Friday, February 12, 2010

[socialactionfoundationforequity:2080 :::|AOL-INDIA-NORTH™ |::: Yamuna: On the Verge of dying - wake up!!!

Buzz It

-- On Sat, 13/2/10, hari singh <hari_singhdnpplus@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: hari singh <hari_singhdnpplus@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: :::|AOL-INDIA-NORTH™ |::: Yamuna: On the Verge of dying - wake up!!!
To: monicamendiratta2@gmail.com, drishtikon95@rediffmail.com, aroonkumarspym@gmail.com, dr.kapilbabbar@gmail.com, hivaidsrk@yahoo.com
Cc: avnishjolly@yahoo.com, pushkar.phd@gmail.com, sonal.singh.wadhwa@maitri.org.in, "madhu b" <m_n102002@yahoo.co.in>, "media taruni gandhi" <taru.gandhi@gmail.com>, "action aid bvd" <bvd_childhelp@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 13 February, 2010, 10:35

Dear All,
 
Is this river Yamuna???????????
Green Delhi??????????????????
Polution Free Delhi????????????
Healthy Delhi?????????????????

Regards
Hari Singh
National GIPA Coordinator
Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDS
Email id-hari@inpplus.net
G-46, First Floor, Green Park Main
New Delhi- 110016
Ph: 011 4265771,73
Mob:+91 9891263535


Subject:::|AOL-INDIA-NORTH™ |::: Yamuna: On the Verge of dying - wake up!!!

?ui=2&view=att&th=126bb819af86d114&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=ii_126bb819af86d114&zw
  
?ui=2&view=att&th=126bb828580a8355&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=ii_126bb828580a8355&zw

?ui=2&view=att&th=126bb842abb197dc&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=ii_126bb842abb197dc&zw
Still in the process of deciding?
Read on !!!
 
Nothing could be more shocking and shameful than the Government's admission, by way of a Central Pollution Control Board report, that Yamuna is now no more than a drain carrying faeces. Yet, this river was, and remains, integral to our civilisational ethos and cultural history
 
The most repelling disclosure is that the river is contaminated by an abnormally high level of faecal coliform, bacteria found in faeces, being much above the permissible limits for the purpose of bathing or drinking. These are disease-causing germs, and one shudders to imagine the horror of the 100,000 or more fastidious visitors to the Commonwealth Games this October when these facts come to their notice.
The 25 drains spread across the 22-km long stretch of Yamuna as it passes through Delhi are reported to discharge a massive load of treated and untreated sewage, industrial effluents and storm water into the river. Monitoring between January and October 2009 showed that the load discharged from the drains into Yamuna varied between 174 tonnes and 330 tonnes per day. The most polluting drains were at Najafgarh, Burari, Civil Mill, Sen Nursing Home, Barapulla, Power House and Shahdara.
    
    Meri Dilli Meri Yamuna   is a project for making a difference to our city of Delhi-NCR. What started as an initiative of 'The Art of Living', has now become a full blown citizen's action plan. Dozens of civil society groups have already joined the movement and many companies including Microsoft, Educomp and Kent RO have become partners. The UNESCO, World Bank, JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) etc. among many others are already on board the campaign and more and more people and groups are joining every day...
 
JOIN THE DRIVE. LETS MAKE A CHANGE 'COZ WE ARE THE CHANGE.

FWD TO ALL...FOR IT IS MERI DILLI MERI YAMUNA
FWD TO ALL...IF U CARE
FWD TO ALL...IF U BELIEVE THAT U CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE :)

--

   __    __    __    
     |    | _    |    \   :)      
   _|    |__|   |__/   
                    


--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

[socialactionfoundationforequity:2079 'Human Rights: Transforming Dimensions'

Buzz It
'Human Rights: Transforming Dimensions'

An International Conference on 'Human Rights: Transforming Dimensions'
will be held in Panjab University, Chandigarh from February 15-16,
2010.

Organised in collaboration with Oxford Brookes University, its twin
university in U.K. and sponsored by the Indian Council for Social
Science Research, the Conference will see civil society actors,
bureaucracy, judiciary, defence, human rights commission, activists
and media debate on the complexities of understanding and implementing
human rights across the wide spectrum of a global society.

The deliberations will be spread over parallel and plenary sessions on
varied issues ranging from rights of minorities, tribal women,
children, disabled people, and indigenous groups to the use of green
technology, food security, terrorism, cyber crimes, violence against
women, globalization and bio-technology. A panel discussion on media
and human rights shall also be a part of the deliberations.

The Conference will be inaugurated by Hon'ble Justice Permod Kohli of
Punjab and Haryana High Court. Prof Mool Chand Sharma, Vice
Chancellor, Central University Haryana, former Vice Chairman UGC and a
renowned human rights scholar, will deliver the keynote address. Pro-
Vice Chancellor Oxford Brookes University, Prof John Raftery shall be
the Guest of Honour. Ms. Shami Chakrabarty, Chancellor Oxford Brookes
University, and a leading defender of human rights and civil liberties
in U.K. would be one of the lead speakers, focusing on 'Common Law -
Common Values: Defending human rights in a shrinking world.' Widely
acclaimed social activist, Baba Seechewal would also be part of the
proceedings.

Vice Chancellor Panjab University, Prof R. C. Sobti, who is also the
patron-in-chief of the Conference, shall preside over the inaugural
function at the University Auditorium. A souvenir comprising the
abstracts of articles will also be released on the occasion.

Justice R.S. Mongia, Chairman, Punjab State Human Rights Commission
shall deliver the Valedictory Address.

--
Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth. - Mohandas Gandhi

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SAFE - Social Action Foundation for Equity" group.
To post to this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
socialactionfoundationforequity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/socialactionfoundationforequity?hl=en?hl=en-GB

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Peyton is better than Brady? - 15 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2443a8762013e97a?hl=en
* What the Saints have that the Jets dont... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8bf15d8278571b5d?hl=en
* Jared Odrick - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/90470891e95c09a8?hl=en
* Same old Jets all over again - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6a48f96aeb19e482?hl=en
* Super Bowl Standings (after the 2010 Super Bowl) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/560caa1f3ffcced7?hl=en
* humor world - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d4ec1a57519bfca9?hl=en
* Joey Porter released from Dolphins ( According to NFL.com ) - 3 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f752a7566d7b6be5?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Peyton is better than Brady?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/2443a8762013e97a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 11 2010 9:08 pm
From: MZ


Grinch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:59:22 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:orf9n5t9t50psikn0mo529eiovl9v71ok0@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:12 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Julio" <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au...
>>>>> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
>>>>> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
>>>>> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
>>>>> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
>>> The way you guys talk, boxing is more of a team sport than football.
>>>
>>> At least we all now the boxer's cornerman and trainer have *something*
>>> to do with the contest.
>>>
>>>>> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
>>>>> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
>>>>> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady
>>> "Eli beat Brady". ;-)
>>>
>>>>> has as much claim to the #2 spot as anyone.
>>> Yeah, and George Chuvalo had as much claim as anyonme to be #2 behind
>>> Ali. After all, he lasted to lose a decision against Ali, while
>>> Liston, Patterson, Quary, Ellis, Foreman, Frazier (twice) all got
>>> knocked out.
>>>
>>>>> J.
>>>> Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
>>>>
>>>> Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
>>> Tell me that Brady's record in the playoffs would be 14-2 if the Lions
>>> had drafted him and I'll be really impressed.
>
>> who knows.
>> the Lions could use a QB.
>
> During the Matt Millen era they coulda used more prayer. By the Pope.
>
>> do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
>
> No QB's numbers would be the same on a different team.
>
> They don't stay the same on the same team as the team changes.
>
> Namath was a world-beater when throwing to Maynard, Sauer, Lammons
> etc, coached by Ewbank, on a team with a top D so he was usually
> throwing downhill.
>
> He was a bum when throwing to Eddie Bell, David Knight, Lou Piccone,
> etc., coached by Charlie Winner and Lou Holtz, on a team with a Swiss
> cheese D, so he was always chucking uphill. A bum!
>
>> Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
>
> No. And he never had passing numbers to match Manning's either --
> until 2007 and the all-pro receivers showed up. Team changed, his
> numbers changed.
>
> But his team was the best team of the decade all along, and had a
> better W-L record than Manning's team.
>
> If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
> team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
>
> For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
> that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
> them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
> really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
>
> But for anyone who likes QB W-L records, "this QB beat that QB",
> Sanchez and Brady split 1-1 this year. They're equal!

W/L records are an oversimplification. Ray's point, I think, was that
Brady appears to be a better playoff QB than Manning. I don't think
you'll ever find a statistic to dissociate the player from the team, so
you'll have to rely a lot on observations. But I think you'd have a
very hard time convincing me that what you've seen from Manning in the
playoffs has been on par with (or better than) what you've seen from
Brady in the playoffs. Both have put up stinkers, but it seems Manning
has had more of them. Maybe he's simply faced better defenses in the
playoffs than Brady?


== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:10 am
From: "AllYou!"


In news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au,
Julio <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> mused:
> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner,

No, he didn't.

> Jake
> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.

Didn't beat any of them, either.

> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.

That's an overblown myth. Sure, Polian wanted a rules change, and
he was certainly driven to that request because of the type of team
he had. But it took an overwhelming number of other owners to agree
with him, and they did. He conducted himself within the NFL rules
to make rules, and he prevailed. If it was so unfairly favorable to
the Colts, the rules would've changed back again, and they have not.
In the meantime, all other teams have had plenty of time to adjust
to those rules changes, including the Pats. So those changes have
not favored Manning more than Brady unless you want to say that
Manning is the better QB.

>
> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
> to the #2 spot as anyone.

Actually, the Jets beat the Colts, so they have a better claim to
being #1.


== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:21 am
From: Johnctx


MZ wrote:
> Grinch wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:59:22 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Grinch" <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:orf9n5t9t50psikn0mo529eiovl9v71ok0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:12 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>>>> <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Julio" <hoolio3sanchez@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EOEM68HY40221.399375@reece.net.au...
>>>>>> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
>>>>>> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
>>>>>> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
>>>>>> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
>>>> The way you guys talk, boxing is more of a team sport than football.
>>>>
>>>> At least we all now the boxer's cornerman and trainer have *something*
>>>> to do with the contest.
>>>>
>>>>>> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
>>>>>> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
>>>>>> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady
>>>> "Eli beat Brady". ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> has as much claim to the #2 spot as anyone.
>>>> Yeah, and George Chuvalo had as much claim as anyonme to be #2 behind
>>>> Ali. After all, he lasted to lose a decision against Ali, while
>>>> Liston, Patterson, Quary, Ellis, Foreman, Frazier (twice) all got
>>>> knocked out.
>>>>
>>>>>> J.
>>>>> Brady 14-2 in the P.O.s
>>>>>
>>>>> Manning 9-9 in the P.O.s
>>>> Tell me that Brady's record in the playoffs would be 14-2 if the Lions
>>>> had drafted him and I'll be really impressed.
>>
>>> who knows.
>>> the Lions could use a QB.
>>
>> During the Matt Millen era they coulda used more prayer. By the Pope.
>>
>>> do you think Manning would have his nmbers if he played elsewhere?
>>
>> No QB's numbers would be the same on a different team.
>>
>> They don't stay the same on the same team as the team changes.
>>
>> Namath was a world-beater when throwing to Maynard, Sauer, Lammons
>> etc, coached by Ewbank, on a team with a top D so he was usually
>> throwing downhill.
>>
>> He was a bum when throwing to Eddie Bell, David Knight, Lou Piccone,
>> etc., coached by Charlie Winner and Lou Holtz, on a team with a Swiss
>> cheese D, so he was always chucking uphill. A bum!
>>
>>> Brady has not been blessed with HOFers on offence playing around him.
>>
>> No. And he never had passing numbers to match Manning's either --
>> until 2007 and the all-pro receivers showed up. Team changed, his
>> numbers changed.
>>
>> But his team was the best team of the decade all along, and had a
>> better W-L record than Manning's team.
>>
>> If one believes NFL payroll data, the QB is about 8% of the average
>> team. That means 92% of what his team does isn't him.
>>
>> For QBs like Manning and Brady it's more like 15%, which still means
>> that 85% of what the team does is due to the other 52 players, not
>> them. Even in the Super Bowl, and in other clutch situations. It's
>> really not a mano a mano sport - that just sells papers.
>>
>> But for anyone who likes QB W-L records, "this QB beat that QB",
>> Sanchez and Brady split 1-1 this year. They're equal!
>
> W/L records are an oversimplification. Ray's point, I think, was that
> Brady appears to be a better playoff QB than Manning. I don't think
> you'll ever find a statistic to dissociate the player from the team, so
> you'll have to rely a lot on observations. But I think you'd have a
> very hard time convincing me that what you've seen from Manning in the
> playoffs has been on par with (or better than) what you've seen from
> Brady in the playoffs. Both have put up stinkers, but it seems Manning
> has had more of them. Maybe he's simply faced better defenses in the
> playoffs than Brady?

Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't know. It
makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.

I do find Pat fans funny and I know many, even outside this freak show,
who twist up about any accolades any other great player, coach or team
gets. The funny thing is that Brady rarely talks but has a few "me, me,
me" gaffes.


== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:48 am
From: "AllYou!"


In news:Ot2dncZHeeta2ujWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com,
Johnctx <jc@spamtx.net> mused:

> Maybe Brady has had a much better head coach. You just don't
> know. It makes arguing sports fun & pointless at the same time.

Some sports lend themselves more easily to the use of stats as a
means of assiing player talent and value than others. I think
baseball is one which does, and football, not so much. But in any
case, stats are really only part of the picture, and their use is
frought with limitations. In the end, a much bigger factor is
actually watching the games, and subjectively assessing performance.
And even then.......

IMO, if all player contracts were torn up, and all curent players
were to majically revert back to their ages at the time they were
drafted, I'd take Manning over Brady in a heart beat. I think he's
a better field general overall, and I think he's got a slightly more
accurate arm. I think Brady has the edge in leadership.


== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:46 am
From: Michael


On Feb 11, 8:35 pm, Julio <hoolio3sanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brady has been to four superbowls and won three, Manning
> has been to two and won one, despite having a longer time
> in the league as a starter. Brady beat Kurt Warner, Jake
> Delhomme and Donovan McNabb, Manning beat Rex Grossman.
> Manning couldn't do a thing until the rules change that
> allowed his sensitive receivers to get off the line without
> getting hit was instituted at the behest of Polian.
>
> Right now, Eli Manning, who beat Brady, has as much claim
> to the #2 spot as anyone.
>
> J.

dont know if you could say that brady is the better qb. the way i
usually put it is that brady is the more "successful" qb vs.
manning.

if brady had been with the colts, would he still have won 3
superbowls ??? the colts coaching staff was a joke until dungy...
brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff.. the
day mo lewis got brady on the field, brady had one of the best
coaching crews in the game not to mention ownership/management that
ensured he'd have quality manpower on the field season to season.

i will say one thing... if brady was in that last superbowl at the
same exact spot manning was in when he threw the pick... i say brady
would not have thrown that shitty pass at that very important time.

AND.. I will also say... If brady was the qb of the Colts this year
and not manning, no way would the colts have gotten to the
superbowl... Manning's execution and brains was pretty much the whole
team. no way does brady carry a whole team.


== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:06 am
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..

Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?


>no way does brady carry a whole team.

Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.


== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:52 am
From: Michael


On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>
> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
>  >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06?  Manning's surrounding talent
> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.

ok... what have you been smoking ???


== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:55 am
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>
>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>
>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> ok... what have you been smoking ???

This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
view. I'd love to hear it! :)


== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:05 am
From: Michael


On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
> >> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
> >>  >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> >> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06?  Manning's surrounding talent
> >> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> > ok... what have you been smoking ???
>
> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
>   I haven't really heard it before.  Usually, it's been the other way
> around.  So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
> view.  I'd love to hear it!  :)

who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???

who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"

have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
pats.

i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality

== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:36 am
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
>> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
>> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
>> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
>> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
>> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
>
> who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>
> who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>
> have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
> pats.
>
> i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
> lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
> name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
> ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality

Not even close, Michael.

How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.

But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.

The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
during their championship season.

Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
have a lot of things go well for their teams (here is where I'd invoke
John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
Lions here..


== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 12:40 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> >>>> Michael wrote:
> >>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
> >>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
> >>>>  >no way does brady carry a whole team.
> >>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06?  Manning's surrounding talent
> >>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
> >>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
> >> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
> >>   I haven't really heard it before.  Usually, it's been the other way
> >> around.  So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
> >> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
> >> view.  I'd love to hear it!  :)
>
> > who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>
> > who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>
> > have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
> > pats.
>
> > i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
> > lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
> > name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
> > ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
>
> Not even close, Michael.
>
> How many OCs has Manning had to work with?  How many has Brady had to
> adapt to?  Does he even have one now?  The Pats coaching staff is a
> shell of its former self, and has been since '04.  And now, in the '09
> season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
> the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group.  The staff has been
> poached.  They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
> coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.

Yeah... and the staff members on the pats that look so good under bb
do nothing when they leave. bb's guys are suplicants like mangini and
not real brainpower. all bb needs is a few guys to pick up his
laundry and follow the mold...

not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
general.

> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line.  Brady has only
> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's).  When
> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney.  Or David Patten and Troy
> Brown in the earlier days.  Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.

and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
production numbers was a result of mannings brains.


> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
> teams.  But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
> New England's.  Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
> during their championship season.
>
> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
> has had it hard.  What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
> have a lot of things go well for their teams

manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents

>(here is where I'd invoke
> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
> attention elsewhere on the roster...).  It's insane to think that
> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
>   It's just not true.  Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc.  The guy isn't exactly on the
> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -

sanders ??? he's a ghost.


== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:03 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2:36 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 11:55 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>>>>>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>>>>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>>>>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>>>>>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>>>>> ok... what have you been smoking ???
>>>> This notion that Brady's been surrounded by better players is a new one.
>>>> I haven't really heard it before. Usually, it's been the other way
>>>> around. So maybe those who insist that Brady's been the lucky recipient
>>>> of where he landed and Manning has not, should explain their point of
>>>> view. I'd love to hear it! :)
>>> who was brady's head coach for the first four years of his career ???
>>> who was mannings ??? "playoffs ?!?!? dont talk about playoffs"
>>> have a peek at the colts defensive stats for the past decade, then the
>>> pats.
>>> i'll admit that the belichick systems worked astonishingly well with
>>> lesser talent in places from time to time and the colts had some big
>>> name guys at the skill positions, but as a whole on both sides of the
>>> ball, the pats outrank the colts as far as over all quality
>> Not even close, Michael.
>>
>> How many OCs has Manning had to work with? How many has Brady had to
>> adapt to? Does he even have one now? The Pats coaching staff is a
>> shell of its former self, and has been since '04. And now, in the '09
>> season and moving into '10, despite how smart you think Belichick is,
>> the Pats coaching staff is a mid-level group. The staff has been
>> poached. They've lost close to 10 of their coordinators/position
>> coaches over the past 5 or 6 years.
>
> Yeah... and the staff members on the pats that look so good under bb
> do nothing when they leave. bb's guys are suplicants like mangini and
> not real brainpower. all bb needs is a few guys to pick up his
> laundry and follow the mold...

If that's all he needs, then why can't he find guys to do that? Dean
Pees was the DC for four years under BB, but he couldn't get anything
done. Mangini was also terrible as the Pats DC. He hasn't been able to
replace McDaniels, either.

His staff has grown smaller because he hasn't been able to infuse the
staff with new coaches as quickly as they've been leaving. No matter
how you slice it, that's bad news.

I disagree with you, though, that those coaches didn't do anything after
they left. They're all still in the NFL in their original roles or in
higher roles (except Pees, who turned down another DC job to coach LBs
with the Ravens). So they must be doing something right to retain their
jobs.

You can't possibly be arguing that the Pats coaching staff in its
current form is as effective as they were in, say, '04.


> not to mention players like matt cassel... he had teams drooling to
> put him in a starting role. too bad he was a system guy and sucks in
> general.

He sucked with the Pats too, although as the season went on he got a
little better. He had Moss and Welker to throw to and they still
managed to miss the playoffs that year with an easy schedule. If he was
throwing at Patten, Brown, and Wiggins, I think he'd have been a little
less successful.

>
>> But most of all, Peyton's spent almost his entire career throwing to
>> hall of famers and being protected by a top tier line. Brady has only
>> recently had that luxury ('07, '09 -- which also happens to be his two
>> best seasons statistically -- and arguably better than Manning's). When
>> Manning was throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Brady was
>> throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney. Or David Patten and Troy
>> Brown in the earlier days. Or Deion Branch and David Givens after that.
>
> and garcon and collie would look like shit without manning. how would
> harrison and wayne look with kellen clemens ??? half of those guys
> production numbers was a result of mannings brains.

Sure, the QB-WR relationship is symbiotic. But to suggest that Harrison
and Wayne would suck without Manning is just ridiculous. They were good
receivers. And so was Stokley. I think everyone acknowledges this.

I think Garcon and Collie are pretty good players though. Lots of
receivers couldn't get it done with Manning. Even Gonzalez has been a
bit of a disappointment, even putting the injury issues aside. If what
you say is true, they should be able to insert Garcon and Collie for a
Marvin Harrison in his prime and not miss a beat, right? But clearly
there was a downgrade at the position.

Let's also not forget that it took Wayne a little bit of time before he
became what he is. It's not like they inserted him and he magically
became the receiver he is today (in Belichick's words, the best receiver
the Pats faced all season).


>> The Pats teams from 5 and 6 years ago had better defenses than the Colts
>> teams. But, in recent years, the Colts defenses have been better than
>> New England's. Indy had, by many measures, the best defense in the NFL
>> during their championship season.
>>
>> Anyway, my point isn't necessarily that Peyton has had it easy and Brady
>> has had it hard. What I'm saying is that both QBs have been blessed to
>> have a lot of things go well for their teams
>
> manning was blessed with one of the best qb brains and arms in
> history. brady was blessed by mo lewis and the bb system. the colts
> offense is anything BUT a system offense. it is one dimentional
> simplicity driven by manning's demonsterable talents

And Wayne's, and Harrison's, and James', and Saturday's, and Scott's,
and Clark's, and Pollard's, and Stokely's.

And Dungy's, and Moore's.

The guy has been surrounded by unbelievable talent for most of his
career. You're probably the first person I've ever encountered who
doesn't acknowledge this.


>> (here is where I'd invoke
>> John's theory about teams with franchise QBs being able to divert more
>> attention elsewhere on the roster...). It's insane to think that
>> Brady's been the lucky guy and Manning's had to carry the load himself.
>> It's just not true. Look up and down the Colts roster this decade ...
>> from the continuity in the coaching staff; the pro bowl receiving groups
>> that have almost always included at least three pro bowl caliber
>> targets; the top tier OL, guys like Jeff Saturday, Tarik Glenn, etc; the
>> running backs, which have only recently become a weakness; and defensive
>> playmakers, Freeney, Mathis, Sanders, etc. The guy isn't exactly on the
>> Lions here..- Hide quoted text -
>
> sanders ??? he's a ghost.

Didn't he win defensive player of the year not too long ago? He's not
exactly Eric Smith. He's actually contributed to the team's success.


== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:25 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article <2s2dnRdTGvEY4ejWnZ2dnUVZ_rJi4p2d@giganews.com>,
MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:

> Michael wrote:
> > brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>
> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>
>
> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>
> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.

Mark, I think this is a stupid thread but I agree with the point Michael
made that I don't think any other Qb in the league could have gotten the
Colts to the SB.

I think if Caldwell had not been a pussy, the Colts would have been the
first team to win it all since the Fish did it in a much shorter season.

And, in one big game, one has to be nuts not to consider Brady who is
better than most of the other Qb in the league.

H


== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:13 pm
From: MZ


Harlan Lachman wrote:
> In article <2s2dnRdTGvEY4ejWnZ2dnUVZ_rJi4p2d@giganews.com>,
> MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> brady never had to suffer a shitty excuse for a coaching staff..
>> Haven't watched the Pats lately, huh?
>>
>>
>> >no way does brady carry a whole team.
>>
>> Then who carried them to the AFCCG in '06? Manning's surrounding talent
>> has been better than Brady's throughout most of his career.
>
> Mark, I think this is a stupid thread but I agree with the point Michael
> made that I don't think any other Qb in the league could have gotten the
> Colts to the SB.
>
> I think if Caldwell had not been a pussy, the Colts would have been the
> first team to win it all since the Fish did it in a much shorter season.
>
> And, in one big game, one has to be nuts not to consider Brady who is
> better than most of the other Qb in the league.
>
> H

It really is a stupid thread. I don't know what's wrong with having two
great QBs in the league.

I don't know if Brady could have gotten the Colts to the SB or not. I
see no reason why he couldn't though. I mostly take issue with the idea
that Brady has been surrounded by all this great talent whereas Manning
(with more pro bowlers on his roster than Brady every year...) has
carried the team on his shoulders.


== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:52 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article <-aCdnb4rsMIOT-jWnZ2dnUVZ_oFi4p2d@giganews.com>,
MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:

> I
> see no reason why he couldn't though

I think I disagree but who cares? We will never know. Only those who
think their opinions mean something will persist in disagreeing.

Both Qbs have done things no Qb (other than possibly Namath and Warner)
in my memory has ever done.

I thought Brady's best game was versus the Giants. His pass to Moss (?)
that was tipped away at the last minute 70 yards downfield from the
hands of the receiver should not be allowed in this universe in that
situation.

H

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What the Saints have that the Jets dont...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/8bf15d8278571b5d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 4:16 am
From: Johnctx


papa.carl44 wrote:
> "Johnctx" <jc@spamtx.net> wrote in message
> news:va6dnRQl1aEX-ezWnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>> "Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fb1193fa-caac-4191-ab0e-f26f556385af@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
>>>> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
>>>> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
>>>> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
>>>> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
>>>> key.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the Jets priority in FA & the draft is DB, DB, DB.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also all but convinced that they Jets defensive scheme can still
>>>> do wonders without big money stars on the defensive line so long as
>>>> they maintain their level of quality at MLB and SS.
>>>>
>>>> What would your assessment of the Jets DB's be now ???
>>>>
>>>> Revis ?
>>>>
>>>> Lito ?
>>>>
>>>> Leonhard ?
>>>>
>>>> Rhodes ?
>>>>
>>>> Lowrey ?
>>>>
>>>> Strickland ?
>>> Revis is the best there is...as far as the rest go, you have to have
>>> something to go to before you run away from any of them. This idea of
>>> just getting rid of guys with no idea of who will replace them is nuts.
>>> Let's see who becomes available, then we can have a discussion.
>> Papa, thanks for the injection of sanity.
>>
>> Let's put things in perspective. Shepard & Strickland were both hurt all
>> year. They both are better than any CB we have had since we shipped Aaron
>> Glenn back to Texas.
>
> Isn't it amazing how many really good players get shipped off to somewhere
> else and become even better "really good players" ? Good teams recognize
> guys they have that are good and find a way to hold on to them. There just
> aren't a lot of the Revis type players out there. I live close to Philly.
> A LOT of Eagles fans were really upset that Lito was let go, they liked him.
> Philly fans can be nuts, but a lot of the blue collar guys I run into do
> know football and they follow the team a lot more than most fans do when it
> comes to actually watching guys and keeping tabs on them. Another
> myth...when they find out I'm a Jets fan...I rarely get any grief, you just
> have to know how to walk with the wolves and they leave you alone :-)
>
>

Think of the very average CB's we have been dealing with since 2002.
Donnie Abraham squeezed a few last years out for us but outside of that
who even approaches Lito & Strickland? Marty Barret, Ray Mickens?

Most football fans love another good football fan. The really passionate
fans can't standard BS artist & a handful of idiots with 10 beers in
them & one Santa Claus can give a city a bad name.

:)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jared Odrick
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/90470891e95c09a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:59 am
From: Johnctx


I watched 1/2 this video. Now it is one game, but this is a highlight reel?

http://www.wikio.com/video/2385490


Now I have to admit I am biased toward SEC players but if by some
miracle Dan Williams of Tenn drops I will be doing a dance. if the Pats
get him I will be sick.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 1:13 pm
From: Ian White


Johnctx wrote:
> I watched 1/2 this video. Now it is one game, but this is a highlight
> reel?
>
> http://www.wikio.com/video/2385490
>
>
> Now I have to admit I am biased toward SEC players but if by some
> miracle Dan Williams of Tenn drops I will be doing a dance. if the Pats
> get him I will be sick.

Why on Earth would the Jets be looking at a RB in the first round?

--
Ian

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Same old Jets all over again
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6a48f96aeb19e482?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:26 am
From: Dano58


On Feb 10, 10:51 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Steve Russo" <srusso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34a71465-f16d-46ec-a210-cb98f3cec50c@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:06 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Usually it is the Jets team that humiliates themselves.  But now that the
> >> team has gotten halfway decent the morbidly obese excuse for a coach has
> >> to
> >> humiliate himself on behalf of the Jets.
>
> > You should read this before passing judgement. What would any of us
> > have done?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ycxthkq
>
> The better folks among us would have acted like a mature adult.

Mature adults don't call names and write -

"Rex Ryan is a big fat embarrassment to the greatest city in the
world. He
belong in MMA, not the NFL. Fat slob cannot even control himself in a
decent fashion." - RickyBobby

Dan D
central NJ USA


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:33 am
From: "AllYou!"


In
news:edbdc25f-6be0-4661-9c15-26f1a3f0f65b@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Dano58 <dan.dibiase@gmail.com> mused:
> On Feb 10, 10:51 am, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Steve Russo" <srusso...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:34a71465-f16d-46ec-a210-cb98f3cec50c@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2:06 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Usually it is the Jets team that humiliates themselves. But
>>>> now that the team has gotten halfway decent the morbidly
>>>> obese excuse for a coach has to
>>>> humiliate himself on behalf of the Jets.
>>
>>> You should read this before passing judgement. What would any
>>> of us have done?
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ycxthkq
>>
>> The better folks among us would have acted like a mature adult.
>
> Mature adults don't call names

Then, by that standard, you're immature.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super Bowl Standings (after the 2010 Super Bowl)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/560caa1f3ffcced7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:43 am
From: Turban Joe Balasootoe


On Feb 9, 2:14 pm, "4poster" <voca...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Good post. I'll save it.
>
> --http://promoteworldpeace.blogspot.com/"observer" <obser...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hkrv0k$315$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Appearances
> >     Team .............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> >  1. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3  .625             8
> >  2. Pittsburgh Steelers .......... 6-1  .857             7
> >  3. New England Patriots ...... 3-3  .500            6 3. Denver Broncos
> > .............. 2-4  .333            6
> >  5. San Francisco 49ers ........ 5-0  1.000          5 5. Oakland/L.A.
> > Raiders ..... 3-2  .600            5 5. Washington Redskins ...... 3-2
> > .600            5 5. Miami Dolphins ............... 2-3  .400            5
> >  9. Green Bay Packers ......... 3-1  .750            4 9. New York Giants
> > ........... 3-1  .750            4 9. Baltimore/Indy Colts ....... 2-2
> > .500            4 9. Minnesota Vikings .......... 0-4  .000            4
> > 9. Buffalo Bills .................... 0-4  .000            4
> > 14. St. Louis/L.A. Rams ....... 1-2  .333            3
> > 15. Chicago Bears ................ 1-1  .500            2 15. Kansas City
> > Chiefs ......... 1-1  .500            2 15. Cincinnati Bengals ...........
> > 0-2  .000           2 15. Philadelphia Eagles .......... 0-2  .000
> > 2
> > 19. Baltimore Ravens ............ 1-0  1.000          1 19. New York Jets
> > ................ 1-0  1.000         1 19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers ... 1-0
> > 1.000         1 19. New Orleans Saints ......... 1-0  1.000         1 19.
> > Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1  .000           1 19. Carolina
> > Panthers ............. 0-1  .000          1 19. San Diego Chargers
> > ......... 0-1  .000          1 19. Seattle Seahawks ............. 0-1
> > .000          1 19. Tennessee Titans ............. 0-1  .000           1
> > 19. Arizona Cardinals ............ 0-1  .000           1
> > 29. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0  .000          0 29. Detroit Lions
> > ................... 0-0  .000           0 29. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > ......... 0-0  .000          0 29. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000          0
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Wins
> >     Team ............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> >  1. Pittsburgh Steelers .......... 6-1  .857             7
> >  2. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3  .625             8 2. San Francisco
> > 49ers ....... 5-0  1.000           5
> >  4. New England Patriots ..... 3-3  .500             6 4. Oakland/L.A.
> > Raiders ..... 3-2  .600            5 4. Washington Redskins ..... 3-2
> > .600             5 4. Green Bay Packers ........ 3-1  .750             4
> > 4. New York Giants ........... 3-1  .750            4
> >  9. Denver Broncos ............. 2-4  .333             6 9. Miami Dolphins
> > .............. 2-3  .400             5 9. Baltimore/Indy Colts ....... 2-2
> > .500            4
> > 12. St. Louis/L.A. Rams ........ 1-2  .333           3 12. Chicago Bears
> > ................. 1-1  .500           2 12. Kansas City Chiefs ..........
> > 1-1  .500           2 12. Baltimore Ravens ............. 1-0  1.000
> > 1 12. New York Jets ................ 1-0  1.000         1 12. Tampa Bay
> > Buccaneers ... 1-0  1.000         1 12. New Orleans Saints ......... 1-0
> > 1.000         1
> > 19. Minnesota Vikings ........... 0-4  .000           4 19. Buffalo Bills
> > ..................... 0-4  .000           4 19. Cincinnati Bengals
> > ............ 0-2  .000           2 19. Philadelphia Eagles ........... 0-2
> > .000           2 19. Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1  .000
> > 1 19. Carolina Panthers ............. 0-1  .000           1 19. San Diego
> > Chargers ......... 0-1  .000           1 19. Seattle Seahawks
> > ............. 0-1  .000           1 19. Tennessee Titans ..............
> > 0-1  .000           1 19. Arizona Cardinals ............. 0-1  .000
> > 1 19. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0  .000           0 19. Detroit
> > Lions .................... 0-0  .000           0 19. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > .......... 0-0  .000          0 19. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000           0
> > ---
>
> > Super Bowl Standings (by winning/losing percentage)
> >      Team ............................. W L Pct. Total Appearances
> >  1. San Francisco 49ers ........ 5-0  1.000          5 1. Baltimore Ravens
> > ............ 1-0  1.000           1 1. New York Jets ................ 1-0
> > 1.000          1 1. Tampa Bay Buccaneers ... 1-0  1.000          1 1. New
> > Orleans Saints ......... 1-0  1.000          1
> >  6. Pittsburgh Steelers ........... 6-1  .857            7
> >  7. Green Bay Packers ......... 3-1  .750            4 7. New York Giants
> > ............ 3-1  .750            4
> >  9. Dallas Cowboys ............. 5-3  .625             8
> > 10. Oakland/L.A. Raiders ..... 3-2  .600            5 10. Washington
> > Redskins ...... 3-2  .600            5
> > 12. New England Patriots ..... 3-3  .500            6 12. Baltimore/Indy
> > Colts ....... 2-2  .500            4 12. Chicago Bears ................
> > 1-1  .500            2 12. Kansas City Chiefs ......... 1-1  .500
> > 2
> > 16. Miami Dolphins ............... 2-3  .400           5
> > 17. Denver Broncos .............. 2-4  .333           6 17. St. Louis/L.A.
> > Rams ....... 1-2  .333            3
> > 19. Minnesota Vikings ........... 0-4  .000           4 19. Buffalo Bills
> > ..................... 0-4  .000           4 19. Cincinnati Bengals
> > ........... 0-2  .000            2 19. Philadelphia Eagles .......... 0-2
> > .000            2 19. Atlanta Falcons ................ 0-1  .000
> > 1 19. Carolina Panthers ............. 0-1  .000           1 19. San Diego
> > Chargers ......... 0-1  .000           1 19. Seattle Seahawks
> > ............. 0-1  .000           1 19. Tennessee Titans ............. 0-1
> > .000            1 19. Arizona Cardinals ............ 0-1  .000
> > 1 19. Cleveland Browns ............ 0-0  .000           0 19. Detroit
> > Lions .................... 0-0  .000           0 19. Jacksonville Jaguars
> > .......... 0-0  .000          0 19. Houston Texans ............... 0-0
> > .000           0
> > ---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The 1983 Raiders are the only club to have defeated the
previous year's champion, clocking the Redskins of
John Riggins' biggest run fame.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: humor world
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/d4ec1a57519bfca9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:52 am
From: lowes@msn.com (TIM LAWYER)


http://www.webspawner.com/users/humorworld


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Joey Porter released from Dolphins ( According to NFL.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/f752a7566d7b6be5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:39 pm
From: UnixUser


Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 2:53 pm
From: Harlan Lachman


In article <hl4lav$3ul$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
UnixUser <unixuser@nospam.com> wrote:

> Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?

I think the Fish hope the jets do which is why they turned him lose so
early. They were just taking out the trash.

A more intriguing question is whether his former Pittsburgh coaches make
any effort to bring him in.

h


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:35 pm
From: Tutor


On Feb 12, 5:39 pm, UnixUser <unixu...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Think he is worth bringing in for the JETS?

no no no no no no no no no no no

I give Porter the Rex-Finger.

Would rather get Adalius Thomas FWIW


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 9 topics - digest

Buzz It
rec.bicycles.racing
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

rec.bicycles.racing@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Why iz Liz Hatch such an authority on women's cycling? - 7 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/da5d3300d6448046?hl=en
* Tour of California Route! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0765ad7dbb0efcca?hl=en
* all things poseur - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/10e9dcf7e6f61a91?hl=en
* what movie is this from? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e732411d2fd13c08?hl=en
* mini-phinney - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9507d1c077a60c8f?hl=en
* I've found my Winter Olympics event! - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0e7c7a74263fa539?hl=en
* kohl: living the dream - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a73901033a7346c6?hl=en
* OT: I am sorry I have been a little rude lately - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3cda89f50a544065?hl=en
* Somebody ought to start a Petition - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e1cb96babe04cb7a?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why iz Liz Hatch such an authority on women's cycling?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/da5d3300d6448046?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:14 pm
From: Amit Ghosh


On Jan 27, 1:08 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroFans.com> wrote:
> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:343fc4fc-7077-4ada-ab8c-74519770675f@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >so Emma Pooley can ride a bike fast .... so what ?
>
> Pooley doesn't ride fast like some power riders do. She's fast on the
> climbs, and her solo breakaways usually come out the advantage she gets on
> the climb, but she's not a fast rider, not a sprinter, not even a good
> descender. Without Mount Royal, I doubt she would of even won that race.

dumbass,

you're right pooley doesn't ride fast - that why she won a bike race.

anyways, the liz hatch comedy hour continues on twitter:

"# Playing cards with Femke, Din and Niels Van den Driessche, their
family sponsors the team and they've been taking care of me while I'm
here. "

so the way to make it as a bike racer is to have your family sponsor
the team.


== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:13 pm
From: zencycle


On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/elizabeth-hatch/the-state-of-womens-...
> Shouldn't they be interviewing the real racers in the women peloton?
> Cheers,
> Rick in Tennessee

If you shitbags spent half the time riding bicycles as you did whining
about it on rbr, you may have surfed across this post:

http://www.kerry-litka.com/main/wordpress/2010/01/26/the-problem-with-womens-cycling/

(for the more stupid amoung you, pay close attention to the irony in
that statement)


== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:35 pm
From: z


zencycle wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/elizabeth-hatch/the-state-of-womens-...
>> Shouldn't they be interviewing the real racers in the women peloton?
>> Cheers,
>> Rick in Tennessee
>
> If you shitbags spent half the time riding bicycles as you did whining
> about it on rbr, you may have surfed across this post:
>
> http://www.kerry-litka.com/main/wordpress/2010/01/26/the-problem-with-womens-cycling/
>
> (for the more stupid amoung you, pay close attention to the irony in
> that statement)

Why am I not surprised that the very first response was posted by
someone named Bruce?


== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:46 pm
From: Amit Ghosh


On Feb 12, 10:13 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:14 pm, cycledogg <cycled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/elizabeth-hatch/the-state-of-womens-...
> > Shouldn't they be interviewing the real racers in the women peloton?
> > Cheers,
> > Rick in Tennessee
>
> If you shitbags spent half the time riding bicycles as you did whining
> about it on rbr, you may have surfed across this post:
>
> http://www.kerry-litka.com/main/wordpress/2010/01/26/the-problem-with...

dumbass,

there might be some differences between women's and men's psychology
or motivations, but the points made in that post apply equally well to
99% of men's teams.

the problem with women's cycling (no money, on and off events etc.,
disappearing teams) is also the problem for almost all of men's
cycling except the tiny fraction which is the protour where all the
money and exposure is concentrated.

the problem is people deluding themselves into thinking that doing
what is an extravagant hobby should function as a viable profession or
business.


== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:54 pm
From: zencycle


On Feb 12, 11:46 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 10:13 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.kerry-litka.com/main/wordpress/2010/01/26/the-problem-with...
>
> dumbass,
>
> there might be some differences between women's and men's psychology
> or motivations, but the points made in that post apply equally well to
> 99% of men's teams.

Shitbag,
read the article, note the references to international pro teams.
Womens racing not only suffers from a lack of funding but a lack of
professionalism as well. Taking money away won't change that.


== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 9:06 pm
From: Amit Ghosh


On Feb 12, 11:54 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:

> read the article, note the references to international pro teams.
> Womens racing not only suffers from a lack of funding but a lack of
> professionalism as well.

dumbass,

so do most men's teams. i've seen exactly the same behaviour on men's
teams.

she's makes the good point that the team manager should not be in a
relationship with a rider (often the case on a women's team). but also
the teams i've seen run well always had a strong leader that the
riders feared somewhat. that is universal.

teams and other organizations i've worked in that worked well always
had some fear of the leadership.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:41 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"Amit Ghosh" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f021ff4-8f0f-479f-8fb6-1fb7eb251d6c@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 11:54 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:

>> read the article, note the references to international pro teams.
>> Womens racing not only suffers from a lack of funding but a lack of
>> professionalism as well.
>
> dumbass,
>
> so do most men's teams. i've seen exactly the same behaviour on men's
> teams.


Dumbass -

IMO, there's a bit of a difference. If a male racer is extremely talented,
talented enough to race with the top guys, yet races and behaves like a
prima donna, he doesn't ever make it to the level where he can actually make
a decent living.

Seen it happen.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tour of California Route!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0765ad7dbb0efcca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:27 pm
From: "Frankie Del Ponte"

Snore.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: all things poseur
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/10e9dcf7e6f61a91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:37 pm
From: Fred Fredburger


A. Dumas wrote:
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>> z wrote:
>>> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>>>> z wrote:
>>>>> Oh. You mean like:
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/about?hl=en
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware of this one, but Netscan was better laid out with better
>>>> stats and I wouldn't be anywhere even close on the all time list. If
>>>> look at some of those, for the short time they were in rbr, that's
>>>> some major postings over a very short few years. And who the hell is
>>>> the creepy Z coward, since you like to drag up my handles?
>>>>
>>> Mr. Pot,
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should return to posting as Bruce Johnston before calling
>>> me a creepy coward.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mr. Kettle
>>
>> Creepy coward.
>
> I bet it's Dave Zabriskie. He's not racing right now so he has time.
> Have you noticed how "z" only posts when there's no racing on? Also, his
> email says "not.ca" and I know for a fact that Zabriskie is very proud
> not to be either Californian or Canadian.

Oh, that makes sense. And all this time I thought it was Zorro!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what movie is this from?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e732411d2fd13c08?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 5:43 pm
From: Fred Fredburger


zencycle wrote:
> I care, you bloviating shitbag, or I wouldn't have asked. Tell you
> what fuckface, the next time you think you're helping, here's a hint:
> you're not.

Oh, I see you two have already met.


== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 6:57 pm
From: zencycle


On Feb 12, 12:29 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> which is the most unintentional comedy this month ?
>
> the post above from someone called "zencycle"

who said it was unintentional, dumbass...

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:15 pm
From: bar


On Feb 12, 9:57 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:29 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > which is the most unintentional comedy this month ?
>
> > the post above from someone called "zencycle"
>
> who said it was unintentional, dumbass...

you really need a ? at the end of that, bro, not a "..."


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:21 pm
From: zencycle


On Feb 12, 10:15 pm, bar <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:57 pm, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:29 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > which is the most unintentional comedy this month ?
>
> > > the post above from someone called "zencycle"
>
> > who said it was unintentional, dumbass...
>
> you really need a ? at the end of that, bro, not a "..."

blow me, shit bag.....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: mini-phinney
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9507d1c077a60c8f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:09 pm
From: bar


On Feb 12, 6:28 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> bar wrote:
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/phinney-considers-pro-career-options-...
>
> > one of you haters should tell him that his two top-10s in Qatar don't
> > mean shit ...
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Choosing the right parents was worth a lot to his pro prospects.

right. and his genetics really help him a lot when mixing it with some
of the game's top sprinters in the final Ks of a pro race like
this ... he may have inherited a great motor, but that doesn't mean
shit without the ability to ride in the pack and handle the argy bargy
(just ask Danielson) ... and this kid's doing it at 19.

btw, have you even watched ANY of the coverage of these stages? they
aren't exactly farting around:

http://www.youtube.com/user/worldcyclingchannel2#p/u/14/q8R3wScNN7o

> Two top tens in the Tour of Fucking Qatar don't mean shit.

well they mean something to him and to those of us who now expect
greater things from him in the future.

> PS I'm not registering any hate on Phinney. What I'm registering
> is hate on retards. If you weren't so stupid you'd see that.

Whatever Bob.

-b-


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:59 pm
From: Michael Press


In article
<c639969e-7429-47a4-b834-1b5587c58596@f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
bar <barbaricia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 6:28 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > bar wrote:
> > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/phinney-considers-pro-career-options-...
> >
> > > one of you haters should tell him that his two top-10s in Qatar don't
> > > mean shit ...
> >
> > Dumbass,
> >
> > Choosing the right parents was worth a lot to his pro prospects.
>
> right. and his genetics really help him a lot when mixing it with some
> of the game's top sprinters in the final Ks of a pro race like
> this ... he may have inherited a great motor, but that doesn't mean
> shit without the ability to ride in the pack and handle the argy bargy
> (just ask Danielson) ... and this kid's doing it at 19.
>
> btw, have you even watched ANY of the coverage of these stages? they
> aren't exactly farting around:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/worldcyclingchannel2#p/u/14/q8R3wScNN7o
>
> > Two top tens in the Tour of Fucking Qatar don't mean shit.
>
> well they mean something to him and to those of us who now expect
> greater things from him in the future.

I expect great things from him in the past,
but fear that I will be disappointed.

> > PS I'm not registering any hate on Phinney. What I'm registering
> > is hate on retards. If you weren't so stupid you'd see that.
>
> Whatever Bob.

--
Michael Press

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I've found my Winter Olympics event!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/0e7c7a74263fa539?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:17 pm
From: raamman


On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 7:08 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > yeah, go and celebrate coke and hbc and rogers and all the other f'ing
> > > > companies that ponied up big bucks to advertise at the games. sheesh !
> > > > what a farce !
>
> > > Yeah, 'cause the games will just finance themselves!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't mean to dig at a tragedy, but I saw they sank $104 M cdn in
> > the luge track where that young fellow was killed....I'm sure that
> > money could've gone to helping a lot more people than a few exclusive
> > sportsmen.
>
> Where do you think that money came from?
> A lot of it comes from the selling of TV rights, ads
> and other licensing, the ads you were complaining
> about.  Yeah, some of it is government money that
> could better be spent elsewhere, but much of it
> is good old commercialism.
>
> I think it would be better to spend C$104 M on food aid
> or schools or whatever, but Coke and NBC aren't kicking
> in the ad dollars to put their logos on aid to Haiti, so it
> is a false suggestion that there is a equal choice between
> the two.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think the Olympics are a corrupt
> extravaganza that primarily benefits fat cats at governing
> bodies, but in a newsgroup where we talk about pro
> sports, cycling in particular, it seems hypocritical or just
> blind to bash something just for being sponsored by
> advertising.
>
> Ben

I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
better use helping people in need.


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:41 pm
From: Fred


On Feb 12, 8:17 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 7:08 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > yeah, go and celebrate coke and hbc and rogers and all the other f'ing
> > > > > companies that ponied up big bucks to advertise at the games. sheesh !
> > > > > what a farce !
>
> > > > Yeah, 'cause the games will just finance themselves!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't mean to dig at a tragedy, but I saw they sank $104 M cdn in
> > > the luge track where that young fellow was killed....I'm sure that
> > > money could've gone to helping a lot more people than a few exclusive
> > > sportsmen.
>
> > Where do you think that money came from?
> > A lot of it comes from the selling of TV rights, ads
> > and other licensing, the ads you were complaining
> > about.  Yeah, some of it is government money that
> > could better be spent elsewhere, but much of it
> > is good old commercialism.
>
> > I think it would be better to spend C$104 M on food aid
> > or schools or whatever, but Coke and NBC aren't kicking
> > in the ad dollars to put their logos on aid to Haiti, so it
> > is a false suggestion that there is a equal choice between
> > the two.
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think the Olympics are a corrupt
> > extravaganza that primarily benefits fat cats at governing
> > bodies, but in a newsgroup where we talk about pro
> > sports, cycling in particular, it seems hypocritical or just
> > blind to bash something just for being sponsored by
> > advertising.
>
> > Ben
>
> I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
> built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
> of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
> can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
> not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
> alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
> lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
> better use helping people in need.

What's this "we" shit?


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:56 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


==========
I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
better use helping people in need.
==========

"Our" sport? which sport is that? Cycing in general or Cycling at the
Professional level?

The grand spectacle of the TdF, Paris Roubaix, even the bigger 'Cross races
wouldn't exist without the most-crass forms of sponsorships having been
involved. Think of it as resource allocation, and $$$ are the single
most-important means of allocating those resourcees.

But let's look at your other example... commuting. Until the (bike) industry
got involved, essentially "sponsoring" substantial lobbying efforts (of
which I am a part), we were getting nowhere. Low-cost critical mass events
had no effect on getting state & federal $$$ for safer roads to ride on or
vehicle code changes. It took a concerted effort by one of the biggest bike
manufacturers to get the industry together and contribute $$$ to all maner
of lobbying and promotional events, as well as being to contribute to
election campaigns.

Without those $$$ the best efforts of volunteer advocates and underfunded
local organizations weren't able to make much of a dent. But thank goodness
they exist, because they know the issues and work their tails off in a way
that's incredibly humbling to most of us in the bike biz. We go into the
offices of our Congressional Representatives on the 'Hill and feel like
we're window dressing next to their expertise, but they understand and
appreciate how much better their message is heard when there's money behind
it.

Money *is* the root of all kinds of evil. But that's different from money
being evil per se. It's just a way to allocate resources, which makes it
either an example of the very best or very worst capitalism has to offer.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"raamman" <raamman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1b7f7f4-37ed-4abd-ae5c-5a1260f541b4@n3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 12, 7:08 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > yeah, go and celebrate coke and hbc and rogers and all the other
> > > > f'ing
> > > > companies that ponied up big bucks to advertise at the games. sheesh
> > > > !
> > > > what a farce !
>
> > > Yeah, 'cause the games will just finance themselves!- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't mean to dig at a tragedy, but I saw they sank $104 M cdn in
> > the luge track where that young fellow was killed....I'm sure that
> > money could've gone to helping a lot more people than a few exclusive
> > sportsmen.
>
> Where do you think that money came from?
> A lot of it comes from the selling of TV rights, ads
> and other licensing, the ads you were complaining
> about. Yeah, some of it is government money that
> could better be spent elsewhere, but much of it
> is good old commercialism.
>
> I think it would be better to spend C$104 M on food aid
> or schools or whatever, but Coke and NBC aren't kicking
> in the ad dollars to put their logos on aid to Haiti, so it
> is a false suggestion that there is a equal choice between
> the two.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think the Olympics are a corrupt
> extravaganza that primarily benefits fat cats at governing
> bodies, but in a newsgroup where we talk about pro
> sports, cycling in particular, it seems hypocritical or just
> blind to bash something just for being sponsored by
> advertising.
>
> Ben

I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
better use helping people in need.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:06 pm
From: raamman


On Feb 13, 1:56 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> ==========
> I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
> built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
> of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
> can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
> not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
> alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
> lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
> better use helping people in need.
> ==========
>
> "Our" sport? which sport is that? Cycing in general or Cycling at the
> Professional level?
>
> The grand spectacle of the TdF, Paris Roubaix, even the bigger 'Cross races
> wouldn't exist without the most-crass forms of sponsorships having been
> involved. Think of it as resource allocation, and $$$ are the single
> most-important means of allocating those resourcees.
>
> But let's look at your other example... commuting. Until the (bike) industry
> got involved, essentially "sponsoring" substantial lobbying efforts (of
> which I am a part), we were getting nowhere. Low-cost critical mass events
> had no effect on getting state & federal $$$ for safer roads to ride on or
> vehicle code changes. It took a concerted effort by one of the biggest bike
> manufacturers to get the industry together and contribute $$$ to all maner
> of lobbying and promotional events, as well as being to contribute to
> election campaigns.
>
> Without those $$$ the best efforts of volunteer advocates and underfunded
> local organizations weren't able to make much of a dent. But thank goodness
> they exist, because they know the issues and work their tails off in a way
> that's incredibly humbling to most of us in the bike biz. We go into the
> offices of our Congressional Representatives on the 'Hill and feel like
> we're window dressing next to their expertise, but they understand and
> appreciate how much better their message is heard when there's money behind
> it.
>
> Money *is* the root of all kinds of evil. But that's different from money
> being evil per se. It's just a way to allocate resources, which makes it
> either an example of the very best or very worst capitalism has to offer.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "raamman" <raam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d1b7f7f4-37ed-4abd-ae5c-5a1260f541b4@n3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 7:08 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > yeah, go and celebrate coke and hbc and rogers and all the other
> > > > > f'ing
> > > > > companies that ponied up big bucks to advertise at the games. sheesh
> > > > > !
> > > > > what a farce !
>
> > > > Yeah, 'cause the games will just finance themselves!- Hide quoted
> > > > text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't mean to dig at a tragedy, but I saw they sank $104 M cdn in
> > > the luge track where that young fellow was killed....I'm sure that
> > > money could've gone to helping a lot more people than a few exclusive
> > > sportsmen.
>
> > Where do you think that money came from?
> > A lot of it comes from the selling of TV rights, ads
> > and other licensing, the ads you were complaining
> > about. Yeah, some of it is government money that
> > could better be spent elsewhere, but much of it
> > is good old commercialism.
>
> > I think it would be better to spend C$104 M on food aid
> > or schools or whatever, but Coke and NBC aren't kicking
> > in the ad dollars to put their logos on aid to Haiti, so it
> > is a false suggestion that there is a equal choice between
> > the two.
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think the Olympics are a corrupt
> > extravaganza that primarily benefits fat cats at governing
> > bodies, but in a newsgroup where we talk about pro
> > sports, cycling in particular, it seems hypocritical or just
> > blind to bash something just for being sponsored by
> > advertising.
>
> > Ben
>
> I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
> built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
> of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
> can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
> not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
> alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
> lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
> better use helping people in need.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

cycling in general or professional, either has many times more
participants and spectators than luge...I am just saying $104 M is a
hell of a lot of taxpayers money for an exclusive sport practised and
followed by a very few.


== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:11 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"raamman" <raamman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:370ffb94-75a1-479e-b8bc-ee06a64cd609@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> cycling in general or professional, either has many times more
> participants and spectators than luge...I am just saying $104 M is a
> hell of a lot of taxpayers money for an exclusive sport practised and
> followed by a very few.


It's only paid for by taxpayer dollars if the event loses money. The
economic model for all modern Olympics, the 1984 LA Olympics, made a profit.

BTW, if the current Games loses money, it won't be your taxpayer dollars.
It'll be Canada's taxpayers footing the bill.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 11:29 pm
From: "Mike Jacoubowsky"


=========
cycling in general or professional, either has many times more
participants and spectators than luge...I am just saying $104 M is a
hell of a lot of taxpayers money for an exclusive sport practised and
followed by a very few.
=========

I'm sure there are residents of San Jose, Encino, Kenosha, Trexlertown and
others that don't think it makes sense for their cities to spend $$$
supporting a facility that, by most standards, is under-utilized for its
expense. But we see the bigger picture, not a track that gets used a few
hours a day by a relative handful of people, but rather a key element of
support for an important sport & recreational activity. Fans of winter
sports probably feel the same way about the Luge.

Me? I'm waiting for the only *real* winter sport of the Olympics. Curling. A
sport where no expense is spared on facilities, I'm sure!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"raamman" <raamman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:370ffb94-75a1-479e-b8bc-ee06a64cd609@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 1:56 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> ==========
> I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
> built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
> of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
> can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
> not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
> alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
> lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
> better use helping people in need.
> ==========
>
> "Our" sport? which sport is that? Cycing in general or Cycling at the
> Professional level?
>
> The grand spectacle of the TdF, Paris Roubaix, even the bigger 'Cross
> races
> wouldn't exist without the most-crass forms of sponsorships having been
> involved. Think of it as resource allocation, and $$$ are the single
> most-important means of allocating those resourcees.
>
> But let's look at your other example... commuting. Until the (bike)
> industry
> got involved, essentially "sponsoring" substantial lobbying efforts (of
> which I am a part), we were getting nowhere. Low-cost critical mass events
> had no effect on getting state & federal $$$ for safer roads to ride on or
> vehicle code changes. It took a concerted effort by one of the biggest
> bike
> manufacturers to get the industry together and contribute $$$ to all maner
> of lobbying and promotional events, as well as being to contribute to
> election campaigns.
>
> Without those $$$ the best efforts of volunteer advocates and underfunded
> local organizations weren't able to make much of a dent. But thank
> goodness
> they exist, because they know the issues and work their tails off in a way
> that's incredibly humbling to most of us in the bike biz. We go into the
> offices of our Congressional Representatives on the 'Hill and feel like
> we're window dressing next to their expertise, but they understand and
> appreciate how much better their message is heard when there's money
> behind
> it.
>
> Money *is* the root of all kinds of evil. But that's different from money
> being evil per se. It's just a way to allocate resources, which makes it
> either an example of the very best or very worst capitalism has to offer.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "raamman" <raam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d1b7f7f4-37ed-4abd-ae5c-5a1260f541b4@n3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 5:27 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 12, 7:08 am, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > yeah, go and celebrate coke and hbc and rogers and all the other
> > > > > f'ing
> > > > > companies that ponied up big bucks to advertise at the games.
> > > > > sheesh
> > > > > !
> > > > > what a farce !
>
> > > > Yeah, 'cause the games will just finance themselves!- Hide quoted
> > > > text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't mean to dig at a tragedy, but I saw they sank $104 M cdn in
> > > the luge track where that young fellow was killed....I'm sure that
> > > money could've gone to helping a lot more people than a few exclusive
> > > sportsmen.
>
> > Where do you think that money came from?
> > A lot of it comes from the selling of TV rights, ads
> > and other licensing, the ads you were complaining
> > about. Yeah, some of it is government money that
> > could better be spent elsewhere, but much of it
> > is good old commercialism.
>
> > I think it would be better to spend C$104 M on food aid
> > or schools or whatever, but Coke and NBC aren't kicking
> > in the ad dollars to put their logos on aid to Haiti, so it
> > is a false suggestion that there is a equal choice between
> > the two.
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think the Olympics are a corrupt
> > extravaganza that primarily benefits fat cats at governing
> > bodies, but in a newsgroup where we talk about pro
> > sports, cycling in particular, it seems hypocritical or just
> > blind to bash something just for being sponsored by
> > advertising.
>
> > Ben
>
> I appreciate your point, it is valid; but the winter olympics weren't
> built on ad dollars, they are built on tax dollars, and the government
> of the day piggybacks on that with their own advertising; our sport
> can't even dream to recieve nearly that much in government support,
> not just for an olympic game, but just as promoting cycling as viable
> alternative means of commuting. But no need to spar back and forth,
> lets just agree it is a big waste that we would prefer to see put to
> better use helping people in need.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

cycling in general or professional, either has many times more
participants and spectators than luge...I am just saying $104 M is a
hell of a lot of taxpayers money for an exclusive sport practised and
followed by a very few.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: kohl: living the dream
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/a73901033a7346c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:24 pm
From: bar


from CN:

Bernhard Kohl, who confessed using performance-enhancing
substances and methods during his former career as a pro
cyclist - which saw him reach the final podium of the Tour de
France - has successfully started a new life by opening a bike
shop in Vienna, Austria.

Maybe he will give Tin-Tin a job ...


==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: I am sorry I have been a little rude lately
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/3cda89f50a544065?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 7:20 pm
From: WTF


On 2/10/10 10:30 PM, in article hl086p$cmk$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-D58A1F.18111410022010@news.giganews.com...
>>
>> The "Two Guns" thread is one of the best examples of trolling. Five
>> words in the
>> subject, three in the post, no replies by the OP, 432 posts total.
>> Awesomeness.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Four words in the subject (not five).
>
> I've never seen a better example of trolling. Have you?
>
> thanks,
>
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>


Assbag -

5 (Five) "Brian Trdina has two guns!!!"


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 8:23 pm
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

"WTF" <rbrsux@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:C79B5A63.73D49%rbrsux@dslextreme.com...
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> Four words in the subject (not five).
>>
>> I've never seen a better example of trolling. Have you?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>>
>
>
> Assbag -
>
> 5 (Five) "Brian Trdina has two guns!!!"

check the post 3 up. I conceded the mistake 2 days ago.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Somebody ought to start a Petition
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/e1cb96babe04cb7a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 12 2010 10:12 pm
From: Davey Crockett


Whereas Patrick McQuaid has been elected an officer of the IOC

and Whereas the said Patrick McQuaid was Banned for Life by the IOC many
years ago

We humbly Petition the President of the International Olympic Committee,
Jacques Rogge, to immediately proclaim the election of the aforsaid
Patrick McQuaid Null and Void on the grounds that Patrick McQuaid is
ineligible to serve as an officer of the IOC

--
Davey Crockett


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.bicycles.racing"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.bicycles.racing+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC