Tuesday, July 27, 2010

rec.bicycles.racing - 25 new messages in 8 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:

* L'Equipe Yesterday - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ff8aca32f9f6bb15?hl=en
* WSJ: Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4daf5e927c629c39?hl=en
* Sunday's awesome race finish (caution: amateur racing content) - 3 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d931d2609ff35e47?hl=en
* Lemond on Ferrari - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/952351512a265a64?hl=en
* Is Holly's Dress Too Tight? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/abec83b098eb0a1e?hl=en
* Rules is Rules - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1d9cb1dadfd6f5c9?hl=en
* LeMond's vicious attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/93da6767e1c4f2f2?hl=en
* Stupid newbie question - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9fea0121d907c09e?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: L'Equipe Yesterday
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/ff8aca32f9f6bb15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 3:26 pm
From: LawBoy01


On Jul 27, 5:16 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 6:06 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:02 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2010 5:47 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:>  On Jul 27, 4:17 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>    wrote:
> >>>> My cycling buddy who's over in the Pyrenees tells me that yesterday
> >>>> L'Equipe had a full page retro article about the 1973 Worlds RR which
> >>>> Gimondi won.  Haven't see the article yet, but I looked at the finish
> >>>> sprint in La Course en Tete this morning for about the 50th+ time.  I
> >>>> think Freddy has gotten a bad rap.  It looks to me like Eddy just didn't
> >>>> have it in his legs on the day.  Thoughts?
>
> >>>> Note to Lawyer Philsy, this is a non-***** post.
>
> >>> It's both.
>
> >> Really??  I won't discuss him in this thread.
>
> > No, I mean it's both, Eddy's legs weren't the best but Freddy acted
> > intentionally and caused the Gimondi victory.
>
> How do you figure that about Freddy?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just my view after having read seemingly everything on the issue. In
my view, the telling remarks came from Maertens when he basically said
"whatever, Gimondi and Merckx consipired against me because I ride
Shimano and they ride Campy." Spin the bottle.


== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:10 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/27/2010 6:26 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:16 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2010 6:06 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 5:02 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2010 5:47 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:> On Jul 27, 4:17 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> My cycling buddy who's over in the Pyrenees tells me that yesterday
>>>>>> L'Equipe had a full page retro article about the 1973 Worlds RR which
>>>>>> Gimondi won. Haven't see the article yet, but I looked at the finish
>>>>>> sprint in La Course en Tete this morning for about the 50th+ time. I
>>>>>> think Freddy has gotten a bad rap. It looks to me like Eddy just didn't
>>>>>> have it in his legs on the day. Thoughts?
>>
>>>>>> Note to Lawyer Philsy, this is a non-***** post.
>>
>>>>> It's both.
>>
>>>> Really?? I won't discuss him in this thread.
>>
>>> No, I mean it's both, Eddy's legs weren't the best but Freddy acted
>>> intentionally and caused the Gimondi victory.
>>
>> How do you figure that about Freddy?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Just my view after having read seemingly everything on the issue. In
> my view, the telling remarks came from Maertens when he basically said
> "whatever, Gimondi and Merckx consipired against me because I ride
> Shimano and they ride Campy." Spin the bottle.
There may be more than a little truth in that.


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:12 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/27/2010 6:24 PM, --D-y wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:17 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> My cycling buddy who's over in the Pyrenees tells me that yesterday
>> L'Equipe had a full page retro article about the 1973 Worlds RR which
>> Gimondi won. Haven't see the article yet, but I looked at the finish
>> sprint in La Course en Tete this morning for about the 50th+ time. I
>> think Freddy has gotten a bad rap. It looks to me like Eddy just didn't
>> have it in his legs on the day. Thoughts?
>>
>> Note to Lawyer Philsy, this is a non-***** post.
>
> Lance I mean Freddy dragged Lance I mean Gimondi up to Lance I mean
> Eddy and Lance I mean Ocana. Lance I mean Eddy IMHO was completely
> bamboozled and even though Lance I mean Freddy gave him a good
> leadout, Lance I mean Eddy was demoralized and Lance I mean Gimondi
> pulled the sprint of a lifetime out of his suitcase of courage and won
> the race.
>
> Lance I mean Eddy definitely "had it in his legs" to get way the hell
> up the road alone with a non-sprinter before Lance I mean Freddy
> foolishly sabotaged him, is the way I got the story. Open to
> correction.
> --D-y
Eddy was not at all comfortable on his machine that day as evidenced by
his adjustments to his saddle height on the fly. I don't think he could
get away.


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:09 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"


On Jul 27, 6:02 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Really??  I won't discuss him in this thread.

But you already did, right from the first message. You can't even not-
discuss him without discussing him.


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:06 pm
From: --D-y


On Jul 27, 6:12 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 6:24 PM, --D-y wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 4:17 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
> >> My cycling buddy who's over in the Pyrenees tells me that yesterday
> >> L'Equipe had a full page retro article about the 1973 Worlds RR which
> >> Gimondi won.  Haven't see the article yet, but I looked at the finish
> >> sprint in La Course en Tete this morning for about the 50th+ time.  I
> >> think Freddy has gotten a bad rap.  It looks to me like Eddy just didn't
> >> have it in his legs on the day.  Thoughts?
>
> >> Note to Lawyer Philsy, this is a non-***** post.
>
> > Lance I mean Freddy dragged Lance I mean Gimondi up to Lance I mean
> > Eddy and Lance I mean Ocana. Lance I mean Eddy IMHO was completely
> > bamboozled and even though Lance I mean Freddy gave him a good
> > leadout, Lance I mean Eddy was demoralized and Lance I mean Gimondi
> > pulled the sprint of a lifetime out of his suitcase of courage and won
> > the race.
>
> > Lance I mean Eddy definitely "had it in his legs" to get way the hell
> > up the road alone with a non-sprinter before Lance I mean Freddy
> > foolishly sabotaged him, is the way I got the story. Open to
> > correction.
> > --D-y
>
> Eddy was not at all comfortable on his machine that day as evidenced by
> his adjustments to his saddle height on the fly.  I don't think he could
> get away.

As I understand it, after his bad crash on the 'drome early in his
career, due to very poor treatment of severe injuries, Eddy was often
uncomfortable. There's at least one other famous filmed interlude
where he goes and "borrows a 5" from a rival team car for a last-
minute saddle adjust at the start of a race. I forget the detail.

Extremely open to correction but again, the story I've heard repeated
was that Merckx was away, discomfort or no. It is just the four of
them and they don't seem to be desperate to stay away from a chase.
I do have this DVD and need to go refresh my memory, if events are in
fact shown.
In any event, and all fooling aside, Gimondi did a hell of a job
winning that sprint against at least two guys who "should have" beat
him.
Motivation with a capital M; seemed to be kind of a rare doofus moment
for Merckx.
--D-y

==============================================================================
TOPIC: WSJ: Prosecutors Step Up Armstrong Probe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/4daf5e927c629c39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 3:57 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 27, 2:11 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 5:03 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:> On 7/27/2010 3:53 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> Don't you have some billable hours to do?
>
> > Dude,
>
> > Be careful about pitching stones from that
> > particular glass house.
>
> > Fred Flinstein
>
> Not a problem, Fred.  I"m no longer a slave to the time sheet.

You're a slave to something, though.

Fredmaster Ben


== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:05 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> I reserved judgment on Lance for quite a while.  I've only in the past
> year or two gone fully over the threshold of preponderance.

Man, if you said that under oath, an AUSA would
nail your ass to the wall in fifteen different places.
There is plenty of evidence in RBR that you had
LANCE convicted more than a year or two ago.

> I've never liked the guy.

When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.

Trawling through the rbr archives is occasionally
interesting. The atmosphere was different,
(I wouldn't necessarily say it was better - in fact
I think the conversations about racing may have
been better and about doping, worse, because
less well-informed)

Fredmaster Ben


== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:09 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/27/2010 7:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> I reserved judgment on Lance for quite a while. I've only in the past
>> year or two gone fully over the threshold of preponderance.
>
> Man, if you said that under oath, an AUSA would
> nail your ass to the wall in fifteen different places.
> There is plenty of evidence in RBR that you had
> LANCE convicted more than a year or two ago.

I've pointed out the different arguments, that he's been a doper and/or
that what he's done is not possible with his physique. But, I was very
careful to not reach a final judgment. About two years ago, I did.


>
>> I've never liked the guy.
>
> When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
> or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
> attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.

What is it about the word "never" that is unclear to you?
>
> Trawling through the rbr archives is occasionally
> interesting. The atmosphere was different,
> (I wouldn't necessarily say it was better - in fact
> I think the conversations about racing may have
> been better and about doping, worse, because
> less well-informed)
>
> Fredmaster Ben

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:15 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 27, 4:09 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 7:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com>  wrote:
>
> >> I've never liked the guy.
>
> > When did you start not liking him?  Pre-Tour years,
> > or only after 1999 or so?  I don't remember what your
> > attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.
>
> What is it about the word "never" that is unclear to you?

When people say "never" or "always" they usually
mean "for a long time." There is presumably a point
at which you did not know of the existence of LANCE,
and my guess is that the first time you read a race
report in Winning or Velonews about some race he
placed in, you didn't say to yourself "That guy is named
Lance and he's from Texas, he must be a giant
flaming asshole."

So I'm curious if you started not liking him when he
was a U23, or around the Thrift Drug Classic, or Worlds,
or after Worlds, or after his comeback, or whatever,
and if there's any particular reason (I mean, other than
the issue that he's a giant flaming asshole and from
Plano to boot.)

Fredmaster Ben

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:19 pm
From: "B. Lafferty"


On 7/27/2010 7:15 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:09 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2010 7:05 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 3:01 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I've never liked the guy.
>>
>>> When did you start not liking him? Pre-Tour years,
>>> or only after 1999 or so? I don't remember what your
>>> attitude toward him was in say 1999-2000.
>>
>> What is it about the word "never" that is unclear to you?
>
> When people say "never" or "always" they usually
> mean "for a long time." There is presumably a point
> at which you did not know of the existence of LANCE,
> and my guess is that the first time you read a race
> report in Winning or Velonews about some race he
> placed in, you didn't say to yourself "That guy is named
> Lance and he's from Texas, he must be a giant
> flaming asshole."
>
> So I'm curious if you started not liking him when he
> was a U23, or around the Thrift Drug Classic, or Worlds,
> or after Worlds, or after his comeback, or whatever,
> and if there's any particular reason (I mean, other than
> the issue that he's a giant flaming asshole and from
> Plano to boot.)
>
> Fredmaster Ben
>
Let's put it this way. I have no memory of ever having had a positive
or even neutral opinion about him. Can't remember ever thinking he
wasn't an arrogant guy. I suspect the first I heard anything of
substance about what he's like was from people I knew who had raced with
him.


== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:58 pm
From: Keith


On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:55:22 -0400, "B. Lafferty" <bl@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>> Mr. Lawyer, they are looking to show a) a long standing pattern of fraud
>>> leading up to the Postal years and the SCA Promotions contract; b) that
>>> every time Armstrong has said he has never used PEDs, he's been lying,
>>> sometimes under oath; c) that the SCA Promotions contract was
>>> fraudulently induced and that the payout was fraudulently sought and
>>> obtained by perjured testimony.
>>
>> Except that it was reported that there was no "anti-doping" clause in
>> the SCA contract, so it was a moot point whether he doped or not to
>> win. Bit odd that SCA would have refused to pay because of doping
>> allegations though...
>>
>citation/link, please.

sure :
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4892/Lance-Armstrong-contradicts-testimony-says-he-will-cooperate-with-Landis-investigation.aspx

"The case was eventually settled out of court with SCA paying
Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million
bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees. It is understood that SCA lost
as they hadnÕt put a no-doping clause in the contract, thus making
their line of defense invalid."

Makes them look pretty stupid if it was indeed the case.


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sunday's awesome race finish (caution: amateur racing content)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/d931d2609ff35e47?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:03 pm
From: Ryan Cousineau


On Jul 26, 3:42 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <eff968b1-e3e3-47bf-bcdd-25b5bd0ad...@o10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>  Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does not a tandem has a physical advantage?
> Always a friendly wheel to suck.
>
> ???
>
> --
> Old Fritz

Yeah. Typical racing tandems are fast on the flats, because they are
more aero than two bikes, but have the power of two bikes. Mass and
coordination limit their sprinting performance except maybe for the
very fastest, most practiced teams.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:09 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 26, 10:48 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I knew the calculus, and kept repeating it to myself: hold this wheel,
> and you'll win. The tandem crew couldn't stop attacking, and I
> couldn't let them get away. Grim embrace indeed. We must have been
> quite a sight on the last lap: a tandem at full bore on a flat course
> doing a 2-minute effort, and me drafting behind like a fat red
> parasitic fish.
>
> In conclusion, I'm wearing the bike socks I won right now. Bike racing
> is great.

Haha. Awesome. Well done. Just don't fall too in
love with the socks, it"s a short step from there to
doing races with $10 primes, and the next thing
you know you're a 12k dreamer with a favor preference
among Powergels, and Joe Papp is tapping your
phone.

Fredmaster Ben

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:13 pm
From: Ryan Cousineau


On Jul 26, 1:30 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If the socks you won are Castelli Rossa Corsas don't get too attached
> to them - they snag and run like panty hose and are throw aways after
> about a week.
>
> Worst socks I've ever owned.

DeFeet socks, with the Oak Bay Bikes logo on them in blue and yellow.

I assume really light sox suffer the pantyhose effect: there's a
tension between sheerness and durability, so the nicest, almost-not-
there sox will also have mayfly lifespans.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lemond on Ferrari
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/952351512a265a64?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:14 pm
From: --D-y


On Jul 26, 2:30 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <5984b571-aaa7-40a1-80ea-d4a7762b1...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Plus the obvious coverup of the smashed hopes that Lance would be
> > arrested and taken in for extremely traumatic (confusing the
> > "punishment phase" with the "investigation phase" as the French are
> > reported to do) "questioning" the nanosecond he stepped foot into
> > France. (Duh) "This is what I meant". Right, Greg.
>
> Instead, on his visit to the tour
> the first one President Sarkozy greets
> is Armstrong.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Yeah, don't forget, "the French hate Lance Armstrong". Well, some of
the French hate him, anyhow!
--D-y

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is Holly's Dress Too Tight?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/abec83b098eb0a1e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:21 pm
From: "derFahrer@gmail.com"


On Jul 27, 5:33 am, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> WTF is the point of that?  Are American viewers going to switch off if
> they don't see some silicone every minute or two?  Who is she?  Didn't
> I see her on Naked News?  "Naked News" - you have to love America
> really.

your id has a .de domain ... and you're slagging on American TV???
(which is Puritan compared to what's on in Deutschland!)


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 6:03 pm
From: Fredmaster of Brainerd


On Jul 27, 2:33 am, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:17 am, Superfly TNT <superfly-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Go to 00:56 and determine if Holly's dress is too tight...
>
> >http://video.competitor.com/2010/07/cycling/velocenter-tdf-stage-20-p...
>
> > Nah, just right!
>
> WTF is the point of that?  Are American viewers going to switch off if
> they don't see some silicone every minute or two?  Who is she?  Didn't
> I see her on Naked News?  "Naked News" - you have to love America
> really.
>
> UD

Dude,

You're commenting on a sport that has podium girls.

Either bitch about superfluous cheesecake whenever you
see it, or don"t complain, but leave out the self-righteous
act. If you want everyone to wear the same glasses as
Deutsche Welle announcers to look serious enough to
be on tv, say so. If you complain that there's unnecessary
filler on TV, take your complaints to the Coverage of
Paul the World Cup Octopus department.

Fredmeister Ben


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:49 pm
From: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names


On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:17:26 -0700 (PDT), Superfly TNT
<superfly-tnt@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Go to 00:56 and determine if Holly's dress is too tight...
>
>http://video.competitor.com/2010/07/cycling/velocenter-tdf-stage-20-preview/
>
>Nah, just right!


What dress??


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rules is Rules
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/1d9cb1dadfd6f5c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:08 pm
From: DirtRoadie


On Jul 27, 11:32 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "DirtRoadie" <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:518ee9ee-33ec-4db0-8091-3e70b52bfc05@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Well these ARE the same guys that DQ'ed Renshaw instead of fining or
> > relegating him or the team.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> DQ'ing Renshaw was the correct move. Any other sanction wouldn't have enough
> deterrent effect.
>
> If they slapped him on the hand, we'd see an epidemic of leadout men trying
> to chop other teams' sprinters (what Renshaw did to Farrar) after they
> finished leading out.

What they need is a method of penalizing the _team_ if that does not
already exist. Relegation of a sprinter who benefits from the
misconduct of a leadout man would be appropriate.

DR

==============================================================================
TOPIC: LeMond's vicious attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/93da6767e1c4f2f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:24 pm
From: Cicero Venatio


Now we've seen LeMond's multiple attacks, and you see no response from
Lance. Lance can't answer, it's sad, and I really doubt that he can
hold on to some of those tdf wins. I think he'll lose at least two of
them, bringing him down to five, the number people think should be the
limit. But I think LeMond wants to get him down to at least 3 tdf wins.
Lance must realize his riding days are over, so he must now use his
mind to fend off LeMond, answer his challenge just like when he rode his
bike. It's not about the bike now, and Lance will have to meet his
rival head on if he wants to preserve his legacy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stupid newbie question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/t/9fea0121d907c09e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 7:44 pm
From: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names


Okay, I give up.

What's a "crit?"

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 8:38 pm
From: RicodJour


On Jul 27, 10:44 pm, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I give up.
>
> What's a "crit?"

"The architectural crit, review or jury is a cornerstone of
architectural education around the world. The defence of ideas,
drawings, and models in an open format before staff and peers is
intended to be a foreground for healthy creative debate, but many
students view it as hostile confrontation – an ego trip for staff and
humiliation for them."*

R

* The quotation marks are all the attribution necessary thanks to your
friend, Google.


== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 8:51 pm
From: "K. Fred Gauss"


Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> Okay, I give up.
>
> What's a "clit?"
>

You should ask your Mom, she's the one who told me.


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 8:54 pm
From: Plano Dude


On Jul 27, 9:44 pm, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I give up.
>
> What's a "crit?"

A blood value. Over 50 and ur out. Unless ur name is Vaughters.


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 9:11 pm
From: "MikeWhy"


Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> Okay, I give up.
>
> What's a "crit?"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+race+crit

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

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

Medarticles HLA

Buzz It
Handbook of HLA Typing Techniques

please help me with this book or any related

thanks in advance

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.

http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe

You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

Introducing the most powerful iMac ever.

Buzz It
Shop Online     |     Find a Store     |     1-800-MY-APPLE
iMac
The ultimate all-in-one. Turbocharged.
Introducing the new iMac. Now with a new processor architecture and faster graphics. Pick up the ultimate all-in-one computer today at your favorite Apple Retail Store or get free shipping when you order online.
Buy now
New processor architecture.
The Intel Core i3, i5, and i7 processors feature an advanced architecture and set new benchmarks for iMac performance. Learn more
More powerful graphics.
Advanced discrete graphics processors now come standard in every iMac—perfect for games, photos, and 3D applications. Learn more
Big LED-backlit displays.
iMac features a bright 21.5-inch or 27-inch LED-backlit display with a widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio that's ideal for HD video. Learn more
Magic Trackpad
Now available: Magic Trackpad.
The trackpad you love on MacBook Pro is now a handy desktop device. The new Magic Trackpad features a full range of gestures, so you can wirelessly control and interact with what's onscreen—all with your fingers.
Learn more   Buy now
Great reasons to shop online.
Take iMac home today.
Configure your iMac.
Make it yours. Add a faster processor, more memory, bigger hard drive, preinstalled software, and more.
Get free shipping when you order your iMac at the Apple Online Store or call 1-800-MY-APPLE.
There's no better way to see how amazing the new iMac is than to try it for yourself. Visit your favorite Apple Retail Store and let a Specialist show you all iMac can do and answer your questions.

alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots - 25 new messages in 6 topics - digest

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

alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Healthcare Is Not A Right - 17 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/3d33f2233e26b712?hl=en
* Googi hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com ) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/3691a718aa3f7393?hl=en
* Tatum - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/9d3bfb6ace3d2744?hl=en
* Tax rates through the years. - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/248d2ec55ff28705?hl=en
* The Huge Personality - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/dbcd40ae7e03ef41?hl=en
* asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Healthcare Is Not A Right
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/3d33f2233e26b712?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 26 2010 8:22 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 26, 2:09 pm, P...@YAHOO.COM wrote:

>
> IMHO when you die you should be taxed 100%.

Your love of government is disturbing.

I bet you fantasize of a giant government cock that you would love to
suck all day long.

mr dude (not that there is anything wrong with that homo)

== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:06 am
From: Husky


On Jul 26, 11:11 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:42 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, in the end, who's going to be responsible for the disposal of
> > these "under performers" bodies?
>
> Organ donation can be very profitable.
>
> mr dude
Novel idea, supply the haves with organs from the have nots. It could
be like a parts center. And no longer will they have to outsource to
3rd World Countries for Organs.
You can sell blood for money, too.


== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:34 am
From: Husky


On Jul 26, 11:10 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
<foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:42 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks for your honesty!  So, you agree with my facetious earlier
> > post. That says it all.   Based upon what you said you're not a
> > Conservative, you're an Anarchist.
>
> No I am a Libertarian. If you want to pay voluntarily for fire
> protection then you have that right.
What about the Pinkos who force a professional FD down our throats.
Damn representative Democracy.
>
> The government has no right to force me to pay for fire protection!
Are you sure? Which govt. are you talking about?
>
> mr dude (as the government has no right to force me to pay for social
> security, to pay for affirmative action, no right to force me to pay
> for food stamps, no right to force me to pay for a federal department
> of education etc. etc.)
>
> What about the tenth amendment confuses you?????

You're confusing me for a proponent. You're mistaking questions for
criticism. You have a great platform to run on; "Let 'em die, we
need the parts!" It could help revive the economy, having people
coming here from all around the Globe looking for replacement parts.
As most of our manufacturing base has been sent overseas or south of
the border, by our industrialists, we could sure use a infusion of
foreign cash, which isn't borrowed.
What does the 10th amendment have to do with anything I've said?


== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 11:27 am
From: zz18@zz.com


>> Currently, 85% of Americans are
>> happy with heir health care plans.
That will be true until tomorrow when their employer stops paying for
it.

== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 11:42 am
From: A1247@gmail.com


On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:10:46 -0700 (PDT), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:

>No I am a Libertarian. If you want to pay voluntarily for fire
>protection then you have that right.
So you're content to let your neighbors house burn to the ground.
Never mind that it might take your house with it.

>The government has no right to force me to pay for fire protection!
>
>mr dude (as the government has no right to force me to pay for social
>security, to pay for affirmative action, no right to force me to pay
>for food stamps, no right to force me to pay for a federal department
>of education etc. etc.)
So you would just let those people starve?


== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 11:46 am
From: PR1@YAHOO.COM


On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:22:16 -0700 (PDT), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 2:09 pm, P...@YAHOO.COM wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO when you die you should be taxed 100%.
>
>Your love of government is disturbing.

As bad as government is private corporations are much more corrupt/
morrally bankrupt.


== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 12:01 pm
From: clouddreamer


zz18@zz.com wrote:
>>> Currently, 85% of Americans are
>>> happy with heir health care plans.
> That will be true until tomorrow when their employer stops paying for
> it.
>

Of course, that's Americans who have a health care plan. What about
those that don't?

..

--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.


== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 12:04 pm
From: PR1@YAHOO.COM


On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:22:16 -0700 (PDT), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO when you die you should be taxed 100%.
>
>Your love of government is disturbing.
Your love of big corporations is disturbing.

Never mind that those big corporations will
screw you every chance they get.

== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 12:04 pm
From: clouddreamer


PR1@YAHOO.COM wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:22:16 -0700 (PDT), "mr
> dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 26, 2:09 pm, P...@YAHOO.COM wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO when you die you should be taxed 100%.
>> Your love of government is disturbing.
>
> As bad as government is private corporations are much more corrupt/
> morrally bankrupt.


Isn't it funny how they voice this fear of big government...but never
seem to mind big business.

And funny how those that voice discontent over any form of government
control don't move to Somalia. I mean, hey, they don't have a government.

Course, after a week in Somalia, they'd come crawling and begging to get
back into the US.

..

--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.


== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:03 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 27, 8:34 am, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What does the 10th amendment have to do with anything I've said?

As a Libertarian, I find it necessary to include the tenth amendment
reference in every post whether it is relevant or not.

mr dude (what part of the tenth amendment don't you understand?)
<------ see!

== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:04 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 27, 2:42 pm, A1...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> So you would just let those people starve?


Yep.

mr dude

== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:07 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 27, 3:04 pm, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@Reduce.now> wrote:

>
> Isn't it funny how they voice this fear of big government...but never
> seem to mind big business.

Big business doesn't take money out of my paycheck unless I give it
voluntarily.

Big business can't make me buy their products like Obama care is
forcing us (with the threat of imprisonment) to do.

mr dude


== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:21 pm
From: A1247@gmail.com


On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:04:29 -0700 (PDT), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 2:42 pm, A1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> So you would just let those people starve?
>
>
>Yep.
>
Aren't you just full of compassion.

So when you're 65, too old to be hired we'll just
watch as you starve to death since you just
want to let people starve to death.


>mr dude


== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:25 pm
From: PR1@YAHOO.COM


On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:07:04 -0700 (PDT), "mr
dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't it funny how they voice this fear of big government...but never
>> seem to mind big business.
>
>Big business doesn't take money out of my paycheck unless I give it
>voluntarily.
Let me guess....you've never worked for a corporation who
cheated you out of money you rightfully earned?

You've never had a company steal money from your
pension plan?


== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:28 pm
From: MBD


> Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights
> to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all.
> According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a
> trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor
> with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain
> specific rights—and only these.
>
> Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in
> common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.
> The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the
> negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the
> chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by
> somebody else.
>
> The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to
> feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and
> clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can
> forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if
> and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to
> act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make,
> to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have
> no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to
> which they voluntarily agree.
>
> To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is
> precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action
> on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people
> will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no
> liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything,
> imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no
> choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty,
> they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their
> expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves.
> Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become
> rightless.
>
> That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the
> rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first
> truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a
> result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most
> powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made
> it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal
> independence.
>
> Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in
> this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals
> and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was
> founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of
> rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out,
> ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to
> ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole
> list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—
> rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the
> part of the recipient.

Wrong. You have a right to healthcare. You just don't have a right to
free or even cheap healthcare.

MBD


== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:07 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 27, 7:21 pm, A1...@gmail.com wrote:

> So when you're 65, too old to be hired we'll just
> watch as you starve to death since you just
> want to let people starve to death.
>
> >mr dude


I will not starve to death!!!

See I have this thing called "social security".

I have been giving my money to the Imperial federal government (the
thing that if it were a man you would be fellating daily) and they
have been investing my money and saving it for me.

When I turn 65 they are gonna start giving it back to me.

mr dude (in awe how some people can worship the government so much
seeing as they have stolen every penny from social security)


== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 5:52 pm
From: Polarhound


On 7/26/2010 12:57 PM, Deadmeat wrote:
> On 7/25/2010 12:11 PM, Polarhound wrote:
>> On 7/25/2010 11:30 AM, Deadmeat wrote:
>>> On 7/25/2010 10:29 AM, Polarhound wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/2010 7:30 AM, Husky wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 24, 10:46 pm, "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu"
>>>>> <foster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights
>>>>>> to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all.
>>>>>> According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a
>>>>>> trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis
>>>>>> (nor
>>>>>> with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain
>>>>>> specific rights—and only these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in
>>>>>> common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.
>>>>>> The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the
>>>>>> negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the
>>>>>> chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by
>>>>>> somebody else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to
>>>>>> feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from
>>>>>> you if
>>>>>> and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the
>>>>>> right to
>>>>>> act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make,
>>>>>> to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have
>>>>>> no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to
>>>>>> which they voluntarily agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is
>>>>>> precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action
>>>>>> on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people
>>>>>> will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would
>>>>>> be no
>>>>>> liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything,
>>>>>> imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no
>>>>>> choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty,
>>>>>> they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves.
>>>>>> Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become
>>>>>> rightless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first
>>>>>> truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a
>>>>>> result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most
>>>>>> powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made
>>>>>> it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal
>>>>>> independence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in
>>>>>> this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals
>>>>>> and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was
>>>>>> founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of
>>>>>> rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out,
>>>>>> ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for
>>>>>> politicians to
>>>>>> ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole
>>>>>> list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—
>>>>>> rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the
>>>>>> part of the recipient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mr dude
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, just let them all die, or just endure their maladies, if they
>>>>> can't afford treatment. It's Social Darwinism. If you can't pay for
>>>>> medical services, you shouldn't get them. That goes for kids too.
>>>>
>>>> ***BZZZZZZZZTTT***
>>>>
>>>> Argument Fallacy Type attempted: Straw Man.
>>>>
>>>> The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
>>>> person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
>>>> misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
>>>> the following pattern:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Person A has position X.
>>>> 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
>>>> 3. Person B attacks position Y.
>>>> 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
>>>>
>>>> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
>>>> version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
>>>> position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor
>>>> drawing of
>>>> a person to hurt the person.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess only tax breaks for the rich is a right.
>>
>> Yes, that is a very fine example of a Straw Man argument as well, thank
>> you for showing us your comprehension of today's lesso
>
>
> I really don't give a shit as to what you think it is.
>

Truth sucks, doesn't it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Googi hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/3691a718aa3f7393?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 12:55 am
From: qiqi zhang


AF sweater made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
AF women trousrs made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
AF men and women coat made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
D&G jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
A&G T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
BBC scanties made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
BBC jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
BBC hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
BBC T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
LRG jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
LRG hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
LRG T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Bape jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Bape hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Bape t-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu long t-shit made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu original jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu jeans wear made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Evisu T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
POLO T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Googi jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Googi hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Googi T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
juicy made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
99Deep jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
99 Deep hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
99Deep T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Lacoste T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Lacoste sweater made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Burberry jacket made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Buberry T-shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
Buberry shirt made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
ED hardy hoody made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )
ED hardy jeans made in china (http://www.brandtrade99.com )

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tatum
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/9d3bfb6ace3d2744?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 2:33 pm
From: CalC


Funny ESPN talked of his passing w/o a single mention of Daryl
Stingley. As a NE fan that's the single niggest Tatum legacy I will
remember and find it odd that ESPN seemed to forget/pass it over.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:33 pm
From: PR1@YAHOO.COM


On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:33:27 -0700 (PDT), CalC
<calcarpenter1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Funny ESPN talked of his passing w/o a single mention of Daryl
>Stingley. As a NE fan that's the single niggest Tatum legacy I will
>remember and find it odd that ESPN seemed to forget/pass it over.

Translation: anyone old enough to remember Tatum and Stingley was
on vacation.

So the news item was written and reported by people not
old enough to know who Daryl Stingley is.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-07-27-jack-tatum-darryl-stingley_N.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tax rates through the years.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/248d2ec55ff28705?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 2:38 pm
From: CalC


On Jul 26, 9:45 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:16 pm, CalC <calcarpent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 10:22 am, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
>
> > > President Reagan 50% on over $106K in 82 & 83
> > > President Obama  35% on over $373650 in 2010
>
> > > The highest rate was 92% in 52 & 53.  President Eisenhower
>
> > You really don;t even buy the obvious bias to your post do you? I
> > think mrdude pointed the moronic irony of your post nicely.
>
> You're arguing with verified, published, indisputable facts,
> BRILLIANT!  You and Dude, hmmmm.

No I'm stating a solid FACT that Reagan soon after your data signed
huge tax cuts into law...and Obama has repeatedly stated an intent to
allow Bush tax cuts to expire thus raising taxes. You are skewing
information to make your political point. By your logic Obama has the
highest deficit in history and I don't want one word about what he
inherited because that FACT is published and indisputable.


== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 2:55 pm
From: Husky


On Jul 27, 5:38 pm, CalC <calcarpent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 9:45 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 9:16 pm, CalC <calcarpent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 10:22 am, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
>
> > > > President Reagan 50% on over $106K in 82 & 83
> > > > President Obama  35% on over $373650 in 2010
>
> > > > The highest rate was 92% in 52 & 53.  President Eisenhower
>
> > > You really don;t even buy the obvious bias to your post do you? I
> > > think mrdude pointed the moronic irony of your post nicely.
>
> > You're arguing with verified, published, indisputable facts,
> > BRILLIANT!  You and Dude, hmmmm.
>
> No I'm stating a solid FACT that Reagan soon after your data signed
> huge tax cuts into law...and Obama has repeatedly stated an intent to
> allow Bush tax cuts to expire thus raising taxes. You are skewing
> information to make your political point. By your logic Obama has the
> highest deficit in history and I don't want one word about what he
> inherited because that FACT is published and indisputable.

Spin it any way you wish, the 50% tax was in effect until 1986 which
was in RR's second term. So saying I'm skewing info is your skewing
of info.


== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:15 pm
From: "mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu"


On Jul 26, 10:16 pm, Husky <cyns...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> You're making yourself dizzier.  Are the numbers I posted correct or
> not?  Why are you assuming I'm backing Obama?

You tried to show a non-existent causal affect.

You posted tax rates and tried to trick the reader into believing that
Obama was responsible for the lower tax rate than Reagan.

It is like saying slavery was most abundant under the Lincoln
Presidency.

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic
things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent
response were you even close to anything that could be considered a
rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
soul.

mr dude


==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Huge Personality
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/dbcd40ae7e03ef41?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 3:49 pm
From: "Bertt Farve"


One Drewl is the same as another.

<plonk>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 27 2010 4:16 pm
From: Day Brown


On 07/26/2010 05:38 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>> I'm not always as clear as I hope. 24kw is merely the point where the
>> cost/watt starts dropping dramatically. Same deal with Solar. And again,
>> its a matter of scale. A village could afford its own laundromat so you
>> dont need the equipment in every house, nor the plumbing to support it.
>
> Going someplace else and waiting on the washer/dryer to finish would
> be a HUGE waste of time. I usually just cart it out to the machines,
> load 'em. and am back at the computer / TV / whatever in minutes.
> Having to travel, sit there (or possibly have clothes stolen), and
> return 2 hours later would seriously suck.
Such thievery dont happen in a village cause everyone knows what everyone
else owns and wears.

>> Gies, Life in a Medieval Village shows how many were what we now call
>> 'vertically integrated' small business. Like a factory town, but if
>> business is slow, the workers still grow their own food, raise their own
>> livestock, cut their own timber& firewood... and get by till things
>> pick up again.
>
> Good for them. Nothing there that would pay my mortgage in 2010, tho.
The per capita investment is way lower than the usual mortgage.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change in Withdrawal of Funds from PayPal Accounts for India Users

Buzz It

PayPal Home 

Dear Spiderman Patil,

In accordance with regulatory instructions, we would like to notify you about a change in our withdrawal functionality in India starting on August 1, 2010. At present you can request for either an electronic or cheque withdrawal of funds from your PayPal account if you are an India user.

From July 29, 2010 onwards, you will only be able to request for a cheque withdrawal of funds from your PayPal account.

While we are working hard to restore the electronic withdrawal service, in the meantime, we are bringing this matter to your attention so that you can plan your future withdrawal activities accordingly.

To request for a cheque withdrawal:
  1. Log into your PayPal account, click on 'Withdraw'.
  2. Click on the 'Request a cheque from PayPal' link.
  3. Enter the withdrawal amount and select your mailing address, then click 'Continue'.
  4. Click 'Submit' to confirm your request.

In order to help you with this change and until further notice, we will refund the $5 USD cheque withdrawal fee to you for cheque withdrawals made on July 29, 2010 onwards.

For any questions, please log into your PayPal account and click 'Contact Us' at the bottom of the page.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused from this change in our withdrawal functionality. We will provide ongoing updates to you here. We thank you for your attention and patience as we work tirelessly to resolve this situation as quickly as possible.


Thank you,

The PayPal Asia Team

 
Copyright© 2010 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved.

Consumer advisory: PayPal Pte Ltd, the Holder of the PayPal™ payment stored value facility, does not require the approval of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Consumers (users) are advised to read the terms and conditions carefully.

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