Tourney Report: Tidal Influence in the GREAT Lake Champlain Valley
eeyoo
Not late, I was home by 3:45.
But you know how sometimes it seems like a good idea to play a couple turns
of Civ 2 just to wind down? And you know how the old Doppler effect comes
into play and you find you've suddenly been transported into the future, and
it's suddenly 5 a.m. and you haven't even developed Bridge Building? I give
up and go to bed.
8 a.m.
Fritz pounds on my door. 'Don doesn't want to go to the tournament. You
said you'd go if he didn't.' It's a hour drive to Middlebury and Fritz
really wants to play in some extended tourneys, but he doesn't want to go
down alone. I did say I'd go down if Don didn't.
I sigh. Heavily. My brother Don for some reason continues to pretend he
likes to play Magic, even tho he - usually bails on playtesting
- won't play people he feels aren't as good as he is
- hasn't played a 'fun' deck since his Ill mask-
Johan deck many years ago
- gets disproportionately pissed at the game
- either bails on tourneys at the last minute or
drags his feet till it's an ordeal to get him to go
On the other hand, he really likes looking at cards and discussing strategy
and rules. He should become a judge.
So I grab my Tide deck, curse, spend the requisite 5 minutes grabbing a
bunch of blue cards for my sb, curse, try in vain to convince Don to go,
curse some more, and leave with Fritz.
here's the pile I played, no real innovations here
4 counterspells
3 arcane denials
4 FoW
2 FoSpike!
4 High Tide
4 Spiral
4 Stroke
4 Impulse
3 Intuition
2 Merchant Scroll
3 MoMa
23 Island
Sb
4 Hydroblast
2 BEB
2 Mana Web
2 annul
2 Disrupt
1 Mem lapse
1 Sink
1 Capsize
Round 1
Necronaught, Ira Beaver
I draw land. My hand didn't look that bad, but I think I did the soon-to-be
classic Tide-Spiral, stall cause I spiraled for 5 land and 2 cspells. Game
2 was similar, except I failed to draw as much land, and didn't draw a FoW
in either. Lose
Round 2
some bad B/U deck. Tim ?
Tim needs practice. And help with deck design. And to not play almost T2
decks in Extended, esp. w/out a sb. Win
round 3
sligh. Jamie W
I mulligan to 4 first game. Draw tons of land and a spiral, die on Jamie's
5th turn. Wow. I mulliganed to 4 and lost. Game 2 I fail to draw a fifth
land despite a couple minor card drawers. Therefore, can't Tide-Moma and
back it up with one of the BEB's in my hand. Obviously, I can't draw FoW
either. Lose
I've lost 2 matches which shouldn't be that tough for me. I parised a lot.
There were only 2 matches all day where I didn't paris, basically due to
lack of land. I've gotta stop putting so much land in my decks, as it seems
to be some sort of curse for me if I have what should be a reliable mana
curve built in.
Round 4
Green. LLL type. Paul Habday
After I win the first game I consider siding in a card. I decide against
it. Win.
Round 5
Green. Paul's brother (sorry I don't remember his first name)
1st turn rogue, 2nd turn I Fow his 2nd turn rogue. I win with 1 life left.
Game 2 is a repeat of game 2 from the match b4. I think about putting in a
sideboard card then think better of it.
Final 8
Stompy. Matt?
I spike something. I do the famous Tide-Moma-Spiral stall. Tapping his
guys with Moma keeps me alive for a while, but I eventually get smashed.
Game 2. See game 2 vs. other green decks. Game 3. See game 2.
final 4
Wakefield again.
In our earlier match I allowed Jamie to 'Bolt you b4 I start my turn',
ignoring the special phase which only he apparently gets. In Game 1 here I
disallow his 'Incinerate you at the end of your turn'. End of my turn? You
mean take 2 mana burn at the end of my turn? Ok.
I win game 1 at 4 life with 2 Fanatics in play on his side.
In go my anti red cards- 6 blasts and 2 disrupts. I'm on the verge of
losing this game so I go off on turn 5, drawing only an Impulse after
spiraling. I impulse for a spiral. Spiral again. I think I had to spiral
again b4 I won, dangerous with only 5 land and Moma in play. That's a lot
of cards in my deck which could cause a stall. But, virtue and goodness win
out and I make it into the final 2.
Alan Webster
Wishes more of the cards for the deck had Drew Tucker art
Bring back DREW! I'm sick of this lame
comic-book-need-everything-defined-cause-I-don't-have-an-imagination art
which has taken over Mtg cards. As with almost everything in the real
world, in art it's what you don't see that makes the difference.
Jamie Wakefield
eeyoo wrote in message <367dc...@news.together.net>...
>Wakefield again.
>
>In our earlier match I allowed Jamie to 'Bolt you b4 I start my turn',
Alan is right, and wrong on this count. There used to be a "end of turn"
phase, or cleanup, or some crap like that, and you used to be able to say
"Bolt you at the end of your turn." or whatever.
Of course, now - the last phase is discard - so Alan want's me to say "bolt
you during your discard phase." and if I say "at the end of your turn."
well, there is no such thing.
Alan says "playing against me gets you ready to play against real assholes."
or some such. And he is right. You have to be very careful about what you
say.
On the other hand....
Its a local tournament with no level two judge and only 15 people. 8k. So
I'm pretty sure thats LEVEL ONE rules enforcement. Not Level 5 rules
enforcement.
Still on that same hand.
If I say - "bolt you at the end of your turn" and you say - there is no end
of turn phase - I should say "so common english isn't allowed?" At some
point - it is going to be the end of your turn. Correct? I didn't say
"During your end of turn phase." I say at the end of your turn - which would
be discard. Some judge out there tell me I'm whacked.
>ignoring the special phase which only he apparently gets. In Game 1 here I
>disallow his 'Incinerate you at the end of your turn'. End of my turn?
You
>mean take 2 mana burn at the end of my turn? Ok.
Well, if there is no "end of your turn" then what phase are in we right now
when I am attempting to cast this spell? If it is that fuzzy between turns
time - then I can't even tap mana can I? So I don't take two burn, and the
spell is still in my hand then isn't it? And since I can't start a batch of
effects on your turn and I have to wait for you to announce phase changes -
then what phase are we in?
>
>I win game 1 at 4 life with 2 Fanatics in play on his side.
So, if you had taken three from the Incinerate you would have been at 1 with
two fanatics on table?
Cathy Nickoloff has this great article called "Winning without playing" on
the Dojo - you should read it.
>Alan Webster
>Wishes more of the cards for the deck had Drew Tucker art
>Bring back DREW! I'm sick of this lame
>comic-book-need-everything-defined-cause-I-don't-have-an-imagination art
>which has taken over Mtg cards. As with almost everything in the real
>world, in art it's what you don't see that makes the difference.
Art that you don't see? What the hell is that?
As with almost everything in the real world, in art it's what you DO see
that makes the difference. Actions speak louder than intentions, feelings,
or words.
Later
Jamie C. Wakefield
King of the Fatties
Really only slightly pissed off at Alan
Pretty much over it now that I've vented
John M. Shuler
: eeyoo wrote in message <367dc...@news.together.net>...
: >Wakefield again.
: >In our earlier match I allowed Jamie to 'Bolt you b4 I start my turn',
: Alan is right, and wrong on this count. There used to be a "end of turn"
: phase, or cleanup, or some crap like that, and you used to be able to say
: "Bolt you at the end of your turn." or whatever.
If both of your examples start off with "Used to", then I think
that it's hard for Alan to be wrong here, because you are
attempting to apply something from the past to the future. He's
right.
: Of course, now - the last phase is discard - so Alan want's me to say "bolt
: you during your discard phase." and if I say "at the end of your turn."
: well, there is no such thing.
There is an end of turn. You can't bolt him at that point, though.
Jamie, don't you remember GPBoston? Evil Alan Webster learned
this trick from me. It all really ends up being my fault. :)
Now, tell me though, did he at least warn you the first or
second time you did it? That's the only fair way to go,
unless you are in a PT.
: If I say - "bolt you at the end of your turn" and you say - there is no end
: of turn phase - I should say "so common english isn't allowed?" At some
: point - it is going to be the end of your turn. Correct? I didn't say
: "During your end of turn phase." I say at the end of your turn - which would
: be discard. Some judge out there tell me I'm whacked.
Jamie, you are obviously whacked. Go look at a turn structure chart,
and you'll see that there are things that happen after discard. Times
in which it is legal to add mana to your pool, but very difficult
to use it.
: Well, if there is no "end of your turn" then what phase are in we right now
: when I am attempting to cast this spell?
That would be the "Watch Jankfield mana burn himself" phase.
: Cathy Nickoloff has this great article called "Winning without playing" on
: the Dojo - you should read it.
Cathy Nickoloff has *never* had a "great" article, as far as I
have seen.
: >Alan Webster
: >Wishes more of the cards for the deck had Drew Tucker art
: >Bring back DREW! I'm sick of this lame
: >comic-book-need-everything-defined-cause-I-don't-have-an-imagination art
: >which has taken over Mtg cards. As with almost everything in the real
: >world, in art it's what you don't see that makes the difference.
: Art that you don't see? What the hell is that?
Jamie, I think you know about Impressionism, and things like
artistic interpretation. Think Roscharc (wow did I slaughter
that) blots. You see what *you* see, and lots of people
see different things.
: that makes the difference. Actions speak louder than intentions, feelings,
: or words.
But they are never nearly as accurate.
BPShuler
angry about this stupid class-action lawsuit crap
against gun manufacturers by New Orleans, Chicago,
San Fran, & other dumb ass cities. Lawyers really
are parasites that subsist off of humanity's
ignorances.
soon, there will be class action lawsuits against
candy manufacturers, and the dairy industry, and
car manufacturers, and so on and so on, just for
the fact that they manufacture their products and
people are dumb.
Damn it, why are people so bad?
BPShuler
Rogue Cabalist
--
eeyoo
John M. Shuler wrote in message <36810...@nntp.mediasoft.net>...
>
>Jamie, don't you remember GPBoston? Evil Alan Webster learned
>this trick from me. It all really ends up being my fault. :)
Well, I learned something from you there, John. But it wasn't THIS trick.
>That would be the "Watch Jankfield mana burn himself" phase.
>
My favorite phase. Especially cool when it follows 'Watch Jamie forget to
pay Echo' phase.
>
>: Cathy Nickoloff has this great article called "Winning without playing"
on
>: the Dojo - you should read it.
>
Did read it. sidebar--
I dislike Tom Hanks. I don't think he's generally a good actor, and well, I
just dislike him. Be that as it may, he has given a few really good
performances, altho they've mostly been overshadowed by that Gump crap. One
of these was his role in 'A League of their Own'. One of most hilarious and
poignant moments in that movie is when he's bawling out his right fielder
and the player bursts into tears. 'No, no, no!' he screams. 'No crying!
There's no crying in baseball!'
It should be the same in any competition. If you forget your upkeep, if you
draw an extra card, if you forget your 'out of game' pile, if you forget to
desideboard, you should lose. These rules are part of the game, as
integral as tapping land for mana (add 'if you cast spells without tapping
your land' to the above list), and shouldn't be a cause for debate or an
excuse to cry. Cathy apparently feels that HER moral code should be used to
determine all infractions and penalties. Being grounded in the real world,
I understand that all tounaments are different, all judges are different,
all players are different, and that because of this if you a tourney in
Walla Walla to be recognizable and understandable to someone from Vermont,
you have to have a cohesive rule structure. You can't allow individual
judges all over the world to make up their own penalties etc., or
universality and fairness go out the window.
>Cathy Nickoloff has *never* had a "great" article, as far as I
>have seen.
>
She's had some pretty good ones tho. In my bi-monthly trips to the dojo
I've read a couple.
Jamie Wakefield
eeyoo wrote in message <36829...@news.together.net>...
Just a follow up to this.
In my extreme bad playerness (great word that - playerness) I seemed to have
thought that they had done away with cleanup and end of turn effects. BP
Shuler informed me in another post that this is not true. There is still
stuff that happens after discard. Why was I under the impression that
discard was the last phase at the end of turn? I have no idea. But I did.
So, it appears that Alan is right, I just never looked at it that way. For
those who know me - you know that I always bury my spout when I forget
upkeep, or bury my morinfen when I forget to pay a life and draw my card,
and once I tap land and take my hand off it, I don't then untap it. I don't
do that. I feel like a lot of people that there is a sequence to this game.
You don't add a treasure counter to legacies allure during your end of turn
because you forgot to do it during upkeep. "Oh yeah, this is supposed to be
up to three now..."
"Ummm, no. No it isn't."
At least not in a tournament its not.
So, I'm just publicly apologizing to Alan for going off on him on here
because now that I know the proper phases of a turn, it appears I was wrong.
Doh!
Saying "bolt you at the end of your turn" is about the same as forgetting
upkeep, and I never take that back, so why should this be any different?
Merry Christmas to all!!
David Hsu
> Cathy Nickoloff has this great article called "Winning without playing" on
> the Dojo - you should read it.
Cathy Nickoloff is great at writing articles that have a pretty good
premise and point, but then proceeds to support it so badly that she causes
50 people to reply on the Dojo saying how wrong she is.
Personally, I think she does that on purpose. She likes the
attention. In that regard, I have not yet appreciated a single one of her
articles. When she gets off the ego trip and proceeds to write posts with
real content, then I will give her some credit.
I will get some articles from the Dojo archive and show you exactly
what I mean. I have to do a couple things right now (it being Christmas and
all), and will probably do that tomorrow....
Oh wait, free T2 tourney tomorrow. Make that Sunday.
--
David Hsu hik...@abcb.gt.ed.net gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech CS Undergrad http://abcb.gt.ed.net
"I wanna program in Visual Basic. Chicks dig Visual Basic."
- My official 2430 slogan
Seth Jaffee
going to argue that Wakefield was right the first time... maybe not in
theory, but in practice.
I don't think I've EVER heard a player say "OK, I'm going to end my
discard phase now... cleanup, healing, end of turn, ok NOW you can go."
Rather they finish whatever they're doing and say "Done." "You're go."
"May the Force be with you." or whatever. At what point exactly are you
(as the player with EOT effects to play) to announce your bolt?
It has always been the case that player B gets a chance to play effects
just as soon as player A (active player) either does so himself, or
refuses to do so. If I don't have any upkeep effects, I can't charge ahead
into my draw phase before my opponent get's a chance to use his Icy (or
whatever).
So when Jamie forgets his Waterspout or Legacy's Allure counter, of course
he can't go back and change that- they're optional costs that have to be
paid at the appropriate time. That has nothing to do with getting a chance
to incinerate your opponent, Impulse, or tim at the end of their turn
(meaning the last possible time to do this during their turn).
If my opponent DID announce the beginning and end of each phase, then that
would narrow the actual time slot for me to play effects to when he
actually says "end of discard phase," but it's all the same thing
really... I'd just have to incinerate then or not at all. Since players
don't announce phases so well, Wakefield and everyone else has every right
to say "What? Your turns over? What happened to your Discard phase? I
wasn't through with it yet!"
As a side note, this in no way stops the active player from saying " Oh,
you bolt me? ok, in THAT case I'll ...[insert whatever here]... during my
discard phase."
Does anybody see this as any different fromn the age-old
A: "I'll cast a Ball Lightning and attack"
B: "Wait, I'll tap your Ball Lightning with my Icy"
rule?
They never announced their attack phase, they just tapped the Lightnbing
and attacked, but no one in their right mind WOULDN'T let the opponent
have a chance to use their Icy before the attack, especially by arguing
that the Lighting is already tapped and attacking.
This is EXACTLY the same thing.
So the moral is... if you're going to be a dick in a tournament, you need
to follow all the tee. Announce your Discard phase, and if they don't bolt
you, they don't bolt you.
Seth Jaffee
Magic : 101
UA Club MtG
John M. Shuler
: Jamie Wakefield <the...@sover.net> wrote:
: > Cathy Nickoloff has this great article called "Winning without playing" on
: > the Dojo - you should read it.
: Cathy Nickoloff is great at writing articles that have a pretty good
: premise and point, but then proceeds to support it so badly that she causes
: 50 people to reply on the Dojo saying how wrong she is.
: Personally, I think she does that on purpose. She likes the
: attention. In that regard, I have not yet appreciated a single one of her
: articles. When she gets off the ego trip and proceeds to write posts with
: real content, then I will give her some credit.
Are we related?
And here I was, thinking that I was the only person on
the 'net who realized what an attention-monger C.Nickoloff
was.
I wonder what that decision process is like. Something
along the lines of "Hmm, I could post something relevant
and thought-provoking, to engender a decent discussion."
"Or, I could just post something inflammatory and not
at all thought out, in order to generate as many
replies as possible."
Now which do you think accomplishes the goal of getting
more attention?
Yep..
BPShuler
--
David Hsu
> And here I was, thinking that I was the only person on
> the 'net who realized what an attention-monger C.Nickoloff
> was.
Amongst my group in Atlanta, she has been nicknamed the Ghazban
Ogress. There are a couple other reasons for this (if one knows about her
past, it shouldn't be hard to figure out), but this is one of them.
Team NWO
AnathemaO
>John M. Shuler <st...@bobo.shirenet.com> wrote:
>> And here I was, thinking that I was the only person on
>> the 'net who realized what an attention-monger C.Nickoloff
>> was.
>
> Amongst my group in Atlanta, she has been nicknamed the Ghazban
>Ogress. There are a couple other reasons for this (if one knows about her
>past, it shouldn't be hard to figure out), but this is one of them.
excuse me? since when did r.g.t-c.m.s become a place where personal slander was
an accepted practice? is this not a MAGIC newsgroup? regardless of whether or
not you agree with Miss Nicoloff's viewpoints, you have to respect the fact
that she's actually stood up and spoken out at the risk of verbal abuse from
people like you. if you have a problem with something, get up on your soapbox
and say something about it. don't mock somebody else for doing it, though.
done.
Nicolas Sabin
Les Enfants du Noir
http://members.xoom.com/LesEnfants
John M. Shuler
: John M. Shuler <st...@bobo.shirenet.com> wrote:
: > And here I was, thinking that I was the only person on
: > the 'net who realized what an attention-monger C.Nickoloff
: > was.
: Amongst my group in Atlanta, she has been nicknamed the Ghazban
: Ogress. There are a couple other reasons for this (if one knows about her
: past, it shouldn't be hard to figure out), but this is one of them.
Well...
I'm not really comfortable with launching any sort of
personal attack upon someone, especially someone that
I don't really know. Especially if it has to do with
a behaviour pattern. I'll stick to attacking her ideas
and the incredibly poor way in which she presents
them. That way, it's nothing personal, and all intellectual.
After all, it's the only way that Jankfield and I
can get along so well. :)
BPShuler
--
John M. Shuler
----------------------------------------------------------
..cause girl you know I've got to go..
----------------------------------------------------------
David Hsu
> people like you. if you have a problem with something, get up on your soapbox
> and say something about it. don't mock somebody else for doing it, though.
I just did. In your quest for protecting her freedom of speach, you
are trying to oppress mine. She can say what she wants to. So can I.
David Hsu
> I'm not really comfortable with launching any sort of
> personal attack upon someone, especially someone that
> I don't really know. Especially if it has to do with
I usually don't try to attack people I don't know personally, but I
know some people who do claim to know her personally, and on seperate
occasions and seperately, they have said similar, not-too-nice things.
Well, alot of their negative feelings has found their way into what I think
about her. All this, coupled with her search-for-attention articles, has
left me having a very negative impression of her.
I apologize if I seemed to be getting out of hand. I'll try to
remain level-headed during these discussions.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
(Snip)
: I wonder what that decision process is like. Something
: along the lines of "Hmm, I could post something relevant
: and thought-provoking, to engender a decent discussion."
: "Or, I could just post something inflammatory and not
: at all thought out, in order to generate as many
: replies as possible."
I'd rather hear the thought process that lead to this article being here.
I'm guessing it's either "She doesn't care for the newsgroups, therefore
by criticizing her here I'm saying what I feel needs to be said without
giving her the attention she wants"
Or it's ""
I'm likely not even close with either of those.
--
Glenn.
------
My illusions are shattered,
That I might build a new one from their pieces.
In chaos, all is possible.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> John M. Shuler <st...@bobo.shirenet.com> wrote:
> > I'm not really comfortable with launching any sort of
> > personal attack upon someone, especially someone that
> > I don't really know. Especially if it has to do with
>
> I usually don't try to attack people I don't know personally, but I
> know some people who do claim to know her personally, and on seperate
> occasions and seperately, they have said similar, not-too-nice things.
> Well, alot of their negative feelings has found their way into what I think
> about her.
And now you're spreading these great tidings to us so that we can also have
unfounded preconceived opinions of her. Thanks a lot.
> All this, coupled with her search-for-attention articles, has
> left me having a very negative impression of her.
> I apologize if I seemed to be getting out of hand. I'll try to
> remain level-headed during these discussions.
>
Styler
David Hsu
> And now you're spreading these great tidings to us so that we can also have
> unfounded preconceived opinions of her. Thanks a lot.
Now hold on there. The discussion turned towards how people felt
about her, and I responded as honestly as possible. When a couple of people
replied to my posts saying that I might have crossed a line I shouldn't
have, I tried to explain my feelings and apologize for my behavior.
How and why in the hell did you choose to interpret my posts as an
attempt to create unfounded preconceived opinions of her? My opinions of
her are mostly from her lack of content in her articles. It has nothing to
do with what anyone else on this group thinks, it has nothing to do with
what I want people to think, it is merely an opinion. An opinion that is
_mine_ to have, and _mine_ to share.
Deal with it.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > And now you're spreading these great tidings to us so that we can also have
> > unfounded preconceived opinions of her. Thanks a lot.
>
> Now hold on there. The discussion turned towards how people felt
> about her, and I responded as honestly as possible. When a couple of people
> replied to my posts saying that I might have crossed a line I shouldn't
> have, I tried to explain my feelings and apologize for my behavior.
> How and why in the hell did you choose to interpret my posts as an
> attempt to create unfounded preconceived opinions of her?
Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
Bottom line.
> My opinions of
> her are mostly from her lack of content in her articles. It has nothing to
> do with what anyone else on this group thinks, it has nothing to do with
> what I want people to think, it is merely an opinion. An opinion that is
> _mine_ to have, and _mine_ to share.
> Deal with it.
>
I never told you that you couldn't have your own opinion or share it. Don't
think that I'm trying to oppress you or anything.
>
> --
> David Hsu hik...@abcb.gt.ed.net gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
> Georgia Tech CS Undergrad http://abcb.gt.ed.net
> "I wanna program in Visual Basic. Chicks dig Visual Basic."
> - My official 2430 slogan
Styler
David Hsu
> Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
> know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
> wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
> said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
> Bottom line.
Hah, do you realize how silly you sound? Maybe we should all just
not say anything at all, for fear that one's words might affect someone
elses subconcious.
Whatever.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
> > know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
> > wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
> > said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
> > Bottom line.
>
> Hah, do you realize how silly you sound? Maybe we should all just
> not say anything at all, for fear that one's words might affect someone
> elses subconcious.
To put my statement into context with your reply, replace "we" with "I", "say
anything at all" with "make unnecessary personal attacks", and continue the sentence
with "and cause people to have unfounded opinions about others that undermine their
credibility".
I really hate it when people twist things that I say around to suit their own
arguments.
Styler
ley...@bigape.com
David Hsu <hik...@r39h52.res.gatech.edu> wrote:
> AnathemaO <anat...@aol.comgodie> wrote:
> > people like you. if you have a problem with something, get up on your
soapbox
> > and say something about it. don't mock somebody else for doing it, though.
>
> I just did. In your quest for protecting her freedom of speach, you
> are trying to oppress mine. She can say what she wants to. So can I.
>
> David Hsu hik...@abcb.gt.ed.net gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
> Georgia Tech CS Undergrad http://abcb.gt.ed.net
> "I wanna program in Visual Basic. Chicks dig Visual Basic."
> - My official 2430 slogan
Sorry dude,
there is a BIG difference!!!!!!!!!
when you initiate a personal attack using ad-hominem insults, you
are closing in on slander, which is ILLEGAL, and not a form of
FREE SPEECH at all.
Furthermore from a personal point of view, throwing around insults
insn't constructive. Stating issues, and inviting comment on those
issues is.
Nicoloff 1 David Hsu 0
you lose
Robert.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David Hsu
> when you initiate a personal attack using ad-hominem insults, you
> are closing in on slander, which is ILLEGAL, and not a form of
> FREE SPEECH at all.
I think I've backed up my insults with an argument of why I find her
articles completely without quality. Whether or not you agree with my
statements is not my concern.
Furthermore, don't even start trying to accuse me of anything. Do
you even know what slander is?! Let's take a quick refresher course.
"X killed Y, and X should be put in jail." Slander, a false
statement of fact, which can be punished by law.
"X is a bitch, he/she is ugly, and I find what he/she writes
offensive." Statements of opinion, protected under the first amendment
right to free speach.
The first amendment is there not to protect what people want to
hear, it is there to protect what people don't want to hear.
Everything that I said about Cathy, from my comments on the lack of
quality of her articles, to the name I called her, was obviously one drawn
from my opinion of her and was in itself an opinion. As such, it is
protected speach.
> Furthermore from a personal point of view, throwing around insults
> insn't constructive. Stating issues, and inviting comment on those
> issues is.
I'm being constructive on many other threads, I don't feel that this
thread was constructive at all. However, I've not gotten to the point I
feel the need to defend myself from personal attacks such as yourself. I
think it's good that you're defending Cathy. Since more than one of us
have stated our dislike for her articles, it's about time someone stood up
for her.
> Nicoloff 1 David Hsu 0
Sorry, I was never competing with Cathy. I'll give you a point for
trying though:
You 1 Me 0
Unlike you, I don't feel the need to win.
David Hsu
> To put my statement into context with your reply, replace "we" with "I", "say
> anything at all" with "make unnecessary personal attacks", and continue the sentence
> with "and cause people to have unfounded opinions about others that undermine their
> credibility".
If you felt I made a "unnecessary personal attack", just say so. I
have already said in another post that my statement might have crossed a
line, and made my apologies there. However, there was no twisting required
to come up with the conclusion I did in that post.
If you don't make yourself clear, and/or keep changing what you're
trying to say, I'm not going to be the one held responsible for it. First
you say that because of what I said, "...I have an opinion of her, whether I
like it or not." Not once did you mention it was because of what you call
"an unnecessary personal attack". Only after I confronted you with the
issue did you change your statement. That's fine, you can do things any way
you like.
But, enough is enough, let's get back to the issue at hand. You
think me calling her a name was unnecessary. I agreed that it might have
been. I apologized. I am not going to apologize again just for your
benefit. I'm ready to move on whenever you are.
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
: Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
: know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
: wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
: said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
: Bottom line.
If you know the source of that 'opinion,' you can dismiss it as
'preconcieved and unfounded.'
If you can't do that, I have no sympathy for people who can't deal with
their own mind.
David Hsu
> If that be the case, then let me ask "Why in the name of every god that's
> ever lived, died or been imagined are you giving her exactly what you're
> criticising her for wanting?"
What she wants, in my _opinion_ (for some of the others here on this
thread) is for people to reply to her articles. I don't, I just talk about
her elsewhere, and only because I want to.
My happiness is more important to me then whether she reaches her
goal of attention-getting or not. If speaking my mind causes her to get what
she wants, so be it.
John M. Shuler
: In article <769shq$6m$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>,
: David Hsu <hik...@r39h52.res.gatech.edu> wrote:
: > are trying to oppress mine. She can say what she wants to. So can I.
: >
: Sorry dude,
: there is a BIG difference!!!!!!!!!
: when you initiate a personal attack using ad-hominem insults, you
: are closing in on slander, which is ILLEGAL, and not a form of
: FREE SPEECH at all.
I strongly suggest that you at least attempt to *understand*
what the term "slander" actually means before you accuse
people of committing it.
Go pick up a law dictionary, and come back when you comprehend
the words that you want to use.
And please, more exclamation marks next time. I could hardly
understand what you wanted to emphasize with only nine of
them.
John M. Shuler
: David Hsu wrote:
: > How and why in the hell did you choose to interpret my posts as an
: > attempt to create unfounded preconceived opinions of her?
: Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
: know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
: wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
: said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
: Bottom line.
In other words, no one is ever allowed to say anything that
isn't completely neutral about anyone else. This is how
things work in your world.
Interesting.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > To put my statement into context with your reply, replace "we" with "I", "say
> > anything at all" with "make unnecessary personal attacks", and continue the sentence
> > with "and cause people to have unfounded opinions about others that undermine their
> > credibility".
>
> If you felt I made a "unnecessary personal attack", just say so.
Funny, I had thought that I made this aspect of my argument quite clear.
> I
> have already said in another post that my statement might have crossed a
> line, and made my apologies there. However, there was no twisting required
> to come up with the conclusion I did in that post.
Does my preceding post not make sense to you? I tried to tell you very reasonably were
you were mistaken. Do you deny this logic?
>
> If you don't make yourself clear, and/or keep changing what you're
> trying to say, I'm not going to be the one held responsible for it.
I made myself perfectly clear. I didn't change what I was trying to say. And I don't
hold you responsible for me changing what I say because I did not do so.
> First
> you say that because of what I said, "...I have an opinion of her, whether I
> like it or not." Not once did you mention it was because of what you call
> "an unnecessary personal attack". Only after I confronted you with the
> issue did you change your statement.
Oh, really? Funny, I thought that we were dealing with this personal attack all along.
What did you think I was talking about? Your blatant ignorance in a wide scope of
subjects? Or maybe your eagerness to make silly personal gossip. Either way, tell me
where my attention waned.
> That's fine, you can do things any way
> you like.
Yeah, you can try and make me look like I'm acting irrational and just doing things my
way, but the fact is that I'm being quite logical, and if you want to debate, then you
will have to do the same.
>
> But, enough is enough, let's get back to the issue at hand. You
> think me calling her a name was unnecessary. I agreed that it might have
> been. I apologized. I am not going to apologize again just for your
> benefit. I'm ready to move on whenever you are.
>
I don't give a damn if you're sorry. You still don't see what's wrong about spreading
this garbage around. Don't try and play the humble child, trying to make up for your
idiocy, the damage has been done, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
>
> --
> David Hsu hik...@abcb.gt.ed.net gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
> Georgia Tech CS Undergrad http://abcb.gt.ed.net
> "I wanna program in Visual Basic. Chicks dig Visual Basic."
> - My official 2430 slogan
Styler
Tyler Woyiwada
ka...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada (rwoy...@magi.com) wrote:
>
> : Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
> : know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
> : wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
> : said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
> : Bottom line.
>
> If you know the source of that 'opinion,' you can dismiss it as
> 'preconcieved and unfounded.
Yeah, too bad I DON"T know the source of the opinion.
>
> If you can't do that, I have no sympathy for people who can't deal with
> their own mind.
>
It might be 'preconcieved and unfounded', but the fact that an opinion like this
even EXISTS creates a doubt in my mind of this person. Anyways, two things: 1) Who
the hell are you and why would I desire sympathy from you? 2) Do you defend the
action of people making personal judgements of others and unjustifiably spreading
those opinions to others?
>
> --
> Glenn
Styler
Tyler Woyiwada
John M. Shuler wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada (rwoy...@magi.com) wrote:
> : David Hsu wrote:
> : > How and why in the hell did you choose to interpret my posts as an
> : > attempt to create unfounded preconceived opinions of her?
>
> : Because now I have an opinion of her, whether I like it or not. I don't even
> : know this person, and yet I have an opinion of her. Why? Because of what you
> : wrote. It doesn't matter what you were "attempting". As a result of what you
> : said, I have a preconcieved, unfounded opinion of her, however subconciously.
> : Bottom line.
>
> In other words, no one is ever allowed to say anything that
> isn't completely neutral about anyone else. This is how
> things work in your world.
Not in my world, but perhaps in this newsgroup? Or is this a Jerry Springer update
newsgroup? Up until now I thought it wasn't.
Styler
ka...@ecn.ab.ca
(Snip)
: Yeah, too bad I DON"T know the source of the opinion.
Sure you do. A subconscious response to the post you read.
: > If you can't do that, I have no sympathy for people who can't deal with
: > their own mind.
: It might be 'preconcieved and unfounded', but the fact that an opinion like this
: even EXISTS creates a doubt in my mind of this person.
Weak. My preconcieved notions about her (yes, I had them) were quite
different from the ones I developed after reading her material. If I can
do it, so can you.
: Anyways, two things: 1) Who
: the hell are you and why would I desire sympathy from you?
I am Glenn, the prophet of Kaos and the first official honorary member of
the unofficial a.g. welcoming commitee. None of which is important here.
And my sympathy always goes along with the issues I support; therefore, if
you want my support on this issue (and really, if you didn't you wouldn't
have posted anything) then you have to earn my sympathy as well.
: 2) Do you defend the
: action of people making personal judgements of others and unjustifiably spreading
: those opinions to others?
I defend the actions of people to make personal judgements of others,
because it is inevitable.
I support their right to state their opinions.
I did not see his action ass unjustifiable. Not highly appropriate IMO,
but not unjustifiable.
--
Glenn.
David Hsu
way to interpret what you said. But anyways. Whatever, if it'll make you
happy, I'm going to concede this point to you. There's no use arguing
what's left completely up to interpretation, and I am no longer going to
respond on that point.
> Yeah, you can try and make me look like I'm acting irrational ...
I think we'll just let the other readers decide that for themselves.
I personally do not care whether you think you are being rational or not.
Your method of phrasing things is very much like Cathy's: the obvious
intense desire to draw response. I'm willing to respond up to a point to
defend myself, but I don't really care about how or what you look like.
> I don't give a damn if you're sorry.
Well, that do you "give a damn" about anyways? If an apology is not
what you are looking for, then what do you want? Another instance of you
not making yourself clear.
> Don't try and play the humble child, trying to make up for your idiocy,
So wait, you don't want an apology, you don't want me to try and
make up for my, as you so tactfully put it, "idiocy", and yet you act like
there is something else that I can do. Pray tell, what? This isn't
"playing", this is a real question. You seem to have some arrogant concept
that you can be judge, jury, and executioner on what I have done. Nice try.
Let me tell you right now, you can do and say what you want, but you
are wasting your time. I have little respect for the likes of you. People
like Robert Leyland I can respect. He thought I went too far, he was very
vocal about it, but he at least is a reasonable person.
You've degenerated far past where I have gone, and it's amusing to
watch the pot call the kettle black. Do what you want, say what you want.
The spotlight is on you, my friend, as I am sure that's where you wanted
it to begin with.
> the damage has been done, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
Allow me to quote Glenn, in his post on this thread: "If you know
the source of that 'opinion,' you can dismiss it as 'preconcieved and
unfounded.' If you can't do that, I have no sympathy for people who can't
deal with their own mind."
And speaking of Glenn, he is another person who thought I might have
went too far, but is being tactful and reasonable.
Oh, one last thing. The Internet standard for newsgroup posts does
not allow for more than 80 characters per line. Your posts are difficult to
read and require excessive effort in formatting to respond to. If you are
going to pass yourself off as the person who decides what is right or wrong
in this newsgroup, at least do it right.
David Hsu
> Not in my world, but perhaps in this newsgroup? Or is this a Jerry Springer update
> newsgroup? Up until now I thought it wasn't.
Tyler has declared that there can be no non-neutral opinions in this
newsgroup. Yay. Whatever, let's move on.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > I made myself perfectly clear.
> Obviously not perfectly. After all, it's not like I went out of my
> way to interpret what you said. But anyways. Whatever, if it'll make you
> happy, I'm going to concede this point to you. There's no use arguing
> what's left completely up to interpretation, and I am no longer going to
> respond on that point.
>
Jeez, just admit that you were wrong.
>
> > Yeah, you can try and make me look like I'm acting irrational ...
> I think we'll just let the other readers decide that for themselves.
> I personally do not care whether you think you are being rational or not.
> Your method of phrasing things is very much like Cathy's: the obvious
> intense desire to draw response.
Nothing wrong with that. It's the foundation of a conversation or an argument.
> I'm willing to respond up to a point to
> defend myself, but I don't really care about how or what you look like.
>
> > I don't give a damn if you're sorry.
> Well, that do you "give a damn" about anyways? If an apology is not
> what you are looking for, then what do you want? Another instance of you
> not making yourself clear.
>
> > Don't try and play the humble child, trying to make up for your idiocy,
> So wait, you don't want an apology, you don't want me to try and
> make up for my, as you so tactfully put it, "idiocy", and yet you act like
> there is something else that I can do. Pray tell, what?
I just want you to try and see how destructive rumor spreading can be. I myself
have been subjected to this cancer, as I'm sure that you have also. I know
you've apologized, but you are sorry for the wrong reason. You are sorry that
you pissed off so many people. And you continue to post things about people
like calling this one guy a cheater. That's all.
> This isn't
> "playing", this is a real question. You seem to have some arrogant concept
> that you can be judge, jury, and executioner on what I have done. Nice try.
Yeah, I saw that phrase on t.v. once too...
>
> Let me tell you right now, you can do and say what you want, but you
> are wasting your time. I have little respect for the likes of you.
Irrelevant.
> People
> like Robert Leyland I can respect. He thought I went too far, he was very
> vocal about it, but he at least is a reasonable person.
> You've degenerated far past where I have gone, and it's amusing to
> watch the pot call the kettle black.
And the kettle keeps on comin'! :P
> Do what you want, say what you want.
> The spotlight is on you, my friend, as I am sure that's where you wanted
> it to begin with.
>
What spotlight? We're just debating here. To be totally honest, I'm just
arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't give a damn about this Cathy person,
but don't let that discredit my argument. Let me also say that I've enjoyed
this debate with you David, you are a skilled adversary and I have learned alot
from this thread. So don't take any of this personally as it seems that you are
for I can sense anger in you, and I think we should cool out before we start
flaming each other.
>
> > the damage has been done, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
> Allow me to quote Glenn, in his post on this thread: "If you know
> the source of that 'opinion,' you can dismiss it as 'preconcieved and
> unfounded.' If you can't do that, I have no sympathy for people who can't
> deal with their own mind."
>
I don't think it's fair for you to quote other people's responses to me, but to
answer that:
I don't know the source of the opinion! Sure you're the deliverer of the
opinion, but as far as I know, the source of the opinion is: "some guys,
somewhere".
> And speaking of Glenn, he is another person who thought I might have
> went too far, but is being tactful and reasonable.
>
>
> Oh, one last thing. The Internet standard for newsgroup posts does
> not allow for more than 80 characters per line. Your posts are difficult to
> read and require excessive effort in formatting to respond to.
Huh? What's wrong with them? They look alright to me.
> If you are
> going to pass yourself off as the person who decides what is right or wrong
> in this newsgroup, at least do it right.
>
You got me there. That's what's so hard about being mr. Right, one slip and the
whole facade falls to pieces. Tell me about this formatting though, I seriously
have no idea what the problem is. Oh, and to everyone else reading, sorry to
bore you so. I can imagine how unenjoyable this thread must be for everyone.
>
> --
> David Hsu hik...@abcb.gt.ed.net gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
> Georgia Tech CS Undergrad http://abcb.gt.ed.net
> "I wanna program in Visual Basic. Chicks dig Visual Basic."
> - My official 2430 slogan
Styler
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > Not in my world, but perhaps in this newsgroup? Or is this a Jerry Springer update
> > newsgroup? Up until now I thought it wasn't.
>
> Tyler has declared that there can be no non-neutral opinions in this
> newsgroup. Yay. Whatever, let's move on.
>
Let me rephrase that. You say "in your world, do you not say anything non-neutral about
others? Is this how it works in your world?" I say:"not in my world, but perhaps in
this newsgroup?" Meaning"that is not how it works in my WORLD, but perhaps this is how
it should work in this newsgroup." If I was unclear, I apologize.
David Hsu
> you pissed off so many people. And you continue to post things about people
That's incorrect. If you don't know why, that's fine with me
though.
> Yeah, I saw that phrase on t.v. once too...
But it's true.
> And the kettle keeps on comin'! :P
I don't believe that I've insulted Cathy since this whole thing
started.
> What spotlight? We're just debating here. To be totally honest, I'm just
> arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't give a damn about this Cathy person,
Aren't we all? :)
> from this thread. So don't take any of this personally as it seems that you are
> for I can sense anger in you, and I think we should cool out before we start
> flaming each other.
Anger? No, not anger, but annoyance.
> I don't think it's fair for you to quote other people's responses to me, but to
Why not? I think it makes my point rather well.
> I don't know the source of the opinion! Sure you're the deliverer of the
> opinion, but as far as I know, the source of the opinion is: "some guys,
No, the source of the opinion is _me_. If it wasn't my opinion, I
wouldn't have said it.
> Huh? What's wrong with them? They look alright to me.
When people with normal newsreaders read your posts, they wrap them
at 80 characters. What ends up happening is because your lines are 85-95
characters, 5-15 of them end up on the next line, and it requires alot of
work to make it look right when you are replying to it.
> You got me there. That's what's so hard about being mr. Right, one slip and the
Mr. Right? Hehe. No use being humble, eh?
David Hsu
> this newsgroup?" Meaning"that is not how it works in my WORLD, but perhaps this is how
> it should work in this newsgroup." If I was unclear, I apologize.
Actually, this was clear. I'm just saying that you shouldn't limit
your opinions of anything, be it people or whatever, to only neutral ones.
That is a silly idea.
Tyler Woyiwada
David Hsu wrote:
> Tyler Woyiwada <rwoy...@magi.com> wrote:
> > you pissed off so many people. And you continue to post things about people
>
> That's incorrect. If you don't know why, that's fine with me
> though.
>
> > Yeah, I saw that phrase on t.v. once too...
>
> But it's true.
>
t.v. never lies...
>
> > And the kettle keeps on comin'! :P
>
> I don't believe that I've insulted Cathy since this whole thing
> started.
>
Psht... I don't even know what that expression means(don't tell anyone).
>
> > What spotlight? We're just debating here. To be totally honest, I'm just
> > arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't give a damn about this Cathy person,
>
> Aren't we all? :)
>
> > from this thread. So don't take any of this personally as it seems that you are
> > for I can sense anger in you, and I think we should cool out before we start
> > flaming each other.
>
> Anger? No, not anger, but annoyance.
>
> > I don't think it's fair for you to quote other people's responses to me, but to
> Why not? I think it makes my point rather well.
Well how come no one's backing ME up then? I sure could use some poignant stuff to
quote.
>
> > I don't know the source of the opinion! Sure you're the deliverer of the
> > opinion, but as far as I know, the source of the opinion is: "some guys,
> No, the source of the opinion is _me_. If it wasn't my opinion, I
> wouldn't have said it.
>
My mistake. I thought you had originally said something like "these guys at this
tourney were saying this."
>
> > Huh? What's wrong with them? They look alright to me.
> When people with normal newsreaders read your posts, they wrap them
> at 80 characters. What ends up happening is because your lines are 85-95
> characters, 5-15 of them end up on the next line, and it requires alot of
> work to make it look right when you are replying to it.
>
I'm flattered that you're putting so much effort into making my posts look so pretty.
;)
>
> > You got me there. That's what's so hard about being mr. Right, one slip and the
> Mr. Right? Hehe. No use being humble, eh?
>
I prefer 'modest'. What's this thread supposed to be about anyways? Yeah, how about
that good ol' tidal influence in the great lake champlain valley, that was really
something eh? Apologies to the originator of this thread.
eeyoo
>I prefer 'modest'. What's this thread supposed to be about anyways? Yeah,
how about
>that good ol' tidal influence in the great lake champlain valley, that was
really
>something eh? Apologies to the originator of this thread.
>
>>
I was considering posting a WTF message, trying to figure out what your guys
little squabble had to do with my lame tourney report. I'm glad I didn't.
David Hsu
> Well how come no one's backing ME up then? I sure could use some poignant
> stuff to quote.
I'm sorry, I wish I could help you out :).
> My mistake. I thought you had originally said something like "these guys
> at this tourney were saying this."
My point was: It was _also_ my friends opinion (yes, it was not just
some guys at some tourney, it was people I know much better than that). But
originally, the opinion expressed was mine.
> I'm flattered that you're putting so much effort into making my posts look
> so pretty. ;)
No problem.
Just as an example, there wasn't a newline until after the word
'pretty' in the above sentence. However, your newsreader should have
wrapped that line at the word 'so'. As a result, I had to add the newline
and the '>' character. Check the settings or something.
David A. Robinson
: >I prefer 'modest'. What's this thread supposed to be about anyways? Yeah,
: how about
: >that good ol' tidal influence in the great lake champlain valley, that was
: really
: >something eh? Apologies to the originator of this thread.
: >
: >>
: I was considering posting a WTF message, trying to figure out what your guys
: little squabble had to do with my lame tourney report. I'm glad I didn't.
Speaking of WTF messages: how the heck did Lake Champlain manage to be
included among the Great Lakes? What's up with that nonsense?
I'm from Michigan. I know Great Lakes. Lake Champlain ain't no Great Lake.
(Hey, I'm as on-topic as the rest of the drivel in this thread...)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
David A. Robinson |
The Wharton School, Univ. of PA | '''
2314 SH-DH, 3620 Locust Walk | (o o)
Philadelphia, PA 19104 |-------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------------
V:(215) 573-3150 F:(215) 898-6200 | robi...@wharton.upenn.edu
eeyoo
>I'm from Michigan. I know Great Lakes. Lake Champlain ain't no Great Lake.
Uh, you know Lake Champlain cause you're from Michigan? Don't see how that
follows.....
Lake Champlain has a direct geological and archaelogical connection to the
other Great Lakes. Or are you blinded by size and misplaced local pride?
emai...@yahoo.com
Being from any of the Great Lakes states, you are generally taught in Jr.
High History which are the Great Lakes. In the case of my upbringing in
Ohio, there are 5 great Lakes. They consist of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron,
Lake Superior, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Whether Lake Champlain is in direct connection to any of these lakes, or is
close proximity to these lakes is moot. The Great Lakes are 5 specific bodies
of water.
Nick Doan. (I always choose Geography in Trivial Pursuit.)
David A. Robinson
NB: OFF TOPIC !!
Well, the group has been pretty slow lately... and, this thread has been
mostly off-topic anyway. Here I go on a mild-mannered rant:
eeyoo (ee...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >I'm from Michigan. I know Great Lakes. Lake Champlain ain't no Great Lake.
: Uh, you know Lake Champlain cause you're from Michigan? Don't see how that
: follows.....
No, I said I know what a Great Lake is because I'm from Michigan. I said,
"I know Great Lakes." Not, "I know Lake Champlain." It's not the same
thing. There's a difference. A *big* difference (pun intended).
The Great Lakes are so-named for a reason. My dictionary defines "great"
as follows:
1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions; big
So yes, in this case, size matters. Any grade-schooler can look at a map
and figure out how the Great Lakes got their name. An alien circling the
globe in outer space knows how the Great Lakes got their name. It has to
do with their size. They're *big*. Very big. Lake Superior is the largest
body of fresh water in the world. They are like inland, fresh-water
oceans. They are named Great Lakes because their size is their defining
characteristic. And, although I don't claim to "know Lake Champlain", in
this context I know all I need to know, which is: Lake Champlain is
definitely *not* one of Great Lakes because the Great Lakes completely
dwarf Lake Champlain in size:
Lake Area
--------------- -------------
Lake Champlain: 490 sq. mi.
Lake Ontario: 7,430 sq. mi.
Lake Erie: 9,940 sq. mi.
Lake Michigan: 22,400 sq. mi.
Lake Huron: 23,010 sq. mi.
Lake Superior: 31,820 sq. mi.
Now, I'm not saying that Lake Champlain is not "great" (as in "wonderful")
in the estimation of New Yorkers and Vermonters and other visitors to that
region of the country. I'm sure it's a lovely little lake. But it
certainly is *not* a Great Lake.
The fact of the matter is, this designation of Lake Champlain as a Great
Lake is all about one thing: money. Senator Leahy (D, Vermont) put a
provision in a bill, recently passed by Congress, giving Lake Champlain
Great Lake status. It was part of a $290 mil. bill for marine research.
The effect of this designation is to make Vermont eligible for any money
granted to states bordering the Great Lakes. So now that Vermont is
designated a "Great Lake State", any money allocated to preserve and
protect these valuable national resources must be shared with Vermont.
Business as usual in Washington, I'm sorry to say.
Now, I'm not saying that Lake Champlain should not be preserved and
protected like any other valued natural resource in this country. It
should. Nor am I saying that the U.S. Senators from the Great Lake States
are not money-grubbing politicians like Leahy. I'm sure they are. But, I
believe there is something unique and valuable about these inland oceans
of fresh water that should be preserved. And, if Congress should
appropriate money toward that end, I would like to see it put to its
intended use. Having Vermont share such targeted funds is objectionable,
just as it would be if any other non-Great Lake State shared the funds.
Let me reiterate: I do *not* object to some of my tax money being spent to
preserve and protect Lake Champlain. But, I feel the same way about just
about every other lake in the Union. If we're going to spend money on
protecting fresh water lakes in general, fine. I'm for it. But let's do it
in an honest, straightforward way, and share it among all states that have
fresh-water lakes; i.e., all of them. On the other hand, if there is
something unique about the Great Lakes that requires special attention,
let's address those specific issues. Let's not, however, siphon money off
of targeted appropriations (thereby mitigating their impact) or degrade
our language for the sake of a few bucks and the re-election of an
incumbent politician.
: Lake Champlain has a direct geological and archaelogical connection to the
: other Great Lakes. Or are you blinded by size and misplaced local pride?
As I said, it's about size. Not archaeology. And, no, I'm not blinded by
size - I just recognize that it is the defining characteristic of the
Great Lakes.
And no, I'm not "blinded ... by misplaced local pride." Yes, I am proud of
my home State, just as you are. But it does not blind me and it is not
misplaced. I *am* sensitive to this issue because of my love of the Great
Lakes and my home state, however. And, just as size is the defining
characteristic of the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes are the defining
characteristic of the State of Michigan. The name "Michigan" comes from
the Fox "mesikami", which means "large lake". The Great Lakes
geographically define us as a State. The State of Michigan is literally
carved out of the earth by the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are a source
of pride and identity to all Michiganders, and we do not appreciate this
hijacking of our identity for the sake of siphoning off resources that are
specifically intended to preserve and protect these national treasures.
Let me say in closing that, quite a few years ago, our family took an
extended camping trip through upstate New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and
Maine. It is beautiful country. The people were very friendly, and I
enjoyed our visit a great deal - I have very fond memories of our visit to
your beautiful state. I love the changing of the seasons (yes, including
snow in the winter!), and I believe that Vermont must be a beautiful place
in which to live, year-round. I hope to return some day. I'm sure you are
a proud Vermonter, as you should be. (I believe we stopped briefly at Lake
Champlain on that trip, but we didn't stay long - it was very
commercialized and relatively expensive, as I recall, so we kept going.) I
have nothing against the State of Vermont (on the contrary!), the People
of Vermont (on the contrary!) or Lake Champlain. But, there exist simple,
self-evident truths in this world that should be obvious to everyone and
should not be denied. And among these simple, self-evident truths I would
include the following:
Vermont is not known for its cherries; Michigan is. Michigan is not known
for its maple syrup; Vermont is. And Lake Champlain is *not* a Great Lake.
Period.
P.S.
Recently, I was shocked to discover the web site of a rental-cabin owner
on what I thought was one of the most sparsely populated, out-of-the-way
places in Michigan: Drummond Island. My grandmother and great-grandmother
lived there most of their lives, and we used to vacation there every
summer when I was a boy. My father still keeps a summer home there. If
anyone should find themselves near the east coast of the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan, by all means take the "Drummond Islander" ferry over for a
visit. Rent a cottage on Potagannissing Bay and rent a little boat to
cruise among the numerous small islands in the Bay at sunset. If you are
unmoved, you have no soul. :-) Here's the guy's URL (he's close to, but
probably not right on the shore of P. Bay, though):
http://www.tiac.net/users/babybasa
P.P.S.
Sorry about this rant - I'm stuck in Philadelphia for the long-haul and
I'm a bit home-sick. :-(
Respectfully,
Jamie
David A. Robinson wrote in message <770qht$d5d$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>
>NB: OFF TOPIC !!
Well, I can agree with this part. I'm as off topic as anyone.
>So yes, in this case, size matters. Any grade-schooler can look at a map
>and figure out how the Great Lakes got their name. An alien circling the
>globe in outer space knows how the Great Lakes got their name. It has to
>do with their size. They're *big*. Very big.
Lake Champlain is Big too. No, bigger than that. No, look, I mean it is
big!!!
No really. Lake Champlain my be the smallest of the grat lakes, but that
doesn't make it a pond.
Lake Superior is the largest
>body of fresh water in the world. They are like inland, fresh-water
>oceans. They are named Great Lakes because their size is their defining
>characteristic. And, although I don't claim to "know Lake Champlain", in
>this context I know all I need to know, which is: Lake Champlain is
>definitely *not* one of Great Lakes because the Great Lakes completely
>dwarf Lake Champlain in size:
No. No they do not.
>
> Lake Area
>--------------- -------------
>Lake Champlain: 490 sq. mi.
>Lake Ontario: 7,430 sq. mi.
>Lake Erie: 9,940 sq. mi.
>Lake Michigan: 22,400 sq. mi.
>Lake Huron: 23,010 sq. mi.
>Lake Superior: 31,820 sq. mi.
Right here was where I was going to quote some amazing facts about Lake
Champlain, so I sign on to the net and start looking, and damn is it tough
to find any good info on Lake Champlain. I mean - I know its out there, btu
I can't find it in 15 minutes. As I'm starting to get frustrated, in walks
my good pal Richard "I know more useless AND useful information than you
have already forgot." Ruane.
Richard pretty much knows, well, everything.
"Just the guy I'm looking for!" I tell him.
Richard raises one eyebrow like Spock.
"How big is Lake Champlain? Its just barely smaller than the other great
lakes isn't it?"
Richard smiles in that fatherly way he has.
"Lake Champlain is about a fifth the size of the smallest Great Lake."
"No way!" I explaim. "Say it isn't so!"
"How am I going to go off on David A. Robinson if I'm wrong!!"
:-)
"Well, we are deeper than the other Great Lakes.
"Yeah! We're deeper man! And we have our own monster too!!"
Being all of a hundred and twenty miles long and 15 miles wide, and 400 feet
deep, Lake Champlain is home to "Champ" A monster sited numorous times a
year, photo's have been taken, he's been on the Today show, and a host of
others.
Can the other Great Lakes say that? Hmm? No?
I didn't think so! So there mister!
:-)
>
>Now, I'm not saying that Lake Champlain is not "great" (as in "wonderful")
>in the estimation of New Yorkers and Vermonters and other visitors to that
>region of the country. I'm sure it's a lovely little lake. But it
>certainly is *not* a Great Lake.
Yeah - but if DEPTH were taken into consideration it would be. Lake
Champlain is 400 feet deep. And, did I mention it has it's own monster?
>
>The fact of the matter is, this designation of Lake Champlain as a Great
>Lake is all about one thing: money. Senator Leahy (D, Vermont) put a
>provision in a bill, recently passed by Congress, giving Lake Champlain
>Great Lake status. It was part of a $290 mil. bill for marine research.
>The effect of this designation is to make Vermont eligible for any money
>granted to states bordering the Great Lakes. So now that Vermont is
>designated a "Great Lake State", any money allocated to preserve and
>protect these valuable national resources must be shared with Vermont.
>Business as usual in Washington, I'm sorry to say.
Well, you will be happy to know that this lasted for all of about a day.
Then some stinky midwestern senators went to Senator Leahy and said "What do
you really want?" And he said just what David said. "I want federal money
for Lake Champlain. Mosters need care and feeding you know."
To which they said - "Fine, but you're not a Great Lake."
To which Senator Leahy replied "Well, we have a monster and you don't."
>
>Now, I'm not saying that Lake Champlain should not be preserved and
>protected like any other valued natural resource in this country. It
>should. Nor am I saying that the U.S. Senators from the Great Lake States
>are not money-grubbing politicians like Leahy. I'm sure they are. But, I
>believe there is something unique and valuable about these inland oceans
>of fresh water that should be preserved. And, if Congress should
>appropriate money toward that end, I would like to see it put to its
>intended use. Having Vermont share such targeted funds is objectionable,
>just as it would be if any other non-Great Lake State shared the funds.
Well, the ecology of Lake Champlain should be preserved for a number of
reasons.
1. We have a monster
2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That means it has a unique
supply of life in it living at 400 feet that should be preserved.
3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took place on lake Champlain.
many monsters were killed. It was horrible.
<Massive snip of really neat explanation that I probably should have made
you read again>
>Let me say in closing that, quite a few years ago, our family took an
>extended camping trip through upstate New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and
>Maine. It is beautiful country. The people were very friendly, and I
>enjoyed our visit a great deal - I have very fond memories of our visit to
>your beautiful state. I love the changing of the seasons (yes, including
>snow in the winter!), and I believe that Vermont must be a beautiful place
>in which to live, year-round. I hope to return some day. I'm sure you are
>a proud Vermonter, as you should be. (I believe we stopped briefly at Lake
>Champlain on that trip, but we didn't stay long - it was very
>commercialized and relatively expensive, as I recall, so we kept going.)
This is the first dumb thing you've said. You stopped at Lake Champlain and
found it commercialized and expensize?
As I stated before. Lake Champlain is over a hundred miles long, and as you
well know - is not encompased by one state. Saying you stopped at "lake
Champlain" is like saying.
"Yeah, we stopped in Texas for an afternoon, but we found the people to be
filthy and the food the same as anywhere else."
I
>have nothing against the State of Vermont (on the contrary!), the People
>of Vermont (on the contrary!) or Lake Champlain. But, there exist simple,
>self-evident truths in this world that should be obvious to everyone and
>should not be denied. And among these simple, self-evident truths I would
>include the following:
>
>Vermont is not known for its cherries; Michigan is. Michigan is not known
>for its maple syrup; Vermont is. And Lake Champlain is *not* a Great Lake.
>Period.
Lake Champlain used to be a lot bigger. It was formed at around the same
time as the Great Lakes, which I believe is what Alan is Talking about.
And, I may be wrong here - but Lake Champlain is the sixth largest body of
freshwater in the US. (Not being Richard Ruane, I don't know that for sure.)
It might not be a great lake - but it's a really good lake!!!
Did I mention its really deep and has a monster too?
And not some cheesy no one ever sees it monster either. Champ is second in
pictures taken and sightings only to Nessie.
Later
Jamie C. Wakefield
King of the Fatties
12 miles from Lake Champlain
even as I write this.
The Redneck
David A. Robinson wrote
>NB: OFF TOPIC !!
>
>Well, the group has been pretty slow lately... and, this thread has
been
>mostly off-topic anyway. Here I go on a mild-mannered rant:
Well said! Off-topic, but excellent prose. Now, just
write that way about Magic - we need more good writers
in this group.
--
The Redneck
the_r...@geocities.com
-Official Patron of Scalding Salamander
-Captain, or something, Team Desert Scrub
-DCI Certified Grumpy Judge
-DoW columnist -http://home6.inet.tele.dk/asmild/
ifh...@my-dejanews.com
> Did I mention its really deep and has a monster too?
>
Ya know, you never cease to amuse, Jamie. I would just like to publicly say
that i am adding "Did I mentioned its really deep and has a monster too?",
with proper credit, to my list of official quotes. Thank you.
- Mitch
Team borg.borg.borg
PS: And no, at no point will i be using it to infer or reply to anything
improper. Get your mind out of the sewer, people. :)
Vince Campanile
<Massive Snippage>
> 1. We have a monster
> 2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That means it has a unique
> supply of life in it living at 400 feet that should be preserved.
> 3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took place on lake Champlain.
> many monsters were killed. It was horrible.
>
Hmm, just to get into the "anything you can do I can do better" match, I
just want to bring up the fact that California/Nevada have possibly the
deepest body of fresh water in the world in Lake Tahoe. Sonar has placed
the bottom at over 1000 feet, but there not sure that that is even the
bottom, as there are layers of silt that trigger the sonar, and they
tend to rise and fall with the currents.
<Another massive Snip>
>
> Later
>
> Jamie C. Wakefield
> King of the Fatties
> 12 miles from Lake Champlain
> even as I write this.
Vince Campanile
--
They've Killed Fritz!
They've Killed Fritz!
Those lousy stinking yellow faries!
Those horrible atrocity filled vermin!
Those despicable animal warmongers!
They've killed Fritz!
Ryan Rusaw
> Jamie wrote:
> <Massive Snippage>
> > 1. We have a monster
> > 2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That means it has a unique
> > supply of life in it living at 400 feet that should be preserved.
> > 3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took place on lake Champlain.
> > many monsters were killed. It was horrible.
> >
>
> Hmm, just to get into the "anything you can do I can do better" match, I
> just want to bring up the fact that California/Nevada have possibly the
> deepest body of fresh water in the world in Lake Tahoe. Sonar has placed
> the bottom at over 1000 feet, but there not sure that that is even the
> bottom, as there are layers of silt that trigger the sonar, and they
> tend to rise and fall with the currents.
>
1000 feet? Thats pretty deep but considering Lake Baikul bottoms out at 5,371
feet... the possibility of 4000+ feet of silt just doesn't seem very likely. Lake
Baikul ,coincidentally, is so deep that it also contains more fresh water than
any other body of water.
>
> <Another massive Snip>
> >
> > Later
> >
> > Jamie C. Wakefield
> > King of the Fatties
> > 12 miles from Lake Champlain
> > even as I write this.
>
> Vince Campanile
> --
> They've Killed Fritz!
> They've Killed Fritz!
> Those lousy stinking yellow faries!
> Those horrible atrocity filled vermin!
> Those despicable animal warmongers!
> They've killed Fritz!
Ryan
Doc Coyote
Vince Campanile wrote:
>Jamie wrote:
><Massive Snippage>
>> 2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That
>>means it has a unique supply of life in it living at 400
>>feet that should be preserved.
>>3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took
>>It was horrible.
>>
>
>Hmm, just to get into the "anything you can do I can do better" match, I
>just want to bring up the fact that California/Nevada have possibly the
>deepest body of fresh water in the world in Lake Tahoe. Sonar has placed
>the bottom at over 1000 feet, but there not sure that that is even the
>bottom, as there are layers of silt that trigger the sonar, and they
>tend to rise and fall with the currents.
>
.
1. Lake Tahoe also is home to the unimaginatively named
monster "Tessie"
.
2. Lake Tahoe is apparently very, very silty. This silt is not
just your ordinary, lie-on-the-bottom silt either.
.
3. My fiancé, Cassie, broke her leg while skiing at Lake
Tahoe (whether Tessie was involved or not has yet to be
determined.) It was horrible.
.
Looks like Lake Tahoe, while not a Great Lake, is a Just-
About-as-Good-as-Lake-Champlain Lake.
.
Max Hufnagel
DocCoyote on IRC and in Neighborhoods Everywhere
Not A Lake Monster (Yet)
bens...@series2000.com
"Jamie" <the...@sover.net> wrote:
> >NB: OFF TOPIC !!
> It might not be a great lake - but it's a really good lake!!!
>
> Did I mention its really deep and has a monster too?
>
alright, ya land-lubbers... down here in Virginia we
got a really big bay, see? It's called Chesapeake.
It's really big. And deep.
And we even have our own monster, too.
"Chessie."
Only, she's bashful, and not nearly as frequently
photographed as some of those other hussy monsters.
Bennie Smith
120 miles from The Biggest Damn Bay (I think)
;)
Frederick Scott
(someone else wrote:)
>>I'm from Michigan. I know Great Lakes. Lake Champlain ain't no Great Lake.
I think he was referring to the aborted power play Senator Patrick Leahy of
Vermont pulled when he managed to succeed at sneaking a rider onto a bill
going through Congress which certified Lake Champlain as a "Great Lake" in
order to gain a number of pork barrel funding advantages for his home state.
Congress really does sicken me once in a while. Apparently, this one was
bad enough to annoyed even his fellow legislators, as they canceled the
designation once it had come to light.
(to which "eeyoo" <ee...@hotmail.com> responded:)
>Uh, you know Lake Champlain cause you're from Michigan? Don't see how that
>follows.....
>
>Lake Champlain has a direct geological and archaelogical connection to the
>other Great Lakes. Or are you blinded by size and misplaced local pride?
I'm not sure what you mean by "direct geological and archaelogical connection
to the other Great Lakes" or why in blazes it has anything to do with being
a "Great Lake". Being a "Great Lake" has to do with being one of five
arbitrarily defined lakes, most of them surrounding or dividing the one or
both of the penninsulas of Michigan.
And yes, I'd have to say the name probably has something to do with their
size. Alternatively, I suppose it could refer to the superlative in terms
of quality...as in, "WOW! *That* lake was just *GREAT*!!!"
But I doubt it.
Fred
Tyler Woyiwada
Vince Campanile wrote:
> Jamie wrote:
> <Massive Snippage>
> > 1. We have a monster
> > 2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That means it has a unique
> > supply of life in it living at 400 feet that should be preserved.
> > 3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took place on lake Champlain.
> > many monsters were killed. It was horrible.
> >
>
> Hmm, just to get into the "anything you can do I can do better" match, I
> just want to bring up the fact that California/Nevada have possibly the
> deepest body of fresh water in the world in Lake Tahoe. Sonar has placed
> the bottom at over 1000 feet, but there not sure that that is even the
> bottom, as there are layers of silt that trigger the sonar, and they
> tend to rise and fall with the currents.
>
Just thought I'd jump in on the lake contest. Sure, big lakes are cool, but it's
the quantity that really matters. Know how many lakes and rivers are in
Ontario? 250 000! I'm not kidding. And by the way, we also invented the
greatest vehicle of all time. That's right, the canoe! :P
> <Another massive Snip>
> >
> > Later
> >
> > Jamie C. Wakefield
> > King of the Fatties
> > 12 miles from Lake Champlain
> > even as I write this.
>
> Vince Campanile
> --
> They've Killed Fritz!
> They've Killed Fritz!
> Those lousy stinking yellow faries!
> Those horrible atrocity filled vermin!
> Those despicable animal warmongers!
> They've killed Fritz!
the sig-free Styler
David A. Robinson
: Just thought I'd jump in on the lake contest. Sure, big lakes are cool, but it's
: the quantity that really matters. Know how many lakes and rivers are in
: Ontario? 250 000! I'm not kidding. And by the way, we also invented the
: greatest vehicle of all time. That's right, the canoe! :P
Ontario is cool. Our family used to vacation there, too, when I was a kid.
Nice place, nice people. (Plus, it's BIG! And you know how much I like
*big* things! ;-) )
Also, in my other post, I mistakenly referred to the Great Lakes as a
"national resource" and "national treasure". My apologies to our Canadian
friends; 4 out of 5 of the Great Lakes belong to them, too. I bet they
like 'em as much as we do.
Regards to our Canadian friends to the south....
(Heh, I grew up in suburban Detroit, and the fact of the matter is,
Windsor, Ontario is *south* of Detroit, MI!)
Frederick Scott
"Jamie" <the...@sover.net> writes:
>> Lake Area
>>--------------- -------------
>>Lake Champlain: 490 sq. mi.
>>Lake Ontario: 7,430 sq. mi.
>>Lake Erie: 9,940 sq. mi.
>>Lake Michigan: 22,400 sq. mi.
>>Lake Huron: 23,010 sq. mi.
>>Lake Superior: 31,820 sq. mi.
>
>Right here was where I was going to quote some amazing facts about Lake
>Champlain, so I sign on to the net and start looking, and damn is it tough
>to find any good info on Lake Champlain. I mean - I know its out there, btu
>I can't find it in 15 minutes. As I'm starting to get frustrated, in walks
>my good pal Richard "I know more useless AND useful information than you
>have already forgot." Ruane.
>
>Richard pretty much knows, well, everything.
>
>"Just the guy I'm looking for!" I tell him.
>
>Richard raises one eyebrow like Spock.
>
>"How big is Lake Champlain? Its just barely smaller than the other great
>lakes isn't it?"
>
>Richard smiles in that fatherly way he has.
>
>"Lake Champlain is about a fifth the size of the smallest Great Lake."
Hmmm. Richard must not be talking about surface area. My alamac (circa
1993...but then lakes don't really up and down on the charts a lot like
TV shows, do they?) confirms all the facts in the previous poster's table
except Lake Champlain's surface area. It lists the world's largest lakes
but only goes down to Lake Tana (Ethiopia, 1390 sq. miles).
Interestingly enough - for all you "lake braggerts" out there, Lake #6,
the only other lake that turns up on this list within or bordering on the
U.S. is Lake of the Woods, between Minnesota and Manitoba. For the
geographic dummies out there, if you can picture a map of Minnesota or
the U.S. border with Canada, you might remember the little bump that's
the northernmost point in the continental U.S. That's Lake of the Woods
and some strange peninsular land mass that I don't know what its story
is. Anyway, it's 1695 square miles and so is apparently bigger than all
those Tahoes and other things I heard mentioned.
Fred
Allan L Chu
: >I'm from Michigan. I know Great Lakes. Lake Champlain ain't no Great Lake.
: Uh, you know Lake Champlain cause you're from Michigan? Don't see how that
: follows.....
: Lake Champlain has a direct geological and archaelogical connection to the
: other Great Lakes. Or are you blinded by size and misplaced local pride?
What's going on here? the "Great Lakes" is a name. it refers to 5 (yes,
only five) lakes: Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario. local
pride has nothing to do with it. those five lakes were named the "Great
Lakes" Lake Champlain is nice and all, I'd imagine, but was not included
in the naming of the Great Lakes.
Allan
Jim Hamp
> Jamie wrote:
> <Massive Snippage>
> > 1. We have a monster
> > 2. Lake Champlain is unique in how deep it is. That means it has a unique
> > supply of life in it living at 400 feet that should be preserved.
> > 3. A whole bunch of revolutionary war battles took place on lake Champlain.
> > many monsters were killed. It was horrible.
> >
>
> Hmm, just to get into the "anything you can do I can do better" match, I
> just want to bring up the fact that California/Nevada have possibly the
> deepest body of fresh water in the world in Lake Tahoe. Sonar has placed
> the bottom at over 1000 feet, but there not sure that that is even the
> bottom, as there are layers of silt that trigger the sonar, and they
> tend to rise and fall with the currents.
>
> <Another massive Snip>
As I'm sure Jamie will ask and I want to beat him to it...
"But do you have a monster?"
The Hampster