Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(Dead) rubber
257 views
Skip to first unread message
Guy Barry
Jan 27, 2013, 4:02:22 AM1/27/13
to
The cricket match currently being played between England and India is being
described as a "dead rubber" - it's the last in a series of five, and India
have already won three, so it will have no effect on the overall series
result.
I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
--
Guy Barry
described as a "dead rubber" - it's the last in a series of five, and India
have already won three, so it will have no effect on the overall series
result.
I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
--
Guy Barry
Garrett Wollman
Jan 27, 2013, 1:47:13 PM1/27/13
to
In article <z26Ns.389$oK3...@fx29.fr7>,
consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
match), which never made any sense to me, but I finally stumbled
across an explanation: it's a reference to a pencil eraser,
specifically the sort that is mounted on the ferrule at the
non-writing end of the pencil. I suppose the analogy is that you
sharpen the pencil as you fill in the scorecards for each game, and by
the (end of the) last game there's no pencil bit left, only the
eraser.
This is probably a folk etymology, but it's the one that I've heard.
OED doesn't provide an etymology, although it strongly suggests
derivation from the rubber n. senses mentioned above.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
>contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
>of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
>seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
>mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
>this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
In professional baseball, teams will often play three or four games
>I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
>contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
>of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
>seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
>mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
>this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
match), which never made any sense to me, but I finally stumbled
across an explanation: it's a reference to a pencil eraser,
specifically the sort that is mounted on the ferrule at the
non-writing end of the pencil. I suppose the analogy is that you
sharpen the pencil as you fill in the scorecards for each game, and by
the (end of the) last game there's no pencil bit left, only the
eraser.
This is probably a folk etymology, but it's the one that I've heard.
OED doesn't provide an etymology, although it strongly suggests
derivation from the rubber n. senses mentioned above.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Message has been deleted
Mark Brader
Jan 28, 2013, 3:44:37 AM1/28/13
to
Garrett Wollman:
"Lewis":
> ...it comes from Bridge where the third (and last) hand is "the
> rubber game".
Third (and necessarily last) *game*, that is. A game may consist of
any number of hands (deals) from one up, depending on what happens.
And a rubber is the best of three games, so there's only a third game
if each pair wins one of the first two; but the term "rubber game"
is still limited to the third game.
> In baseball it is used to refer to the deciding game in a series.
I tend to only watch baseball during the playoffs, so I haven't come
across this usage in reference to regular-season games. Is the
term only used when the series is tied going into the final game?
That's not what Garrett implied.
> The bridge term comes from the earlier game whist, and came to whist
> from somewhere else, and dates from Elizabethan English, if not earlier.
The OED Online gives the definition as "A set of games (usually
three or five), the last of which is played to decide between the
opponents when each has won a equal number; (hence) the winning of
more than half the individual games by one side. Also in early use:
the final decisive game (obs.)." Specific games or sports referred to
in the definitions include tennis, cricket, bowls [i.e. lawn bowling],
whist, bridge, cribbage, and backgammon.
By the way, the earliest cite to mention a specific game or sport
is from 1594 and reads: "But if thou shalt vouchsafe to recall so
vnskilfull an archer againe into the fieldes, I may perhaps winne
a bet, that shall pay for the losse of a rubber." But it isn't
clear from that whether the "rubber" also refers to archery, or
implicitly to some other game or sport that they were betting on.
In 1599 there's one that refers to "bowles".
There are also a couple of baseball cites that imply that the answer
to my question above is "yes".
--
Mark Brader 1. remove ball from package. 2. place in hand.
m...@vex.net 3. call dog by name. 4. throw ball.
Toronto -- directions seen on rubber ball package
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> In professional baseball, teams will often play three or four games
>> consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
>> physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
>> commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
>> match), which never made any sense to me...
>> consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
>> physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
>> commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
"Lewis":
> ...it comes from Bridge where the third (and last) hand is "the
> rubber game".
Third (and necessarily last) *game*, that is. A game may consist of
any number of hands (deals) from one up, depending on what happens.
And a rubber is the best of three games, so there's only a third game
if each pair wins one of the first two; but the term "rubber game"
is still limited to the third game.
> In baseball it is used to refer to the deciding game in a series.
I tend to only watch baseball during the playoffs, so I haven't come
across this usage in reference to regular-season games. Is the
term only used when the series is tied going into the final game?
That's not what Garrett implied.
> The bridge term comes from the earlier game whist, and came to whist
> from somewhere else, and dates from Elizabethan English, if not earlier.
The OED Online gives the definition as "A set of games (usually
three or five), the last of which is played to decide between the
opponents when each has won a equal number; (hence) the winning of
more than half the individual games by one side. Also in early use:
the final decisive game (obs.)." Specific games or sports referred to
in the definitions include tennis, cricket, bowls [i.e. lawn bowling],
whist, bridge, cribbage, and backgammon.
By the way, the earliest cite to mention a specific game or sport
is from 1594 and reads: "But if thou shalt vouchsafe to recall so
vnskilfull an archer againe into the fieldes, I may perhaps winne
a bet, that shall pay for the losse of a rubber." But it isn't
clear from that whether the "rubber" also refers to archery, or
implicitly to some other game or sport that they were betting on.
In 1599 there's one that refers to "bowles".
There are also a couple of baseball cites that imply that the answer
to my question above is "yes".
--
Mark Brader 1. remove ball from package. 2. place in hand.
m...@vex.net 3. call dog by name. 4. throw ball.
Toronto -- directions seen on rubber ball package
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Guy Barry
Jan 28, 2013, 4:32:00 AM1/28/13
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnkgc7a5....@mbp55.local...
>No, this is completely incorrect, it comes from Bridge where the third
>(and last) hand is "the rubber game". In baseball it is used to refer to
>the deciding game in a series. The bridge term comes from the earlier
now have three definitions of "rubber" in this context:
(1) a series of (usually three or five) games of which one player needs to
win a majority to win the contest;
(2) any one game in such a series; or
(3) the deciding game in such a series.
I agree that it's unlikely to be connected with the British word for an
eraser (or with the elastic substance).
--
Guy Barry
>No, this is completely incorrect, it comes from Bridge where the third
>(and last) hand is "the rubber game". In baseball it is used to refer to
>the deciding game in a series. The bridge term comes from the earlier
>game whist, and came to whist from somewhere else, and dates from
>Elizabethan English, if not earlier.
For me the deciding game in a series is called "the decider". That means we
>Elizabethan English, if not earlier.
now have three definitions of "rubber" in this context:
(1) a series of (usually three or five) games of which one player needs to
win a majority to win the contest;
(2) any one game in such a series; or
(3) the deciding game in such a series.
I agree that it's unlikely to be connected with the British word for an
eraser (or with the elastic substance).
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Jan 28, 2013, 4:59:19 AM1/28/13
to
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:47:13 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <z26Ns.389$oK3...@fx29.fr7>,
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
>>contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
>>of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
>>seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
>>mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
>>this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
>
>In professional baseball, teams will often play three or four games
>consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
>physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
>commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
>match), which never made any sense to me, but I finally stumbled
>across an explanation: it's a reference to a pencil eraser,
>specifically the sort that is mounted on the ferrule at the
>non-writing end of the pencil. I suppose the analogy is that you
>sharpen the pencil as you fill in the scorecards for each game, and by
>the (end of the) last game there's no pencil bit left, only the
>eraser.
It is used in other sports as well.
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <z26Ns.389$oK3...@fx29.fr7>,
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm always a little confused by the use of the term "rubber" in similar
>>contexts. The dictionary definition is "a series of games of which two out
>>of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play", which
>>seems to be the meaning in bridge, but in some sports it seems to be used to
>>mean an individual match in the series (e.g. in Davis Cup tennis). How did
>>this change in meaning come about? The origin of the term is obscure.
>
>In professional baseball, teams will often play three or four games
>consecutively at the same location, to reduce the costs and
>physiological stress of traveling. It is fairly common for sports
>commentators to refer to the final game as "the rubber game" (or
>match), which never made any sense to me, but I finally stumbled
>across an explanation: it's a reference to a pencil eraser,
>specifically the sort that is mounted on the ferrule at the
>non-writing end of the pencil. I suppose the analogy is that you
>sharpen the pencil as you fill in the scorecards for each game, and by
>the (end of the) last game there's no pencil bit left, only the
>eraser.
An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus New
Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a dead rubber --
whoever won the last match would make no difference to who won the series.
I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is possible
that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
http://www.mcaces.com/rubber_scoring.htm
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Garrett Wollman
Jan 28, 2013, 12:10:37 PM1/28/13
to
In article <slrnkgc7a5....@mbp55.local>,
which usually (being in the middle of the season) doesn't decide
anything.
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>No, this is completely incorrect, it comes from Bridge where the third
>(and last) hand is "the rubber game". In baseball it is used to refer to
>the deciding game in a series.
No, it's used (as I said) to refer to the *final* game of a series,
>No, this is completely incorrect, it comes from Bridge where the third
>(and last) hand is "the rubber game". In baseball it is used to refer to
>the deciding game in a series.
which usually (being in the middle of the season) doesn't decide
anything.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
Jan 28, 2013, 12:31:17 PM1/28/13
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnkgdd56....@ananke.local...
>
>In message <g_GdnRaEZZXop5vM...@vex.net>
>and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
No, it's an overly complicated version of whist (and other trick-taking
games). The aim of hearts is to lose tricks, not win them.
--
Guy Barry
>
>In message <g_GdnRaEZZXop5vM...@vex.net>
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>> And a rubber is the best of three games, so there's only a third game
>> if each pair wins one of the first two; but the term "rubber game"
>> is still limited to the third game.
>
>So, I was sort of close for someone who only knows that bridge exists
>> And a rubber is the best of three games, so there's only a third game
>> if each pair wins one of the first two; but the term "rubber game"
>> is still limited to the third game.
>
>and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
No, it's an overly complicated version of whist (and other trick-taking
games). The aim of hearts is to lose tricks, not win them.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Jan 28, 2013, 12:36:35 PM1/28/13
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnkgdd81....@ananke.local...
>
>In message <kArNs.695$Qa1...@fx24.fr7>
That's how I would normally understand it (but see below).
It certainly is in Davis Cup tennis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Cup#Ties_and_rubbers
' As in other cup competitions tie is used in the Davis Cup to mean an
elimination (or knockout) round, rather than meaning a draw or when
competitors' scores are equal. In the Davis Cup, the word rubber means an
individual match. Thus, "tie" means a round, and "rubber" means a match.
In the annual World Group competition, 16 nations compete in 8 first-round
ties ("rounds"); the 8 winners compete in 4 quarter-final-round ties; the 4
winners compete in 2 semifinal-round ties; and the 2 winners compete in the
final round tie.
Each tie consists of 5 rubbers ("matches"), which are played in 3 days
(usually on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). The winner of the tie is the
nation which wins 3 or more of the 5 rubbers in the tie. On the first day,
the first 2 rubbers are singles, which are generally played by each nation's
2 best available singles players. On the second day, the doubles rubber is
played. On the third day, the final 2 rubbers are typically reverse singles,
in which the first-day contestants usually play again, but they swap
opponents from the first day's singles rubbers. However, in certain
circumstances, the team captain may replace one or two of the players who
played the singles on Friday by other players who were nominated for the
tie. For example, if the tie has already been decided in favour of one of
the teams, it is common for younger or lower-ranked team members to play the
remaining dead-rubbers in order for them to gain Davis Cup experience. '
It may be specific to that competition, as I haven't heard it anywhere else.
But the use of the term "dead rubber" (with which I started the thread)
suggests that meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
' Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
series, other than the number of matches won and lost.
The term is widely used in Davis Cup and Fed Cup tennis, as well as in
international cricket and field hockey series. '
--
Guy Barry
>
>In message <kArNs.695$Qa1...@fx24.fr7>
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> For me the deciding game in a series is called "the decider". That means
>> we
>> now have three definitions of "rubber" in this context:
>
>> (1) a series of (usually three or five) games of which one player needs
>> to
>> win a majority to win the contest;
>
>That is "a rubber"
>> For me the deciding game in a series is called "the decider". That means
>> we
>> now have three definitions of "rubber" in this context:
>
>> (1) a series of (usually three or five) games of which one player needs
>> to
>> win a majority to win the contest;
>
That's how I would normally understand it (but see below).
>
>> (2) any one game in such a series; or
>
>I don't think so.
>> (2) any one game in such a series; or
>
It certainly is in Davis Cup tennis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Cup#Ties_and_rubbers
' As in other cup competitions tie is used in the Davis Cup to mean an
elimination (or knockout) round, rather than meaning a draw or when
competitors' scores are equal. In the Davis Cup, the word rubber means an
individual match. Thus, "tie" means a round, and "rubber" means a match.
In the annual World Group competition, 16 nations compete in 8 first-round
ties ("rounds"); the 8 winners compete in 4 quarter-final-round ties; the 4
winners compete in 2 semifinal-round ties; and the 2 winners compete in the
final round tie.
Each tie consists of 5 rubbers ("matches"), which are played in 3 days
(usually on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). The winner of the tie is the
nation which wins 3 or more of the 5 rubbers in the tie. On the first day,
the first 2 rubbers are singles, which are generally played by each nation's
2 best available singles players. On the second day, the doubles rubber is
played. On the third day, the final 2 rubbers are typically reverse singles,
in which the first-day contestants usually play again, but they swap
opponents from the first day's singles rubbers. However, in certain
circumstances, the team captain may replace one or two of the players who
played the singles on Friday by other players who were nominated for the
tie. For example, if the tie has already been decided in favour of one of
the teams, it is common for younger or lower-ranked team members to play the
remaining dead-rubbers in order for them to gain Davis Cup experience. '
It may be specific to that competition, as I haven't heard it anywhere else.
But the use of the term "dead rubber" (with which I started the thread)
suggests that meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
' Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
series, other than the number of matches won and lost.
The term is widely used in Davis Cup and Fed Cup tennis, as well as in
international cricket and field hockey series. '
--
Guy Barry
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
Jan 28, 2013, 2:08:15 PM1/28/13
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnkgdhsm....@ananke.local...
>that this means "any one game in a series."
It means one match in a series of five.
>> Each tie consists of 5 rubbers ("matches")
>
>This is use 1); A rubber as a collection of games/sets/etc where it is
>'best of' to determine the winner. In this case, they are probably
>playing 'best of 3' where the first person to win 2 sets wins that match.
I think each match is three sets, but that's not important here. Each
country fields two players. What happens is that five separate tennis
matches are played over the weekend: two singles matches, one doubles match
and two so-called "reverse singles" matches (where the players swap
opponents). Each of those matches is known as a "rubber", even though it
would make more sense to me to call the whole thing a "rubber".
>Still, not an individual game as a rubber.
An individual *match* is termed a "rubber" in the Davis Cup. I know that
it's played as best of three sets, but so are most tennis matches, and
they're not called "rubbers".
>> The term is widely used in Davis Cup and Fed Cup tennis, as well as in
>> international cricket and field hockey series. '
>
>Yes, and as far as I know is completely unknown on this side of the
>Atlantic (or Pacific).
What do you mean, "this side of the Atlantic"? The Davis Cup is and always
has been an international competition. I believe it began as a challenge
between Britain and the US.
--
Guy Barry
>
>> It certainly is in Davis Cup tennis:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Cup#Ties_and_rubbers
>
>> ' As in other cup competitions tie is used in the Davis Cup to mean an
>> elimination (or knockout) round, rather than meaning a draw or when
>> competitors' scores are equal. In the Davis Cup, the word rubber means an
>> individual match. Thus, "tie" means a round, and "rubber" means a match.
>
>A match consists of many games and several sets, so I would disagree
>> It certainly is in Davis Cup tennis:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Cup#Ties_and_rubbers
>
>> ' As in other cup competitions tie is used in the Davis Cup to mean an
>> elimination (or knockout) round, rather than meaning a draw or when
>> competitors' scores are equal. In the Davis Cup, the word rubber means an
>> individual match. Thus, "tie" means a round, and "rubber" means a match.
>
>that this means "any one game in a series."
It means one match in a series of five.
>> Each tie consists of 5 rubbers ("matches")
>
>'best of' to determine the winner. In this case, they are probably
>playing 'best of 3' where the first person to win 2 sets wins that match.
I think each match is three sets, but that's not important here. Each
country fields two players. What happens is that five separate tennis
matches are played over the weekend: two singles matches, one doubles match
and two so-called "reverse singles" matches (where the players swap
opponents). Each of those matches is known as a "rubber", even though it
would make more sense to me to call the whole thing a "rubber".
>Still, not an individual game as a rubber.
An individual *match* is termed a "rubber" in the Davis Cup. I know that
it's played as best of three sets, but so are most tennis matches, and
they're not called "rubbers".
>> The term is widely used in Davis Cup and Fed Cup tennis, as well as in
>> international cricket and field hockey series. '
>
>Atlantic (or Pacific).
What do you mean, "this side of the Atlantic"? The Davis Cup is and always
has been an international competition. I believe it began as a challenge
between Britain and the US.
--
Guy Barry
Message has been deleted
John Varela
Jan 28, 2013, 2:30:23 PM1/28/13
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:31:17 UTC, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The aim of hearts is to lose tricks, not win them.
With one exception.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The aim of hearts is to lose tricks, not win them.
--
John Varela
R H Draney
Jan 28, 2013, 4:48:34 PM1/28/13
to
Guy Barry filted:
This business of explaining games by analogy to other games can only lead to
George Carlin's explanation of why tennis isn't a sport:
"Tennis is very trendy and very fruity, but it's not a sport. It's just a way to
meet other trendy fruits. Technically, tennis is an advanced form of Ping-Pong.
In fact, tennis is Ping-Pong played while standing on the table. Great concept,
not a sport.
In fact, all racket games are nothing more the derivatives of Ping-Pong. Even
volleyball is, technically, racketless team Ping-Pong played with an inflated
ball and raised net while standing on the table."
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
George Carlin's explanation of why tennis isn't a sport:
"Tennis is very trendy and very fruity, but it's not a sport. It's just a way to
meet other trendy fruits. Technically, tennis is an advanced form of Ping-Pong.
In fact, tennis is Ping-Pong played while standing on the table. Great concept,
not a sport.
In fact, all racket games are nothing more the derivatives of Ping-Pong. Even
volleyball is, technically, racketless team Ping-Pong played with an inflated
ball and raised net while standing on the table."
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Peter Moylan
Jan 28, 2013, 7:27:59 PM1/28/13
to
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mark Brader
Jan 29, 2013, 12:21:05 AM1/29/13
to
"Lewis":
> No one plays that except in Pride & Prejudice movies!
I've never seen any of these games played myself, but see "Types of
Whist" at <http://www.pagat.com/whist/whist.html>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Canadian seals deal with creditors"
m...@vex.net | --Globe & Mail, Toronto, July 1, 1997
>>> So, I was sort of close for someone who only knows that bridge exists
>>> and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
Guy Barry:
>>> and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
>> No, it's an overly complicated version of whist
"Lewis":
> No one plays that except in Pride & Prejudice movies!
I've never seen any of these games played myself, but see "Types of
Whist" at <http://www.pagat.com/whist/whist.html>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Canadian seals deal with creditors"
m...@vex.net | --Globe & Mail, Toronto, July 1, 1997
Guy Barry
Jan 29, 2013, 4:40:21 AM1/29/13
to
"R H Draney" wrote in message news:ke6rn...@drn.newsguy.com...
>"Tennis is very trendy and very fruity, but it's not a sport. It's just a
>way to
>meet other trendy fruits. Technically, tennis is an advanced form of
>Ping-Pong.
Which is another name for table tennis.
>"In fact, tennis is Ping-Pong played while standing on the table. Great
>concept,
>not a sport."
Table tennis is most certainly recognized as a sport:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Table_Tennis_Federation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_tennis_at_the_Summer_Olympics
--
Guy Barry
>"Tennis is very trendy and very fruity, but it's not a sport. It's just a
>way to
>meet other trendy fruits. Technically, tennis is an advanced form of
>Ping-Pong.
>"In fact, tennis is Ping-Pong played while standing on the table. Great
>concept,
>not a sport."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Table_Tennis_Federation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_tennis_at_the_Summer_Olympics
--
Guy Barry
Tony Cooper
Jan 29, 2013, 10:30:14 AM1/29/13
to
Snipping the speaker's identity could cause further confusion. Anyone
else seeing Carlin's name would instantly be alerted and not have to
check the meter.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Guy Barry
Jan 29, 2013, 11:00:03 AM1/29/13
to
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news:liqfg85tssterpduu...@4ax.com...
>Another irony meter misreading.
>
>Snipping the speaker's identity could cause further confusion. Anyone
>else seeing Carlin's name would instantly be alerted and not have to
>check the meter.
I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
--
Guy Barry
news:liqfg85tssterpduu...@4ax.com...
>Another irony meter misreading.
>
>Snipping the speaker's identity could cause further confusion. Anyone
>else seeing Carlin's name would instantly be alerted and not have to
>check the meter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
--
Guy Barry
Tony Cooper
Jan 29, 2013, 11:24:51 AM1/29/13
to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/george-carlin-religion-god
I rather imagine that many in the UK have heard of him.
James Hogg
Jan 29, 2013, 11:30:03 AM1/29/13
to
--
James
Guy Barry
Jan 29, 2013, 11:32:51 AM1/29/13
to
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
forgotten him. He seems very good, so maybe I'll give him another go.
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Jan 29, 2013, 3:12:13 PM1/29/13
to
Guy Barry filted:
Choose your era carefully...in his time he went from a slightly "off center"
standup comic, to a pioneer in observational humor, to a champion of free
speech, finally ending up as a cranky old coot....r
standup comic, to a pioneer in observational humor, to a champion of free
speech, finally ending up as a cranky old coot....r
Tony Cooper
Jan 29, 2013, 3:43:31 PM1/29/13
to
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:32:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
Topical stuff can be both biting and funny, but it doesn't age well.
A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>>
>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>>
>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/george-carlin-religion-god
>>
>>I rather imagine that many in the UK have heard of him.
>
>Actually I remember now - he did do some performances over here, and I'd
>forgotten him. He seems very good, so maybe I'll give him another go.
The problem with Carlin was that he did a lot of very topical stuff.
>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>>
>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>>
>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/george-carlin-religion-god
>>
>>I rather imagine that many in the UK have heard of him.
>
>Actually I remember now - he did do some performances over here, and I'd
>forgotten him. He seems very good, so maybe I'll give him another go.
Topical stuff can be both biting and funny, but it doesn't age well.
A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
Mike L
Jan 29, 2013, 5:58:48 PM1/29/13
to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:21:05 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"Lewis":
>>>> So, I was sort of close for someone who only knows that bridge exists
>>>> and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
>
>Guy Barry:
>>> No, it's an overly complicated version of whist
>
>"Lewis":
>> No one plays that except in Pride & Prejudice movies!
>
>I've never seen any of these games played myself, but see "Types of
>Whist" at <http://www.pagat.com/whist/whist.html>.
They still put on whist drives for fund-raising or village amusement
>"Lewis":
>>>> So, I was sort of close for someone who only knows that bridge exists
>>>> and that it's an overly complicated version of hearts.
>
>Guy Barry:
>>> No, it's an overly complicated version of whist
>
>"Lewis":
>> No one plays that except in Pride & Prejudice movies!
>
>I've never seen any of these games played myself, but see "Types of
>Whist" at <http://www.pagat.com/whist/whist.html>.
in Britain: I'm not a real card-player, but (or "so"?) they're good
fun.
--
Mike.
Message has been deleted
Tony Cooper
Jan 30, 2013, 12:05:09 AM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
>Why not? It's still the same list, 40 years later.
Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
"cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
in the cable show.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
"cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
in the cable show.
Guy Barry
Jan 30, 2013, 2:49:22 AM1/30/13
to
"R H Draney" wrote in message news:ke9ae...@drn.newsguy.com...
[George Carlin]
adoption). Here he is talking about religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk
--
Guy Barry
[George Carlin]
>Choose your era carefully...in his time he went from a slightly "off
>center"
>standup comic, to a pioneer in observational humor, to a champion of free
>speech, finally ending up as a cranky old coot....r
Maybe our closest equivalent was Dave Allen (actually Irish, but British by
>center"
>standup comic, to a pioneer in observational humor, to a champion of free
>speech, finally ending up as a cranky old coot....r
adoption). Here he is talking about religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk
--
Guy Barry
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jan 30, 2013, 9:44:49 AM1/30/13
to
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
Jan 30, 2013, 11:36:28 AM1/30/13
to
the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
An interesting comparison of styles is Allen on airplanes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBca1ixoEbg
and Carlin on airplanes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQBvOwY8xM
Guy Barry
Jan 30, 2013, 12:12:31 PM1/30/13
to
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news:gvhig8du0javcskp8...@4ax.com...
>Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
>the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
>started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
>off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
>different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
stand-up. I mainly remember him from his "Dave Allen at Large" shows during
the seventies, which at the time seemed really daring - he made fun of
things like the church that no one else had dared touch on television. Of
course it all seems rather tame now.
>An interesting comparison of styles is Allen on airplanes
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBca1ixoEbg
>
>and Carlin on airplanes
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQBvOwY8xM
very similar. Allen and Carlin could easily have swapped scripts.
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
Jan 30, 2013, 6:02:44 PM1/30/13
to
Steve Hayes:
> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus New
> Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a dead rubber --
> whoever won the last match would make no difference to who won the series.
>
> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is possible
> that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
"above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
*win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
--
Mark Brader | "...a paradox that threatens to sink the whole concept that
Toronto | football games can predict electoral events"
m...@vex.net | --Chris Wilson
> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus New
> Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a dead rubber --
> whoever won the last match would make no difference to who won the series.
>
> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is possible
> that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
"above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
*win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
--
Mark Brader | "...a paradox that threatens to sink the whole concept that
Toronto | football games can predict electoral events"
m...@vex.net | --Chris Wilson
Steve Hayes
Jan 30, 2013, 10:37:40 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:02:44 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Steve Hayes:
>> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus New
>> Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a dead rubber --
>> whoever won the last match would make no difference to who won the series.
>>
>> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is possible
>> that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
>
>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
>"above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
>*win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
>like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
>and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
>is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
>the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
>they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
It's a long time since I played bridge (something like 40 years), so I've
>Steve Hayes:
>> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus New
>> Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a dead rubber --
>> whoever won the last match would make no difference to who won the series.
>>
>> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is possible
>> that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
>
>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
>"above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
>*win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
>like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
>and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
>is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
>the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
>they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
forgotten the technicalities of scoring. But it was the first gave in which I
heard a series of games called a "rubber", so I think of the term as
originating there, though it probably doeswn't.
It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
hockey or baseball.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Tony Cooper
Jan 30, 2013, 11:49:41 PM1/30/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>hockey or baseball.
In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>hockey or baseball.
when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
five games.
Guy Barry
Jan 31, 2013, 2:28:56 AM1/31/13
to
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:K9Odnd1oPMoJO5TM...@vex.net...
>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
--
Guy Barry
news:K9Odnd1oPMoJO5TM...@vex.net...
>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
--
Guy Barry
Dr Nick
Jan 31, 2013, 2:47:36 AM1/31/13
to
grounds in front of different crowds. To plan all of this and then
cancel it and send the team home would be a bit odd.
And even matches that don't "count" have an impact. The recent English
win in one day cricket in India made the series result 3:2 to India
rather than 4:1 - that's quite a difference and was a result worth
cheering (even if all it really demonstrated was that every match in the
series went to the team that won the coin toss).
Mark Brader
Jan 31, 2013, 2:49:26 AM1/31/13
to
Steve Hayes:
If you mean, "I don't see how they got it wrong", I don't know what you
mean by "it". If you don't, I don't know what you mean.
--
Mark Brader | "He's suffering from Politician's Logic."
Toronto | "Something must be done, this is something, therefore
m...@vex.net | we must do it." -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
> The meaning of the term "dead rubber" was immediately obvious
> from the context in which it was used. I
> do't see hyow the got it wrong...
> from the context in which it was used. I
If you mean, "I don't see how they got it wrong", I don't know what you
mean by "it". If you don't, I don't know what you mean.
--
Mark Brader | "He's suffering from Politician's Logic."
Toronto | "Something must be done, this is something, therefore
m...@vex.net | we must do it." -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
Guy Barry
Jan 31, 2013, 3:03:53 AM1/31/13
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:d7pjg81dtoomkutg5...@4ax.com...
>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was
>used.
There's a subtlety here though. Does "dead rubber" refer to the match or
the series? Here's Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
"Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
series, other than the number of matches won and lost."
Note that "dead rubber" is here used to describe the match rather than the
series. But then you get:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/fine-finish-for-england-as-ian-bells-ton-brings-alive-dead-rubber-against-india-8468614.html
"This rubber may have been dead but a pitch alive with turn, bounce and
swing guaranteed the match was anything but."
This suggests that "dead rubber" refers to the entire series, which seems
more logical.
--
Guy Barry
news:d7pjg81dtoomkutg5...@4ax.com...
>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was
>used.
the series? Here's Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
"Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
series, other than the number of matches won and lost."
Note that "dead rubber" is here used to describe the match rather than the
series. But then you get:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/fine-finish-for-england-as-ian-bells-ton-brings-alive-dead-rubber-against-india-8468614.html
"This rubber may have been dead but a pitch alive with turn, bounce and
swing guaranteed the match was anything but."
This suggests that "dead rubber" refers to the entire series, which seems
more logical.
--
Guy Barry
Dr Nick
Jan 31, 2013, 3:16:47 AM1/31/13
to
is concerned, the rubber is dead so it's a "dead rubber match".
You used to be able to buy rubber matches from joke shops. I suppose
they were dead in that they wouldn't strike.
Peter Moylan
Jan 31, 2013, 7:51:12 AM1/31/13
to
On 31/01/13 03:36, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
A lot of successful comedians do this. Try watching Billy Connolly, for
> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
example. He can finish his original joke after a one-hour series of
wandering and nested digressions.
There must be something different about the audiences that promotes this
difference in style. When I was in the US I used to watch Benny Hill on
PBS, and it was totally different from watching the original Benny Hill.
(Which I'd already seen a few years earlier, of course.) A five-minute
joke from the original show would be cut up into a dozen sections, and
shown as separate items randomly interspersed with other chopped-up
items. You got the impression that it was designed for an audience with
a 5-second attention span.
The original English Benny Hill was funny. The PBS Benny was pathetic.
Well, no, that's the wrong word; but he wasn't very funny.
Peter Moylan
Jan 31, 2013, 7:56:04 AM1/31/13
to
On 31/01/13 18:28, Guy Barry wrote:
> I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
> an element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like
> as bad as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
Not being a sports fan myself, I don't know the answer to this. Do
> I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
> an element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like
> as bad as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
people who go to these matches go to watch the games, or just to find
out the result? If the latter, why don't they just stay home and find
out from the newspaper?
Guy Barry
Jan 31, 2013, 8:27:27 AM1/31/13
to
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:510a68c2$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
the end but all the digressions that led to it.
>There must be something different about the audiences that promotes this
>difference in style. When I was in the US I used to watch Benny Hill on
>PBS, and it was totally different from watching the original Benny Hill.
>(Which I'd already seen a few years earlier, of course.) A five-minute
>joke from the original show would be cut up into a dozen sections, and
>shown as separate items randomly interspersed with other chopped-up
>items. You got the impression that it was designed for an audience with
>a 5-second attention span.
I think that may have been partly because the original Benny Hill shows were
always one-hour specials, and didn't fit with the usual US format of a
series of half-hour shows. So they had to be chopped up to meet the demands
of the schedulers. There were also quite a lot of language-based jokes
which probably wouldn't have transferred very well.
>The original English Benny Hill was funny. The PBS Benny was pathetic.
>Well, no, that's the wrong word; but he wasn't very funny.
I was never a big fan of Benny Hill - I didn't like the characters he
portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
unacceptable now.
--
Guy Barry
>
>On 31/01/13 03:36, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
>> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
>> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
>> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
>> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
>
>A lot of successful comedians do this. Try watching Billy Connolly, for
>example. He can finish his original joke after a one-hour series of
>wandering and nested digressions.
Or Ronnie Corbett, where the point of the routine wasn't the corny joke at
>On 31/01/13 03:36, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
>> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
>> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
>> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
>> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
>
>A lot of successful comedians do this. Try watching Billy Connolly, for
>example. He can finish his original joke after a one-hour series of
>wandering and nested digressions.
the end but all the digressions that led to it.
>There must be something different about the audiences that promotes this
>difference in style. When I was in the US I used to watch Benny Hill on
>PBS, and it was totally different from watching the original Benny Hill.
>(Which I'd already seen a few years earlier, of course.) A five-minute
>joke from the original show would be cut up into a dozen sections, and
>shown as separate items randomly interspersed with other chopped-up
>items. You got the impression that it was designed for an audience with
>a 5-second attention span.
always one-hour specials, and didn't fit with the usual US format of a
series of half-hour shows. So they had to be chopped up to meet the demands
of the schedulers. There were also quite a lot of language-based jokes
which probably wouldn't have transferred very well.
>The original English Benny Hill was funny. The PBS Benny was pathetic.
>Well, no, that's the wrong word; but he wasn't very funny.
portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
unacceptable now.
--
Guy Barry
CT
Jan 31, 2013, 8:31:06 AM1/31/13
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Not being a sports fan myself, I don't know the answer to this. Do
> people who go to these matches go to watch the games, or just to find
> out the result? If the latter, why don't they just stay home and find
> out from the newspaper?
Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
> Not being a sports fan myself, I don't know the answer to this. Do
> people who go to these matches go to watch the games, or just to find
> out the result? If the latter, why don't they just stay home and find
> out from the newspaper?
happened?
--
Chris
Guy Barry
Jan 31, 2013, 8:31:27 AM1/31/13
to
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:510a69e6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
played at different grounds around the country. If the only chance you get
to watch a particular side is when it comes to your part of the country then
you're going to be a bit miffed if the match is cancelled. (Although people
seem to put on with it when matches end early, or when they're rained off.)
--
Guy Barry
>
>On 31/01/13 18:28, Guy Barry wrote:
>> I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
>> an element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like
>> as bad as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>Not being a sports fan myself, I don't know the answer to this. Do
>people who go to these matches go to watch the games, or just to find
>out the result? If the latter, why don't they just stay home and find
>out from the newspaper?
As Dr Nick has already pointed out, a cricket tour involves games being
>On 31/01/13 18:28, Guy Barry wrote:
>> I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
>> an element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like
>> as bad as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>Not being a sports fan myself, I don't know the answer to this. Do
>people who go to these matches go to watch the games, or just to find
>out the result? If the latter, why don't they just stay home and find
>out from the newspaper?
played at different grounds around the country. If the only chance you get
to watch a particular side is when it comes to your part of the country then
you're going to be a bit miffed if the match is cancelled. (Although people
seem to put on with it when matches end early, or when they're rained off.)
--
Guy Barry
Tony Cooper
Jan 31, 2013, 10:56:36 AM1/31/13
to
packages are for all seven games*, but the series is over when one
team wins four games.
This has happened four times since the 2000 series. The series has
run seven games three times in that span.
*Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
so there are ticket packages just for home games for each team that
are not for seven games.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Robin Bignall
Jan 31, 2013, 2:26:16 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:27:27 -0000, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I was never a big fan of Benny Hill - I didn't like the characters he
>portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
>slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
>unacceptable now.
But it wasn't then. At his best he was as popular and looked forward to
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I was never a big fan of Benny Hill - I didn't like the characters he
>portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
>slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
>unacceptable now.
as Morecambe and Wise. Towards the end of his career, possibly through
bad advice, his sketches became short and totally visual, no words at
all. I personally think they all flopped.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)
Robin Bignall
Jan 31, 2013, 2:31:05 PM1/31/13
to
been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
John Varela
Jan 31, 2013, 4:03:16 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
> The American baseball World Series is a "best of seven" series. Ticket
> packages are for all seven games*, but the series is over when one
> team wins four games.
>
> This has happened four times since the 2000 series. The series has
> run seven games three times in that span.
>
> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
> so there are ticket packages just for home games for each team that
> are not for seven games.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
Jan 31, 2013, 4:58:58 PM1/31/13
to
the end of the regular season whose outcome cannot possibly influence
the post-season matchups. Those are still played and are sometimes
described as "meaningless".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Society in every state is a blessing,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |but government, even in its best
Chicago (1964-1982) |state is but a necessary evil; in its
|worst state, an intolerable one.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Thomas Paine
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R H Draney
Jan 31, 2013, 5:00:52 PM1/31/13
to
Lewis filted:
>
>In message <ndahg816o9eblluid...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
>>> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
>>>> Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
>>>
>>>Why not? It's still the same list, 40 years later.
>
>> Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
>> "cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
>> in the cable show.
>
>That is splitting hairs. The same list still applies to broadcast
>television with the possible exception of 'tits' which I think I heard
>on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
>other 'free' cable channel.
>
>On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
Both "tits" and "piss" are now spread all over broadcast TV (the venue to which
the list must apply), as is "fart" (which Carlin added to his original list in
an update a few years later)....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>In message <ndahg816o9eblluid...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
>>> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
>>>> Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
>>>
>>>Why not? It's still the same list, 40 years later.
>
>> Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
>> "cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
>> in the cable show.
>
>That is splitting hairs. The same list still applies to broadcast
>television with the possible exception of 'tits' which I think I heard
>on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
>other 'free' cable channel.
>
>On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
Both "tits" and "piss" are now spread all over broadcast TV (the venue to which
the list must apply), as is "fart" (which Carlin added to his original list in
an update a few years later)....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Jan 31, 2013, 5:08:24 PM1/31/13
to
CT filted:
Depends what you told me was going to happen...if you said that the butler did
it, or the mismatched couple finally get together after all, I'd probably give
it a miss...if the spoiler you revealed was that Scarlett Johannson takes her
top off before playing the accordion, yes, I'd still want to see it for
myself....r
it, or the mismatched couple finally get together after all, I'd probably give
it a miss...if the spoiler you revealed was that Scarlett Johannson takes her
top off before playing the accordion, yes, I'd still want to see it for
myself....r
Garrett Wollman
Jan 31, 2013, 5:26:02 PM1/31/13
to
In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost>,
The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
-GAWollman
[1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
following. I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
-GAWollman
[1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
following. I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Tony Cooper
Jan 31, 2013, 5:39:39 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:39:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>>>>>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>>>>>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/george-carlin-religion-god
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I rather imagine that many in the UK have heard of him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I remember now - he did do some performances over here, and I'd
>>>>>forgotten him. He seems very good, so maybe I'll give him another go.
>>>
>>>> The problem with Carlin was that he did a lot of very topical stuff.
>>>> Topical stuff can be both biting and funny, but it doesn't age well.
not allowed on broadcast is splitting hairs. The same device brings
both to you. The difference between broadcast and cable is just a
matter of what number to enter in the remote.
There are a few people in the US who don't get both on their device,
just about everyone *could* have access to cable.
Personally, the words don't bother me as much as the bleeped out
version of the words on channels that show programs that include
profanity but don't allow it on the air. The bleeping disrupts the
pace.
What does bother me is what seems to be the over-use of "fuck". "Fuck"
doesn't offend me, but I refuse to believe that so many people use it
as often and as casually as some shows portray.
>The same list still applies to broadcast
>television with the possible exception of 'tits' which I think I heard
>on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
>other 'free' cable channel.
>
>On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <ndahg816o9eblluid...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
>>> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:32:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>In message <ndahg816o9eblluid...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6...@4ax.com>
>>> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
>>>>>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>>>>>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/george-carlin-religion-god
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I rather imagine that many in the UK have heard of him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I remember now - he did do some performances over here, and I'd
>>>>>forgotten him. He seems very good, so maybe I'll give him another go.
>>>
>>>> The problem with Carlin was that he did a lot of very topical stuff.
>>>> Topical stuff can be both biting and funny, but it doesn't age well.
>>>
>>>> A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
>>>> Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
>>>
>>>Why not? It's still the same list, 40 years later.
>
>> Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
>> "cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
>> in the cable show.
>
>That is splitting hairs.
I think it's the opposite. To say that this is allowed on cable, but
>>>> A fairly young person today might have trouble understanding that "The
>>>> Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" was ever relevant.
>>>
>>>Why not? It's still the same list, 40 years later.
>
>> Television is all shows on the tube. Just because a program is
>> "cable" doesn't mean it's not on television. The same device brings
>> in the cable show.
>
>That is splitting hairs.
not allowed on broadcast is splitting hairs. The same device brings
both to you. The difference between broadcast and cable is just a
matter of what number to enter in the remote.
There are a few people in the US who don't get both on their device,
just about everyone *could* have access to cable.
Personally, the words don't bother me as much as the bleeped out
version of the words on channels that show programs that include
profanity but don't allow it on the air. The bleeping disrupts the
pace.
What does bother me is what seems to be the over-use of "fuck". "Fuck"
doesn't offend me, but I refuse to believe that so many people use it
as often and as casually as some shows portray.
>The same list still applies to broadcast
>television with the possible exception of 'tits' which I think I heard
>on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
>other 'free' cable channel.
>
>On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
Tony Cooper
Jan 31, 2013, 5:42:21 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:58:58 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>hockey or baseball.
>>
>> In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>> when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>> five games.
>
>The closest thing to the "dead rubber" concept here would be games at
>the end of the regular season whose outcome cannot possibly influence
>the post-season matchups. Those are still played and are sometimes
>described as "meaningless".
In some sports, though, they are important because of the draft rank.
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>hockey or baseball.
>>
>> In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>> when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>> five games.
>
>The closest thing to the "dead rubber" concept here would be games at
>the end of the regular season whose outcome cannot possibly influence
>the post-season matchups. Those are still played and are sometimes
>described as "meaningless".
Also, they can be important to the players with incentive clauses. If
the clause provides a bonus for X number of X's, it doesn't make any
difference if the X's occur in meaningful or meaningless games.
Tony Cooper
Jan 31, 2013, 5:43:43 PM1/31/13
to
On 31 Jan 2013 21:03:16 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net>
>
>> so there are ticket packages just for home games for each team that
>> are not for seven games.
--
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
>> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
>> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
>
>> The American baseball World Series is a "best of seven" series. Ticket
>> packages are for all seven games*, but the series is over when one
>> team wins four games.
>>
>> This has happened four times since the 2000 series. The series has
>> run seven games three times in that span.
>>
>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>
>More like two-three-two, innit?
It never got that far in 2012. It was two-two.
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
>> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
>> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
>
>> The American baseball World Series is a "best of seven" series. Ticket
>> packages are for all seven games*, but the series is over when one
>> team wins four games.
>>
>> This has happened four times since the 2000 series. The series has
>> run seven games three times in that span.
>>
>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>
>More like two-three-two, innit?
>
>> so there are ticket packages just for home games for each team that
>> are not for seven games.
--
Peter Moylan
Jan 31, 2013, 7:05:28 PM1/31/13
to
On 01/02/13 05:39, Lewis wrote:
> That is splitting hairs. The same list still applies to broadcast
Australian TV in the 1970s, and which might even have had a "general
exhibition" rating. The words are from memory, because I can't find the
words on the web. That's the problem with those bits of prehistory that
happened before the invention of the WWW.
Foldera, folderee
Poor big tit in a tree
Lonely little tit
Needs another tit
So there can be three.
Then up jumps the farmer with his great big gun
Saying "these little tits give me the shiddle-dits"
And the gun went "bang"
And the tits went "clang"
As he shot the tree in the tits.
(What?)
... shot the tits in the tree.
Folderee
Foldetit.
> That is splitting hairs. The same list still applies to broadcast
> television with the possible exception of 'tits' which I think I heard
> on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
> other 'free' cable channel.
>
> On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
>
Here's a song from the Aunty Jack show, which was broadcast on
> on one show a few times, but it may have been something on TNT or some
> other 'free' cable channel.
>
> On Suits they say shit quite a bit, but that's not on broadcast.
>
Australian TV in the 1970s, and which might even have had a "general
exhibition" rating. The words are from memory, because I can't find the
words on the web. That's the problem with those bits of prehistory that
happened before the invention of the WWW.
Foldera, folderee
Poor big tit in a tree
Lonely little tit
Needs another tit
So there can be three.
Then up jumps the farmer with his great big gun
Saying "these little tits give me the shiddle-dits"
And the gun went "bang"
And the tits went "clang"
As he shot the tree in the tits.
(What?)
... shot the tits in the tree.
Folderee
Foldetit.
Peter Moylan
Jan 31, 2013, 7:07:37 PM1/31/13
to
John Varela
Jan 31, 2013, 7:13:38 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:26:02 UTC, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:
> I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
Oh, quit bragging.
Wollman) wrote:
> I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
--
John Varela
Andrew B
Jan 31, 2013, 7:27:54 PM1/31/13
to
On 30/01/2013 23:02, Mark Brader wrote:
> Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
> "above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
> *win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
> like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
> and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
> is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
> the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
> they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
As indeed can they with a big enough lead in points below the line; you
could score 1150 points below the line to your opponents' 200 while
losing two games out of three (and the bonus for winning 2-1 is only 500
points).
> Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
> "above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
> *win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
> like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
> and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
> is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
> the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
> they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
As indeed can they with a big enough lead in points below the line; you
could score 1150 points below the line to your opponents' 200 while
losing two games out of three (and the bonus for winning 2-1 is only 500
points).
John Holmes
Jan 31, 2013, 7:33:50 PM1/31/13
to
Mark Brader wrote:
> Steve Hayes:
>> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus
>> New Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a
>> dead rubber -- whoever won the last match would make no difference
>> to who won the series.
>>
>> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is
>> possible that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
(last 20 years, maybe) imported from tennis (Davis and Fed Cup). I have only
heard it used in cricket as "dead rubber" for the late games in a series
after one side has already won a majority of the series. I can't think of
any other succinct name for that.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
> Steve Hayes:
>> An example is the recent ODI cricket matches of South Africa versus
>> New Zealand. New Zealand won the first two of three, so it was a
>> dead rubber -- whoever won the last match would make no difference
>> to who won the series.
>>
>> I thought the term was originally derived from bridge, though it is
>> possible that bridge got it from the same source as other games.
>
> Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
> doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
> in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
> side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
> Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
It's not really a cricket term, but something the commentators have recently
> Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
> doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
> in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
> side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
> Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
(last 20 years, maybe) imported from tennis (Davis and Fed Cup). I have only
heard it used in cricket as "dead rubber" for the late games in a series
after one side has already won a majority of the series. I can't think of
any other succinct name for that.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Jerry Friedman
Jan 31, 2013, 9:05:32 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 3:39 pm, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:39:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>
>
>
>
>
> <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:39:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>
>
>
>
>
> >In message <ndahg816o9eblluidgp7qq9lcg7pcuh...@4ax.com>
> > Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> >> <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:03:50 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>
> >>>In message <6ncgg8dbpts0mg2u6s43jahsdj4jjcg...@4ax.com>
> >>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:32:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> >>>> <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
> >>>>>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> >>>>>><guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>
> >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>
> >>>>>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
> >>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>
> >>>>>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/sep/23/...
> >>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:32:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> >>>> <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
> >>>>>news:motfg8hc66eilj2p4...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:00:03 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> >>>>>><guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>I hadn't heard of George Carlin. I don't think he made it over here.
>
> >>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
>
> >>>>>>He was called a "counter-cultural legend" in The Guardian.
> >>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/18/george-carlin-its-bad-for-ya
>
> >>>>>>And a "brilliant comedian" in another article:
>
permeable wall in a rather low-rent area, that lots of people do, even
in moments of very little emotion.
--
Jerry Friedman
Steve Hayes
Jan 31, 2013, 10:22:55 PM1/31/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>hockey or baseball.
>
>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>five games.
Does that mean that the remaining games are not played? Do people speak of a
"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
a "dead rubber" in cricket -- though the final trwo games are played, the
result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>hockey or baseball.
>
>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>five games.
"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
a "dead rubber" in cricket -- though the final trwo games are played, the
result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jerry Friedman
Jan 31, 2013, 10:23:53 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 8:22 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com>
> Do people speak of a
> "dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
> a "dead rubber" in cricket -- though the final trwo games are played, the
> result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
I don't think people do. The series is over, it's in the history
books, the fat lady has sung.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
> ><hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> >>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
> >>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
> >>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
> >>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
> >>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
> >>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
> >>hockey or baseball.
>
> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
> >when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
> >five games.
>
> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
Yes.
>
> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
> ><hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> >>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
> >>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
> >>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
> >>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
> >>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
> >>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
> >>hockey or baseball.
>
> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
> >when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
> >five games.
>
> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
> Do people speak of a
> "dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
> a "dead rubber" in cricket -- though the final trwo games are played, the
> result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
books, the fat lady has sung.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
Jan 31, 2013, 11:22:31 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:26:02 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost>,
>John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>>
>>More like two-three-two, innit?
>
>The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
>2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
>2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
>
>-GAWollman
>
>[1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
>following. I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
I suppose, then, you missed the 8-game series where the Boston
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost>,
>John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>>
>>More like two-three-two, innit?
>
>The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
>2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
>2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
>
>-GAWollman
>
>[1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
>following. I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
Americans beat the Pittsburgh Pirates 5 games to 3. A guy named Cy
Young pitched Boston to the win in Games 1 and 5. Honus Wagner played
shortstop for the Pirates and went 6 for 27 in the series.
I remember it well.
Steve Hayes
Jan 31, 2013, 11:43:21 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:23:53 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 8:22�pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> ><hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>> >>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>> >>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>> >>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>> >>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>> >>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>> >>hockey or baseball.
>>
>> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>> >when one team wins three games. �The series can run three, four, or
>> >five games.
>>
>> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>
>Yes.
In those circumstances, if people spoke of a "dead rubber" at all, it would
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 8:22�pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> ><hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>> >>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>> >>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>> >>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>> >>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>> >>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>> >>hockey or baseball.
>>
>> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>> >when one team wins three games. �The series can run three, four, or
>> >five games.
>>
>> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>
>Yes.
mean something different from what it means nere, in cricket at least.
Even if one team has won three matches in a five match series, spectators have
paid to watch the remaining too games, and each one has a separate value,
apart from the series. It may be a dead rubber, but the match is interesting
in itself.
>> Do people speak of a
>> "dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
>> a "dead rubber" in cricket -- though the final trwo games are played, the
>> result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
>
>I don't think people do. The series is over, it's in the history
>books, the fat lady has sung.
--
Steve Hayes
Jan 31, 2013, 11:48:27 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:03:53 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:d7pjg81dtoomkutg5...@4ax.com...
>the series? Here's Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
>
>"Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
>series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
>The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
>series, other than the number of matches won and lost."
>
>Note that "dead rubber" is here used to describe the match rather than the
>series. But then you get:
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/fine-finish-for-england-as-ian-bells-ton-brings-alive-dead-rubber-against-india-8468614.html
>
>"This rubber may have been dead but a pitch alive with turn, bounce and
>swing guaranteed the match was anything but."
>
>This suggests that "dead rubber" refers to the entire series, which seems
>more logical.
That last is certainly how I understand it.
wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:d7pjg81dtoomkutg5...@4ax.com...
>
>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was
>>used.
>
>There's a subtlety here though. Does "dead rubber" refer to the match or
>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was
>>used.
>
>the series? Here's Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_rubber
>
>"Dead rubber is a term used in sporting parlance to describe a match in a
>series where the series result has already been decided by earlier matches.
>The dead rubber match therefore has no effect on the winner and loser of the
>series, other than the number of matches won and lost."
>
>Note that "dead rubber" is here used to describe the match rather than the
>series. But then you get:
>
>http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/fine-finish-for-england-as-ian-bells-ton-brings-alive-dead-rubber-against-india-8468614.html
>
>"This rubber may have been dead but a pitch alive with turn, bounce and
>swing guaranteed the match was anything but."
>
>This suggests that "dead rubber" refers to the entire series, which seems
>more logical.
That last is certainly how I understand it.
Steve Hayes
Jan 31, 2013, 11:54:53 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>"Mark Brader" wrote in message
>news:K9Odnd1oPMoJO5TM...@vex.net...
sports, the players get a match fee, and the spectators pay for tickets. It is
rare for any but the most hardcore fans (like the England Barmy Army) to pay
for tickets for every match. If the last match of the series is also the
deciding match of the series it adds a little extra excitement, but not much.
Each match is sui generis.
wrote:
>"Mark Brader" wrote in message
>news:K9Odnd1oPMoJO5TM...@vex.net...
>
>>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>>Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>>doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>>in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>>side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>>Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
>element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
>as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
Because to players and fans each game has its own interest. In professional
>decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
>element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
>as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
sports, the players get a match fee, and the spectators pay for tickets. It is
rare for any but the most hardcore fans (like the England Barmy Army) to pay
for tickets for every match. If the last match of the series is also the
deciding match of the series it adds a little extra excitement, but not much.
Each match is sui generis.
Mark Brader
Feb 1, 2013, 1:00:43 AM2/1/13
to
Chris Trollen:
your friends who did it", and you wouldn't disrespect that, would you?
#-Well, at least, in 1975 in London they did.
--
Mark Brader | "Which humans of that time did here whether this place
Toronto | was cult place already at that time, extracts itself
m...@vex.net | from our knowledge." --from a web site for tourists
>> Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
>> happened?
Robin Bignall:
>> happened?
> I suppose anyone can find out Whodunnit in "The Mousetrap", but it's
> been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
Ah, but when you see it, at the end they ask you# "Please don't tell
> been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
your friends who did it", and you wouldn't disrespect that, would you?
#-Well, at least, in 1975 in London they did.
--
Mark Brader | "Which humans of that time did here whether this place
Toronto | was cult place already at that time, extracts itself
m...@vex.net | from our knowledge." --from a web site for tourists
Tony Cooper
Feb 1, 2013, 1:12:50 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:22:55 +0200, Steve Hayes
wins the necessary X of Y.
> Do people speak of a
>"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
>a "dead rubber" in cricket
Never heard it used it here, or expect to hear it used.
> -- though the final trwo games are played, the
>result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
The playing out happens during the regular season, but not in a
play-off at the end of a season. A team that is completely out of
contention to win the divisional championship completes all games in
the season. The play-off teams only play until the X of Y occurs.
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>hockey or baseball.
>>
>>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>five games.
>
>Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
Yes, that's what it means. There are no remaining games when one team
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>hockey or baseball.
>>
>>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>five games.
>
>Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
wins the necessary X of Y.
> Do people speak of a
>"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
>a "dead rubber" in cricket
> -- though the final trwo games are played, the
>result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
play-off at the end of a season. A team that is completely out of
contention to win the divisional championship completes all games in
the season. The play-off teams only play until the X of Y occurs.
Mark Brader
Feb 1, 2013, 1:14:00 AM2/1/13
to
Tony Cooper:
>> More like two-three-two, innit?
Garrett Wollman:
in some years, and 2-3-2 is the pattern I expect there. 2-2-1-1-1 for
the NHL, yes, but they only play 3 days a week in the playoffs these
days#, whereas in baseball they can play every day except travel days,
weather permitting.
#- When I was younger they did play some playoff games on consecutive
days, and I wouldn't be too surprised if they decided to do that again
this year due to the time pressure resulting from the recent labor
dispute. All the teams are currently playing regular-season games
about 10% more frequently than usual, and the playoffs will still be
starting 3 weeks later than usual. At least the days of depending on
natural ice are ancient history...
--
Mark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift,
Toronto | nor the battle to the strong --
m...@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
John Varela:
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>> More like two-three-two, innit?
Garrett Wollman:
> The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
> 2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
> 2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
> 2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
> 2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
> [1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
> following.
Huh? I don't watch a lot of baseball, but I do watch the World Series
> following.
in some years, and 2-3-2 is the pattern I expect there. 2-2-1-1-1 for
the NHL, yes, but they only play 3 days a week in the playoffs these
days#, whereas in baseball they can play every day except travel days,
weather permitting.
#- When I was younger they did play some playoff games on consecutive
days, and I wouldn't be too surprised if they decided to do that again
this year due to the time pressure resulting from the recent labor
dispute. All the teams are currently playing regular-season games
about 10% more frequently than usual, and the playoffs will still be
starting 3 weeks later than usual. At least the days of depending on
natural ice are ancient history...
--
Mark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift,
Toronto | nor the battle to the strong --
m...@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Tony Cooper
Feb 1, 2013, 1:21:41 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:43:21 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>> >when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>> >five games.
>>>
>>> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>In those circumstances, if people spoke of a "dead rubber" at all, it would
>mean something different from what it means nere, in cricket at least.
>
>Even if one team has won three matches in a five match series, spectators have
>paid to watch the remaining too games, and each one has a separate value,
>apart from the series. It may be a dead rubber, but the match is interesting
>in itself.
Yes, in a baseball play-off series the spectators may have purchased a
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>> >when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>> >five games.
>>>
>>> Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>In those circumstances, if people spoke of a "dead rubber" at all, it would
>mean something different from what it means nere, in cricket at least.
>
>Even if one team has won three matches in a five match series, spectators have
>paid to watch the remaining too games, and each one has a separate value,
>apart from the series. It may be a dead rubber, but the match is interesting
>in itself.
set of tickets for all five games, but there may be only three games
played. The risk is known to buyers of tickets.
Mark Brader
Feb 1, 2013, 1:29:35 AM2/1/13
to
Mark Brader:
all points on the previous game effectively become above-the-line for
the new one. But all right, you have a point; they were below-the-line
when scored. It's a rare case, of course, but legitimate.
Of course, the way you get 1,150 below the line is e.g. 3S three times
and 7NTXX (bid with 90 on score) once, so that means you also scored
at least 1,100 above the line -- more than enough by itself to offset
the rubber bonus. To win strictly on below-the-line points, you'd
want the game contract to be 5NTXX instead of 7NTXX, giving 910
instead of 1,150. (And you still got at last 100 above the line,
but as you say, the opponents only got 700 in total.)
--
Mark Brader "Although I have not seen any mention of SoftQuad
Toronto or HoTMetaL in the magazine, it is certainly
m...@vex.net worth while reading." -- Selwyn Wener
>> Actually, to be technical, because bridge has the concept of scoring
>> "above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
>> *win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
>> like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
>> and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
>> is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
>> the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
>> they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
Andrew Bull:
>> "above and below the line", winning two games doesn't necessarily
>> *win* the rubber, although people may informally say that; it's more
>> like catching the Golden Snitch in quidditch. It *ends* the rubber
>> and scores a rubber bonus for the team that won two games, which
>> is *usually* enough to ensure that they win the rubber. But not if
>> the other team has a big enough lead in points above the line --
>> they can win the rubber, or it can be a tie.
> As indeed can they with a big enough lead in points below the line; you
> could score 1150 points below the line to your opponents' 200 while
> losing two games out of three (and the bonus for winning 2-1 is only 500
> points).
I could argue that because a new line is drawn to finish each game,
> could score 1150 points below the line to your opponents' 200 while
> losing two games out of three (and the bonus for winning 2-1 is only 500
> points).
all points on the previous game effectively become above-the-line for
the new one. But all right, you have a point; they were below-the-line
when scored. It's a rare case, of course, but legitimate.
Of course, the way you get 1,150 below the line is e.g. 3S three times
and 7NTXX (bid with 90 on score) once, so that means you also scored
at least 1,100 above the line -- more than enough by itself to offset
the rubber bonus. To win strictly on below-the-line points, you'd
want the game contract to be 5NTXX instead of 7NTXX, giving 910
instead of 1,150. (And you still got at last 100 above the line,
but as you say, the opponents only got 700 in total.)
--
Mark Brader "Although I have not seen any mention of SoftQuad
Toronto or HoTMetaL in the magazine, it is certainly
m...@vex.net worth while reading." -- Selwyn Wener
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 2:26:44 AM2/1/13
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnkglfeq....@ananke.local...
>
>In message <gvhig8du0javcskp8...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
>> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
>> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
>> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
>> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
>
>Allen is much more conversational, Carlin is 'tighter'. Normally, this
>would mean that Carlin is better, but Allen uses his conversational
>style to add a lot of humor. Allen is brilliant, and part of his
>brilliance is how different he is from Carlin despite their actual jokes
>being quite similar.
I didn't find their styles quite as different as you suggest. What was
*entirely* different was the audience reaction. Why do American comedy
audiences act so hysterically?
>Have you seen this?
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3asbkY0tTE>
Now I can't imagine Dave Allen doing that.
--
Guy Barry
>
>In message <gvhig8du0javcskp8...@4ax.com>
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Allen was aired in the US on PBS. I was a regular watcher. In
>> the shows I watched, Allen sat in a chair with a drink in hand,
>> started some long anecdote, and spent the next 20 minutes wandering
>> off the point for bits and then returning to the story. Quite
>> different from American comedians with their machine-gun deliveries.
>
>Allen is much more conversational, Carlin is 'tighter'. Normally, this
>would mean that Carlin is better, but Allen uses his conversational
>style to add a lot of humor. Allen is brilliant, and part of his
>brilliance is how different he is from Carlin despite their actual jokes
>being quite similar.
I didn't find their styles quite as different as you suggest. What was
*entirely* different was the audience reaction. Why do American comedy
audiences act so hysterically?
>Have you seen this?
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3asbkY0tTE>
Now I can't imagine Dave Allen doing that.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 2:36:27 AM2/1/13
to
"Robin Bignall" wrote in message
news:f1hlg8182jmnc0iqi...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:27:27 -0000, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was never a big fan of Benny Hill - I didn't like the characters he
>>portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
>>slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
>>unacceptable now.
>
>But it wasn't then. At his best he was as popular and looked forward to
>as Morecambe and Wise. Towards the end of his career, possibly through
>bad advice, his sketches became short and totally visual, no words at
>all. I personally think they all flopped.
There used to be a lot of wordplay, but it always seemed very lame compared
with (say) the Two Ronnies. For instance, take this parody of "Mastermind",
which I don't think is a patch on the Two Ronnies' version:
http://vimeo.com/40394442
--
Guy Barry
news:f1hlg8182jmnc0iqi...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:27:27 -0000, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I was never a big fan of Benny Hill - I didn't like the characters he
>>portrayed or the patronizing attitude he took to his supporting cast (like
>>slapping Jack Wright's bald head). The sexism would be considered
>>unacceptable now.
>
>But it wasn't then. At his best he was as popular and looked forward to
>as Morecambe and Wise. Towards the end of his career, possibly through
>bad advice, his sketches became short and totally visual, no words at
>all. I personally think they all flopped.
There used to be a lot of wordplay, but it always seemed very lame compared
with (say) the Two Ronnies. For instance, take this parody of "Mastermind",
which I don't think is a patch on the Two Ronnies' version:
http://vimeo.com/40394442
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 2:38:01 AM2/1/13
to
"Robin Bignall" wrote in message
news:mghlg89ccjrtbrlmh...@4ax.com...
>
>On 31 Jan 2013 13:31:06 GMT, "CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote:
>>Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
>>happened?
>
>On 31 Jan 2013 13:31:06 GMT, "CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote:
>>Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
>>happened?
>
>I suppose anyone can find out Whodunnit in "The Mousetrap", but it's
>been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
Mostly to foreign tourists who probably don't understand it.
>been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Feb 1, 2013, 2:44:15 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:12:50 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>
>> -- though the final trwo games are played, the
>>result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
>
>The playing out happens during the regular season, but not in a
>play-off at the end of a season. A team that is completely out of
>contention to win the divisional championship completes all games in
>the season. The play-off teams only play until the X of Y occurs.
A bit like a penalty shoot-out in soccer then?
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:22:55 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>>hockey or baseball.
>>>
>>>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>>five games.
>>
>>Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>
>Yes, that's what it means. There are no remaining games when one team
>wins the necessary X of Y.
>
>> Do people speak of a
>>"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
>>a "dead rubber" in cricket
>
>Never heard it used it here, or expect to hear it used.
In those circumstances, I'm not surprised.
>On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:22:55 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:49:41 -0500, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:37:40 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It was only much later that heard "rubber" used in any other game, and then
>>>>mainly in cricket, and only in the sense of a "dead rubber" -- one in which
>>>>one team has already won enough games to win the series, so the remaining
>>>>games will make no difference to the series result. The meaning of the term
>>>>"dead rubber" was immediately obvious from the context in which it was used. I
>>>>do't see hyow the got it wrong, and I'm not sure how a playoff series works in
>>>>hockey or baseball.
>>>
>>>In baseball, if a series is best three out of five, the series is over
>>>when one team wins three games. The series can run three, four, or
>>>five games.
>>
>>Does that mean that the remaining games are not played?
>
>Yes, that's what it means. There are no remaining games when one team
>wins the necessary X of Y.
>
>> Do people speak of a
>>"dead rubber" in those circumstances, because that's exactly what they mean by
>>a "dead rubber" in cricket
>
>Never heard it used it here, or expect to hear it used.
>
>> -- though the final trwo games are played, the
>>result will make no difference to who wins the series (or the "rubber").
>
>The playing out happens during the regular season, but not in a
>play-off at the end of a season. A team that is completely out of
>contention to win the divisional championship completes all games in
>the season. The play-off teams only play until the X of Y occurs.
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 2:42:51 AM2/1/13
to
"John Varela" wrote in message
news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost...
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
slang for a form of cannabis, though.
--
Guy Barry
news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost...
>
>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
>> >an
>> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as
>> >bad
>> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
>> >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
>> >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's
>> >an
>> >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as
>> >bad
>> >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
>More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
No - neither the creature nor the sporting use that you describe. It's
slang for a form of cannabis, though.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 3:19:13 AM2/1/13
to
"John Holmes" wrote in message news:510b0d87$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Federation Cup, "rubber" refers to an individual match in the series rather
than the entire series. I haven't come across any other sporting
competition where the term is used this way. Did the people drawing up the
rules for the Davis Cup just get it wrong?
--
Guy Barry
>
>Mark Brader wrote:
>> Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>> doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>> in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>> side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>> Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>It's not really a cricket term, but something the commentators have
>recently (last 20 years, maybe) imported from tennis (Davis and Fed Cup).
This was the point I made earlier; it seems that in the Davis Cup and
>Mark Brader wrote:
>> Bridge got "rubber" from other games, as already noted. However, it
>> doesn't have the concept of a "dead rubber". Like a playoff series
>> in hockey or baseball, or a set in tennis, the rubber ends when one
>> side wins enough times (two games, for bridge) to clinch victory.
>> Yet another thing that cricket apparently has wrong. :-)
>
>It's not really a cricket term, but something the commentators have
>recently (last 20 years, maybe) imported from tennis (Davis and Fed Cup).
Federation Cup, "rubber" refers to an individual match in the series rather
than the entire series. I haven't come across any other sporting
competition where the term is used this way. Did the people drawing up the
rules for the Davis Cup just get it wrong?
--
Guy Barry
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 1, 2013, 8:38:39 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:43:21 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
to regain some credibility as individual players and as a team. This is
important for the reputation and career of each player. Directly or
indirectly, in the short or long term, the income of each player can be
affected.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Feb 1, 2013, 8:44:29 AM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 00:00:43 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>Chris Trollen:
>>> Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
>>> happened?
>
>Robin Bignall:
>> I suppose anyone can find out Whodunnit in "The Mousetrap", but it's
>> been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
>
>Ah, but when you see it, at the end they ask you# "Please don't tell
>your friends who did it", and you wouldn't disrespect that, would you?
>
>#-Well, at least, in 1975 in London they did.
Orchestra still play, and audiences still listen to, the Surprise
>Chris Trollen:
>>> Would you bother going to see a film or a play if I told you what
>>> happened?
>
>Robin Bignall:
>> I suppose anyone can find out Whodunnit in "The Mousetrap", but it's
>> been playing to pretty full houses for many decades.
>
>Ah, but when you see it, at the end they ask you# "Please don't tell
>your friends who did it", and you wouldn't disrespect that, would you?
>
>#-Well, at least, in 1975 in London they did.
Symphony by Joseph Haydn even though the surprise was revealed well over
two hundred years ago.
Does any orchestra ever perform it with a different "surprise" so as to
surprise the audience?
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 9:36:19 AM2/1/13
to
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:aehng8lae8pdbllqs...@4ax.com...
>Orchestra still play, and audiences still listen to, the Surprise
>Symphony by Joseph Haydn even though the surprise was revealed well over
>two hundred years ago.
>
>Does any orchestra ever perform it with a different "surprise" so as to
>surprise the audience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0mu7Ccrr60
--
Guy Barry
news:aehng8lae8pdbllqs...@4ax.com...
>Orchestra still play, and audiences still listen to, the Surprise
>Symphony by Joseph Haydn even though the surprise was revealed well over
>two hundred years ago.
>
>Does any orchestra ever perform it with a different "surprise" so as to
>surprise the audience?
--
Guy Barry
Peter Brooks
Feb 1, 2013, 9:53:56 AM2/1/13
to
On Feb 1, 3:44 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
That'd have to be a secret so that nobody attending had the spoiler of
knowing that the orchestra might have a surprise surprise ending.
wrote:
knowing that the orchestra might have a surprise surprise ending.
Jerry Friedman
Feb 1, 2013, 10:26:46 AM2/1/13
to
On Jan 31, 2:03 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
In journalism, I'd have thought "sweep" was the most common, but I may
be out of touch.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:56:36 UTC, Tony Cooper
>
> <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> > >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> > >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
> > >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
> > >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
> More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
...
> <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:28:56 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >I've never been quite sure why they carry on playing after the series is
> > >decided, though I imagine that people with tickets for the later matches
> > >would be rather disappointed if they were cancelled. I suppose there's an
> > >element of pride involved - losing a series 3-2 isn't anything like as bad
> > >as losing it 5-0 (usually known as a "whitewash").
>
> More usually a "skunk" over here. Do you have skunks on your island?
In journalism, I'd have thought "sweep" was the most common, but I may
be out of touch.
--
Jerry Friedman
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 11:00:07 AM2/1/13
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:bae8ca27-68d6-4a2c...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
I'm guessing, but "sweep" sounds like the winner's perspective rather than
the loser's. It's a "whitewash" when England get thrashed 5-0, not when
they win 5-0. (I'm not sure what the term for the latter is, as it very
rarely seems to happen.)
--
Guy Barry
news:bae8ca27-68d6-4a2c...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
the loser's. It's a "whitewash" when England get thrashed 5-0, not when
they win 5-0. (I'm not sure what the term for the latter is, as it very
rarely seems to happen.)
--
Guy Barry
Tony Cooper
Feb 1, 2013, 12:04:27 PM2/1/13
to
the series and the losing team is skunked.
Andrew B
Feb 1, 2013, 12:21:46 PM2/1/13
to
On 01/02/2013 16:00, Guy Barry wrote:
> I'm guessing, but "sweep" sounds like the winner's perspective rather
> than the loser's. It's a "whitewash" when England get thrashed 5-0, not
> when they win 5-0. (I'm not sure what the term for the latter is, as it
> very rarely seems to happen.)
It was called a whitewash when England whitewashed India 4-0 all of 18
> I'm guessing, but "sweep" sounds like the winner's perspective rather
> than the loser's. It's a "whitewash" when England get thrashed 5-0, not
> when they win 5-0. (I'm not sure what the term for the latter is, as it
> very rarely seems to happen.)
months ago, but let's not get facts get in the way of a good "England
are rubbish at cricket" cliche...
Guy Barry
Feb 1, 2013, 12:41:14 PM2/1/13
to
"Andrew B" wrote in message news:kegtim$3f0$1...@dont-email.me...
Yes, all right. I suppose "whitewash" doesn't sound like a very positive
thing - if I see "England whitewash" in a headline my immediate assumption
is that they've been defeated, not that they've won.
--
Guy Barry
thing - if I see "England whitewash" in a headline my immediate assumption
is that they've been defeated, not that they've won.
--
Guy Barry
Garrett Wollman
Feb 1, 2013, 1:05:29 PM2/1/13
to
In article <ognmg8t8t9b791n8o...@4ax.com>,
unlikely that you would actually get tickets to more than one game,
unless you buy from a scalper. People who buy their tickets through
official channels get a refund for the games that aren't played.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, in a baseball play-off series the spectators may have purchased a
>set of tickets for all five games, but there may be only three games
>played. The risk is known to buyers of tickets.
Tickets for the MLB playoffs are done by lottery. It's extremely
>Yes, in a baseball play-off series the spectators may have purchased a
>set of tickets for all five games, but there may be only three games
>played. The risk is known to buyers of tickets.
unlikely that you would actually get tickets to more than one game,
unless you buy from a scalper. People who buy their tickets through
official channels get a refund for the games that aren't played.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
John Varela
Feb 1, 2013, 1:31:03 PM2/1/13
to
to a single game and sweep applying to a series.
--
John Varela
Tony Cooper
Feb 1, 2013, 2:54:26 PM2/1/13
to
On 1 Feb 2013 18:31:03 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net>
While I would accept my statement, if used by others, I personally
reserve "skunked" for a situation where a team does not score at all.
A team is skunked in a game that results in a 6-0 score, but would
only be skunked in a series if the scores were x-0, x-0, x-0, x-0.
Except for soccer, that is. No one really expects a team to score a
goal in soccer.
reserve "skunked" for a situation where a team does not score at all.
A team is skunked in a game that results in a 6-0 score, but would
only be skunked in a series if the scores were x-0, x-0, x-0, x-0.
Except for soccer, that is. No one really expects a team to score a
goal in soccer.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Feb 1, 2013, 2:54:44 PM2/1/13
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
> In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost>,
To students of baseball, "modern era" is a term of art and begins in
1900, essentially with the creation of the American League. Records
before that point are generally considered incommensurate with later
ones.
The World Series has apparently only once (in 1917) been 2-2-1-1-1.
It's been officially 2-3-2 since 1924 (except in 1943 and 1945, when
it was 3-4), and the teams chose the format (typically choosing to
alternate games) prior to that.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Theories are not matters of fact,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |they are derived from observing
Chicago (1964-1982) |fact. If you don't have data, you
|don't get good theories. You get
evan.kir...@gmail.com |theology instead.
| --John Lawler
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-JtnV1BHuwYmH@localhost>,
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>>
>>More like two-three-two, innit?
>
>>> *Kinda, sorta. The games alternate between each team's home field
>>> with each team playing two games at "home" and then two on the road,
>>
>
> The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
> 2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
> 2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
>
> -GAWollman
> The traditional[1] NHL and MLB format for best-of-seven series is
> 2-2-1-1-1, with travel days in between. The NBA, I believe, uses
> 2-3-2. Best-of-five series I've only ever seen as 2-2-1.
>
>
> [1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
> following. I'm quite a bit younger than Messrs. Varela and Cooper.
> [1] "Traditional" in "the modern era" -- i.e., as long as I've been
To students of baseball, "modern era" is a term of art and begins in
1900, essentially with the creation of the American League. Records
before that point are generally considered incommensurate with later
ones.
The World Series has apparently only once (in 1917) been 2-2-1-1-1.
It's been officially 2-3-2 since 1924 (except in 1943 and 1945, when
it was 3-4), and the teams chose the format (typically choosing to
alternate games) prior to that.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Theories are not matters of fact,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |they are derived from observing
Chicago (1964-1982) |fact. If you don't have data, you
|don't get good theories. You get
evan.kir...@gmail.com |theology instead.
| --John Lawler
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
Feb 1, 2013, 3:01:16 PM2/1/13
to
baseball games. Each inning is divided into to half-innings, with the
"visiting" team batting in the "top" of the inning and the "home" team
batting in the "bottom" of the inning. Since only the batting team
can score, if the home team is ahead when the top of the last inning
is completed, the bottom of the inning isn't played, since there's no
way for it to change the outcome.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The whole idea of our government is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |this: if enough people get together
Chicago (1964-1982) |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Paul Wolff
Feb 1, 2013, 3:02:14 PM2/1/13
to
In message <kegtim$3f0$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com>
writes
Don't forget the blackwash, when the West Indies beat England 5-0 in a
cricket test match series. Not that it happens often.
--
Paul
writes
cricket test match series. Not that it happens often.
--
Paul
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages