middle of Satisfaction! How bizarre! http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=15183 ------------------------------ From: "A & W" Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:51:18 -0500 Could this be a "Bartman" moment for the Angels? "Bzl." wrote in message news:3r75aiFhup3eU1@individual.net... > > "band beyond description" <123@456.com> wrote in message > news:3r7463Fi624dU2@individual.net... >> On 2005-10-13 13:35:07 +0900, "Bzl." said: >> >> > >> > "bill c" wrote in message >> > news:PQk3f.14785$Fc4.10571@twister.nyc.rr.com... >> >> >> >> "DG" wrote in message >> >> news:iplrk1h3lv91mgqqc45ge88m9mgkit7673@4ax.com... >> >>> Bzl. wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> frndthdevl wrote >> >>>> >> >>>>> no replay! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Hopefully, they never do... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> they wuz robbed fo sure. I wonder if they can protest based on that >> >> "hard" >> >>>> strike called by the ump, seemingly signifying the batter was out. >> > But, >> >>>> they can't get anywhere on the badness of the call. >> >>>> >> >>>> Then again, Scoscia is an ass, so maybe he deserves it. (Cue up >> >>>> pine >> > tar >> >>>> incident.) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> They got away with one against the Yanks. So they should suck it up >> >>> and try to win the next one... >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> zoomed in replay on fox showed the ball bounce up into his glove. >> >> maybe the shortest hop ever but it still hit the ground. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > bullshit >> >> I only saw the telecast live as it happened and the subsequent replays >> before the game ended, with Rick Sutcliffe saying the Angels were >> robbed by a flat-out wrong call. Did they really show it later to be >> hitting the ground? >> -- >> Peace, >> Steve >> > > No, just Chicagoans' wishful thinking. > > ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: 13 Oct 2005 08:50:56 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Ray wrote: > > JC Martin wrote: > > > >>Ray wrote: > >> > >>>So Saddam - a 'Hitler of the Middle East' when the Bush II > >>>Adminstration was gearing up to attack him in Gulf War II, the sequel? > >>>That'd be nothing short of laughable, except for the fact that far too > >>>many far too credulous people took it seriously. > >> > >>Hitler wannabe? That's a fact. But while I didn't support this war, > >>the timing and the WMD tale, Saddam was no one to be ignored. As long > >>as he was in power and the U.N.'s capitulation remained, Saddam was a > >>threat. > >> > >> > >>>Saddam was a brutal > >>>dictator and a cold blooded killer, yes, and also Hitler wannabie. But > >>>again, so what - in this world cold blooded killer Hitler wannabies are > >>>a dime-a-dozen. > >> > >>Given Saddam's resources and the weak-kneed, profit driven U.N, Saddam > >>certainly posed a threat to the west IMO. How to deal with that and > >>when was a complex issue, but France and Russia in particular had > >>economic needs which trumped European and U.S. security. Iraq certainly > >>posed a future threat more so than any other dictatorial regime I can > >>think of outside of North Korea. > > > > > > I agree that Saddam was a threat, and that he had to be addressed in > > one way or another at some point. However: > > > > 1) Bush Administration propaganda notwithstanding, Saddam was no > > Hitler, not even close. Not even when limiting the context to just the > > middle east. > > 2) Pre-Iraq invasion, North Korea and Iran were IMO both bigger threats > > to U.S. security than Iraq. And arguably Pakistan too. And, arguably, > > Saudi Arabia, with it's massive and ongoing support for Islamofascism. > > And then there's that little thing known as the Israeli/Palestinian > > conflict - as long as that continues to fester it will remain a very > > serious threat to U.S. security. > > > > And then there was, and remains, the greatest threat to U.S. security > > post 9/11 - the people that headed the organization attacked us on > > 9/11. And those people are still out there, in all probability > > planning to attack us again. And by invading Iraq and taking their > > nemesis Saddam out of power and destabilizing the region, and moreover > > by piss-poor planning that lead us into getting ourselves bogged down > > in a quagmire there (which, perhaps, couldn't have been avoided after > > we invaded in any event), we played straight into their hands. > > > > Saddam, a 'Middle East Hitler'? What a ridiculous, sick joke. And > > unfortunately the joke is on us. > > > All of these points however don't take into account that it was > sanctions and the previous Gulf war that weakened Saddam's grip on the > Middle East. The U.N. body as a whole wanted to lift those sanctions. > France and Russia had deals with Saddam in place to build nuclear > reactors when those sanctions were lifted. Sorry, but Saddam could have > been a lot worse than Hitler with nuclear capacity. There is > documentation which points to him wanting to control the entire Middle > East and was willing to go to war and use any weapon at his disposal to > do so. Certain U.N. countries were willing to risk this for > profiteering purposes. Historically, that is the same dilemma Hitler > posed. If you give a fascist leader more and more power and capitulate > to his every desire, you don't think another Hitler can happen out of > that? Put the Bush shit aside for a moment. This is bigger than who > our elected leader is or isn't. The entire west is dominated by limp > kneed, corrupt, spineless, cowardly, hypocritical politicians and > leaders, and Dubya is one of many. > > -JC Margaret Thatcher told Dubya's dad not to "go wobbly" in dealing with Saddam back in 1990. The world community DID come together to beat Iraq out of Kuwait. But the question is: Did we go far enough? Should the US, Britain, et. al have over thrown him then?? The Arab community would not have been for it. But it was inevitable that Saddam was not going to abide by the UN sanctions. Maybe we should have just let the bastard keep Kuwait and started to drill more here at home, conserve better and develop alternative forms of energy. Is that "limp kneed"?? Don't Ease Me in- Carrie ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: How do you tell the character of a person? Date: 13 Oct 2005 08:58:06 -0700 DGDevin wrote: > "ba ba booie" wrote in message > news:23918-434E6600-232@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net... > > > The mind has a lot to do with the character of a person. > > Well, it has *everything* to do with the character of a person really. No > mind, no character. > > Somewhere I read that if you want to know what kind of a person someone > really is, watch how they treat waiters in a restaurant. If they think that > waiters, shop clerks, secretaries et al. don't deserve decent treatment, > then they really aren't very nice. Word. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .