ARod's future

"John Doherty" <jdoherty RemoveThis @nowhere.null.not> wrote in message
news:f7cago2cio@news4.newsguy.com...
> In <f7btmv$20pq$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Fred Burton wrote:
>
>> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>
> You happen to be familiar with the economics of European football,
> Fred? If not, how can you knowledgeably talk about the economics of
> sports?


ExCUUUUUUUUUUUSE me. I'm talking about AMERICAN TEAM
SPORTS!!!
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1cbj93pih7ulfc23u9ojnrti55546orrge@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:36:44 -0400, "Fred Burton"
> <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keith Willoughby" <keith RemoveThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
>>news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
>>>
>>> I don't know much about football.
>>
>>
>>Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>>economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>>
>>This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
>>in serious question.
>>
> And your lack of understanding of the economics of cricket puts all
> you have said into question. <g>
>
> Anyway, please don't tell those of us in the Detroit Lions region that
> all football teams have a good chance to win. In a number of respects,
> by the way, there is more competitive balance in baseball than in
> football.
>
> Anyway, anyone who follows football even casually knows that the NFL
> salary cap is primarly designed to make owners, even terrible owners
> like the Fords, extremely rich, at the expense of the players. It has
> some useful effects on competitive balance, but that is not central to
> its design.
>
>>

Bullshit. The Lions have as good a chance to win as anyone else.
What is holding them back isn't competitive impalance nor a lack of
resources. It's bad management. They have the exact same resouces
as any other team. The Lions can't win because the Lions ownership
has no committment to winning, not any lack of resources and revenues.

> "Anyway, anyone who follows football even casually knows that the NFL
> salary cap is primarly designed to make owners, even terrible owners
> like the Fords, extremely rich, at the expense of the players. "

What a pantload of leftist, anti-capitalist bullcrap!!! There's just
nothing
more to say about this ridiculous and idiotic statement. Leftist
bullcrap!!!
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"mario" <mario5491.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FJimi.44371$xk5.18942@edtnps82...
> Fred Burton wrote:
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.RemoveThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
>> news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you hate the
>>>> NFL
>>>> and the economic model that they use that has provided an exceptional
>>>> level of competitive parity to every single team in the league.
>>> I don't know much about football.
>>
>>
>> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>>
>> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
>> in serious question.
>
> Take it easy, Fred. You dislike soccer and likely know very little about
> it (I'm assuming) as an economic model. So how you can discuss baseball
> economics without knowing about the most widely played professional sport
> in the world?

Sorry for having to repeat myself, but exCUUUUUUUUUSE ME, I was
talking about AMERICAN pro team sports.

And for the record, I don't dislike soccer per se, but I am ambivalent
about it. The concept of the game (i.e. kicking a ball around a field and
trying to kick it into a goal) is fine. But I don't like a number of the
specific
rules of the game, but I freely admit that my dislike of some of these rules
is probably related to how I view sports in general from my American
perspective.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:

>
> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
> that SHE
> is the lunatic.
>

Do you believe that the problems in the Middle East can be solved by
converting everyone to Christianity?
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:
> "Pearly Soames" <mr_soames.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:XNomi.3$J72.0@newsfe12.lga...
>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>
>>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>>> of NFL economics.

>>>
>> Hey Fred, I'm American, and the only sport I follow is baseball. I really
>> don't know much of anything about the NFL. Are you trying to say that if
>> I don't know about the NFL I'm not fit to post here?
>
>
>
> (Bangs head against a wall....)
>
> Pearly, if people actually READ what I wrote instead of reading between the
> lines,
> they'd stop asking me such inane questions.
>

Your words, quoted from above:

"But if he *is* an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to
the degree of being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
understanding of NFL economics."

Now tell me why my question was inane.

>
>>>
>> That might be so, but it doesn't negate any of the points that Keith made
>> regarding whether small market MLB teams can compete, which you ignored on
>> the basis of your superior knowledge of the NFL.
>
> Actually, I do think that not understanding the NFL model and how it has
> been very successful at promoting parity in the NFL *does* weaken one's
> opinions regarding the same issues in MLB.
>
> It's not freakin' rocket science, guys. Jeeez.
>

If it's not rocket science, and understanding the NFL model gives you
extra insight, then you should be able to respond to Keith's points
about small-market team competitiveness, right?
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....DeleteThis@noneya.net> wrote:
> BadgerBC wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
> >> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
> >> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>
> > You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
> > anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
> > Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
> > in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
> > Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
> > Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
> > (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
> > flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
> > Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.
>
> > Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
> > economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
> > unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
> > killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
> > how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
> > estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
> > Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
> > any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
> > 1900miles?
>
> > As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
> > The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
> > Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
> > Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
> > our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
> > idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
> > them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
> > a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
> > training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
> > minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
> > them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
> > US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
> > salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
> > of Death.
>
> Great post Neil.
>

Thanks Glen. How have you been?
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Pearly Soames" <mr_soames.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote in message
news:V5qmi.14$Oc7.11@newsfe04.lga...
> Fred Burton wrote:
>
>>
>> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
>> that SHE
>> is the lunatic.
>>
>
> Do you believe that the problems in the Middle East can be solved by
> converting everyone to Christianity?

In a theoretical sense, yes. (BTW, I am not a "christian".)

But in reality, it would never happen. That said, saying that a problem
"can" be solved by a highly unlikely course of action doesn't means that
the possible course of action is possible.

In a theoretical sense, there are many courses of action to problems that
would have the end result of "solving" the problems. But that doesn't mean
that those theoretical solutions are realistic or would ever have a chance
of
being successfully implemented. And many things that would "solve" some
of these problems are simply unacceptable on many levels. The ends don't
justify the means argument.

"Converting everyone to Christianity" might theoretically solve the problem,
but there's no way in hell that you could every successfully implement it.
You
know it and I know it.

I don't think that it makes anyone a lunatic to think that it would "solve"
the
problem. Rather, what I'd say is that anyone who thinks that it's an
IMPLEMENTABLE solution, is probably a lunatic.

How this relates to Coulter, I think one has to know whether she was serious
or not. And whether she believes that the idea was implementable or not.
And remember, she has said that she does like to yank liberals' chains, so
it's entirely possible that this "converting everyone to Christianity" was
nothing
more than yanking the chains of the christian-haters in the liberal ranks.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 10:44 am, gclark <gcl....TakeThisOut@noneya.net> wrote:
> BadgerBC wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....TakeThisOut@noneya.net> wrote:
> >> BadgerBC wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> >>>> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
> >>>> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
> >>> You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
> >>> anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
> >>> Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
> >>> in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
> >>> Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
> >>> Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
> >>> (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
> >>> flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
> >>> Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.
> >>> Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
> >>> economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
> >>> unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
> >>> killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
> >>> how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
> >>> estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
> >>> Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
> >>> any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
> >>> 1900miles?
> >>> As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
> >>> The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
> >>> Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
> >>> Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
> >>> our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
> >>> idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
> >>> them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
> >>> a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
> >>> training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
> >>> minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
> >>> them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
> >>> US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
> >>> salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
> >>> of Death.
> >> Great post Neil.
>
> > Thanks Glen. How have you been?
>
> Very well thanks.
>
> Hope all is well with your son. I was having an IM exchange with
> my son the other day when they were under a mortar attack. Did not faze
> him a bit, can't say the same for me. I'm sure you understand.
>


Thank you very much. Owen had deployed as a replacement PL with 15MEU
in al-Anbar last December. They rotated out two months ago (They have
a 6mos deployment cycle unlike the Army), but he's still in the
sandbox as he just became an aide-de-camp in I MEF (Forward). He's in
a much better situation now, but yeah I can't relax until he comes
home. Did they extend your son's outfit after the surge? I hope and
pray all our kids come home safe and sound.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Wayback1918" <wayback1918.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1184512240.228807.203550@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 11:07 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>> "gnork" <gnor....TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jgqmi.7853$Od7.1063@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
>> >news:f7d6dj$2bog$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>
>> >> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it
>> > would
>> >> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>>
>> > Mining the border would be insane and surely a violation of myriads of
>> > laws.
>> > Anyone who advocates it isn't thinking well.
>>
>> Why "surely"? Why "insane"? And what laws? What about the laws that
>> these
>> INVADERS are breaking? What about the people who are killed EVERY DAY
>> by these INVADERS? More Americans are being killed EVERY DAY by these
>> INVADERS than are killing in Iraq, but the Lame-stream media doesn't tell
>> us
>> that
>> little tidbit.
>>
>> So then, what's so "insane" about getting serious about TRULY defending
>> our
>> borders against these INVADERS?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who
>> >> think
>> >> that SHE
>> >> is the lunatic.
>>
>> > She may not be a lunatic, but she is a very loose cannon.
>>
>> I'll agree that she's a loose cannon. Then again, she's a writer,
>> not a member of the RNC.
>
> I was going to comment on "ARod's future". Am I in the right place?
>

Actually, I was thinking the same thing a couple of minutes ago. Just goes
to show how threads can go off in a gazillion different directions.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

In <f7d6dj$2bog$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Fred Burton wrote:

> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border... would be an outstandingly
> brilliant idea.

Have you run this "outstandingly brilliant idea" past the US Border
Patrol yet, F-Bomb? Seems like they might have an opinion on it,
since they'd be a lot more likely to be maimed or killed than you.

--
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:
> "Steve Robbins" <srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aZ-dnWIxWq9XuwfbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>> "Steve Robbins" <srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>>>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>>>>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>>>>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>>>>> of NFL economics.
>>>>>

<snip>

>
>> and most of it seems to center around your usage of lame. I think in
>> trying to make a point, you are overstating yourself. First you said
>> that being in a NG without understanding NFL economics was lame.
>
> I SAID NO SUCH THING!!! Like everyone else making this claim,
> YOU DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE. I SAID... that discussing
> MLB economics without having a layman's knowledge of NFL economics
> was lame. That is NOT the same thing as saying that you can't be "in this
> NG without understanding NFL economics". Not by a long shot.
>
> Read what I wrote! Not what you THINK that I wrote or want to believe
> that I wrote. Read the ACTUAL words more carefully.
>
>

Here they are Fred:

"But if he *is* an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to
the degree of being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
understanding of NFL economics."
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:
> "Pearly Soames" <mr_soames RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote in message
> news:V5qmi.14$Oc7.11@newsfe04.lga...
>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
>>> that SHE
>>> is the lunatic.
>>>
>> Do you believe that the problems in the Middle East can be solved by
>> converting everyone to Christianity?
>
> In a theoretical sense, yes. (BTW, I am not a "christian".)
>
> But in reality, it would never happen. That said, saying that a problem
> "can" be solved by a highly unlikely course of action doesn't means that
> the possible course of action is possible.
>
> In a theoretical sense, there are many courses of action to problems that
> would have the end result of "solving" the problems. But that doesn't mean
> that those theoretical solutions are realistic or would ever have a chance
> of
> being successfully implemented. And many things that would "solve" some
> of these problems are simply unacceptable on many levels. The ends don't
> justify the means argument.
>
> "Converting everyone to Christianity" might theoretically solve the problem,
> but there's no way in hell that you could every successfully implement it.
> You
> know it and I know it.
>
> I don't think that it makes anyone a lunatic to think that it would "solve"
> the
> problem. Rather, what I'd say is that anyone who thinks that it's an
> IMPLEMENTABLE solution, is probably a lunatic.
>

That all sounds like "diplo-speak" to me Fred.

> How this relates to Coulter, I think one has to know whether she was serious
> or not. And whether she believes that the idea was implementable or not.
> And remember, she has said that she does like to yank liberals' chains, so
> it's entirely possible that this "converting everyone to Christianity" was
> nothing
> more than yanking the chains of the christian-haters in the liberal ranks.
>

IMO, that interpretation requires reading between the lines.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Wayback1918 wrote:

>
> I was going to comment on "ARod's future". Am I in the right place?
>

According to Ann Coulter and George Liquor, ARod's future is in the NFL.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future