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 havent 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 couldnt 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