cnnsi power rankings
Sam Monk
[apologies if this has been posted already. the story is dated
yesterday]
cnnsi has come out with their power rankings . . Either they are
stoned, or the rest of the world is stoned. GB is TENTH, behind
the b**rs in the NFCN, and behind the rams, b**rs, iggles, 9ers,
and those people from dallas in the NFC.
WTF?!?!?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/preview/news/2002/07/24/drz_rankings/
Harry
news:37606467.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
You missed his opening comments... and his first three pretty much say
it all...
These are my arguments for not doing the Power Rankings before the
camps open:
1) Much too early. I mean, most of the No. 1 picks aren't even signed
yet.
2) Doesn't mean anything at this date. And if it doesn't mean
anything, why do it?
3) Exposes me to more ridicule than usual.
Scott Henrichs
Sam Monk wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sam Monk
says...
well, the fact that it's early goes without saying. and
yes, preseason prediction are notoriously inaccurate. but this
guy is way out of whack with everything else I've seen. he goes
on to imply -- strongly -- that he may have the Packers over-
rated at #10 :
I just don't know about this team. Hardy Nickerson at MLB? Possibly, but I doubt
it. All three wideouts gone, replaced by Terry Glenn and ??? Their winning
tradition puts them in the top 10, but if they slip, I wouldn't be surprised.
so, once again, WTF !?!
Dave Wallen
Now we'll see how much the packer fans who defended Dr. Z for last week's
picks agree with him.
After all, said curls, ralph, and others.."Dr. Z is a respected and listened
to football authority".
BWAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sp...@spike.com
wrote:
Refer to my thoughts on the subject from yesterday.
sp...@spike.com
wrote:
"Sports Illustrated" asked writer Paul Zimmerman (a.k.a. Dr. Z) where
the 1972 Miami Dolphins rank among the top single-season teams of all
time. Notice that the 1971 Dallas Cowboys (who won a Super Bowl) did
not finish higher than the 1962 Green Bay Packers (who did not win a
Super Bowl). He listed them accordingly:"
Yep, that was "Johnny Todd Blood's" post from last week.
Replies just from that thread:
"you're right dave, his opinion counts for as much as your.
unfortunately, his is read by millions of people, and millions of
people will quote him as a knowledgeable source." - Harry
"He's still being read and quoted by millions... and, based on the
fact that he's still writing for the same people, must be pretty good"
- Harry
"Dr. Z actually knows something about football, and when he picks the
five best teams of all time there's some authority behind his
selections." - Ralph
What a bunch of pinheaded propaganda putas.
TwinCityBear
wrote:
>
Looks right on to me. Bear could have been a notch or two higher,
Pack a notch or two lower, but close enough.....
Looks like there are respected writer out there who don't give much
credit to the 'fluke' theory.....
JK
You punks aren't going anywhere without a QB and you know it. BTW,
expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
Harry
news:mv90kugfd7l3p8ee9...@4ax.com...
Yup. And I'll take his opinion for what it is.. his opinion. We've got an
entire season to prove him wrong, or right. No big deal.
Harry
Sure... as if the discussion in the boyz group is more on target. We're all
homers for our respective teams.
TwinCityBear
> BTW,
>expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
Absolutely..... but expect him to have Urlacher cleat marks all over
his face down in Memorial stadium.
John Heim
news:3d4030b7...@news.goldengate.net:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/preview/news/2002/07/24/
> Looks like there are respected writer out there who don't give much
> credit to the 'fluke' theory.....
Respected? I don't know about that.
But it's beside the point. Sure, some you-yous will pick the B**rs. But
there's no doubt most experts are picking the Pack? Why? Because they all
believe the 2001 B**rs season was a fluke.
The fact that nearly everybody thinks it was a fluke doesn't *prove* it was
a fluke. But in your heart, you know it was.
Dave Wallen
JK <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:78e0ku05hg9oqi2se...@4ax.com...
Yes, Favre. the "best QB in the NFL" , even though he was surrounded by a
cast of players picled by non other then the "great talent evaluator" Ron
Wolf, has just as many Super Bowl rings as Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady.
SpooRL
</A> (TwinCityBear)
>Absolutely..... but expect him to have Urlacher cleat marks all over
his face down in Memorial stadium.
Dream on...actually Urlacher is a clean player. He's out to tackle guys, not
hurt them.
Spoo
TwinCityBear
No, I'd say he's out to hurt them with a clean tackle.....
Thomas R. Shannon
What astounds me is that they have the Cowboys 8th. Putting NE first
is just stupid. I wouldn't have even done that after the Super Bowl.
Tom S.
--
Quote of the Day for July 20, 2002
Honesty is a good thing, but it is not profitable to its possessor
unless it is kept under control.
-- Don Marquis
Thomas R. Shannon
> You punks aren't going anywhere without a QB and you know it. BTW,
> expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
He can have it. He can play there while the Bears play the rest of
you at U of I.
James
news:m3znwfm...@12-250-239-44.client.attbi.com...
He makes some good points about the packers. They have a completely new WR
corp, and aged MLB. If everything goes perfect, GB will be fine, but if not,
look out. Dallas could be anywhere between 30 and 8 like he has them. Dallas
qill have a pretty good defense this year possibly.
SpooRL
</A> (TwinCityBear)
>No, I'd say he's out to hurt them with a clean tackle.....
He had a chance to inflict some damage on Favre on a blitz at Lambeau last
December, but obviously opted to set him down fairly gently. And he'll probably
last longer in the NFL for it, because guys won't be out to chop him good in
retaliation.
Spoo
JK
Shiat! Favre has never taken shit from ANYONE and he won't be about
to start by taking any from Urlacher either. Besides, with better
weapons at his disposal, Brett will punish teams who rely too much on
blitzes.
JK
Oh really? Then maybe you should learn a little more about the
players on your own team. It is NOT his personality to try to hurt
people. I've seen in a couple of in-depth interviews and he's just
not the type. His goal is to make the tackle and make it a sure
tackle, not to risk a miss by trying to hit people as hard as he can.
He reminds me MUCH more of Ray Nitschke (RIP) than dirty players like
Dick Butkus or Jack Lambert.
JK
wrote:
>> You punks aren't going anywhere without a QB and you know it. BTW,
>> expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
>
>Yes, Favre. the "best QB in the NFL" , even though he was surrounded by a
>cast of players picled by non other then the "great talent evaluator" Ron
>Wolf, has just as many Super Bowl rings as Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady.
You have trouble following the flow of conversations, don't you?
John J O'Donnell
"TwinCityBear" <Twinci...@football.fan> wrote in message
news:3d404343...@news.goldengate.net...
A Midsummer Night's Dream!!! But I understand. Ya'll are so
desperate, fantasy is all that's left.
If you saw last yr's games, Urlacher was decleated more than
he cleated. In fact, he was the 'invisible man.' Favre had him
spinning like a top with draws and misdirections, and was
sacked just 3 x in 59 pass/atts.
Pleasant dreams!
Jack
Dave Wallen
You have trouble figuring out the reference? Hint: Whaen someone says " you
punks aren't going anywhere without a QB", and I bring up the fact that the
last two SB winners QB's (both questionable) have the same number of rings
as the supposed "best qb in the nfl". You don't think that is addressing the
point?
SpooRL
HREF="mailto:jac...@spacey.net">jac...@spacey.net</A>
>Favre had him
spinning like a top with draws and misdirections
Oh come on. The Packers manhandled the Bores pretty well, but 37 points in two
games isn't exactly a pounding. Urlacher's pic on Favre at Lambeau was pretty
sweet looking. I'd give my left nut to have a guy that good at MLB wearing
green and gold. Instead, we get "Hardly" Nickerson and "Project Boy" Marshall.
Sorry to interject so much adult realism into the teen trash talk thread here,
but geeze louise already...
Spoo
JK
wrote:
>
>JK <n...@way.com> wrote in message
>news:h4t1kuk92ocpnd95p...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:37:11 -0500, "Dave Wallen" <t2e...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> You punks aren't going anywhere without a QB and you know it. BTW,
>> >> expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
>> >
>> >Yes, Favre. the "best QB in the NFL" , even though he was surrounded by a
>> >cast of players picled by non other then the "great talent evaluator" Ron
>> >Wolf, has just as many Super Bowl rings as Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady.
>>
>> You have trouble following the flow of conversations, don't you?
>
>You have trouble figuring out the reference? Hint: Whaen someone says " you
>punks aren't going anywhere without a QB", and I bring up the fact that the
>last two SB winners QB's (both questionable) have the same number of rings
>as the supposed "best qb in the nfl". You don't think that is addressing the
>point?
>
No, it's not because the Bares still lack a QB. Try to follow along,
Jr.
John J O'Donnell
"SpooRL" <spo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020726132906...@mb-co.aol.com...
Thanks for the adult realism, but frankly smug doesn't become you.
37 points may not be a pounding, but how about 654 yds of total
offense, 267 rushing by Green alone, who owned the Bears LB's
in those games. IMO Urlacher should have shown more, particularly
with Washington and Traylor occupying the blockers and plugging
the gaps. I agree he has talent and potential, but don't enshrine
him just yet. Don't sell the "Project Boy" short either. Check out
Pelini's comments under the LB link on the JS Online site. You
might learn something.
BTW I like your PISTOL PETE persona better.
Thomas R. Shannon
> He makes some good points about the packers. They have a completely new WR
> corp, and aged MLB. If everything goes perfect, GB will be fine, but if not,
> look out.
I tend to believe Mortenson had it closer to right when he had them
third.
The Eagles are terribly underrated everywhere. At least this
guy had them at 7 but they really deserve closer to 3.
> Dallas could be anywhere between 30 and 8 like he has them. Dallas
> qill have a pretty good defense this year possibly.
I have serious doubts about that offense. Frankly, I don't see Carter
as the answer and the other guy from Stanford might be good but he's
still a rookie. And the defense won't dominate like it will need to
if that's the case, I don't think. 8 sounded high to me but we'll
see.
James
I think we will find, as Favre has already shown, that he can play with any
3 WRs, and still do well.
Dave Wallen
No, it's because you can't seem to follow a train.
Dave Wallen
James <jstadin...@THISfrii.com> wrote in message
news:3d41e695$0$88624$7586...@news.frii.net...
So THAT'S why when the packers missed the playoffs in 99 and 00 everyone
blamed Freeman!
Wake up, dude. I think you'll find, when history records this decade, the
saying will be "Favre did well when he had good WR's, but when Wolf and
Sherman let the good ones go, Favre was shown to be a beneficiary of the
system he worked in, and a mediocre QB"
mike
wrote:
>
You need to wake up. Your statement above is no more correct than
saying that Aikman was a mediocre QB and only benefitted from the
talent on the Cowboys and couldn't produce otherwise. Both statements
are myopic and ignorant.
SpooRL
>Don't sell the "Project Boy" short either. Check out
Pelini's comments under the LB link on the JS Online site. You
might learn something.
We'll all learn more when he actually plays.
>BTW I like your PISTOL PETE persona better.
Well, it's PARANOID, PEARL HARBOR, OR PACK ATTACK, but, I do too.
Spoo
Minister92
the Terry Glenn trade...and then a week later he says the Pack "didn't
do their homework."
JK <n...@way.com> wrote in message news:<78e0ku05hg9oqi2se...@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:11:47 GMT, Twinci...@football.fan
> (TwinCityBear) wrote:
>
> >On 25 Jul 2002 07:14:27 -0700, Sam Monk <sm...@postandcourier.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>[apologies if this has been posted already. the story is dated
> >> yesterday]
> >>
> >>cnnsi has come out with their power rankings . . Either they are
> >>stoned, or the rest of the world is stoned. GB is TENTH, behind
> >>the b**rs in the NFCN, and behind the rams, b**rs, iggles, 9ers,
> >>and those people from dallas in the NFC.
> >>
> >>WTF?!?!?
> >>
> >>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/preview/news/2002/07/24/drz_rankings/
> >>
> >
> >
> >Looks right on to me. Bear could have been a notch or two higher,
> >Pack a notch or two lower, but close enough.....
> >
> >Looks like there are respected writer out there who don't give much
> >credit to the 'fluke' theory.....
>
John J O'Donnell
"John J O'Donnell" <jac...@spacey.net> wrote in message
news:3d41c...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Mea culpa. Two immaterial errors. Green's rushing total was 218 yds;
267 was team total. Persona liked better should read Pearl Harbor
Pete.
Sorry.
Jack <:-1
SpooRL
>Mea culpa. Two immaterial errors. Green's rushing total was 218 yds;
267 was team total. Persona liked better should read Pearl Harbor
Pete.
No problem. And I'm just defending Urlacher for the hell of it. I mean, I like
the guy, but he isn't the second coming of Jesus or anything. And I think
"Hardly Nickerson" is a great jab, and I wanted to use it. And yes, the Packers
DID maul the Bears last year--I'll take 2-0 and 37-19 any time, though I'm
still spoiled by the fact that Green Bay outscored them 73-9 in 1994 and 61-16
in 1996 (if memory serves precisely).
Spoo
SpooRL
>but when Wolf and Sherman let the good ones go
Which good ones did they let go?
*Maybe* they should have re-signed Rison for a year...who else?
Spoo
CrackerDog
> the guy, but he isn't the second coming of Jesus or anything.
True. Jesus was much better on crossing patterns, tackled death and looked
much better in sandals.
--
┊俩k犬兄g
P Cameron
"TwinCityBear" <Twinci...@football.fan> wrote in message
Oh this is rich... the utmost in typical sports fans from Minnesota. Follow
that bandwagon and hold on tight... you may fall off any time.
Ralph Hickok
>
> "SpooRL" <spo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020726132906...@mb-co.aol.com...
>> From: "John J O'Donnell" <A
>> HREF="mailto:jac...@spacey.net">jac...@spacey.net</A>
>>
>> >Favre had him
>> spinning like a top with draws and misdirections
>>
>> Oh come on. The Packers manhandled the Bores pretty well, but 37
>> points in
> two
>> games isn't exactly a pounding. Urlacher's pic on Favre at Lambeau
>> was
> pretty
>> sweet looking. I'd give my left nut to have a guy that good at MLB
>> wearing green and gold. Instead, we get "Hardly" Nickerson and
>> "Project Boy"
>
> Thanks for the adult realism, but frankly smug doesn't become you.
> 37 points may not be a pounding, but how about 654 yds of total
> offense, 267 rushing by Green alone, who owned the Bears LB's
> in those games. IMO Urlacher should have shown more, particularly
> with Washington and Traylor occupying the blockers and plugging
> the gaps. I agree he has talent and potential, but don't enshrine
> him just yet.
The thing that surprised me about Urlacher, whom I'd seen only rarely
before, was that he's not a very good tackler, or at least he wasn't
against the Packers, nor against the Eagles. He flies all over the field
and he's often in the right place at the right time, but then he blows the
tackle all too often. Green got a lot of yardage after Urlacher could have
had him at or near the LOS. Deuce Staley didn't have any big runs, IIRC,
but he had several gains of 4 or 5 yards that should have been 0 or 1 if
Urlacher had wrapped him up properly.
One thing I like about Nickerson is that he rarely misses a tackle. When he
zeroes in on a guy, that guy is almost always down. In that respect, he's a
big upgrade over Bernardo, who also missed a lot of tackles, often
resulting in long gains for the bad guys. Nickerson is also a much better
cover LB, and he never takes a down off. Bernardo seemed to take several
games off every season. He'd look great one week and then he'd be invisible
the next week.
SpooRL
HREF="mailto:rhi...@earthlink.net">rhi...@earthlink.net</A>
>The thing that surprised me about Urlacher, whom I'd seen only rarely
before, was that he's not a very good tackler, or at least he wasn't
against the Packers, nor against the Eagles. He flies all over the field
and he's often in the right place at the right time, but then he blows the
tackle all too often.
I think he needs some extra weight. When I saw him in person, I was surprised
by how tall and lanky he is. I don't know what he weighs, though.
Spoo
sp...@spike.com
wrote:
>The thing that surprised me about Urlacher, whom I'd seen only rarely
>before, was that he's not a very good tackler, or at least he wasn't
>against the Packers, nor against the Eagles.
Yeah, he only had 10 tackles and a sack vs. the Eagles in the
playoffs. Staley averaged 3.7 per so I can understand why you think he
ran all over the Bears. lol
In two games vs. the Packers. . . 12 solo tackles, 6 assists, a sack
and an INT.
>One thing I like about Nickerson is that he rarely misses a tackle.
And the 1,436 tackles he was creditted with last year pretty much
proves it!
sp...@spike.com
TwinCityBear
Minneapolis / St Paul area.
And awaiting shipment of my tix to the MNF Chi / Gb game.
TwinCityBear
a fluke tells me you're either in denial, or don't know football as well
as you think you do.
John Heim wrote:
>
> Twinci...@football.fan (TwinCityBear) wrote in
> news:3d4030b7...@news.goldengate.net:
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2002/preview/news/2002/07/24/
> > Looks like there are respected writer out there who don't give much
> > credit to the 'fluke' theory.....
>
> Respected? I don't know about that.
>
> But it's beside the point. Sure, some you-yous will pick the B**rs. But
> there's no doubt most experts are picking the Pack? Why? Because they all
> believe the 2001 B**rs season was a fluke.
>
> The fact that nearly everybody thinks it was a fluke doesn't *prove* it was
> a fluke. But in your heart, you know it was.
TwinCityBear
he's too far off from optimal level.
Mark Rudolph
SpooRL wrote:
I'm pleased to have Nickerson for year - instructing Marshall.,
And let Marshall take the job in 2003. Marshall is bigger (by far)
and faster (significantly)
Give him a chance to learn to direct the defense (1 year) and he'll
be great. The move to get a Nickerson for a year is brilliant, and moreso
without Leroy - Hardy will take some of that slack on defense.
TwinCityBear
but, as I've seen written about him before, while most LB's with good
speed can get to the spot to make the tackle, Urlacher has the speed to
get to the spot to make a 'hit'. And Ulacher *does* make hits. I
watched him all of last year, and about the *only* time I say him pull
up was on that Favre sack. And from what I can tall, he does want to
hit the ballcarrier as hard as he can, but cleanly.
That's just the way I see it. I'm sure he'd rather not hurt anyone, but
he's not going to pull up to keep from doing it.
SpooRL wrote:
>
> From: <A HREF="mailto:Twinci...@football.fan ">Twinci...@football.fan
> </A> (TwinCityBear)
>
> >No, I'd say he's out to hurt them with a clean tackle.....
>
> He had a chance to inflict some damage on Favre on a blitz at Lambeau last
> December, but obviously opted to set him down fairly gently. And he'll probably
> last longer in the NFL for it, because guys won't be out to chop him good in
> retaliation.
>
> Spoo
Mark Rudolph
Dave Wallen wrote:
>
> Yes, Favre. the "best QB in the NFL" , even though he was surrounded by a
> cast of players picled by non other then the "great talent evaluator" Ron
> Wolf, has just as many Super Bowl rings as Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady.
sociopath
Mark Rudolph
Dave Wallen wrote:
> JK <n...@way.com> wrote in message
> news:h4t1kuk92ocpnd95p...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:37:11 -0500, "Dave Wallen" <t2e...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> You punks aren't going anywhere without a QB and you know it. BTW,
> > >> expect Favre to continue to OWN Soldier Field yet again this year.
> > >
> > >Yes, Favre. the "best QB in the NFL" , even though he was surrounded by a
> > >cast of players picled by non other then the "great talent evaluator" Ron
> > >Wolf, has just as many Super Bowl rings as Trent Dilfer and Tom Brady.
> >
> > You have trouble following the flow of conversations, don't you?
>
> You have trouble figuring out the reference? Hint: Whaen someone says " you
> punks aren't going anywhere without a QB", and I bring up the fact that the
> last two SB winners QB's (both questionable) have the same number of rings
> as the supposed "best qb in the nfl". You don't think that is addressing the
> point?
sociopath - you're using this group to milk medication from your shrinks.
It's OK with me - I understand.
Mark Rudolph
TwinCityBear wrote:
> In my heart, I know the Bears are back. That you continue to call them
> a fluke tells me you're either in denial, or don't know football as well
> as you think you do.
They are back - but not 13-3 again. More like a respectable 10-6,
which gets them maybe 2nd place, but more likely 3rd place, in the North.
P Cameron
Never mind.
"TwinCityBear" <twinci...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3D42F352...@aol.com...
Mark Rudolph
Dave Wallen wrote:
>
> Wake up, dude. I think you'll find, when history records this decade, the
> saying will be "Favre did well when he had good WR's, but when Wolf and
> Sherman let the good ones go, Favre was shown to be a beneficiary of the
> system he worked in, and a mediocre QB"
This is the sort of paranoid delusion that medication seems to pre-empt.
It makes one optimistic about the efficacy of phamacological elements
prescribed
in matters related to intimate emotional allegiance and repulsion.
Dave Wallen
Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
news:3D437602...@total.net...
>
>
> Dave Wallen wrote:
>
> >
> > Wake up, dude. I think you'll find, when history records this decade,
the
> > saying will be "Favre did well when he had good WR's, but when Wolf and
> > Sherman let the good ones go, Favre was shown to be a beneficiary of the
> > system he worked in, and a mediocre QB"
>
> This is the sort of paranoid delusion that medication seems to pre-empt.
Is that anything like "As long as we have Favre we'll be in the
playoffs"????
Mark Rudolph
Dave Wallen wrote:
who said that?
Obviously any team also needs an OL, a D, a RB, and some receivers and TEs.
Which we have in abundance this year, plus the great QB. We'll be in the SB if
we
get HFA, and I won't bet against GB even if we play StL or TB away for the
championship.
Dave, you should consider medication - besides being pleasant it really
does clear up delusions - I used to be plagued by direct mental communication
from sources who claimed to be from the Pleides. After a regimen of
anti-depressant
medication I now know that the source of these communications is not the Pleides
at all - it is Zeta-Reticuli. My silly depressive-induced delusion. I have now
rejoined
normal society. I even wear the occassional black Italian suit by Gianfranco
Ferre,
and the tie - around my ankle - I hate ties - signature of servitude to one
master
or another. Do you wear ties? Could this forced servitude be the reason for
your
pathological aggression against the Packers !?
Dave Wallen
>
>
> Dave Wallen wrote:
>
> > Mark Rudolph <mrud...@total.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D437602...@total.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Wallen wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wake up, dude. I think you'll find, when history records this
decade,
> > the
> > > > saying will be "Favre did well when he had good WR's, but when Wolf
and
> > > > Sherman let the good ones go, Favre was shown to be a beneficiary of
the
> > > > system he worked in, and a mediocre QB"
> > >
> > > This is the sort of paranoid delusion that medication seems to
pre-empt.
> >
> > Is that anything like "As long as we have Favre we'll be in the
> > playoffs"????
>
> who said that?
About 450 newsgroup regulars in 1994,1995,1996,1997 and 1998
Of course, that talk stopped in 2000.
> Obviously any team also needs an OL, a D, a RB, and some receivers and
TEs.
> Which we have in abundance this year, plus the great QB. We'll be in the
SB if
> we
> get HFA, and I won't bet against GB even if we play StL or TB away for the
> championship.
If everything were to go the packers way, you could be right. I don't think
the odds of 15 nfl team's planes crashing is too good, though.
>
> Dave, you should consider medication - besides being pleasant it really
> does clear up delusions - I used to be plagued by direct mental
communication
> from sources who claimed to be from the Pleides.
Not to pick nits, but it's Pleiades ;-)
>After a regimen of
> anti-depressant
> medication I now know that the source of these communications is not the
Pleides
>
> at all - it is Zeta-Reticuli.
Well, that would be fine, if there were a constellation named reticuli. That
would be the sixth brightest star. (see, too much astronomy in my blood, so
I would end up arguing with the aliens.
> My silly depressive-induced delusion. I have now
> rejoined
> normal society. I even wear the occassional black Italian suit by
Gianfranco
> Ferre,
> and the tie - around my ankle - I hate ties - signature of servitude to
one
> master
> or another. Do you wear ties? Could this forced servitude be the reason
for
> your
> pathological aggression against the Packers !?
I wore ties for 10 years. I've been mostly contracting for 6 years now, and
companies have relaxed, so I don't bother. Do you know there was once a
study that proved wearing a tie cut oxygen flow to the brain and lowered IQ
by 10 points? (seriously). I always figured that explained away lawyers,
bankers, and insurance salesmen.
>
>
Dustan Setner
news:3d44b677$0$1429$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> > anti-depressant
> > medication I now know that the source of these communications is not the
> Pleides
> >
> > at all - it is Zeta-Reticuli.
>
> Well, that would be fine, if there were a constellation named reticuli.
That
> would be the sixth brightest star. (see, too much astronomy in my blood,
so
> I would end up arguing with the aliens.
dAvE, I can see it now. You'd be the first one to come into contact with
life from outer space, and the first thing you'd do is try to score some
intergalactic reefer!
Dave Wallen
Dustan Setner <dse...@NOnew.SPAMrr.com> wrote in message
news:b%219.3089$xf1.1...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Already been done. I forget the author, but aliens come down and trade
knowledge for coke.
>
>
Ralph Hickok
> dAvE, I can see it now. You'd be the first one to come into contact
> with life from outer space, and the first thing you'd do is try to
> score some intergalactic reefer!
>
>
And then they'd decide there's no intelligent life here, so they'd go away
and leave us alone for another million years or so.
Dave Wallen
Ralph Hickok <rhi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns925A711602312r...@207.217.77.24...
I have a letter from the aliens, Ralph, that says they are not really
aliens!
John Heim
news:3D42F42D...@aol.com:
> In my heart, I know the Bears are back. That you continue to call
> them a fluke tells me you're either in denial, or don't know football
> as well as you think you do.
First of all, dufus, you're not supposed to top-post. Put your comments
at the END of the message -- and cut out the portions of the text that
is no longer relevant. Learn how to post or shut up.
Secondly, it's easy for you to SAY I'm in denial yet *I'VE* offered
evidence to support my point of view. Most sportswriters are picking
the Packers to win the division. Even most B**r fans aren't supporting
the very coaching staff that got them there last year (see the
controversy over the Shoop contract extension).
Like I said, that doesn't *PROVE* last year was a fluke. But the proof
will come soon enough once the season starts.
Ursa Major
"John Heimmler" <john...@nospam.tds.net> wrote in message
news:Xns925B6EFF8647Cjo...@144.92.9.81...
> First of all, dufus, you're not supposed to top-post. Put your comments
> at the END of the message -- and cut out the portions of the text that
> is no longer relevant. Learn how to post or shut up.
You used the word "is" instead of "are" in the above paragraph, John.
Because of that your post is not grammatically correct. You should learn
proper grammar or SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU USENET NAZI.
Spike
<john...@nospam.tds.net> wrote:
>TwinCityBear <twinci...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:3D42F42D...@aol.com:
>
>> In my heart, I know the Bears are back. That you continue to call
>> them a fluke tells me you're either in denial, or don't know football
>> as well as you think you do.
>
>First of all, dufus, you're not supposed to top-post. Put your comments
>at the END of the message -- and cut out the portions of the text that
>is no longer relevant. Learn how to post or shut up.
Oh, look at the usenet cop.
>Secondly, it's easy for you to SAY I'm in denial yet *I'VE* offered
>evidence to support my point of view. Most sportswriters are picking
>the Packers to win the division.
Bullshit. You've offered no evidence. Just SAYING it isn't "evidence",
Heim, and I don't care if you say it 345,276,499,834 times.
For a guy who is supposedly educated, you sure come across as a boob
of the most moronic proportions.
Spike
dave
"Spike" <spik...@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:65kdkucfbphq50kc2...@4ax.com...
Spike
SPIKEY SPOOEY
SpooRL
>WHAT'S A TOP POST?
>SPIKEY SPOOEY
It's what you're not EVER supposed to do here.
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt--Lifetime Whiner from Hell
John Heim
DOH!
spo...@aol.com (SpooRL) wrote in news:20020801211432.02058.00000821@mb-
fe.aol.com: