Norwegian Blue's posts tend to be short and sweet, and his posting history is compact enough to get through in an evening, so I picked out a bunch of goodies for him. Anyone who thinks this is unfair can kiss my ass, I like Blue.

The Voice of the Lurkers, Dec, 1999

> > As someone who has lurked and occasionally posted in this group for nearly three years, ... This group is far less interesting without people like Dr. Tim, Maddi, Kinbote and Babs posting like they used to,

>Can't argue with that...

> > and for me is still a place worth visiting because of people like ... Otis, GISP ...

> I was with you up to that point.  Sheesh!  Who reads what those two type?  Nothing but drivel I says!  Nothing but drivel.
>
> Joe King
>
 
(at the risk of contributing to the proliferation of worthless
posting...)
 
Well, Joe, I'll stick up for GISP by saying that I've never encountered a person who has read as much as he has at a relatively young age, and who is willing to think about and is able to discuss almost anything.
 
That OTIS, on the other hand, MAN...does that dude need a life, or WHAT?!
 
N. Blue
 
P.S.  I meant to include Brien on the list of people who bring me back to this place day after day.
 

An even better observation... July, 2000

>Cyn wrote:

> They've been pointed out to you before, but because you choose
> to be a cartoon in here, rather than an actual thinking human
> being, you've conveniently ignored any *reasonable* arguments,
> stubbornly sticking to your Dr. Laura-esque attitudes about
> women, and only replying to posts that are vaguely disrespectful
> so you can revel in your own persecution.
 
Good observation.  In fact, I think if Ted's artd-l persona didn't exist, we would have to invent it.
 
NB
 

Wannabes... July, 2000

>Ruth wrote:

> Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence...don't you know by now that ALL of the posters
> on this NG other than Ted are Jackyls and we are ALL out to perform our one
> mission in life which is to "GET TED KRUEGER" because he is such a gosh-darn
> nice guy and he is always right - we just  can't stand how nice and how
> right he always is.  Come on Lawrence, posting this to you to try and keep
> you up to date is taking time away from my more important task of "GETTING
> TED KRUEGER" and it's such a difficult task I have to spend all of my time
> communciating with the rest of the conspiracy to nail down how we are going
> to do it.  We simply don't have time to keep going over this kind of trivia.
>
> Ruth
> (not a Jackyl, never was, no e-mail list etc etc etc...)
>
 

Well, see, what you are is a "wannabe", which, as far as I can tell, is someone who is out to GET TED but isn't officially a Jackal.  It's like this...against Ted (Y/N)?  are you on the mailing list (Y/N)?  If two N, then you are obviously on Ted's side, but are silent out of fear of the Jackals.  If two Y, you're a Jackal.  If Y followed by N, you're a wannabe.  The state of N followed by Y cannot exist in the universe as we know it.
 
NB
wannabe wannabe
 
 

Biases...Sept. 2000

Andres wrote:
 
> I cant help but notice that you conveniently ignored this.  I'll leave
> it to others to draw their own conclusions.
 
Since you asked, I have drawn some conclusions.  Andres, you seem to have a problem with a couple of things:
 
First, you don't seem to understand that knowledge of the way the world works is accumulated in small increments, and through the contributions of many people.  The Brill's Content article is one contribution, and a compelling one at that.  But it isn't a thesis; it's a presentation of interesting data.  You have raised a couple of points in your diatribes that might serve as bases for further study of the question raised in the article, but people should then *do* those studies, not moan because of what they might show.
 
Second, you keep bringing up the potential biases of the researcher. How do you envision those biases getting in the way of accurately counting the sexes of obituary subjects?  She's so biased she can't count correctly?
 
Third, I think you have an offensive way of conducting discourse on this subject.  I suppose that's my problem, though.
 
NB
scientist
 
 

Gambling on Pete Rose...

Brother Enigma wrote:

>>There are very good reasons for keeping someone who gambles on baseball out of the game.

>Only if Rose bet against he Reds while stil managing them, and nobody`s ever proved that, and nobody ever will. Pete`s never been the only player to gamble on games.

I haven’t seen this mentioned, so I thought I would. I thought the whole idea of banning an athlete who bet on his own team was to avoid a slippery slope. To use Rose as an example, suppose he lost a whole lot of money betting on the Reds, to the point where he couldn’t pay off his gambling debts. In theory, he would be susceptible to the influences of his creditors, who might ask him to influence the outcome of a game (maybe leading the Reds to lose) lest he or his loved ones end up sleeping with the fishes.

N. Blue