On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
wrote:
>Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
>> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
>As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
>have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
>Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
>shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
happens.
>> I predict the
>> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
>> style.
>Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
macthevor...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Monday, November 5, 2012 5:46:12 AM UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> KoshN wrote:
>> >On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
>> >> What did you watch?
>> >Svengoolie:
>> I kinds wish MEtv had picked up Elvira's show instead of this one, >> although her new material isn't nearly as good as the original.
>Can't we have both? I LOVE Elvira. :D
It was one of my fav kate night shows in the 80's.
>Bought two of her DVDs before Halloween.
Do you mean the movies?
-- "Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg a second time."
et...@ncf.ca wrote:
>THisTV was airing Elvira on Friday or Saturday nights last year, >relatively late. I kept meaning to tune in, and never got around to it. >Then it disappeared, I assume after a long run before I'd noticed the >sub-channel existed.
I noticed it on my local ThisTV channel, but it played on Sunday (or was it Monday?) morning at 4 AM. It just wasn't worth the effort.
-- "Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg a second time."
In article <c23g98hl0a5baaph3ot2qcu6ckkrbsb...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ian J. Ball sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 09:04:41 -0700:
> > Has cable, collectively, decided to just give up on running movies > > during the weekends?! Yikes. A disturbing trend...
> You may actually have to watch non-West-Coast college football or ... or
> ... or ... um, actually venture out into the sunlight on weekends. :)
In article <anim8rfsk-6DDFC7.06591106112...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <c23g98hl0a5baaph3ot2qcu6ckkrbsb...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Ian J. Ball sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 09:04:41 -0700:
> > > Has cable, collectively, decided to just give up on running movies > > > during the weekends?! Yikes. A disturbing trend...
> > You may actually have to watch non-West-Coast college football or ... or
> > ... or ... um, actually venture out into the sunlight on weekends. :)
-- "Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls", Episode #1.1, "Wipeout". Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!
> > Obveeus sent the following on Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:37:03 -0500:
> >> I watched:
> >> NCAA FOOTBALL: the last 5 minutes + overtimes of the NOTRE DAME vs. PITT
> >> game. PITT had to work really hard here to lose this one with horrible > >> play
> >> calling / clock management.
> > This was what I watched, as well. And since I could only half-watch the
> > second half (I left at halftime to go to a 25th anniversary gig for my
> > brother and his wife, where I could more or less only *see* what was
> > going on), I didn't *hear* any explanation for that one time-out, in
> > particular. All else being equal, when you have the lead with very
> > little time left and the clock is your friend and the other team is on
> > its heels and low on (or out of?) time-outs of its own, it's beyond
> > moronic to use one of your *own* time-outs, which stops the clock and
> > lets the other team regroup. So what explanation, if any, was given for
> > Pitt doing something so stupid?
> I don't even recall the time out in question.
There was something like two minutes left in the game, if that. And this
was *after* a Pitt receiver had already made a catch and then gone out
of bounds on an earlier play, which also stopped the clock. Granted, ND
missed an earlier field goal and a PAT to make things interesting, but
those weren't *mental* mistakes.
> I do remember Pitt having > several really short series late in the game in which they bumbled the > snaps, threw and incomplete pass to stop the clock rather than take 5 yard > loss sacks. Threw forward passes to the sidelines so the reciever could run > out of bounds and stop the clock. It was ridiculous.
I have yet to get around to reading some of the recaps of the game, but
I can't imagine that they won't be questioning (at the very least)
Pitt's head coach's game management there at the end of regulation. But
I got a "deer in the headlights" vibe from the guy almost every time
they showed him on the sidelines, so I'm really not surprised by any of
it.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
"Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:27:36 -0500:
>> >> NCAA FOOTBALL:
> I have yet to get around to reading some of the recaps of the game, but
> I can't imagine that they won't be questioning (at the very least)
> Pitt's head coach's game management there at the end of regulation. But
> I got a "deer in the headlights" vibe from the guy almost every time
> they showed him on the sidelines, so I'm really not surprised by any of
> it.
The coaching definitely blew it with some poor play calling, but they should not have been dumbfounded to be in the position to possibly win the game. Pitt beat a Top20 (at the time) Virginia Tech team earlier this year.
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:22:54 AM UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
> KoshN wrote:
> >On Monday, November 5, 2012 5:46:12 AM UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> KoshN wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:
> >> >> What did you watch?
> >> >Svengoolie:
> >> I kinds wish MEtv had picked up Elvira's show instead of this one, > >> although her new material isn't nearly as good as the original.
> >Can't we have both? I LOVE Elvira. :D
> It was one of my fav kate night shows in the 80's.
> >Bought two of her DVDs before Halloween.
> Do you mean the movies?
Yeah, but it turms out that I only *rented* “Elvira, Mistress of the Dark” (1988), which I loved, via Netflix on Sept. 18th. Then, I impulse bought “Elvira’s Haunted Hills” (2002) when I saw it on the shelf in Wal Mart, but it wasn’t very good.
'tis on this 11/4/2012 7:44 PM, wrote Arthur Lipscomb thus to say:
> On 11/4/2012 3:12 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> In any case, they did a really bad job with the whole sequence - either
>> the cube did work, the Observer was lying (but that wasn't clear, esp.
>> with the misleading(?) flashback), and so we have no idea why the plan
>> failed; OR, it didn't work, in which case there's no reason why the
>> crates would have come through, and... my head hurts.
> There were two cubes. For reasons I no longer recall, the Fringe team had to activate theirs first. Presumably the Observers still activated their own cube which caused the wormholes to join together. As I recall, the Observer detected something was wrong and teleported himself to Peter's location. By doing so he may have stopped whatever interference Peter's cube was causing allowing the other Observer to activate their own cube.
> I can see your confusion because now that I think about it, I'm starting to experience it myself. My guess is, Peter did correctly assemble his cube well enough to cause some interference but not well enough to detonate like it was supposed to.
No, I think Peter did assemble the cube correctly, regardless of what the Observer said. The point of the cube was to draw a wormhole to their controlled location, which they did. It was the anti-matter explosive round which was a supposed to collapse the wormhole on the other end. And he shot it off, and it blew up. It just meant that the Observers at the other end did something to stop it and reopen a new one, maybe 10 minute later, maybe 10 years. And then they resumed the shipments on schedule in our time.
It is confusing, at what the Observer said. I didn't think they would go for bullshitting someone like that.
-- "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
> happens.
Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
definitely be a fun game to watch.
> >> I predict the
> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
> >> style.
> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
interview. Night and day.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
> > Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:27:36 -0500:
> >> >> NCAA FOOTBALL:
> > I have yet to get around to reading some of the recaps of the game, but
> > I can't imagine that they won't be questioning (at the very least)
> > Pitt's head coach's game management there at the end of regulation. But
> > I got a "deer in the headlights" vibe from the guy almost every time
> > they showed him on the sidelines, so I'm really not surprised by any of
> > it.
> The coaching definitely blew it with some poor play calling, but they should > not have been dumbfounded to be in the position to possibly win the game. > Pitt beat a Top20 (at the time) Virginia Tech team earlier this year.
Yeah, but it's since become painfully obvious that VaTech is a joke this
year. And the Pitt coaches and players follow this stuff just as much as
anyone, so they would know that, as well. Much of the confidence that
they gained from that win (which seemed like an accomplishment at the
time) would have evaporated with the subsequent VaTech losses.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
>> > Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:27:36 -0500:
>> >> >> NCAA FOOTBALL:
>> > I have yet to get around to reading some of the recaps of the game, but
>> > I can't imagine that they won't be questioning (at the very least)
>> > Pitt's head coach's game management there at the end of regulation. But
>> > I got a "deer in the headlights" vibe from the guy almost every time
>> > they showed him on the sidelines, so I'm really not surprised by any of
>> > it.
>> The coaching definitely blew it with some poor play calling, but they >> should
>> not have been dumbfounded to be in the position to possibly win the game.
>> Pitt beat a Top20 (at the time) Virginia Tech team earlier this year.
> Yeah, but it's since become painfully obvious that VaTech is a joke this
> year. And the Pitt coaches and players follow this stuff just as much as
> anyone, so they would know that, as well. Much of the confidence that
> they gained from that win (which seemed like an accomplishment at the
> time) would have evaporated with the subsequent VaTech losses.
I agree with all that. I'm just suggesting that if these coaches are the type to get 'deer in the headlights' over the prospect of beating a better team, it should have happened when they found themselves ahead of Virginia Tech.
>Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
>> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
>> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
>> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
>> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
>> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
>> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
>> happens.
>Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
>imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
>definitely be a fun game to watch.
>> >> I predict the
>> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
>> >> style.
>> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
>> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
>To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
>players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
>as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
>* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
>that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
>twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
>it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
>interview. Night and day.
Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
LSU.
Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
I'll tell you the big surprise, is the U. of Georgia. It used to be on
the level of LSU/Auburn academically. But they dedicated all the lottery
money to scholarships, so that anyone with a B average from a Georgia high
school can go to UGa for $1500. That raised admissions standards
*enormously*.
I don't think it will turn into UNC or UVA overnight (or in my lifetime),
but it's definitely become something better than it was.
> >> > Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:27:36 -0500:
> >> >> >> NCAA FOOTBALL:
> >> > I have yet to get around to reading some of the recaps of the game, but
> >> > I can't imagine that they won't be questioning (at the very least)
> >> > Pitt's head coach's game management there at the end of regulation. But
> >> > I got a "deer in the headlights" vibe from the guy almost every time
> >> > they showed him on the sidelines, so I'm really not surprised by any of
> >> > it.
> >> The coaching definitely blew it with some poor play calling, but they > >> should
> >> not have been dumbfounded to be in the position to possibly win the game.
> >> Pitt beat a Top20 (at the time) Virginia Tech team earlier this year.
> > Yeah, but it's since become painfully obvious that VaTech is a joke this
> > year. And the Pitt coaches and players follow this stuff just as much as
> > anyone, so they would know that, as well. Much of the confidence that
> > they gained from that win (which seemed like an accomplishment at the
> > time) would have evaporated with the subsequent VaTech losses.
> I agree with all that. I'm just suggesting that if these coaches are the > type to get 'deer in the headlights' over the prospect of beating a better > team, it should have happened when they found themselves ahead of Virginia > Tech.
I'm saying that, to me, the "deer in the headlights" look was there all
game long. It wasn't just limited to those times when Pitt was ahead.
Put simply, the Pitt coach that I saw on the sidelines is not one who
would inspire me with confidence if I were one of his players out on the
field who was looking over at him in the hopes of a shot of confidence
in my team's chances. The facial expressions, the body language ... it
was just all wrong. From start to finish.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
"Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:10:36 -0500:
>> I agree with all that. I'm just suggesting that if these coaches are the
>> type to get 'deer in the headlights' over the prospect of beating a >> better
>> team, it should have happened when they found themselves ahead of >> Virginia
>> Tech.
> I'm saying that, to me, the "deer in the headlights" look was there all
> game long.
Ah, ok. I only watched the end of the game so if the playcalling was inept earlier/throughout, I did not see it.
Obveeus sent the following on Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:25:51 -0500:
> "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Obveeus sent the following on Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:10:36 -0500:
> >> I agree with all that. I'm just suggesting that if these coaches are the
> >> type to get 'deer in the headlights' over the prospect of beating a > >> better
> >> team, it should have happened when they found themselves ahead of > >> Virginia
> >> Tech.
> > I'm saying that, to me, the "deer in the headlights" look was there all
> > game long.
> Ah, ok. I only watched the end of the game so if the playcalling was inept > earlier/throughout, I did not see it.
He reminded me of the Zook years at Illinois. Some coaches just don't
look comfortable or confident on the sidelines on game day. And often,
as with Zook, it's for good reason.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
> >> happens.
> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
> >> >> I predict the
> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
> >> >> style.
> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
> >interview. Night and day.
> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
> LSU.
> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
> I'll tell you the big surprise, is the U. of Georgia. It used to be on
> the level of LSU/Auburn academically. But they dedicated all the lottery
> money to scholarships, so that anyone with a B average from a Georgia high
> school can go to UGa for $1500. That raised admissions standards
> *enormously*.
Wait--are you telling me that they made high school academic performance
a consideration? And that it was for *everyone* with a certain GPA,
rather than basing it on skin color, or some such thing? Craziness! :)
> I don't think it will turn into UNC or UVA overnight (or in my lifetime),
> but it's definitely become something better than it was.
In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
support, and all that.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
>Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:21:57 -0500:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
>> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
>> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
>> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
>> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
>> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
>> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
>> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
>> >> happens.
>> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
>> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
>> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
>> >> >> I predict the
>> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
>> >> >> style.
>> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
>> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
>> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
>> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
>> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
>> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
>> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
>> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
>> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
>> >interview. Night and day.
>> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
>> LSU.
>> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
>> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
>They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
>been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
Yeah, it's really become a pretty good name. It's right at the top of the
"second tier" in the east -- the first tier consisting pretty much of MIT
and Princeton.
You know, when I was a kid, Tech was actually in the SEC. Not only that,
they tried to get back in in the 70s -- and UGA blocked their readmission!
>> I'll tell you the big surprise, is the U. of Georgia. It used to be on
>> the level of LSU/Auburn academically. But they dedicated all the lottery
>> money to scholarships, so that anyone with a B average from a Georgia high
>> school can go to UGa for $1500. That raised admissions standards
>> *enormously*.
>Wait--are you telling me that they made high school academic performance
>a consideration? And that it was for *everyone* with a certain GPA,
>rather than basing it on skin color, or some such thing? Craziness! :)
The Georgia General Assembly is desperately looking for a way to screw it
up.
A rare thing -- a government educational program that works.
>> I don't think it will turn into UNC or UVA overnight (or in my lifetime),
>> but it's definitely become something better than it was.
>In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
>They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
>support, and all that.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:21:57 -0500:
> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
> >> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
> >> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
> >> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
> >> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
> >> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
> >> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
> >> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
> >> >> happens.
> >> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
> >> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
> >> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
> >> >> >> I predict the
> >> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
> >> >> >> style.
> >> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
> >> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
> >> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
> >> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
> >> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
> >> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
> >> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
> >> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
> >> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
> >> >interview. Night and day.
> >> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
> >> LSU.
> >> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
> >> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
> >They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
> >been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
> Yeah, it's really become a pretty good name. It's right at the top of the
> "second tier" in the east -- the first tier consisting pretty much of MIT
> and Princeton.
I really want to visit the Princeton campus someday. There is just *so*
much history there.
> You know, when I was a kid, Tech was actually in the SEC. Not only that,
> they tried to get back in in the 70s -- and UGA blocked their readmission!
Why? I would think that an Athens-Atlanta rivalry could be a lot of fun.
> >> I'll tell you the big surprise, is the U. of Georgia. It used to be on
> >> the level of LSU/Auburn academically. But they dedicated all the lottery
> >> money to scholarships, so that anyone with a B average from a Georgia high
> >> school can go to UGa for $1500. That raised admissions standards
> >> *enormously*.
> >Wait--are you telling me that they made high school academic performance
> >a consideration? And that it was for *everyone* with a certain GPA,
> >rather than basing it on skin color, or some such thing? Craziness! :)
> The Georgia General Assembly is desperately looking for a way to screw it
> up.
They're politicians. It's what they do.
> A rare thing -- a government educational program that works.
> >> I don't think it will turn into UNC or UVA overnight (or in my lifetime),
> >> but it's definitely become something better than it was.
> >In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
> >They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
> >support, and all that.
> The Aggies? I don't get it.
Texas A&M has a pretty good academic reputation, IIRC. Or at least they
did the last time I paid much attention to such things.
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
>Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:20:31 -0500:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:21:57 -0500:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
>> >> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
>> >> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
>> >> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
>> >> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
>> >> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
>> >> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
>> >> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
>> >> >> happens.
>> >> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
>> >> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
>> >> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
>> >> >> >> I predict the
>> >> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
>> >> >> >> style.
>> >> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
>> >> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
>> >> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
>> >> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
>> >> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
>> >> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
>> >> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
>> >> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
>> >> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
>> >> >interview. Night and day.
>> >> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
>> >> LSU.
>> >> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
>> >> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
>> >They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
>> >been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
>> Yeah, it's really become a pretty good name. It's right at the top of the
>> "second tier" in the east -- the first tier consisting pretty much of MIT
>> and Princeton.
>I really want to visit the Princeton campus someday. There is just *so*
>much history there.
Princeton's beautiful, to boot.
>> You know, when I was a kid, Tech was actually in the SEC. Not only that,
>> they tried to get back in in the 70s -- and UGA blocked their readmission!
>Why? I would think that an Athens-Atlanta rivalry could be a lot of fun.
Back then, it was taken quite seriously by a lot of people. They really
*hated* each other.
[...]
>> >In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
>> >They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
>> >support, and all that.
>> The Aggies? I don't get it.
>Texas A&M has a pretty good academic reputation, IIRC. Or at least they
>did the last time I paid much attention to such things.
Okay, I'm typing this before I go look it up, because as soon as I hear
"A&M" I think, glorified trade school.
. . .
Well, US News & World Rept has them at #23 (out of 115) for public
universities. So, not terrible by any means.
anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:59:11 -0700:
> In article <c23g98hl0a5baaph3ot2qcu6ckkrbsb...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Ian J. Ball sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 09:04:41 -0700:
> > > Has cable, collectively, decided to just give up on running movies > > > during the weekends?! Yikes. A disturbing trend...
> > You may actually have to watch non-West-Coast college football or ... or
> > ... or ... um, actually venture out into the sunlight on weekends. :)
In article <k77jdf$p4...@panix2.panix.com>, wdst...@panix.com wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> said:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> LOST IN SPACE:
>>> "The Galaxy Gift". Another retarded ep which I swear they've
>>> already made in which an ugly alien fugitive befriends Penny and
>>> gives her a belt with the power to destroy the galaxy(?) for
>>> safe-keeping. Dr Smith, naturally, wastes no time collaborating
>>> with his pursers for passage back to Earth for said item, then
>>> wonders why he got screwed after he tried to pass off a fake
>>> one. Well, it turns out they tricked him into thinking he was on
>>> Earth with a lame cheap-ass Chinatown set inhabited by a couple
>>> guys dressed up like flies (because as The Robot says, "Dr Smith
>>> EXAGERATES about things").
>Okay, that's actually a bit clever. Or at least, it actually looks
>that way in print.
And that's where it ends.
>>> We never found out how this was intended to be fatal, unless they
>>> intended on leaving him to starve to death.
>> And, you know, it had to be easier to just freaking send Smith to
>> Earth than to build a duplicate of Chinatown on an asteroid in
>> deep space.
>It's a little thing called 'style'. *Anybody* could just send the
>idiot to his home planet; it takes a higher level of villainy to
>hoax him instead.
Well, not if they do it half-assed.
-- "Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the iceberg a second time."
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:59:11 -0700:
> > In article <c23g98hl0a5baaph3ot2qcu6ckkrbsb...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > Ian J. Ball sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 09:04:41 -0700:
> > > > Has cable, collectively, decided to just give up on running movies > > > > during the weekends?! Yikes. A disturbing trend...
> > > You may actually have to watch non-West-Coast college football or ... or
> > > ... or ... um, actually venture out into the sunlight on weekends. :)
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:28:15 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:20:31 -0500:
> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:21:57 -0500:
> >> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
> >> >> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
> >> >> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
> >> >> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
> >> >> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
> >> >> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
> >> >> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
> >> >> >> happens.
> >> >> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
> >> >> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
> >> >> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
> >> >> >> >> I predict the
> >> >> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
> >> >> >> >> style.
> >> >> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
> >> >> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
> >> >> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
> >> >> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
> >> >> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
> >> >> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
> >> >> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
> >> >> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
> >> >> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
> >> >> >interview. Night and day.
> >> >> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
> >> >> LSU.
> >> >> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
> >> >> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
> >> >They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
> >> >been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
> >> Yeah, it's really become a pretty good name. It's right at the top of the
> >> "second tier" in the east -- the first tier consisting pretty much of MIT
> >> and Princeton.
> >I really want to visit the Princeton campus someday. There is just *so*
> >much history there.
> Princeton's beautiful, to boot.
So I've heard. It's definitely the first one I think of when I hear "Ivy
League."
> >> You know, when I was a kid, Tech was actually in the SEC. Not only that,
> >> they tried to get back in in the 70s -- and UGA blocked their readmission!
> >Why? I would think that an Athens-Atlanta rivalry could be a lot of fun.
> Back then, it was taken quite seriously by a lot of people. They really
> *hated* each other.
All the more reason to beat up each other once a year on a Saturday. :)
> [...]
> >> >In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
> >> >They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
> >> >support, and all that.
> >> The Aggies? I don't get it.
> >Texas A&M has a pretty good academic reputation, IIRC. Or at least they
> >did the last time I paid much attention to such things.
> Okay, I'm typing this before I go look it up, because as soon as I hear
> "A&M" I think, glorified trade school.
> . . .
> Well, US News & World Rept has them at #23 (out of 115) for public
> universities. So, not terrible by any means.
That's right about where I'd have put them off-the-cuff, and I'm
*guessing* that that puts them well above most of their new SEC
brethren. OTOH, having spent time in College Station on a couple of
occasions in the past, I can say that it's not gonna win any Best
Setting awards anytime soon. The campus itself is okay, but the
surrounding community and land are nothing to write home about. Even
though it was some two hours away, I still spent my days off in Austin.
:)
-- Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN
>Mason Barge sent the following on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:23:25 -0500:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:28:15 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:20:31 -0500:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:20:51 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:21:57 -0500:
>> >> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:58:31 -0500:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:03 -0600, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Mason Barge sent the following on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 11:26:06 -0500:
>> >> >> >> >> I want to see what Bama does to Oregon in the post-season.
>> >> >> >> >As countless past Rose Bowl matchups between PAC-10 and Bigger Ten teams
>> >> >> >> >have shown, speed and finesse will beat size almost every time. If
>> >> >> >> >Oregon had only one offensive weapon, then yeah, I could see Bama
>> >> >> >> >shutting down that weapon. But that's not the case here.
>> >> >> >> You think Bama's *slow*? Okay, we can have a virtual bet, if the game
>> >> >> >> happens.
>> >> >> >Sounds good. And really, I don't follow 'Bama, but I have a hard time
>> >> >> >imagining them being *faster* than Oregon. Time will tell, and it would
>> >> >> >definitely be a fun game to watch.
>> >> >> >> >> I predict the
>> >> >> >> >> monsters in the Bama defensive line are going to take them to school, SEC
>> >> >> >> >> style.
>> >> >> >> >Since when does "SEC style" have anything to do with going to school? :)
>> >> >> >> Pfft. Wanna' talk about U. of Oregon "academics"?
>> >> >> >To be fair, I don't want to talk about the academics of *most* football
>> >> >> >players outside of a handful of teams.* The SEC just makes it so easy,
>> >> >> >as they don't really even *try* to hide it.
>> >> >> >* Every week, in addition to being embarrassed by the latest whupping
>> >> >> >that the Illini take, I have to read a "We didn't play good" comment or
>> >> >> >twelve from various players in postgame press conferences. Which is why
>> >> >> >it's so nice to hear the kids at, say, ND or Stanford giving an
>> >> >> >interview. Night and day.
>> >> >> Yeah, they get football players who would be legitimate students at, say,
>> >> >> LSU.
>> >> >> Georgia Tech used to have pretty smart athletes but it seems to me that
>> >> >> that has changed just over the past five or ten years.
>> >> >They've been known for their engineering school for as long as they've
>> >> >been on my radar. But they're not SEC. :)
>> >> Yeah, it's really become a pretty good name. It's right at the top of the
>> >> "second tier" in the east -- the first tier consisting pretty much of MIT
>> >> and Princeton.
>> >I really want to visit the Princeton campus someday. There is just *so*
>> >much history there.
>> Princeton's beautiful, to boot.
>So I've heard. It's definitely the first one I think of when I hear "Ivy
>League."
>> >> You know, when I was a kid, Tech was actually in the SEC. Not only that,
>> >> they tried to get back in in the 70s -- and UGA blocked their readmission!
>> >Why? I would think that an Athens-Atlanta rivalry could be a lot of fun.
>> Back then, it was taken quite seriously by a lot of people. They really
>> *hated* each other.
>All the more reason to beat up each other once a year on a Saturday. :)
>> [...]
>> >> >In that case, it's only a matter of time before the SEC kicks them out.
>> >> >They should become friends with the Aggies in a hurry. For mutual
>> >> >support, and all that.
>> >> The Aggies? I don't get it.
>> >Texas A&M has a pretty good academic reputation, IIRC. Or at least they
>> >did the last time I paid much attention to such things.
>> Okay, I'm typing this before I go look it up, because as soon as I hear
>> "A&M" I think, glorified trade school.
>> . . .
>> Well, US News & World Rept has them at #23 (out of 115) for public
>> universities. So, not terrible by any means.
