SUPERBOWL

[Mossingen]

Still in doubt at this point (halftime), but my goodness what a masterful
drive by Brady to end the half. Four minutes, can't score too quickly, and
he nails it with 8 seconds left in the half. NY had an iron grip on the
game until then, now they're losing at the half.

[Beldumb TurdSavant]

WTF is wrong with the NFL? Madonna? Seriously? At least the game has
been OK.

------- 

[Clave]

"Beldumb TurdSavant" <a86...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:u0m309x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

From a production standpoint, it was very flashy and professionally done.

Too fucking bad it featured that aging whore and her music.

Jim

[Mossingen]

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
news:6QFXq.8133$W87....@newsfe02.iad...

That's a little harsh. Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga. A mediocre
vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by selling
milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.

[popinjay999]

On Feb 5, 5:21 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6QFXq.8133$W87....@newsfe02.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a866...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

> >news:u0m309x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >> On Feb 5 2012 6:53 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> >>> Still in doubt at this point (halftime), but my goodness what a
> >>> masterful
> >>> drive by Brady to end the half.  Four minutes, can't score too quickly,
> >>> and
> >>> he nails it with 8 seconds left in the half.  NY had an iron grip on the
> >>> game until then, now they're losing at the half.
>
> >> WTF is wrong with the NFL?  Madonna?  Seriously?  At least the game has
> >> been OK.
>
> > From a production standpoint, it was very flashy and professionally done.
>
> > Too fucking bad it featured that aging whore and her music.
>
> That's a little harsh.  Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga.  A mediocre
> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by selling
> milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.

Mediocre vocal talent? Are you kidding me? She has an incredible
voice. By the way, I just posted a post about her before I saw this
comment in your thread. It has not posted yet. And by the way, Clave
really is a fucking scumbag.

[arseniccollection]

On 2/5/2012 17:12, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:

>
> WTF is wrong with the NFL? Madonna? Seriously? At least the game has
> been OK.
>

Very nice production. In any case, no other half-time show can ever as
bad as the Who 2 years ago - two elderly guys croakily wailing about
teenage wastelands.

[popinjay999]

On Feb 5, 5:21 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

>

> That's a little harsh.  Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga.  A mediocre
> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by selling
> milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.

As I mentioned in my post that has not posted yet, she was just
starting out when Popinjay was just starting out. I liked her 80s
look. That girl was hot.

Hey James, seriously, did you run out and buy the issue of Penthouse
when she was in it? I wonder whatever happened to my copy. It would
probably be worth some money now. I think I'll go check under my
mattress.

[Will in New Haven]

Be very careful. You don't know what you might run into there.

I think Madonna is a great self-promoter who took an ok voice, only
above-average looks and some songwriting skill and made herself into a
super-star.

--
Will in New Haven

[popinjay999]

On Feb 5, 5:43 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:

>
> I think Madonna is a great self-promoter who took an ok voice, only
> above-average looks and some songwriting skill and made herself into a
> super-star.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

I can't believe you guys think her voice is just "ok". I think it's
fantastic.

[bratt]

I liked the show - I love Cee Lo, and Nicki Minja (sp) is the best of the
best.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

--- 

[Will in New Haven]

There are just too many singers with better pipes. "Good" might be
fairer than "OK" but she just doesn't have one of the best voices.
Which makes her accomplishments even more admirable.

[Clave]

"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jgn9ug$l8f$1...@dont-email.me...

Not just milquetoast, but hyper-sexualized milquetoast I find impossible to
respect.

Please -- I'm not arguing with her business success -- who could? But she's
sold everything she had to sell, washed it off and sold it again.

Jim

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 5 2012 7:53 PM, Clave wrote:

> > That's a little harsh. Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga. A mediocre
> > vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by
> > selling milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.
>
> Not just milquetoast, but hyper-sexualized milquetoast I find impossible to
> respect.
>
> Please -- I'm not arguing with her business success -- who could? But she's
> sold everything she had to sell, washed it off and sold it again.

super bowl sunday, and clave's got his eye glitter on panting over
madonna's performance.

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[mo_ntresor]

the announcers and coaches thought a run to the one and a squat was wise.
as if kicking a short field goal to win (or lose) is somehow better than a
guaranteed 4 point lead with under a minute left.

mo_ntresor

______________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

Once the Giants got into near-certain field goal range, I was trying to
explain to my wife that NE's best play now was to just let the Giants
score a touchdown (and not waste any more clock). Too bad it took
football genius Belichick so long to figure that out.

[Clave]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0t309x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 5 2012 7:53 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> > That's a little harsh. Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga. A
>> > mediocre
>> > vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by
>> > selling milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.
>>
>> Not just milquetoast, but hyper-sexualized milquetoast I find impossible
>> to
>> respect.
>>
>> Please -- I'm not arguing with her business success -- who could? But
>> she's
>> sold everything she had to sell, washed it off and sold it again.
>
> super bowl sunday, and clave's got his eye glitter on panting over
> madonna's performance.

Yep -- that's exactly what I meant.

Fucking idiot.

[popinjay999]

On Feb 5, 6:53 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:

>
> Not just milquetoast, but hyper-sexualized milquetoast I find impossible to
> respect.
>

Can't everybody be worthy of the respect like you've earned, Peanut.
You are an icon.

[gtech1]

It IS better. Surprised you don't understand that.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[DDawgster]

really ?? ask the ravens

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

--- 

[mo_ntresor]

LOL. the hockey idiot from canada agrees with the jockocracy.

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[Dave the Clueless]

On Feb 6 2012 1:16 AM, DDawgster wrote:

> On Feb 5 2012 11:10 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
> > It IS better. Surprised you don't understand that.
> >
> > On Feb 5 2012 10:13 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 5 2012 5:53 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Still in doubt at this point (halftime), but my goodness what a
> masterful
> > > > drive by Brady to end the half. Four minutes, can't score too quickly,
> > and
> > > > he nails it with 8 seconds left in the half. NY had an iron grip on
the
> > > > game until then, now they're losing at the half.
> > >
> > > the announcers and coaches thought a run to the one and a squat was
wise.
> > > as if kicking a short field goal to win (or lose) is somehow better than
a
> > > guaranteed 4 point lead with under a minute left.
> > >
> > > mo_ntresor
> > >
>

> really ?? ask the ravens

^^^^^^^ This. 100 times, this.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

--- 

[zox625]

On Feb 5 2012 10:13 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On Feb 5 2012 5:53 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > Still in doubt at this point (halftime), but my goodness what a masterful
> > drive by Brady to end the half. Four minutes, can't score too quickly,
and
> > he nails it with 8 seconds left in the half. NY had an iron grip on the
> > game until then, now they're losing at the half.
>
> the announcers and coaches thought a run to the one and a squat was wise.
> as if kicking a short field goal to win (or lose) is somehow better than a
> guaranteed 4 point lead with under a minute left.
>

Kicking a chip-shot field field goal with basically no time on the clock
is WAY better than giving Tom Brady a minute to score a touchdown
(probably 99% vs. 80% winning chances for NY.) The runner was instructed
correctly, but stopping a run at the 1-yard line isn't something you get
to practice.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

http://deadspin.com/5882567/the-ballsiest-call-in-super-bowl-history

Bill Belichick may have made one of the gutsiest calls in Super Bowl
history: instructing his defense to allow the Giants to score the go-ahead
touchdown with just a minute remaining. The only gutsier move would've
been for the Giants to respond by not scoring. Instead, Ahmad Bradshaw's
six-yard run and subsequent pratfall into the end zone may have been the
most counterproductive score of all time.

That run came on second down, with 1:04 remaining. Here's why the Giants
didn't want a touchdown in that situation. The best-case scenario for New
York would have been to run the ball one more time, draining the clock and
forcing the Patriots to expend their final timeout. Then, with just a few
seconds remaining, send in the field goal unit for what would have been a
99 percent kick in perfect indoor conditions to take the lead by a point,
leaving virtually no time for the Patriots to respond. Using Win
Probability (a simple estimate of who's going to win based on score and
other variables), we know that if Bradshaw been able to stop his momentum
and fall prior to scoring, the Giants would have had a 0.98 WP—in other
words, a 98 percent chance of winning.

While it looked as if Bradshaw was pulling the video-game trick of burning
an additional second or two prior to scoring, he told reporters after the
game, "I tried to declare myself down and tapped down. My momentum took me
into the end zone." When he scored, the Patriots had a minute left and one
timeout, which typically amounts to a 0.88 WP. The touchdown actually cost
the Giants 0.1 WP and unnecessarily kept the Patriots' hopes alive.

The smartest play of all would've been for Belichick to have allowed the
touchdown even earlier. The Patriots certainly could have done so on the
play prior to Bradshaw's touchdown run, when he was stopped for a one-yard
gain, forcing New England to burn its second timeout. In fact, they
probably should have allowed a touchdown as early as the two-minute
warning.That's the point at which the Win Probability of receiving a
kickoff down by four or six points (0.23) exceeds the Win Probability of
trying to stop the Giants from bleeding the clock dry (0.2). The Patriots
would have had almost two minutes, two timeouts, and all four downs
available to get a touchdown and steal the win. The lesson: New England
didn't lie down soon enough.

Brian Burke is a former Navy fighter pilot and the founder of the website
Advanced NFL Stats. He is a regular contributor at the New York Times's
Fifth Down and the Washington Post's The Insider.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

______________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

The Ravens' situation was different for two reasons:
1) They were down 3, not 2 - so they were TRYING to score a go-ahead
touchdown first and foremost and were not planning on settling for the
field goal, that was their second option.
2) The Ravens' kicker was a bit late running on the field (there was some
confusion over the down, the scoreboard said it was third down not
fourth), and they probably thought the Pats would ice Cundiff by calling a
timeout, which they didn't. The whole attempt was rushed, although he
still should have made it.

OTOH, had Bradshaw knelt down at the 1, the Pats would have been forced to
call their last timeout, the Giants would have knelt down one more time to
get their kicker in the center of the field for what would essentially be
an extra point attempt - and they would have called their last timeout
with the play clock at 1 (and the game clock at about 0:15) to make sure
everybody was ready without having to worry about the kicker being iced.

[Mossingen]

"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:64d509x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> The Ravens' situation was different for two reasons:

You don't even have to go that far. The fact that Ravens did not succeed
has no bearing on Belichek's decision. Probably the highest percentage play
in the NFL is a chip shot field goal (within extra point range). If NE
would have allowed NY to run the clock down to a few seconds and then kick
what amounts to an extra point, they win the game 90%+ of the time.

The only way NE had a chance was to get the ball back into Brady's hands
with some time to score. Which, they actually did, but too many dropped
balls and a lack of focus gave them no chance. If Brady would have driven
them down for a game-winning TD, he would have been MVP, won his fourth
ring, and joined Montana as a group of two for best ever (I don't think
anyone seriously puts Bradshaw in that discussion for some reason).

But, of course, it didn't happen and Eli Manning stuns them again. I did
not think that could happen a second time, but I'm glad for Eli.

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 9:04 AM, zox625 wrote:

> > the announcers and coaches thought a run to the one and a squat was wise.
> > as if kicking a short field goal to win (or lose) is somehow better than a
> > guaranteed 4 point lead with under a minute left.
>
> Kicking a chip-shot field field goal with basically no time on the clock
> is WAY better than giving Tom Brady a minute to score a touchdown
> (probably 99% vs. 80% winning chances for NY.) The runner was instructed
> correctly, but stopping a run at the 1-yard line isn't something you get
> to practice.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________ 

nonsense. no field goal to win the superbowl is 99%.

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 10:11 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> > The Ravens' situation was different for two reasons:
>
> You don't even have to go that far. The fact that Ravens did not succeed
> has no bearing on Belichek's decision. Probably the highest percentage play
> in the NFL is a chip shot field goal (within extra point range). If NE
> would have allowed NY to run the clock down to a few seconds and then kick
> what amounts to an extra point, they win the game 90%+ of the time.

there is no higher percentage play than a touchdown you've already scored.
ask romo about those chipshots.

> The only way NE had a chance was to get the ball back into Brady's hands
> with some time to score. Which, they actually did, but too many dropped
> balls and a lack of focus gave them no chance. If Brady would have driven
> them down for a game-winning TD, he would have been MVP, won his fourth
> ring, and joined Montana as a group of two for best ever (I don't think
> anyone seriously puts Bradshaw in that discussion for some reason).
>
> But, of course, it didn't happen and Eli Manning stuns them again. I did
> not think that could happen a second time, but I'm glad for Eli.

mo_ntresor

--- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 9:34 AM, phlash74 wrote:

> > the announcers and coaches thought a run to the one and a squat was wise.
> > as if kicking a short field goal to win (or lose) is somehow better than a
> > guaranteed 4 point lead with under a minute left.
>

the mistakes the giants made were passes on two first downs on the final
drive. i couldn't believe coughlin was that scared of a fumble. the rest
is idiot football orthodoxy, and there's nothing surprising or gutsy about
any of it. this is the same crowd that thinks you never go for two and
always punt on fourth (GENERALLY SPEAKING, nitpick idiots). they're just
wrong.

mo_ntresor

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Adam Russell]

Gotta compare the odds of missing a chip field goal with the odds the
other team will go the distance for a touchdown with time running out.

[phlash74]

3 out of 4 attempts at game winning field goals in the Super Bowl have
succeeded - the only miss was Scott Norwood's 47 yarder in Super Bowl XXV,
which was a few yards longer than his previous longest successful field
goal on grass. All attempts were from 30 yards or more (32 by Jim O'Brien
in SB V, 48 and 41 by Adam Vinatieri in SB XXXVI and XXXVIII
respectively), not 20 yards as this would have been.

Lawrence Tynes of the Giants is 56-for-57 (98.2%) on field goal attempts
of between 20 and 29 yards in his career, and 311-for-317 (98.1%) on PATs
- essentially what he would have been attempting had Bradshaw knelt at the
one, followed by Eli Manning kneeling at the 2 in the center of the field.
Even if you want to knock a couple points off for the pressure of trying
to win the Super Bowl, you'd have to be high or stupid to suggest the
Giants had less of a chance to win by attempting the field goal with 10 or
15 seconds left than they did by scoring the TD and giving Brady and the
Pats 55 seconds and a timeout to go from their own 20 yard line.

Here's a (low quality) video of Maurice Jones-Drew doing what Ahmad
Bradshaw should have done (the Jags kicked a 20 yard field goal as time
expired to win this game).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3fVn8TE2XM

[zox625]

19-yarders are. Norwood's was from 47.

---- 

[arseniccollection]

Bradshaw said afterwards that he was trying to stop at the 1, but
momentum carried him into the end zone. Looked to me that he hesitated
at the 1, said "screw this", and decided to fall past the goal line.

[zox625]

Even after that excellent explanation you still can't admit you're wrong.
And, BTW, this 'crowd' (Fifth Down) is a group that thinks you should
often go for it on 4th down and go for two in lots of situations.

19-yard field goals ARE about 99%. I over-estimated NE chances to score
with a minute left, but 99% >>>> 88%.

Belichick and Coughlin both played it right; it was just that the runner
didn't execute going down correctly.

---- 

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:53:06 -0800, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

>"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jgn9ug$l8f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
>> news:6QFXq.8133$W87....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> "Beldumb TurdSavant" <a86...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:u0m309x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>>>> On Feb 5 2012 6:53 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Still in doubt at this point (halftime), but my goodness what a
>>>>> masterful
>>>>> drive by Brady to end the half. Four minutes, can't score too quickly,
>>>>> and
>>>>> he nails it with 8 seconds left in the half. NY had an iron grip on
>>>>> the
>>>>> game until then, now they're losing at the half.
>>>>
>>>> WTF is wrong with the NFL? Madonna? Seriously? At least the game has
>>>> been OK.
>>>
>>> From a production standpoint, it was very flashy and professionally done.
>>>
>>> Too fucking bad it featured that aging whore and her music.
>>
>>
>> That's a little harsh. Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga. A mediocre
>> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by
>> selling milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.
>
>Not just milquetoast, but hyper-sexualized milquetoast I find impossible to
>respect.

That hyper-sexualization was tame compared to what's on the radio
today. Then again, she laid the groundwork.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:51:45 -0800, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Feb 5 2012 7:26 PM, arseniccollection wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2012 17:12, Beldumb TurdSavant wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > WTF is wrong with the NFL? Madonna? Seriously? At least the game has
>> > been OK.
>> >
>> Very nice production. In any case, no other half-time show can ever as
>> bad as the Who 2 years ago - two elderly guys croakily wailing about
>> teenage wastelands.
>
>I liked the show - I love Cee Lo, and Nicki Minja (sp) is the best of the
>best.

It was an extravaganza. Madonna may not be the greatest vocalist ever
to hit the airwaves, but there's never been any doubt that she's a
world class entertainer.

Re: The Who. They started out sounding very weak, but IMO, they
salvaged themselves with their performance of "Won't Get Fooled
Again".

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:10:30 -0800, "gtech1"
<duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote:

>It IS better. Surprised you don't understand that.

Don't be surprised. This is mo-ron you're talking to.

[Pepe Papon]

Mo, if you could just understand the depth of your stupidity, it might
be possible to explain to you why both Bill Bs (Bradley and Belichick)
were correct.

[BillB]

lol...mo is the last person I'd expect to understand football. This is
the guy who scurries across the street when he sees a black teenager,
remember?

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6ih509x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 6 2012 10:11 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> > The Ravens' situation was different for two reasons:
>>
>> You don't even have to go that far. The fact that Ravens did not succeed
>> has no bearing on Belichek's decision. Probably the highest percentage
>> play
>> in the NFL is a chip shot field goal (within extra point range). If NE
>> would have allowed NY to run the clock down to a few seconds and then
>> kick
>> what amounts to an extra point, they win the game 90%+ of the time.
>
> there is no higher percentage play than a touchdown you've already scored.
> ask romo about those chipshots.

Romo's a loser. Nothing can be done about that. He and Eli are probably
the same in terms of talent (reading defenses, accuracy, arm strength,
etc.), but Romo makes plays and looks good in October then chokes, whereas
Eli sleepwalks through the season until it counts.

Letting NY score the TD was the correct play in that spot, as
counterintuitive as it is.

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 11:58 AM, phlash74 wrote:

> > nonsense. no field goal to win the superbowl is 99%.
>

> 3 out of 4 attempts at game winning field goals in the Super Bowl have
> succeeded - the only miss was Scott Norwood's 47 yarder in Super Bowl XXV,
> which was a few yards longer than his previous longest successful field
> goal on grass. All attempts were from 30 yards or more (32 by Jim O'Brien
> in SB V, 48 and 41 by Adam Vinatieri in SB XXXVI and XXXVIII
> respectively), not 20 yards as this would have been.
>
> Lawrence Tynes of the Giants is 56-for-57 (98.2%) on field goal attempts
> of between 20 and 29 yards in his career, and 311-for-317 (98.1%) on PATs
> - essentially what he would have been attempting had Bradshaw knelt at the
> one, followed by Eli Manning kneeling at the 2 in the center of the field.
> Even if you want to knock a couple points off for the pressure of trying
> to win the Super Bowl, you'd have to be high or stupid to suggest the
> Giants had less of a chance to win by attempting the field goal with 10 or
> 15 seconds left than they did by scoring the TD and giving Brady and the
> Pats 55 seconds and a timeout to go from their own 20 yard line.
>
> Here's a (low quality) video of Maurice Jones-Drew doing what Ahmad
> Bradshaw should have done (the Jags kicked a 20 yard field goal as time
> expired to win this game).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3fVn8TE2XM

the giants kicker is 95%+ to make a field goal to win or lose the
superbowl? sure. how about their snapper, is he perfect for superbowl
winners? how about the line, do they ever miss blocks when the world
championship's on the line?

you're dreaming if you think this is mathematically solvable. no need to
put that pressure on your kicking squad when you can knock the game down
to a touchdown in less than a minute and put all the pressure on the other
team.

mo_ntresor

-------- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 12:58 PM, zox625 wrote:

> > the mistakes the giants made were passes on two first downs on the final
> > drive. i couldn't believe coughlin was that scared of a fumble. the rest
> > is idiot football orthodoxy, and there's nothing surprising or gutsy about
> > any of it. this is the same crowd that thinks you never go for two and
> > always punt on fourth (GENERALLY SPEAKING, nitpick idiots). they're just
> > wrong.
>

> Even after that excellent explanation you still can't admit you're wrong.
> And, BTW, this 'crowd' (Fifth Down) is a group that thinks you should
> often go for it on 4th down and go for two in lots of situations.
>
> 19-yard field goals ARE about 99%. I over-estimated NE chances to score
> with a minute left, but 99% >>>> 88%.
>
> Belichick and Coughlin both played it right; it was just that the runner
> didn't execute going down correctly.

LOL. you think this down the ball for a field goal idea was invented
yesterday? 88% to score a touchdown in the superbowl with 55 seconds
left? dream on. pure idiot shit. you guys aren't thinking at all.

mo_ntresor

------- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 3:35 PM, BillB wrote:

> >> LOL. the hockey idiot from canada agrees with the jockocracy.
> >
> > Mo, if you could just understand the depth of your stupidity, it might
> > be possible to explain to you why both Bill Bs (Bradley and Belichick)
> > were correct.
>
> lol...mo is the last person I'd expect to understand football. This is
> the guy who scurries across the street when he sees a black teenager,
> remember?

football's all about running from black guys. you should try watching a
game or two before spouting off about something else you don't have the
first fucking clue about.

mo_ntresor

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

On Feb 6 2012 4:35 PM, BillB wrote:


> lol...mo is the last person I'd expect to understand football. This is
> the guy who scurries across the street when he sees a black teenager,
> remember?

talk about twisting what was said - and I don't believe anyone agreed with
you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/6/2012 4:44 PM, bratt wrote:
> On Feb 6 2012 4:35 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>
>> lol...mo is the last person I'd expect to understand football. This is
>> the guy who scurries across the street when he sees a black teenager,
>> remember?
>
> talk about twisting what was said - and I don't believe anyone agreed with
> you.

Agreed with me about what? I don't remember what his *exact* words were.
All I know is that they amounted to him admitting he is a gigantic pussy.

One minute mo is trying to tell us what a great place Chicago is, and
the next he's telling us how he has to criss-cross the street because
black teenagers are so dangerous (the city is close to 40% black). Does
this make any sense to you?

[bratt]

Talk about being a racist - a city can't be great because it's 40% black?


It was pointed out to you that you would have to be an idiot to walk
straight into a group of gang looking youths regardless of color. Tell
us again how brave you are and how you would take that gun away from Will.
That one really got a chuckle out of us

IDIOT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

--- 

[BillB]

On 2/6/2012 6:02 PM, bratt wrote:

> Talk about being a racist - a city can't be great because it's 40% black?

Not if you are overcome by anxiety and criss-crossing the street every
time you see one.

> It was pointed out to you that you would have to be an idiot to walk
> straight into a group of gang looking youths regardless of color.

lol "gang looking youths" = black

Who do you think you are trying to kid?

[gtech1]

LOL. He just gave you all the numbers and you just say "ah, bull, I don't
believe it." Let's try this again: this year there were 1207 extra
points attempted in NFL games. 7 were missed. The FG attempt here
would've been the same as an extra point. 1200/1207 = 99.4%. The
Patriots would've gotten the ball back at around their 25 or 30 yard line
with time for one play, which would've had to be a touchdown. I don't
know if anyone has ever run any stats for the % chance a team has of
scoring a 70 yard TD on one play when the other team knows all they have
to do is prevent a TD on that one play, but I'd be surprised if the chance
is even 1%. So basically if Bradshaw DOESN'T score the TD, the Giants
have at least a 98.5% chance to win the game.

Instead the Patriots got the ball back with a minute left. Are you
saying that they had less than a 1.5% chance to score a TD?

---- 

[gtech1]

LMAO. Please don't tell me you think the .88 represents an 88% chance
that the Patriots will score a TD.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[arseniccollection]

On 2/6/2012 19:47, gtech1 wrote:
> LOL. He just gave you all the numbers and you just say "ah, bull, I don't
> believe it." Let's try this again: this year there were 1207 extra
> points attempted in NFL games. 7 were missed. The FG attempt here
> would've been the same as an extra point. 1200/1207 = 99.4%. The
> Patriots would've gotten the ball back at around their 25 or 30 yard line
> with time for one play, which would've had to be a touchdown. I don't
> know if anyone has ever run any stats for the % chance a team has of
> scoring a 70 yard TD on one play when the other team knows all they have
> to do is prevent a TD on that one play, but I'd be surprised if the chance
> is even 1%. So basically if Bradshaw DOESN'T score the TD, the Giants
> have at least a 98.5% chance to win the game.
>
> Instead the Patriots got the ball back with a minute left. Are you
> saying that they had less than a 1.5% chance to score a TD?

I think he's just being obstinate for the sake of argument. Yeah, with
the SB on the line, the kicker may choke up a little, but not by a lot
especially inside a domed stadium.

The correct play was to stop at the 1. Bradshaw said he meant to do it,
but it seems to me he stopped and then deliberately went into the end
zone anyways.

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 8:47 PM, gtech1 wrote:

> LOL. He just gave you all the numbers and you just say "ah, bull, I don't
> believe it." Let's try this again: this year there were 1207 extra
> points attempted in NFL games. 7 were missed. The FG attempt here
> would've been the same as an extra point. 1200/1207 = 99.4%. The
> Patriots would've gotten the ball back at around their 25 or 30 yard line
> with time for one play, which would've had to be a touchdown. I don't
> know if anyone has ever run any stats for the % chance a team has of
> scoring a 70 yard TD on one play when the other team knows all they have
> to do is prevent a TD on that one play, but I'd be surprised if the chance
> is even 1%. So basically if Bradshaw DOESN'T score the TD, the Giants
> have at least a 98.5% chance to win the game.
>
> Instead the Patriots got the ball back with a minute left. Are you
> saying that they had less than a 1.5% chance to score a TD?

the chances the us will defacto default on its debt are ZERO ... it's
never happened!!!

we're talking high pressure win or lose the superbowl kick, not a fucking
extra point. learn to think before talking further about this subject
with me.

mo_ntresor

----- 

[bratt]

On Feb 6 2012 9:21 PM, BillB wrote:

> On 2/6/2012 6:02 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > Talk about being a racist - a city can't be great because it's 40% black?
>
> Not if you are overcome by anxiety and criss-crossing the street every
> time you see one.

One?

You said it, not me. You are a bigoted pig - learn to live with it.

> > It was pointed out to you that you would have to be an idiot to walk
> > straight into a group of gang looking youths regardless of color.
>
> lol "gang looking youths" = black

I have more fear of a gang of white homies than black kids.

> Who do you think you are trying to kid?

Tell us again about how you would knock Will to the ground and take away
his gun. I'm sure someone missed it.

Big Brave Bigoted BillB asswipe

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

______________________________________________________________________ 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 6 2012 7:02 PM, bratt wrote:

> > > talk about twisting what was said - and I don't believe anyone agreed
with
> > > you.
> >
> > Agreed with me about what? I don't remember what his *exact* words were.
> > All I know is that they amounted to him admitting he is a gigantic pussy.
> >
> > One minute mo is trying to tell us what a great place Chicago is, and
> > the next he's telling us how he has to criss-cross the street because
> > black teenagers are so dangerous (the city is close to 40% black). Does
> > this make any sense to you?
>
> Talk about being a racist - a city can't be great because it's 40% black?
>
> It was pointed out to you that you would have to be an idiot to walk
> straight into a group of gang looking youths regardless of color. Tell
> us again how brave you are and how you would take that gun away from Will.
> That one really got a chuckle out of us
>
> IDIOT

billb's saw norbit three times. he knows black fellas!

mo_ntresor

----- 

[mo_ntresor]

the broncos made the same idiotic mistake as the giants did in a superbowl
against the packers. all either team has to show for it is a world
championship.

here's an automatica chipshot for a win (OR LOSS) in the playoffs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FOTeWUjHIo

you take the sure 4 point lead, or your an idiot jock who thinks he's
clever.

mo_ntresor

---- 

[VegasJerry]

I had the same feelings. He was considering his personal stats (number of
TDs) for his next contract. Had the Pats caught that last pass at the end
of the game, it would have affected his next contract in a different way.

Jerry

--- 

[Mossingen]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1a0d0465-e054-47cf...@k3g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 5, 5:21 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> That's a little harsh. Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga. A mediocre
> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by
> selling
> milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.

As I mentioned in my post that has not posted yet, she was just
starting out when Popinjay was just starting out. I liked her 80s
look. That girl was hot.

Hey James, seriously, did you run out and buy the issue of Penthouse
when she was in it? I wonder whatever happened to my copy. It would
probably be worth some money now. I think I'll go check under my
mattress.

_________________________


Of course I went out and bought it (I thought it was Playboy, though?), even
though I never really found Madonna to be all that attractive.

On the voice thing, her's is OK, but I hear bar bands and lounge acts here
in OKC with just as good vocals. Madonna isn't famous because her talent is
one in a million (like Celine for example), but because she is (or at least
was back in the 80s) a genius at being provacative and edgy, putting on a
show, and marketing herself to the max. She is probably on par with Trump
in terms of business acumen.

Lady Gaga does the same thing. You ever seen Lady Gaga or heard her songs?
She's a plain-looking woman with a decent, but not special voice (shit, her
back-up singers can sing better than she can). But, she's turned herself
into a mega-star by pure force of will and energy. I admire both of them,
but rarely listen to their music.

[phlash74]

The Broncos' situation was different - the game was tied at that point
(24-24 before the Packers let Terrell Davis score from the 1 yard line on
first and goal). The worst case scenario for them was probably overtime,
because even if Green Bay drove and scored a touchdown, they likely would
kick the PAT and not go for 2. They had a lot less to lose by taking the
free TD and not burning the clock.

And the only reason the Giants' touchdown was "sure" was because...stay
with me here...the Patriots ALLOWED them to score. Why do you think they
did that, mo_ron? Because THEIR best chance to win the game was to get the
ball back to their offense with a minute left, one timeout, and 80 yards
to go for a game winning touchdown, NOT hoping for a bad snap or the
kicker to shank a 20 yard field goal. Since the Pats' best chance to win
involved allowing the Giants to score a TD, it naturally follows that the
Giants' best chance to win was bleeding the clock, forcing the Pats to use
their final timeout, then kick a 20 yard field goal with about 10-15
seconds left. Had the Pats tried to stop Bradshaw and tackled him at say
the 3 yard line, I can guarantee you the very next play call would be a
kneel down in the center of the field by Eli, then the Giants would have
called their last timeout with one second on the play clock and sent Tynes
out for a 21 yard field goal try.

Now, for the coup de gras, here's the Giants' offensive coordinator, Kevin
Gilbride, in the postgame press conference (there's an ad before the video
starts):
http://www.giants.com/media-vault/videos/SBXLVI-Postgame-Kevin-Gilbride/b23e3f5d-1e86-45c1-ab2d-4cdcdfc90eeb

The money quote comes at 0:35 of the video:
"Now, once we got to midfield, now we can throw it underneath and run it
and feel like we had a very good chance to get ourselves set up to ***kick
the field goal***. We were just trying to set up to fie...***run off all
the time*** and then ***kick the field goal*** to win the game, and then,
then ***they surprised us***. Ahmad tried to, you know, ***tap himself
down***, but then he rolled in the endzone they (the refs) didn't give it
to him."

(emphasis and parenthetical observation mine)

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

---- 

[RazzO]

Please don't spoil the game for me. Thanks. I have it TVO'ed and intend to
watch it this weekend.

wooohoooo. go Pats!!!!

RazzO n' Vegas

---- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 7 2012 9:49 AM, phlash74 wrote:

> > the broncos made the same idiotic mistake as the giants did in a superbowl
> > against the packers. all either team has to show for it is a world
> > championship.
> >
> > here's an automatica chipshot for a win (OR LOSS) in the playoffs:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FOTeWUjHIo
> >
> > you take the sure 4 point lead, or your an idiot jock who thinks he's
> > clever.
>

why would i care what either team wanted or intended? their perception
has nothing to do with equity. in the nfl, they play three down football
and punt on fourth down; they almost never go for two. i guess in your
world that constitutes brilliant strategy.

guaranteed four point lead with under a minute to play and one of the
league's toughest d's on the field, i'll take it every time. letting the
season ride on a snap, blocks, and a kicker with no second chances, no
thanks.

mo_ntresor

--- 

[zox625]

You're not thinking clearly nor read the long post from Fifth-Down. 99%
and 88% are the GIANTS winning chances. Thus 99% is better than 88% so you
should run out the clock and kick the field goal. Brady would have 12%
chance to complete the touchdown drive in 57 seconds.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 7 2012 12:28 PM, zox625 wrote:

> > LOL. you think this down the ball for a field goal idea was invented
> > yesterday? 88% to score a touchdown in the superbowl with 55 seconds
> > left? dream on. pure idiot shit. you guys aren't thinking at all.
>
> You're not thinking clearly nor read the long post from Fifth-Down. 99%
> and 88% are the GIANTS winning chances. Thus 99% is better than 88% so you
> should run out the clock and kick the field goal. Brady would have 12%
> chance to complete the touchdown drive in 57 seconds.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 

i misread the thread and made a mistake. those percentages for a giant's
win are invented nonsense.

mo_ntresor

------- 

[zox625]

OK, I'll bite... What numbers would you attach to the chances to A) kick a
20-yard field goal and B) complete a touchdown drive with 1 timeout and 57
seconds after receiving a kickoff?

------ 

[FL Turbo]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:27:43 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 5:21 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's a little harsh.  Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga.  A mediocre
>> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by selling
>> milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.
>
>
>As I mentioned in my post that has not posted yet, she was just
>starting out when Popinjay was just starting out. I liked her 80s
>look. That girl was hot.
>
>Hey James, seriously, did you run out and buy the issue of Penthouse
>when she was in it? I wonder whatever happened to my copy. It would
>probably be worth some money now. I think I'll go check under my
>mattress.

Was that the issue where she showed off her armpit hair?

I always thought she was kinda skanky.

[gtech1]

You know what, I've changed my mind about this thread. I give you a solid
9.5 on the troll meter. Very nice.

-------- 

[gtech1]

He's not gonna answer you, I guarantee.

---- 

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:23:51 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> That's a little harsh.  Madonna is my generation's Lady Gaga.  A mediocre
>> vocal talent who worked her ass off in the entertainment business by selling
>> milquetoast pop songs to teenaged girls.
>
>

>Mediocre vocal talent? Are you kidding me? She has an incredible
>voice.

When you say "she", are you referring to Madonna or Lady Gaga? Lady
Gaga has an exceptional voice. She's also a very, very good
songwriter. Most people don't realize that Lady Gaga was a
successful songwriter before she became known as a singer.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:02:15 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 8:48 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 5:43 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I think Madonna is a great self-promoter who took an ok voice, only
>> > above-average looks and some songwriting skill and made herself into a
>> > super-star.
>>
>> > --
>> > Will in New Haven
>>
>> I can't believe you guys think her voice is just "ok".  I think it's
>> fantastic.
>
>There are just too many singers with better pipes. "Good" might be
>fairer than "OK" but she just doesn't have one of the best voices.
>Which makes her accomplishments even more admirable.

How do you define "best"? Do you think Jerry Garcia had a good
voice?

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:50:19 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Lady Gaga does the same thing. You ever seen Lady Gaga or heard her songs?
>She's a plain-looking woman with a decent, but not special voice (shit, her
>back-up singers can sing better than she can). But, she's turned herself
>into a mega-star by pure force of will and energy. I admire both of them,
>but rarely listen to their music.

That's just not true. Lady Gaga has a great voice. And she's a
very, very good songwriter. As I mentioned previously, she was
successful as a songwriter before she even had a record deal as a
singer.

I think a lot of people look at artists like Madonna and Gaga, see the
showmanship (showwomanship?), and automatically dismiss the music as
being lightweight. But these artists are really, really good at what
they do. The style may not appeal to you, but trust me, those songs
are not easy to write. Or to sing.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:52:39 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Romo's a loser. Nothing can be done about that. He and Eli are probably
>the same in terms of talent (reading defenses, accuracy, arm strength,
>etc.), but Romo makes plays and looks good in October then chokes, whereas
>Eli sleepwalks through the season until it counts.

Eli hardly sleepwalked through this past season. He was the 2nd
highest rated passer in the NFC. But his biggest strength is that he
shines under pressure. Not only in the big games, but in the 4th
quarter of any game. He won 7 games with 4th quarter comeback drives
this year, including the Super Bowl. Heck, that's even better than
Tebow!

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:27:40 -0800, arseniccollection <g...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 2/6/2012 19:47, gtech1 wrote:
>> LOL. He just gave you all the numbers and you just say "ah, bull, I don't
>> believe it." Let's try this again: this year there were 1207 extra
>> points attempted in NFL games. 7 were missed. The FG attempt here
>> would've been the same as an extra point. 1200/1207 = 99.4%. The
>> Patriots would've gotten the ball back at around their 25 or 30 yard line
>> with time for one play, which would've had to be a touchdown. I don't
>> know if anyone has ever run any stats for the % chance a team has of
>> scoring a 70 yard TD on one play when the other team knows all they have
>> to do is prevent a TD on that one play, but I'd be surprised if the chance
>> is even 1%. So basically if Bradshaw DOESN'T score the TD, the Giants
>> have at least a 98.5% chance to win the game.
>>
>> Instead the Patriots got the ball back with a minute left. Are you
>> saying that they had less than a 1.5% chance to score a TD?
>
>
>I think he's just being obstinate for the sake of argument. Yeah, with
>the SB on the line, the kicker may choke up a little, but not by a lot
>especially inside a domed stadium.

Except that Tynes has a history of success in that type of situation.
It was his kick under pressure that put the Giants in the Super Bowl.
Twice. This year and also in 2008. And those two kicks were much
longer than the chippie he would have had to win the SB. One was a
47-yarder.

[Clave]

"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6h27j7lpp08e8lhjd...@4ax.com...

<...>

> The style may not appeal to you, but trust me, those songs
> are not easy to write. Or to sing.

Not to minimize it, but it *is* a lot easier if you're recording in a studio
and able to do lots of takes.

That said, I don't believe she sang a single note during that show. The
lip-synching was pretty obvious during the first song, and I don't see any
reason for her not to have done the whole show that way.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:25:34 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>you take the sure 4 point lead, or your an idiot jock who thinks he's
>clever.

Yep, Belichick *and* Coughlin are both idiots, and you're a football
genius. What do they know? They're only future Hall of Fame NFL
coaches.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:25:47 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>guaranteed four point lead with under a minute to play and one of the
>league's toughest d's on the field, i'll take it every time. letting the
>season ride on a snap, blocks, and a kicker with no second chances, no
>thanks.

LOL. The Giants' defense was *26th* in the NFL overall, and *29th*
against the pass. And they'd be facing a sure-shot Hall of Fame
quarterback who'd thrown for over 5,000 yards during the season with a
minute on the clock and a timeout to work with.

As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And
those who do are idiots, according to you.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:10:35 -0800, "gtech1"
<duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote:

>You know what, I've changed my mind about this thread. I give you a solid
>9.5 on the troll meter. Very nice.

That's not it. Mo-ron is just plain stupid.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:17:35 -0800, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>
>One minute mo is trying to tell us what a great place Chicago is, and

Chicago? You mean that place that ranked #6 as the worst city in the
US to live in?

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:26:49 -0800, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>On Feb 6 2012 9:21 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 6:02 PM, bratt wrote:
>>
>> > Talk about being a racist - a city can't be great because it's 40% black?
>>
>> Not if you are overcome by anxiety and criss-crossing the street every
>> time you see one.
>
>One?
>
>You said it, not me. You are a bigoted pig - learn to live with it.

Um, he was reporting what mo-ron said.

[bratt]

Mo said Chicago was 40% black. Mo said Chicago is a great city. B-BillB
said it can't be a great city because it is 40% black.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

--- 

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 4:07 AM, bratt wrote:

> Mo said Chicago was 40% black. Mo said Chicago is a great city. B-BillB
> said it can't be a great city because it is 40% black.

IF you are so afraid of black people that you criss-cross the street
every time you see a black teenager. Why are you such a liar?

[bratt]

which has been discussed many times here and proven that you are an idiot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

On Feb 9 2012 6:28 AM, BillB wrote:

How can Vancouver be such a great city if you can't even walk in certain
parts of it? Why would you avoid those areas? Doesn't seem like it could
be a very great city.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

----- 

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 4:44 AM, bratt wrote:

> which has been discussed many times here and proven that you are an idiot.

All you do is lie.

Now that you mention it though, it would be hard to imagine a great city
in the US that is 40% black. Given the centuries of brutal, vicious
racism against African-Americans in the US that continues to this day,
any such city is bound to have miles and miles of slums, high
unemployment, high crime, and a host of other social problems.

Of course, if a Canadian city was 40% black, it would be a completely
different story. It would likely be a very desirable location, highly
sought after for its diversity. For example, Vancouver has to be close
to 40% Asian, but has nowhere near the social problems of a Chicago or a
Detroit. It is treasured for its diversity. The whole teabagger
mentality is largely absent in Canadian cities.

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 4:48 AM, bratt wrote:

> How can Vancouver be such a great city if you can't even walk in certain
> parts of it?

Uh, there is no part of Vancouver you can't walk in. There might be
places someone like mo would be afraid of, but he's terrified of his own
shadow.

> Why would you avoid those areas?

What areas? I don't avoid any areas. The worst area in Vancouver is the
Downtown Eastside, and I've walked around there at 3am without the
slightest apprehension. I can't remember the last time I heard about a
murder occurring there.

>Doesn't seem like it could
> be a very great city.

But it is a great city. We've already been over all this. Are you stupid?

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 5:08 AM, BillB wrote:

>I can't remember the last time I heard about a
> murder occurring there.

According to this map, there were three homicides in the Downtown
Eastside in the last three years.

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/features/homicide/map.html

Chicago had 40....in January.

[bratt]

On Jan 13 2012 7:08 AM, BillB wrote:

If you hate poor people (and who doesn't) you can avoid the very worst
of it and the spillover by staying off Hastings St. between Clark and
Cambie. I know that's a big cushion, but if take that one little
precaution, you may be able to enjoy your entire stay in Vancouver
without seeing a single person poorer <blacker> than you.

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 5:58 AM, bratt wrote:
> On Jan 13 2012 7:08 AM, BillB wrote:
>
> If you hate poor people (and who doesn't) you can avoid the very worst
> of it and the spillover by staying off Hastings St. between Clark and
> Cambie. I know that's a big cushion, but if take that one little
> precaution, you may be able to enjoy your entire stay in Vancouver
> without seeing a single person poorer<blacker> than you.

And when you read that, you somehow interpreted it as me saying you
can't walk in that area?

Seriously, how far did you make it in school?

I said (sarcastically) that if you hate poor people, you can avoid that
area. Was that really so difficult for your pea brain to understand?

[Mossingen]

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
news:D7MYq.17309$%17....@newsfe06.iad...

I have no problem at all with the original artist lip-synching his/her own
songs. Live music never sounds as good as the recording. It seems that at
live concerts the tempo of the songs are increased and the vocals can never
catch up with the music. It irritates me.

When bands are good enough to record a hit single, why don't they listen to
what they recorded and sing it that way live? The version that fans like is
the version they recorded, not the speeded up, bastardized version they do
at concerts with drum/guitar solo inserts and jacked-up lyrics. The singer
is hyped up and usually just screaming into the microphone rather than
singing the song as it should be sung. It's like the singer doesn't realize
that he/she has a microphone and thinks he/she has to actually sing loud
enough for the audience to hear.

I think this post belongs in my pet-peeve thread.

[bratt]

Don't even start with the education etc. I have quite a bit that I don't
feel the need to brag about. I don't think that education defines a
person, nor wealth, nor IQ. I think that work ethics and morals are what
define a person, something you have a hard time comprehending.

I think that Vancouver is a great city. I think that Chicago is a great
city. That was not what I was referring to till you decided to bring up
race.

There is no way to interpret "Chicago can't be a great city because it's
40% black" except to call the author a racist, which you have shown so
many times in the past.

You think you are cute to twist your words to fit your mood, but it ain't
working. You claim sarcasm but only after you are called out on your
thoughts. You are a racist bigoted pig.

I am done with this conversation. If you reply, I will not answer. I am
not running away, nor dodgeting (Jerry's word). I am just done with
trying to explain reality to you

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 8:08 AM, bratt wrote:

> Don't even start with the education etc. I have quite a bit that I don't
> feel the need to brag about.

LOL! Sure you do. That's why you can't read and you work in a pizza
restaurant.

I don't think that education defines a
> person, nor wealth, nor IQ. I think that work ethics and morals are what
> define a person, something you have a hard time comprehending.

Nobody that lies as much as you do has any morals.

> I think that Vancouver is a great city. I think that Chicago is a great
> city. That was not what I was referring to till you decided to bring up
> race.
>
> There is no way to interpret "Chicago can't be a great city because it's
> 40% black" except to call the author a racist, which you have shown so
> many times in the past.

Again with the elementary school reading comprehension. I am really
having a hard time believing you are this stupid, so you are probably
just lying again. I was talking about mo's perspective, and I questioned
how he can regard it a great city when the city is 40% black and he
fears them so much he crosses the street when he sees a couple of
teenagers.

> You think you are cute to twist your words to fit your mood, but it ain't
> working. You claim sarcasm but only after you are called out on your
> thoughts.

You are the one twisting words. EVERYONE can see that.

>You are a racist bigoted pig.

Yes, the person who speaks out constantly for racial equality is the
racist bigot. What does that make you?

> I am done with this conversation.

You were done before you ever got started.

>If you reply, I will not answer.

Who gives a fuck? Go back harassing to Jerry.

I am
> not running away, nor dodgeting (Jerry's word). I am just done with
> trying to explain reality to you

Your "reality" of what I write? LOL!

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 7 2012 12:59 PM, zox625 wrote:

> > i misread the thread and made a mistake. those percentages for a giant's
> > win are invented nonsense.
>
> OK, I'll bite... What numbers would you attach to the chances to A) kick a
> 20-yard field goal and B) complete a touchdown drive with 1 timeout and 57
> seconds after receiving a kickoff?

unsolvable. if you want certainty, ask an idiot like pepe. he'll know!

my best guess is a four point lead with under a minute remaining is a
stronger position than kicking for a one or two point lead with a bit of
time left.

mo_ntresor

--- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 9 2012 5:07 AM, bratt wrote:

> > Um, he was reporting what mo-ron said.
>
> Mo said Chicago was 40% black. Mo said Chicago is a great city. B-BillB
> said it can't be a great city because it is 40% black.

my ankle biters are so desperate to score points, they'll even call one of
the world's greatest cities for the last century "bad". LOL!

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 5:47 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> my ankle biters are so desperate to score points, they'll even call one of
> the world's greatest cities for the last century "bad". LOL!

You're the one that's criss-crossing the street, not us.

[gtech1]

Do you not understand that these things can be studied and documented?
Can you explain why your "best guess" is what it is? I told you that
1200 out of 1207 extra points (i.e. the same thing as the FG the Giants
would've kicke) were converted this year. Do you dispute that?

________________________________________________________________________ 

[arseniccollection]

On 2/9/2012 19:05, gtech1 wrote:
> Do you not understand that these things can be studied and documented?
> Can you explain why your "best guess" is what it is? I told you that
> 1200 out of 1207 extra points (i.e. the same thing as the FG the Giants
> would've kicke) were converted this year. Do you dispute that?

He's just pulling your chain. Presumably, as an options trader (or
whatever) he knows about Expected Values. Or not.

[Iceman]

"arseniccollection" <g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mY%Yq.74610$en3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

I don't know how many times I've wondered "what the fuck does this guy
actually trade, and how the hell does he make a living at it?"

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 8:42 PM, Iceman wrote:

> I don't know how many times I've wondered "what the fuck does this guy
> actually trade, and how the hell does he make a living at it?"

Had you bought into his specific picks in 2008 when he was urging
everyone that it was the time to pile into equities...you still don't
have all your money back. But that's still one hell of a lot better than
if you had followed his earlier advice about shorting oil, in which case
you already would have been bankrupted.

[arseniccollection]

On 2/9/2012 05:58, bratt wrote:
> On Jan 13 2012 7:08 AM, BillB wrote:
>
> If you hate poor people (and who doesn't) you can avoid the very worst
> of it and the spillover by staying off Hastings St. between Clark and
> Cambie. I know that's a big cushion, but if take that one little
> precaution, you may be able to enjoy your entire stay in Vancouver
> without seeing a single person poorer<blacker> than you.

Yeah, that area is filled with druggies and the homeless, but it is not
dangerous in the sense of core areas of American cities (see: Oakland,
International Avenue).

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 7:05 PM, gtech1 wrote:

> Do you not understand that these things can be studied and documented?
> Can you explain why your "best guess" is what it is? I told you that
> 1200 out of 1207 extra points (i.e. the same thing as the FG the Giants

> would've kicked) were converted this year. Do you dispute that?

I think he's saying that this was a pressure situation in which you'd
expect no better than 1196/2007 from a professional kicker. Either that
or he's saying that he knows nothing about football, and once again he
regrets opening his big mouth and sticking his foot in it.

By the way, I'm going by memory here, but I think if Belichucklehead
would have clued in sooner (like, when I did), it would have been more
like Brady with 2 minutes to play and two time outs. It certainly seemed
as though the Giants hadn't clued in yet at that point either, and were
really trying to score. But like Gisele said, if Brady's receivers
aren't going to catch balls that hit them in the hands, it hardly makes
any difference what he does or how much time he has.

[BillB]

On 2/9/2012 9:25 PM, arseniccollection wrote:

> Yeah, that area is filled with druggies and the homeless, but it is not
> dangerous in the sense of core areas of American cities (see: Oakland,
> International Avenue).

You're right, it's not particularly dangerous, but I bet mo and susan
would be criss-crossing like crazy!

[bratt]

B-BillB would stroll through, unarmed, and if challenged smack them down
and take away their guns. He is one tough dude.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

------ 

[BillB]

On 2/10/2012 3:53 AM, bratt wrote:

> B-BillB would stroll through, unarmed, and if challenged smack them down
> and take away their guns. He is one tough dude.

Actually, I do stroll through there unarmed at any time of the day or
night, and I have for decades. Doesn't worry me a bit. They don't have
guns. They have knives and HIV infected needles.

I've never had a problem. When I'm wearing my Daytons I have 8" and
120lbs on most of them. I'm just not what you'd call a prime target for
street violence. Mo would have to wear an adult diaper to walk around
there at night.

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 9 2012 8:05 PM, gtech1 wrote:

> Do you not understand that these things can be studied and documented?
> Can you explain why your "best guess" is what it is? I told you that
> 1200 out of 1207 extra points (i.e. the same thing as the FG the Giants
> would've kicke) were converted this year. Do you dispute that?

LOL
.. and you still haven't finished the game. in fact, you haven't even
gotten to the "extra point" yet, have you? please stop pretending like
you know the answer to this.

mo_ntresor

---