From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #570 Dead-Flames Digest #570, Volume #48 Thu, 13 Oct 05 12:00:04 PDT Contents: Re: Arkansas Mother Gives Birth to 16th Child (NDC) ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: why baseball sucks? ("bill c") Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... (leftie) Re: netflix (leftie) Re: why baseball sucks? ("bill c") Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... ("Ray") Re: why baseball sucks? (leftie) Re: Hard ttimes in NE ("Andrew Murawa") Re: why baseball sucks? ("dyrewlf") Re: netflix ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... (wyeknot) yeehaw! ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: netflix (leftie) Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans (DG) Re: What's on their .mp3 player ("pookietooth") Re: yeehaw! ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: yeehaw! ("Dylanstubs") Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans (DG) Re: How do you tell the character of a person? ("augustwestern") Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans (DG) Re: Good Yom Tov (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: why baseball sucks? (DG) Re: yeehaw! (leftie) Re: why baseball sucks? (DG) Re: RMGD Word n' Numbers Taboo (DG) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: Re: Arkansas Mother Gives Birth to 16th Child (NDC) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:59:18 GMT "The Iron Muffin" wrote in message ... mjd wrote: > "Jedidiah, he's got a dime.. Says he catch more fish, every time" "You better head back to Arkansas, Jed". -- ********************* Hey at least, they're married and can support their family. http://www.suntimes.com/output/census/cst-nws-marriage13.html THE NUMBERS Households headed by a married couple: National: 50.6% Illinois: 49.9%Highest: Utah, 62.9% Lowest: New York, 45.6% Households headed by an unmarried couple: National: 5% Illinois: 4.7% Highest: Maine, 7.3% Lowest: Alabama, 3% Estimated median age at first marriage for men: National: 26.7 years Illinois: 27 years Oldest: Mass., 29.1 years Lowest: Utah, 23.9 years Estimated median age at first marriage for women: National: 25.1 years Illinois: 25.5 years Oldest: Mass., 27.4 years Youngest: Utah, 21.9 years SOURCE: "INDICATORS OF MARRIAGE AND FERTILITY IN THE UNITED STATES, 2000 TO 2003" U.S. CENSUS ------------------------------ From: "bill c" Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:01:51 GMT "Stuknot" wrote in message news:1129221991.807084.313920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > bill c wrote: > > > > > not a chicagoan and not wishful thinking....check the replay and you'll see > > the ball takes a short hop into the glove. > > umps made the right call, > > What ump? The home plate ump who was behind it, couldn't see it, > called a third strike and an out and then reversed himself while the > Angels were on their way to the dugout? That ump made the right call? > Not a chance. BTW, there's enough blame to go around, but Scioscia was > a class act in the post game news conference. No whining, just, "we > didn't play well enough to absorb a call like that." > > John H. > actually, he never made the out call, at least according to the ump himself and the guys on baseball tonight. consistently all game he was using the fist to call the third strike and that was his argument with scioscia when asked why he made the fist. ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:02:04 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Brad Greer" wrote in message > news:ft6tk1pa7vohcvgv8fkkkopkc53top2ohr@4ax.com... > >>On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:18:58 -0700, "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" >> wrote: >> >>>I so long for the day when the US can collectively flip the finger to the >>>Saudis, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, the Mexicans, the >>>Indonesians, even the Canadians. Maybe when I'm 90. >>> >>I'm pretty sure we can collectively flip the finger to the Canadians >>right now, we just don't care about them enough to do so :) > > Blame Canada! After a lovely morning feeding the fawns (and a 23 year old stripper named Fawn), a retired Toad settles in on the north-facing porch, gets tanked on bourbon and spends the evening flipping off Canada. "Fuck you, Canda! FUCK YOU!" ;-) ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: netflix Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:03:43 -0700 Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > "leftie" > wrote in message ... > Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > > >>Sometime back, somebody suggested, "The Sea" for the que.... uh, thanks### > > > You mean this "The Sea," from Iceland? > > http://imdb.com/title/tt0332381/ > > You didn't dig the dark humor, gorgeous cinematography and dramatic (if > intensely misanthropic) twisting plot lines? Oh well... > ************************ > Yep, that's the one. I shoulda figured it was you! :') > > The cinematography was excellent. But the dysfunction I coulda done > without! But films about nice families are sooooo boring. ------------------------------ From: "bill c" Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:04:27 GMT "JC Martin" wrote in message news:ybv3f.2270$Aw.40824@typhoon.sonic.net... > bill c wrote: > > "imsjry" wrote in message > > news:1129210668.080769.230870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > >>Bzl. wrote: > >> > >>>>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. > >> > >>Not wishful thinking. Sox win!! > >> > > > > not a chicagoan and not wishful thinking....check the replay and you'll see > > the ball takes a short hop into the glove. > > > You're wrong. The ball hops, but it hops within the glove. The glove > was *clearly* under the ball from the get-go. Personally, I don't care > who wins, but it was indeed a bad call. > > -JC so what your proposing is that although a catchers mitt has all of 3-4 " of webbing, not only did paul back-hand the ball but got that small amount of webbing underneath the ball as well...dubious at best ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: 13 Oct 2005 11:05:00 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Ray" wrote: > > Of course. But Saddam was far from being in that position. Again: > > being a Hitler wannabe does not make one Hitler. Saddam was no Hitler, > > not even close. > > Saddam wasn't even a Mussolini. > > He had no notion that Iraqis were a master race, or that Arabs were a master > race. He did consider Arabs superior to Jews however. > His actions prior to our latest invasion led to the complete > destruction of his military, national infrastructure, and economy, while > Hitler marshalled the forces inside Germany to create what was the strongest > military in the world. Hitler created a manufacturing and industrial > powerhouse. Saddam created wreckage. Hitler was backed by his people, who > enthusiastically bought into and participated in his dreams to rule the > world. Saddam could barely keep the south of his country from seceding. > Hitler forged strong alliances with like minded nations such as Italy, > Japan, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Saddam had Jordan sending him some > food in a few hundred trucks. Hitler conquered all of continental Europe. > Saddam conquered the military-less Kuwait, the Arab version of Luxembourg. > Hitler, with the aid of his insane occult minded cronies, created the > world's first industrial death factories, designed to mechanically eliminate > millions of people, all to serve this master reace theory. Saddam had no > desire or ability to implement such a mad plan. Yes and no. I have little doubt that Saddam had the desire to drive Israel into the sea - Saddam fancied himself to be a modern-day Saladin, who amonsgt other things drove the 'infidels' out of Jerusalem. Not the same thing as death-camps, but nonetheless a desire to initiate a racially-motivated war. > Saddam was a brutal dictator who at one time was backed by the US. He was > no different than your typical central or south American military strongman, > except for his proclivity to start and lose small regional wars. Hitler > declared war on the US and was a threat to the existence of civilization. > Saddam was a threat only to Arabs and Iranians who wanted to spread their > mad religion across the world. Saddam was a serious threat to the Israelis. And if he had messed with Israel in a substantial way that most-likely would have drawn us into the fray as well. Which is to say, for that reason alone Saddam posed a threat to US security interests. Saddam was also a threat to our continued access to large quanities of middle-east oil, which of course also translates - until the day when we finally wean ourseleves from our oil addiction - to a major US security threat. > Sanctions and complaints and protests had no effect on Hitler's mad plans. > UN sanctions and the policy of containment used between the invasions had > Saddam totally locked down and out of action in the world. If sanctions had > continued he would only have become weaker. Agreed. > Saddam's enemies, the islamofascists, far more resemble proto-Hitlers than > does Saddam. Also agreed. Ray ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:05:38 -0700 Save it everyone. The Angels are still going to beat the White Sox... because DG's rooting for the Sox. ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: Hard ttimes in NE Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:04:32 -0700 "Brad Greer" wrote in message news:e17tk1h7q6d19vo2813ukvirh5h0arfl5o@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:02:37 -0700, "Andrew Murawa" > wrote: > >>"Brad Greer" wrote in message >>news:0mosk1tc5cpqhosl45k84ao8771hcjd5p8@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:04:28 -0700, "Andrew Murawa" >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >>>>news:1129145271.410957.197060@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>> Andrew Murawa wrote: >>>>>> "Neil X." wrote in message >>>>>> news:1129090446.955419.168030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Andrew Murawa wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Don't start whining about a few injuries now after >>>>>> >> having been left relatively unscathed during the past two >>>>>> >> seasons... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Damn man, last year we lost our 5-time All-Pro cornerback Ty >>>>>> > Law. >>>>>> > We >>>>>> > also played more than half the season without Super Bowl MVP >>>>>> > Deion >>>>>> > Branch and All-Pro tackle Matt Light. We lost All-Pro >>>>>> > defensive >>>>>> > tackle >>>>>> > Richard Seymour for both AFC playoff games. The year before, >>>>>> > we >>>>>> > lost >>>>>> > All-Pro linebackers Rosevelt Colvin and Ted Johnson. Don't get >>>>>> > me >>>>>> > started. Was anyone else in the league forced to play wide >>>>>> > receivers >>>>>> > in their defensive secondary last year?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wow, so you lost one guy for the season, a couple guys for half >>>>>> the >>>>>> season, and another guy for two games, and you had injury >>>>>> problems? >>>>>> Talk >>>>>> to the Panthers or the Titans, each of whom had at least half of >>>>>> their >>>>>> starters lost to season-ending injuries... Injuries are a part >>>>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> game, certainly, but by and large, the Pats escaped major injury >>>>>> problems each of the last two seasons... >>>>> >>>>> Holy shit, you weren't kidding! Let me put it this way: you have >>>>> *got* >>>>> be fucking kidding! Neil listed only the high(low)lites, the >>>>> Patriots >>>>> had HUGE injury issues, on par or more so than anyone but >>>>> Carolina. >>>>> They had so many guys missing from the defensive backfield that >>>>> they >>>>> played a wide receiver at DB. And they went 14-2. And won the >>>>> title. >>>>> >>>>> In 2003, the Patriots started 45, yes, that's 45! different >>>>> players. >>>>> And went 14-2 and won the title. That has to be some kind of >>>>> record. >>>> >>>>Just going over the history of the 2003 team, they lost exactly >>>>three >>>>players for the season due to injury, Roosevelt Colvin, David Patten >>>>and >>>>Mike Compton... Other players on the team, such as Kevin Faulk, >>>>McGinest, Branch, Givens, Graham and others were listed as >>>>questionable >>>>for most of the season, but rarely actually missed games, and by the >>>>end >>>>of the season, had most of their starters intact... Given that they >>>>started three different guys at RB, six at WR, three at punter, etc, >>>>the >>>># of different "starters" on a team that prides itself on having >>>>interchangeable players is a nice number, but doesn't mean a whole >>>>lot, >>>>compared with say the Panthers last year who lost something like 13 >>>>players for the season to injury, including 4 pro-bowlers, or the >>>>Titans >>>>who by the end of last season had 14 missing starters... >>>> >>>>Who'd you lose last year? Poole, Law, Samuel, Branch and Watson? >>>>It's >>>>pretty impressive that the Pats were able to overcome those >>>>injuries, >>>>but it wasn't exactly a barrage of injuries last season, let alone >>>>the >>>>year before >>>> >>> Andrew - you're doing some fuzzy math here. In your first paragraph >>> you say the Patriots lost 3 players for the season to injury >>> (Colvin, >>> Patten and Compton) and then in your second paragraph you mention >>> losing Poole, Law, Samuael, Branch and Watson. That sounds like 8 >>> players named as lost to me, and Poole and Law were lost for the >>> season (regardless of whether they were put on IR or not) meaning >>> they >>> lost their starting cornerbacks. >> >>I was referring to two different years... In 2003, the Pats lost 3 >>players to injury for the season... In 2004, they lost the bunch of >>Poole, Law, Samuel, etc... >> > Sorry, that wasn't totally clear to me in your original post. > However, I think you've got a tendency to dismiss the loss of Poole > and Law (in particular) as if it were nothing - the fact that they > were able to not miss a beat despite losing those two players is an > indication of their depth and ability to adapt. I don't mean to dismiss it as nothing. For a team to lose it's top three cornerbacks is a big deal, but my original statement was that New England had been largely unscathed by huge amounts of key injuries... I would argue that having already lost Harrison for the season is a far bigger deal to the Pats than losing both starting corners last year... But, then again, I'm starting to get sorta hazy about what exactly my point is... ------------------------------ From: "dyrewlf" Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:08:46 GMT "bill c" wrote in message news:jix3f.16044$Fc4.730@twister.nyc.rr.com... > > "Stuknot" wrote in message > news:1129221991.807084.313920@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> bill c wrote: >> > > >> > not a chicagoan and not wishful thinking....check the replay and you'll > see >> > the ball takes a short hop into the glove. >> > umps made the right call, >> >> What ump? The home plate ump who was behind it, couldn't see it, >> called a third strike and an out and then reversed himself while the >> Angels were on their way to the dugout? That ump made the right call? >> Not a chance. BTW, there's enough blame to go around, but Scioscia was >> a class act in the post game news conference. No whining, just, "we >> didn't play well enough to absorb a call like that." >> >> John H. >> > actually, he never made the out call, at least according to the ump > himself > and the guys on baseball tonight. > consistently all game he was using the fist to call the third strike and > that was his argument with > scioscia when asked why he made the fist. > > Whether the ump thought he did or not, he did. He threw out his arm for a strike call when the swing happened, indicating he may have thought it wasn't a clean catch, and then as the batter turned toward the dugout he called him out. Steve ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: Re: netflix Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:08:39 GMT "leftie" Subject: Re: (ndc) Ever Wonder.... Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:09:44 -0400 leftie wrote: > After a lovely morning feeding the fawns (and a 23 year old stripper > named Fawn), a retired Toad settles in on the north-facing porch, gets > tanked on bourbon and spends the evening flipping off Canada. > "Fuck you, Canda! FUCK YOU!" ;-) Sounds like the chorus to a song. Matt ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: yeehaw! Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:16:50 GMT This Saturday is my 11th wedding anniversary, and the ole man is taking me to see the Greencards!!! http://www.thegreencards.com/news.html Yippeee! They were new on the Planet Bluegrass scene this year at Rocky Grass. If you're in the Chicagoland area, they are playing at Fitzgerald's this Friday. http://www.fitzgeraldsnightclub.com/ ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: netflix Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:17:23 -0700 Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > "leftie" But films about nice families are sooooo boring. > **************************** > True. > So what other recommendations do ya got?? I really like A Love Song For Bobby Long. They're quite disfunctional too, but *far* more likable than anyone in The Sea. It's set in NOLA and the music's great. Travolta is great as a drunk in this flick. Another flick about intensely disfunctional folks I like lately is Particles of Truth. It's an indie written, produced, directed and starring Jennifer Elston. Caution though, it's kind of dark and strange like The Sea... Beautiful coloration in the cinematography, and I liked the weird main characters in spite of their, er, character defects. ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:19:33 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > >DG wrote: >> Brad Greer wrote: >> > >> >DG wrote: >> >>He's done just fine. Sure the last ring was 2000 but that doesn't >> >>matter. They are the cream of the crop every year. >> >> >> >No, they aren't. The cream of the crop is the team that wins the >> >World Series by definition. So, the Yankees haven't been the cream of >> >the crop since 2000. Unless you have some other definition of what is >> >the best team in baseball. >> >> >> The regular season shows who is the best. The post season shows who >> is the hottest at the moment. > >Cool, so the Red Sox and the Yankees were exactly the same this year. Except that the Yanks beat them head to head. >> Do they need to win it all every year for you? >> Not for me... > >Hmmmm, I do believe they're zero for the millenium, including the >greatest collapse in sports history, despite outspending every other >team in the league by $70million or so per season. Satisfied? Sure am... Great team year in year out... I don't need them to win it every year. >> Over four million tickets were sold for Yankees games. More people >> see them than any other team because of their lineup. > >....and the fact that Fenway only holds 35k. That's on your owner. What's the name? ------------------------------ From: "pookietooth" Subject: Re: What's on their .mp3 player Date: 13 Oct 2005 11:22:37 -0700 Ray wrote: > Dar Es Salam - Anouar Brahem - Astrakan Cafe That's an awesome CD. The oud is a trippy concept in itself, basically playing a lute like a guitar, from what I understand. ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: yeehaw! Date: 13 Oct 2005 11:23:32 -0700 Happy Anniversary to you and your Groom. ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: Re: yeehaw! Date: 13 Oct 2005 11:25:07 -0700 > Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > This Saturday is my 11th wedding anniversary, and the ole man is taking me > to see the Greencards!!! http://www.thegreencards.com/news.html Yippeee! > They were new on the Planet Bluegrass scene this year at Rocky Grass. > > If you're in the Chicagoland area, they are playing at Fitzgerald's this > Friday. http://www.fitzgeraldsnightclub.com/ I enjoyed seeing them open for Bob Dylan this summer. Bluegrass with a progressive edge! Cute girl too. :) ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:25:43 -0700 Brad Greer wrote: > >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. Right... I certainly don't miss the all or nothing of the NYC area. California has mellowed me. >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. LOL!!! In the past ten years they have four rings. No wonder you choose the past 5. >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. How many playoff games did they play in the 1980's compared to the last ten years? They are extremely successful compared to any time during the 1980s'. ------------------------------ From: "augustwestern" Subject: Re: How do you tell the character of a person? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:28:31 -0700 "The Iron Muffin" wrote in message news:lNGdnfY9R8o77tPeRVn-rQ@comcast.com... > ba ba booie wrote: > > > How do you tell the character of a person? > > The way they treat children, animals, and elderly folks > is a good indication of their character. > > -- Also - whether or not they will steal when given an opportunity where there is a high probability they won't get caught. ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: (NDC) Attention Yankee fans Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:29:30 -0700 Brad Greer wrote: > >DG wrote: > >>Brad Greer wrote: >>> >>>DG wrote: >>>>He's done just fine. Sure the last ring was 2000 but that doesn't >>>>matter. They are the cream of the crop every year. >>>> >>>No, they aren't. The cream of the crop is the team that wins the >>>World Series by definition. So, the Yankees haven't been the cream of >>>the crop since 2000. Unless you have some other definition of what is >>>the best team in baseball. >> >> >>The regular season shows who is the best. The post season shows who >>is the hottest at the moment. > >Then the Atlanta Braves are truly the cream of the crop, right? After >all, they've won more consecutive division titles than the Yankees. >At minimum, they should be mentioned in the same breath as equals to >the Yankees by your standards. Sure... I don't mind acknowledging that they put together great teams. >The baseball season is a long grind, and you can be fairly confident >that the teams that make the playoffs are among the best teams in >baseball (San Diego Padres excepted, the NL West was way too weak this >year). However, to be the best team in baseball you have to prove it >in the post season as well. Or are you going to concede that the 26 >World Series won by the Yankees aren't a sign of the historical >greatness of the organization, just a result of them being the hottest >team at the moment? Could be a bit of both, eh? >>Do they need to win it all every year for you? >>Not for me... >> >>Over four million tickets were sold for Yankees games. More people >>see them than any other team because of their lineup. >> >How many people attend Yankee games has nothing to do with whether >they are the best team in baseball or not. I wrote "lineup". >The Chicago Cubs always >get a lot of fans as well (maybe not 4 million, but still a hell of a >lot). The Yankee lineup and reputation contribute a lot to the number >of fans they draw, We agree... >but they don't give out awards for "most fans >seeing your team in a season." The Yankees gets more money to build their team and pay for the two other teams they support. ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: Good Yom Tov Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:05:21 -0400 ba ba booie wrote: > > > Good Yom Tov > > > stusockol@verizon.net (Stuart Sockol) > Health, Prosperity, and Peace. > Stu > > bbb wrote: > No truer words have be said! > > Ya know, I thought it was, > Good Yon Tov. > > I guess I was wrong. > Unless it was the NYC area accent that I was picking out. Fugeddaboutit ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:30:28 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > >Hell, we're still scratching our head around here over a McCarverism >from last years ALCS after a walk: "That walk was the same as a home >run!" > >Say what? The orange hair dye done seeped into that dudes skull. LOL! I don't remember that one. ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: yeehaw! Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:30:53 -0700 Congrats to you and the ole man! I look forward to checking out the Greencards sometime. Thanks for the tip...4 ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: why baseball sucks? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:33:18 -0700 leftie wrote: > >Save it everyone. The Angels are still going to beat the White Sox... >because DG's rooting for the Sox. As if my rooting has any effect... I always find it humorous when people think they somehow effect the play on the field by rooting from hundreds of miles away. ------------------------------ From: DG Subject: Re: RMGD Word n' Numbers Taboo Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:36:06 -0700 wrote: > >G-13 AK-47 is my current fave... ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .