Tonight I watched a boxing movie.
I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
Friends had warned me about watching "Million Dollar Baby" because it
was so sad.
They were right, but for the wrong reasons.
I watched it tonight and I am sad.
Sad, because I never saw a fight that didn't start in the middle of
the ring with a speech from the ref and a touch of gloves, until this
movie.
Sad, because I saw a woman who weighed about 130 pounds, who was
hitting a heavy bag that looked like it weighed about three hundred
pounds. (I still hit a heavy bag, and it weighs about sixty pounds,
and I weigh about 210 pounds.)
Sad, because I saw people in a movie talk about how to hit a speed bag
- and it was entirely wrong. You don't shift your weight. You keep
your weight centered.
Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
it up.
This current movie, like the Rocky trash before it, shows these huge
roundhouse punches, that you would never see in a real match.
If you have ever boxed, you know that you are taught to never throw a
punch outside the width of your shoulders. A short, compact jab to
the inside, and a longer throw from the strong side.
I know, it ain't wooddorking, but it just made me mad.
I've never seen a good boxing movie. All of them, including the
DeNiro movie about LaMotta, suck.
OBWW: The Actors Were Not Wooden.
(watson - who wishes that he could find a good boxing movie and wishes
that everyone could see a fight at the Blue Horizon.)
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
> fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
> unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
> gallons of jet fuel wasted.
>
And if he doesn't he gets skewered for not caring about the little
people. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Glen
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> 'Crockumentaries' in which multi-millionaire Whollyweirdos presume to
> speak for "the average person" because they have so much in common with
> the rest of us. Extra points if said Whollyweirdo flies private jets to
> speak at conservation conferences.
>
Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
gallons of jet fuel wasted.
C'mon Tom, Thats not a boxing movie at all. It's a female empowerment movie.
Look at your own example 130# woman punching a 300# heavybag? 200# man
punching a 60# bag? Ever see the show Alias? 90# freak woman can beat the
crap out of any man they throw at her but if she fights another woman it
lasts for what seems hours.. Geena Davis as president? Puhleeze....
It's all a feminist/marxist conspiracy quelling the male masses into a false
sense of inferiority. How can anyone waste time watching such drivel when
there are so many good books out there.....
Knothead
Glen wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
> > fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
> > unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
> > gallons of jet fuel wasted.
> >
>
> And if he doesn't he gets skewered for not caring about the little
> people. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
>
> Glen
Makes sense to me. He's damned.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Glen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Charlie Self wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>Makes sense to me. He's damned.
> >
> >
> > Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been exposed.
> > His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is phoney.
> > The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
> > likes to be played a fool.
>
> Right, because his opponents are just fountains of empathy and support
> for the average guy. People like Kenney, Feinstein, Clinton, Reid,
> and all the rest of the drooling opposition are paragons of public
> virtue and brimming with resonance for how most of us live. Compared
> to almost anyone that opposes him politically, W looks like a mild,
> caring genius - and I'm no Republican, BTW - I've just learned to
> cultivate a nearly boundless contempt for the professional stupidity
> that is the Left.
>
Wow. Right up there with the boundless contempt most of us in the
middle have for those on both the left and the right.
It is quite possibly time that politicians and those who pander to them
began to realize that there are a great many people in this country who
were disillusioned by LBJ, sickened by Nixon, not entranced by Reagan,
stunned at the ineptness of Bush #1, not in love with Clinton's
womanizing, but are totally disgusted by Bush and his policies.
Ike was the last politician of substance and anything approaching
honor, IMO. We need another one who has nothing to gain, and wants
nothing to gain. But he may have been the last. If that's the case, the
country is in a far bigger pile of shit than most of us will admit. We
have allowed our political types to turn the entire country over to the
military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of, and then
we've allowed that complex to turn internationalist, leaving the U.S.
pretty well uncovered in the event of a really major problem.
Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote
> >
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>
> >> 'Crockumentaries' in which multi-millionaire Whollyweirdos presume to
> >> speak for "the average person" because they have so much in common with
> >> the rest of us. Extra points if said Whollyweirdo flies private jets to
> >> speak at conservation conferences.
> >>
> >
> > Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
> > fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
> > unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
> > gallons of jet fuel wasted.
> >
>
> Unlike our former prez, Jimmy Carter, who actually picks up a hammer and
> helps to build houses.
True, but Carter was nearly as disastrous a President as Shrub is. He
might have hit the same mark if he'd been reelected.
[email protected] wrote:
> I'd have to agree that phoney or not, W has to be on-scene with the
> perhaps the biggest natural disaster this country has witnessed on
> live TV ever. Those people are _still_ hurting like we can't imagine,
> and there's only one person they want to see (like him or not) and
> that's the President... and not some delegated cheerleader. They
> don't want a token "Hey... I showed up three times since the
> Hurricane" so I have to move on to other issues president.
>
> OTH, while he has invoked a major energy-savings program at the white
> house, he should've got on a train in a special series of cars, and
> then once in the area he could comandeer a copter or whatever was
> needed to get to all the parishes.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:22:52 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
> >> fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
> >> unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
> >> gallons of jet fuel wasted.
> >>
> >
> >And if he doesn't he gets skewered for not caring about the little
> >people. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
> >
> >Glen
I wonder. Does he really have to go down there and hold hands once a
ewek or more frequently? If he had given the impression of giving even
a mild damn about things early on, he might have been able to save
about five trips, at 20,000 gallons (or more: that's just AF 1 jet
fuel) per trip.
It strikes me that people who call for caution in the use of whatever
item, should do their best to reduce their own use of the item being
conserved, particularly when said person is one of the largest, if not
the largest, single consumers in the world.
"Charlie Self" said:
> Ike was the last politician of substance and anything approaching
> honor, IMO. We need another one who has nothing to gain, and wants
> nothing to gain. But he may have been the last. If that's the case, the
> country is in a far bigger pile of shit than most of us will admit. We
> have allowed our political types to turn the entire country over to the
> military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of, and then
> we've allowed that complex to turn internationalist, leaving the U.S.
> pretty well uncovered in the event of a really major problem.
Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's goverment
and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the
first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the world
oil supply?
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> They were already doing that kind of thing last week. After Katrina,
> they were lambasting Bush for not going down to NO personally and for not
> having been there making sure things were right before the storm. Then,
> before Rita hit, when he *was* in Texas, good ol' David (impartial no bias
> here) Gregory had the cajones to ask Bush if he thought that with Bush
> being down there before the storm, he and his entourage were "getting in
> the way" of the rescue workers.
>
> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
> unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
>
You'll see what you want to see and read what you want to read, of
course, but I heard of no one criticizing Bush for not being their
personally before the hurricane. And he was there, once his handlers
decided his vacation was over, fairly quickly, for a quick flyover on
his way home. The "hatred" you see for Bush stems from his use of
things like that flyover at 300 MPH or so as a way to say, "Been there,
done that" which a lot of the rest of us find unacceptable. At this
point, Bush is wasting fuel, though, as he is, IIRC, making trip #5 or
#7 (I lost track). One trip to each area should do it, but it hasn't.
He's either a slow learner or someone saw more photo ops.
Oh, yes: don't mistake contempt for hatred.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > OTH, while he has invoked a major energy-savings program at the white
> > house, he should've got on a train in a special series of cars, and
> > then once in the area he could comandeer a copter or whatever was
> > needed to get to all the parishes.
>
> Not the choice of the president. The secret service makes those decisions.
> The best decision would have been for him to stay home after the first visit
> and save a lot of resources that would be best used to assist the people in
> the disaster area.
I agree. One trip was sufficient for PR purposes. No politician does
any good in a disaster area otherwise.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's
>>goverment
>>and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the
>>first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the
>>world
>>oil supply?
>
> No, not exactly. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
Sorry Doug, that is what happened. Kermit Rosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson)
led the infant CIA operation. It was then, as it is today about the oil. In
fact Truman refused to OK the operation but that didn't stop Ike upon his
taking office.
DAGS
http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-ajax
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> ...
>
> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
> unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
>
There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
the present administration. But there is a method.
Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
guilty.
In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
hatred.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> >Sorry Doug, that is what happened. Kermit Rosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson)
> >led the infant CIA operation. It was then, as it is today about the oil. In
> >fact Truman refused to OK the operation but that didn't stop Ike upon his
> >taking office.
>
> What a bunch of crap -- Mossadegh was ousted by Iranian military officers
> loyal to the Shah. Eisenhower provides an excellent description of what
> happened in his book "Mandate for Change" (pages 159-166).
>
No to express an opinion either way but....
On the off chance that those military officers were aided by
the CIA do you suppose Ike might have omitted that from his
book, particularly if that involvement was still classfied
at the time it was published?
--
FF
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >>>...
> >>>
> >>> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
> >>>unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
> >>>
> >>
> >>There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
> >>the present administration. But there is a method.
> >>
> >>Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
> >>often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
> >>spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
> >>They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
> >>guilty.
> >>
> >>In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
> >>hatred.
> >
> >
> >
> > hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates
> > freedom....
>
> Not exactly. It just happens that a good many of the Political Goobers
> that criticize the President happen also to have a very selective view
> of just who is entitled to freedom and how they get it. Specifically,
> these Political Goobers want to be the switchbox that decides who gets
> freedom, who pays for it, and on what issues freedom ought to apply. For
> example, they want people to be "free" to have abortions and
> simulaneously want me to not be free to avoid paying for them. They want
> people to be "free" to build and live 8 feet below sea level and then
> want to enslave me to pay for the rebuilding of these *private* homes
> and residences regardless of my objections to doing so. The list is
> endless.
>
>
> IOW, these people had long been violaters of the idea of *equal* freedom
> for everyone. They want to decide who is free, just how much, and whose
> freedoms will be compromised to reach their goals. This all took place
> long before they started drooling all over themselves about this
> administration.
>
>
So those who disagree with you and Georgie Boy are goobers. Well, I'd
guess gooberizing others shows a certain tendency to peanut-brainism of
the gooberizer.
It might really be getting close to the time you quit ascribing an
entire menu of beliefs and desires to people who are pesenting an
opinion on ONE area. I know it's difficult. Stereotypes die hard, and
stereotyping is a whole lot of fun and much easier than thinking, but
give it a try.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
> >>>>>unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
> >>>>the present administration. But there is a method.
> >>>>
> >>>>Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
> >>>>often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
> >>>>spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
> >>>>They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
> >>>>guilty.
> >>>>
> >>>>In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
> >>>>hatred.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates
> >>>freedom....
> >>
> >>Not exactly. It just happens that a good many of the Political Goobers
> >>that criticize the President ....
> >
> > So those who disagree with you and Georgie Boy are goobers. ...
> I don't agree with George on much of anything. I just dislike most
> all his critics (especially the class of critics herein described)
> far more than I dislike his ideas.
Perhaps that explains your reflexive attacks on critics of his
ideas.
>
> > guess gooberizing others shows a certain tendency to peanut-brainism of
> > the gooberizer.
> >
> > ...
>
> I did no such thing. I said "A good many of ..." This means I am
> specifically addressing myself to a subset of W's critics. All I said
> was that this subset of people opposed equal freedom long
> before GW showed up.
Quite so and equally true of a subset of GWB's supporters too.
> They've been doing it for a long, long time. If the shoe fits, wear it.
> If it doesn't, you are not in the class being critized (by me), so take
> a deep breath and relax. All this reflexive defense of George-beaters is
> bad for your health.
"Goober" is an interesting choice of _ad hominem_ inasmuchas one
more often hears it applied to GWB and his supporters. Perhaps
that was deliberate.
--
FF
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 07:29:44 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I certainly got my love of boxing from him ... and, just as you, we watched
>the Gillette fights together countless times.
Well, Swing, I searched High and Low.
I found out that it was called, "The Gillette Cavalcade Of Sports",
which I had disremembered.
I found out that the theme song was called. "The Look Sharp March",
found out who wrote it and found one MP3 by Fiedler and the Band, but
it ain't the same as the whistled version, and I couldn't find that.
Damned shame. I'd like to hear it again.
>I've been toying with the idea of installing a body and speed bag lately,
>but it would have to be in the shop, a place where real estate is at a
>premium.
>
>BTW, I weigh in at an 203 at the moment and, if you'll promise to go easy on
>a 63 year old man, could maybe last a couple of _relaxed_ sparring rounds
>whenever you're ready ;)
I'm running about 212, and at 6'0", that's about 32 lbs. over optimal.
I'm only 55, so I've got that in my favor - but the fat knocks that
advantage down right quick.
My leg work is shabby. (I'm running the treadmill but it goes slow, ya
know.)
My wind is gone. (see supra re: treadmill.)
I'm a southpaw, and that was always good for a little confusion in the
opening rounds, if they hadn't done their homework.
(ps - that overhand right bullshit don't work on a good lefty who
stays tucked and does body combinations.)
All this comes down to the point that it would be better if, the next
time I'm down Tejas way, we hook up, view the shop, see the most
current house, and argue my theory of Marciano being the best pure
fighter (not boxer) of the 20th century.
(I also want to see the fretless bass - and hear it - I'll bring the
Martin.)
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Ya know, Swing, I have some stuff that your Dad might like.
I digitized my Dad's shipboard papers a couple of years ago.
He was with Halsey and the Seventh Fleet. He was on a Tin Can (Task
Force 38) , except when doing UDT work, which he did at Okinawa, where
he did tidal surveys and advance intelligence work.
Some of that might be interesting to your Da.
They aren't much, just the day to day reporting of what those boys
thought was going on and some of the scuttlebutt about where the Fleet
might be heading.
There are some interesting things in there, I would think, to someone
who was actually engaged.
Drop me a line at [email protected] if you want a copy and I'll
push it along.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
In article <270920052211408452%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Reminds me of this chestnut:
>> Boxing is like a ballet
>> except there is no music
>> and the dancers hit each other.
>
>For some reason Tom's post isn't on Supernews, which likely means he's
>crossed a spam measure of some sort.
Actually, it _is_ on SuperNews - I read it from 'corp.supernews.com'.
It's message #1194796 in the spool on that machine.
>
>In any event, the best I heard of "Million Dollar Baby" was that it was
>the only conceivable movie that could take both Clint Eastwood and
>boxing and come up with a "Chick Flick".
>
>Unlike Tom, I have no interest in boxing AND hate boxing movies, so I
>haven't seen it and am unlikely to, so can't offer an opinion on the
>movie itself.
>
>;-)
>
>djb
>
>--
>Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:05:00 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
>> it up.
>
>Money. It has to attract a large audience.
>
>I've watched many a boxing match, but I don't consider it a "good" sport. I
>just cannot imagine people allowing themselves to get bashed in the head
>being normal.
>
... and yet we attempt to make fine furniture and call it fun. ;-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reminds me of this chestnut:
> Boxing is like a ballet
> except there is no music
> and the dancers hit each other.
For some reason Tom's post isn't on Supernews, which likely means he's
crossed a spam measure of some sort.
In any event, the best I heard of "Million Dollar Baby" was that it was
the only conceivable movie that could take both Clint Eastwood and
boxing and come up with a "Chick Flick".
Unlike Tom, I have no interest in boxing AND hate boxing movies, so I
haven't seen it and am unlikely to, so can't offer an opinion on the
movie itself.
;-)
djb
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>, Robert Bonomi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, it _is_ on SuperNews - I read it from 'corp.supernews.com'.
> It's message #1194796 in the spool on that machine.
Interesting. For some reason my client told me it wasn't available.
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
On 28 Sep 2005 13:10:18 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder. Does he really have to go down there and hold hands once a
> ewek or more frequently? If he had given the impression of giving even
> a mild damn about things early on, he might have been able to save
> about five trips, at 20,000 gallons (or more: that's just AF 1 jet
> fuel) per trip.
Thing is, if he had gone down right away, people would have been
(correctly) criticizing him for diverting resources away from rescue and
into protecting him. It was appropriate to stay the hell out of the way
for as long as he did; there was nothing to be gained by having to,
among all their other problems, suddenly have a presidential protection
detail going on. Yet the same people complaining that he didn't go down
right away, I guarantee, would be pointing out exactly that if he had
gone down right away.
[email protected] wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
>>>unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
>>>
>>
>>There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
>>the present administration. But there is a method.
>>
>>Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
>>often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
>>spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
>>They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
>>guilty.
>>
>>In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
>>hatred.
>
>
>
> hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates
> freedom....
Not exactly. It just happens that a good many of the Political Goobers
that criticize the President happen also to have a very selective view
of just who is entitled to freedom and how they get it. Specifically,
these Political Goobers want to be the switchbox that decides who gets
freedom, who pays for it, and on what issues freedom ought to apply. For
example, they want people to be "free" to have abortions and
simulaneously want me to not be free to avoid paying for them. They want
people to be "free" to build and live 8 feet below sea level and then
want to enslave me to pay for the rebuilding of these *private* homes
and residences regardless of my objections to doing so. The list is
endless.
IOW, these people had long been violaters of the idea of *equal* freedom
for everyone. They want to decide who is free, just how much, and whose
freedoms will be compromised to reach their goals. This all took place
long before they started drooling all over themselves about this
administration.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Jeff Kingsley wrote:
> Keep in mind that movies are for entertainment purposes. If you are looking
> for factual representation of any subject, seek out a documentary. The
> 'activity' that a movie is centered around is often just a vehicle through
> which to tell a story in a different way. I never watch a movie involving a
> subject I'm well acquainted with and expect that I won't see a miserable
> representation of that subject. Examples:
>
> Movies with professional astronomers, either sitting at the eyepiece of a
> giant scope, or doing their observing in the middle of the afternoon.
>
Movies in which a spacecraft in the vast vacuum of space can be
*heard* traveling on its intended course.
> Movies with a scientific lab where every sample has perfect, unambiguous
> spectra, instantaneously, with 3-D chemical structures, with a list of every
> perp that purchased the evil chemical in the last 2 weeks. And of course,
> the lab is filled with banks of randomly blinking lights and vials of
> brightly colored liquids, many of which are bubbling.
And all the scientists wear white lab coats even when, say, at the top
of a Nepalese mountain collecting samples even though it's -25C
and the wind is howling at 100kpm.
Movies in which scientists smart enough to earn Ph.Ds in all manner
of esoteric fields are too dim witted to pick up the phone or just
jump into their cars and leave when faced with danger.
>
> Movies with cars that upshift 15 times in a row, and can squeal the tires on
> gravel.
>
> Movies with computer programmers that can write bug free, virus code in a
> few minutes for a computer aboard an alien spacecraft.
... while (in at least one fairly recent film) receiving sexual favors
from a gorgeous woman. We know this to be utter fantasy since
Gorgeous Women (tm) typically wouldn't stoop to *speak* to a programmer
let alone peform said acts - DAMHIKT.
More generally, movies wherein The Gorgeous Woman (tm) is so taken
by her nerdy, spindly, Alfred E. Neuman-looking colleague, she just
*can't* keep her hands off him. She thus ends a relationship with
Harry Handsome (tm) to pursue the office shlub. (Why did this
*never* happen to me, I wonder ...)
Movies wherein sexual contact of any and all kinds is performed in
the office without concern for sexual harassment laws or even discovery
by the cleaning lady, administrative assistant, or parking attendant.
Extra points are given for impossibly complex sexual liasons conducted
in even more impossibly small European sportscars.
>
> Movies with farmers that are always dusty, broke, bitter and lonely with no
> hope of any type of happiness in their life. Oh, wait, maybe that one is
> true....but you get the idea.
Movies in which incorruptible politicians operate from entirely noble
principle and Badness is the sole province of Eeeeeevvviiill
Corporations.
>
Movies in which Our Hero leaps though the air firing two semi-automatic
handguns cocked 90 degrees from normal, hitting every intended target in
sight and avoiding the merest hint of collateral damage, while: a)
Remaining magically free of harm as the Bad Men shoot magazine after
magazine of *fully* automatic fire at Our Hero AND b) Never himself ever
having to reload or running out of ammo.
Movies in which Our Hero is wounded by large caliber fire, patches
himself up, and leaps back into action (because "hydrostatic shock"
is an illegal idea in LA).
(The most dangerous abuse of guns is in Whollyweird...)
Movies in which people scuba dive with a single tank (thereby presumably
breathing compressed air or Nitrox) at depths where the partial pressure
of O2 would cause convulsions and death (deeper than roughly 230 feet
for compressed air, less for Nitrox). When one diver runs out of air, he
is able to breathe happily from the octopus (spare regulator) on his
buddy's rig even though they both started the dive at the same time and
dove roughly the same profile.
Movies in which the construction worker, woodworker, steel worker,
fisherman, or farmer drive around in spotless clean *new* pick-em-up
trucks with nary a dent, ding, or even dust. Extra points given when said
truck is black.
'Crockumentaries' in which multi-millionaire Whollyweirdos presume to
speak for "the average person" because they have so much in common with
the rest of us. Extra points if said Whollyweirdo flies private jets to
speak at conservation conferences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:31:40 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, Tom
Watson <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>Tonight I watched a boxing movie.
>
>I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
>
>Friends had warned me about watching "Million Dollar Baby" because it
>was so sad.
I saw 10 minutes of it at a neighbor's house and decided tht it
was not for me.
>I've never seen a good boxing movie. All of them, including the
>DeNiro movie about LaMotta, suck.
Hey, now. Don't be dissin' Rocky. He's my main man.
Hell, I even liked all the Rambos, Demolition Man, and Judge Dredd
(Well, the last two movies were enhanced severely by the inclusion of
Ms. Lane and Ms. Bullock.)
Stallone, Schwartzenegger, Willis, Lundgren, Lee, Li, Ford, etc.
I'll watch any and all of their movies a dozen times without
hesitation. Lotsa fun. I thrive on and love action flicks.
--
"Simplicity of life, even the barest, is not misery but
the very foundation of refinement." --William Morris
-----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's
>>>>goverment
>>>>and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the
>>>>first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the
>>>>world
>>>>oil supply?
>>>
>>> No, not exactly. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
>
>>Sorry Doug, that is what happened. Kermit Rosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson)
>>led the infant CIA operation. It was then, as it is today about the oil. In
>>fact Truman refused to OK the operation but that didn't stop Ike upon his
>>taking office.
>
>What a bunch of crap -- Mossadegh was ousted by Iranian military officers
>loyal to the Shah. Eisenhower provides an excellent description of what
>happened in his book "Mandate for Change" (pages 159-166).
>
By the way -- that happened in August 1953, hardly "the first weeks" after
Ike's inauguration.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:21:35 -0600, "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"
<"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> wrote:
>You've never seen a good boxing movie? How about Diggstown?
I liked Diggstown - good movie, but a horrible boxing movie.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Makes sense to me. He's damned.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been
>>>exposed.
>>>His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is
>>>phoney.
>>>The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to
>>>look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
>>>likes to be played a fool.
>>
>>Right, because his opponents are just fountains of empathy and support
>>for the average guy. People like Kenney, Feinstein, Clinton, Reid,
>>and all the rest of the drooling opposition are paragons of public
>>virtue and brimming with resonance for how most of us live.
>
> Errrmmm... that would be sarcasm, right?
Yup.
>
>
>> Compared
>>to almost anyone that opposes him politically, W looks like a mild,
>>caring genius - and I'm no Republican, BTW - I've just learned to
>>cultivate a nearly boundless contempt for the professional stupidity
>>that is the Left.
>
>
> Holy fu*ck! I'm agreeing with Tim!! Now what?
He he he - now you'll get better lookin', richer, and happier ... uh,
let me know if that works for ya, BTW ;)
Someday I'm gonna write a book called "Why The Right Is Wrong And The
Left Is Worse" In the mean time - vote Libertarian ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:58:35 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tom Watson" wrote in message
>
>> I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
>
>Damn, Tom ... I enjoyed visiting with you on the phone, you like my favorite
>music, now you confess to being a boxing fan ... a decidedly politically
>incorrect endeavor these days. Wanna dance? ;)
>
>To SWMBO"S utter disgust, much of my TV watching is catching ESPN's classic
>boxing reruns of all those great fights in the last century. When I was a
>kid in the early fifties I had to be dragged away from Gillette's Friday
>Night Fights on that big 8" TV screen.
>
>Notice, if you will, that most fight fans went to the fights in the 40's and
>50's in a suit and tie, then switch channels and take a good look when
>corporate religion's TV cameras pan the audience ... now chew on that
>awhile :)
>
>.... and watch Archie Moore fight Yvon Durelle for a few rounds and you can
>see where Mohammed Ali got much of his style and shtick.
Sorry it took so long to get back to this, Swing.
Work has been a bear and a half.
I used to sit next to my Dad for the Friday Night Fights.
I wish that I could replicate the Gillette theme song here in prose
but I can't seem to find a way.
I don't think that the Wreck is ready for a tablature representation
of same.
My Dad fought Golden Gloves in Philly during the Late Thirties and
Early Forties and then went on to box on aircraft carriers during the
Second World War.
He couldn't stand to watch Victory At Sea with me, because it was
entirely too personal to him but, we could watch boxing together.
I've always enjoyed the undercard. The heavies are usually too damned
slow and throw too few punches.
Give me a nice Cruiser or Light Heavy bout.
When I lived in New York I even enjoyed watching the Lights and Fly
weights at the old Garden. What a great sweat palace that was.
Them skinny assed Spanish boys throw a lot of punches and never seem
to get hurt or tired.
I enjoyed boxing as a boy and, now that I am not, I still train with
the heavy, speed and rope.
I don't look pretty at it but it still breaks a good sweat and keeps
me from drinking too much the night before.
Boxing is one hell of a sport, regardless of what the Politically
Correct dipshits say. It's a good sport and a good discipline that
gives you a solid sense of what you can take and what you can dish
out.
I haven't been in a ring in thirty five years but I'm teaching the
sport to my young'un, even though the big gloves look silly on him.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's
>>>goverment
>>>and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the
>>>first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the
>>>world
>>>oil supply?
>>
>> No, not exactly. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
>Sorry Doug, that is what happened. Kermit Rosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson)
>led the infant CIA operation. It was then, as it is today about the oil. In
>fact Truman refused to OK the operation but that didn't stop Ike upon his
>taking office.
What a bunch of crap -- Mossadegh was ousted by Iranian military officers
loyal to the Shah. Eisenhower provides an excellent description of what
happened in his book "Mandate for Change" (pages 159-166).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Keep in mind that movies are for entertainment purposes. If you are looking
for factual representation of any subject, seek out a documentary. The
'activity' that a movie is centered around is often just a vehicle through
which to tell a story in a different way. I never watch a movie involving a
subject I'm well acquainted with and expect that I won't see a miserable
representation of that subject. Examples:
Movies with professional astronomers, either sitting at the eyepiece of a
giant scope, or doing their observing in the middle of the afternoon.
Movies with a scientific lab where every sample has perfect, unambiguous
spectra, instantaneously, with 3-D chemical structures, with a list of every
perp that purchased the evil chemical in the last 2 weeks. And of course,
the lab is filled with banks of randomly blinking lights and vials of
brightly colored liquids, many of which are bubbling.
Movies with cars that upshift 15 times in a row, and can squeal the tires on
gravel.
Movies with computer programmers that can write bug free, virus code in a
few minutes for a computer aboard an alien spacecraft.
Movies with farmers that are always dusty, broke, bitter and lonely with no
hope of any type of happiness in their life. Oh, wait, maybe that one is
true....but you get the idea.
Jeff Kingsley
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1127871112.1ae4043634b0f88e546854826133d799@teranews...
> Tonight I watched a boxing movie.
>
> I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
>
> Friends had warned me about watching "Million Dollar Baby" because it
> was so sad.
>
> They were right, but for the wrong reasons.
>
> I watched it tonight and I am sad.
>
> Sad, because I never saw a fight that didn't start in the middle of
> the ring with a speech from the ref and a touch of gloves, until this
> movie.
>
> Sad, because I saw a woman who weighed about 130 pounds, who was
> hitting a heavy bag that looked like it weighed about three hundred
> pounds. (I still hit a heavy bag, and it weighs about sixty pounds,
> and I weigh about 210 pounds.)
>
> Sad, because I saw people in a movie talk about how to hit a speed bag
> - and it was entirely wrong. You don't shift your weight. You keep
> your weight centered.
>
>
> Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
> it up.
>
> This current movie, like the Rocky trash before it, shows these huge
> roundhouse punches, that you would never see in a real match.
>
> If you have ever boxed, you know that you are taught to never throw a
> punch outside the width of your shoulders. A short, compact jab to
> the inside, and a longer throw from the strong side.
>
> I know, it ain't wooddorking, but it just made me mad.
>
> I've never seen a good boxing movie. All of them, including the
> DeNiro movie about LaMotta, suck.
>
>
> OBWW: The Actors Were Not Wooden.
>
> (watson - who wishes that he could find a good boxing movie and wishes
> that everyone could see a fight at the Blue Horizon.)
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Charlie Self" wrote
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>> 'Crockumentaries' in which multi-millionaire Whollyweirdos presume to
>> speak for "the average person" because they have so much in common with
>> the rest of us. Extra points if said Whollyweirdo flies private jets to
>> speak at conservation conferences.
>>
>
> Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
> fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
> unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
> gallons of jet fuel wasted.
>
Unlike our former prez, Jimmy Carter, who actually picks up a hammer and
helps to build houses.
You've never seen a good boxing movie? How about Diggstown?
Tom Watson wrote:
> Tonight I watched a boxing movie.
>
> I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
>
> Friends had warned me about watching "Million Dollar Baby" because it
> was so sad.
>
> They were right, but for the wrong reasons.
>
> I watched it tonight and I am sad.
>
> Sad, because I never saw a fight that didn't start in the middle of
> the ring with a speech from the ref and a touch of gloves, until this
> movie.
>
> Sad, because I saw a woman who weighed about 130 pounds, who was
> hitting a heavy bag that looked like it weighed about three hundred
> pounds. (I still hit a heavy bag, and it weighs about sixty pounds,
> and I weigh about 210 pounds.)
>
> Sad, because I saw people in a movie talk about how to hit a speed bag
> - and it was entirely wrong. You don't shift your weight. You keep
> your weight centered.
>
>
> Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
> it up.
>
> This current movie, like the Rocky trash before it, shows these huge
> roundhouse punches, that you would never see in a real match.
>
> If you have ever boxed, you know that you are taught to never throw a
> punch outside the width of your shoulders. A short, compact jab to
> the inside, and a longer throw from the strong side.
>
> I know, it ain't wooddorking, but it just made me mad.
>
> I've never seen a good boxing movie. All of them, including the
> DeNiro movie about LaMotta, suck.
>
>
> OBWW: The Actors Were Not Wooden.
>
> (watson - who wishes that he could find a good boxing movie and wishes
> that everyone could see a fight at the Blue Horizon.)
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
In article <[email protected]>, "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Didn't good old Ike order the overthrow (Operation AJAX) of Iran's goverment
>and its president (Time Magazine's Man or the Year 1951) Mossadegh in the
>first weeks of his inaguration? This too in an effort to control the world
>oil supply?
No, not exactly. You might want to read up on what actually happened.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Charlie Self wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
>>>>>unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
>>>>the present administration. But there is a method.
>>>>
>>>>Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
>>>>often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
>>>>spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
>>>>They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
>>>>guilty.
>>>>
>>>>In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
>>>>hatred.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates
>>>freedom....
>>
>>Not exactly. It just happens that a good many of the Political Goobers
>>that criticize the President happen also to have a very selective view
>>of just who is entitled to freedom and how they get it. Specifically,
>>these Political Goobers want to be the switchbox that decides who gets
>>freedom, who pays for it, and on what issues freedom ought to apply. For
>>example, they want people to be "free" to have abortions and
>>simulaneously want me to not be free to avoid paying for them. They want
>>people to be "free" to build and live 8 feet below sea level and then
>>want to enslave me to pay for the rebuilding of these *private* homes
>>and residences regardless of my objections to doing so. The list is
>>endless.
>>
>>
>>IOW, these people had long been violaters of the idea of *equal* freedom
>>for everyone. They want to decide who is free, just how much, and whose
>>freedoms will be compromised to reach their goals. This all took place
>>long before they started drooling all over themselves about this
>>administration.
>>
>>
>
>
> So those who disagree with you and Georgie Boy are goobers. Well, I'd
I don't agree with George on much of anything. I just dislike most
all his critics (especially the class of critics herein described)
far more than I dislike his ideas.
> guess gooberizing others shows a certain tendency to peanut-brainism of
> the gooberizer.
>
> It might really be getting close to the time you quit ascribing an
> entire menu of beliefs and desires to people who are pesenting an
> opinion on ONE area. I know it's difficult. Stereotypes die hard, and
> stereotyping is a whole lot of fun and much easier than thinking, but
> give it a try.
I did no such thing. I said "A good many of ..." This means I am
specifically addressing myself to a subset of W's critics. All I said
was that this subset of people opposed equal freedom long before GW showed up.
They've been doing it for a long, long time. If the shoe fits, wear it.
If it doesn't, you are not in the class being critized (by me), so take
a deep breath and relax. All this reflexive defense of George-beaters is
bad for your health.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 28 Sep 2005 20:24:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2005 13:10:18 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder. Does he really have to go down there and hold hands once a
>> ewek or more frequently? If he had given the impression of giving even
>> a mild damn about things early on, he might have been able to save
>> about five trips, at 20,000 gallons (or more: that's just AF 1 jet
>> fuel) per trip.
>
>Thing is, if he had gone down right away, people would have been
>(correctly) criticizing him for diverting resources away from rescue and
>into protecting him. It was appropriate to stay the hell out of the way
>for as long as he did; there was nothing to be gained by having to,
>among all their other problems, suddenly have a presidential protection
>detail going on. Yet the same people complaining that he didn't go down
>right away, I guarantee, would be pointing out exactly that if he had
>gone down right away.
They were already doing that kind of thing last week. After Katrina,
they were lambasting Bush for not going down to NO personally and for not
having been there making sure things were right before the storm. Then,
before Rita hit, when he *was* in Texas, good ol' David (impartial no bias
here) Gregory had the cajones to ask Bush if he thought that with Bush
being down there before the storm, he and his entourage were "getting in
the way" of the rescue workers.
There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> : Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
> : it up.
>
> A good sport?
Reminds me of this chestnut:
Boxing is like a ballet
except there is no music
and the dancers hit each other.
(variously ascribed)
In article <[email protected]>, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Glen wrote:
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> >
[snip]
>
> Makes sense to me. He's damned.
Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been exposed.
His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is phoney.
The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
likes to be played a fool.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Glen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Charlie Self wrote:
> >>>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>Makes sense to me. He's damned.
> >
> >
> > Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been
> > exposed.
> > His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is
> > phoney.
> > The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to
> > look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
> > likes to be played a fool.
>
> Right, because his opponents are just fountains of empathy and support
> for the average guy. People like Kenney, Feinstein, Clinton, Reid,
> and all the rest of the drooling opposition are paragons of public
> virtue and brimming with resonance for how most of us live.
Errrmmm... that would be sarcasm, right?
> Compared
> to almost anyone that opposes him politically, W looks like a mild,
> caring genius - and I'm no Republican, BTW - I've just learned to
> cultivate a nearly boundless contempt for the professional stupidity
> that is the Left.
Holy fu*ck! I'm agreeing with Tim!! Now what?
In article <[email protected]>,
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ike was the last politician of substance and anything approaching
> honor, IMO. We need another one who has nothing to gain, and wants
> nothing to gain. But he may have been the last.
Now it is all run by special interest groups and their campaign
contributions which all have strings attached. I doesn't matter whether
that campaign contribution goes to the Right or the Left, whoever gets
put in the White House, goes there owing a lot of favours to a lot of
people. That soul is sold long before inauguration.
And now with paper-less voting, I'm not so sure that voting matters any
more. Never in history have there been such huge discrepancies between
exit polls and 'counted' votes. And to think 'They' wouldn't do that to
The People, makes one very naive.... so think again.
First thing to do is to take the voting system back.
Then lose the Electoral College.
Only then does the Middle stand a chance. Right now the Middle is being
split in two by the same tactics as 1933 Germany.
Then it's time to cook up some spotted owl on the BBQ and take the
Hummer for a spin.
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
: Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
: it up.
A good sport? One where two men hit each other as hard as possible until
one of them passes out, or dies? And where a longtime boxer stands a
really good chance of brain damage?
Give me bocce any time.
-- Andy Barss
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:33:34 -0700, "Jeff Kingsley"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:1127871112.1ae4043634b0f88e546854826133d799@teranews...
>> Tonight I watched a boxing movie.
>>
>> I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
>>
... snip
>>
>> I've never seen a good boxing movie. All of them, including the
>> DeNiro movie about LaMotta, suck.
>>
>>
>> OBWW: The Actors Were Not Wooden.
>>
>> (watson - who wishes that he could find a good boxing movie and wishes
>> that everyone could see a fight at the Blue Horizon.)
...snip of some funny stuff
>Movies with farmers that are always dusty, broke, bitter and lonely with no
>hope of any type of happiness in their life. Oh, wait, maybe that one is
>true....but you get the idea.
>
Poor harvest there this year Jeff? ;-)
>Jeff Kingsley
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
> it up.
Money. It has to attract a large audience.
I've watched many a boxing match, but I don't consider it a "good" sport. I
just cannot imagine people allowing themselves to get bashed in the head
being normal.
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
>> it up.
>
> A good sport? One where two men hit each other as hard as possible until
> one of them passes out, or dies? And where a longtime boxer stands a
> really good chance of brain damage?
Nothing more satisfying than watching one boxer knock the other on his ass. I
am *always* up for a good boxing match.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Glen wrote:
>>
>>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Makes sense to me. He's damned.
>
>
> Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been exposed.
> His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is phoney.
> The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
> likes to be played a fool.
Right, because his opponents are just fountains of empathy and support
for the average guy. People like Kenney, Feinstein, Clinton, Reid,
and all the rest of the drooling opposition are paragons of public
virtue and brimming with resonance for how most of us live. Compared
to almost anyone that opposes him politically, W looks like a mild,
caring genius - and I'm no Republican, BTW - I've just learned to
cultivate a nearly boundless contempt for the professional stupidity
that is the Left.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charlie Self wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Makes sense to me. He's damned.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even his 'base' is eroding. It no longer matters what he does, he's been exposed.
>>>His new-found keen interest in the little people looks phoney because it is phoney.
>>>The worse thing that can happen to a public relations stunt is for it to look like a public relations stunt. Nobody
>>>likes to be played a fool.
>>
>>Right, because his opponents are just fountains of empathy and support
>>for the average guy. People like Kenney, Feinstein, Clinton, Reid,
>>and all the rest of the drooling opposition are paragons of public
>>virtue and brimming with resonance for how most of us live. Compared
>>to almost anyone that opposes him politically, W looks like a mild,
>>caring genius - and I'm no Republican, BTW - I've just learned to
>>cultivate a nearly boundless contempt for the professional stupidity
>>that is the Left.
>>
>
>
> Wow. Right up there with the boundless contempt most of us in the
> middle have for those on both the left and the right.
>
> It is quite possibly time that politicians and those who pander to them
> began to realize that there are a great many people in this country who
> were disillusioned by LBJ, sickened by Nixon, not entranced by Reagan,
As someone whose ancestors inhabited the land subjugated by
The Evil Empire, Reagan gets a big Thumbs Up from me. The Cold
War was fought by many, but it was ultimately won by Reagan's
deep belief in the power of markets to bankrupt a nonsustainable
system. The debt he incurred in so doing has been more than
paid back in a more stable world with a noticable diminished
miltitary footing, notwithstanding today's excursion in the Middle
East. Clinton benefitted directly from the resultant peace dividend.
I also very much agreed with his ideas about economics and limited
government. Pity the Republican Congress didn't actually
manage to act that way as well.
> stunned at the ineptness of Bush #1, not in love with Clinton's
> womanizing, but are totally disgusted by Bush and his policies.
Charlie -
Don't ever kid yourself. We get *exactly* the politics The Sheeple
want. Whether Left- or Right-, the politicians are merely responding
to the market forces of politics; they are doing what they need to
for reelection. It is The Sheeple that line up for "free" stuff
and elect people to get it for them. Robert Heinlein once suggested
a taxonomy that all humans are one of: Makers, Fakers, and Takers.
A depression portion of the population are Fakers and elect Takers
to do their stealing for them.
>
> Ike was the last politician of substance and anything approaching
> honor, IMO. We need another one who has nothing to gain, and wants
> nothing to gain. But he may have been the last. If that's the case, the
Don't forget that marginal tax rates were over 90% under Ike - the
raping of Other People's Wallets was well underway during his
presidency. He also bestowed the legacy of Viet Nam upon us which
was fulfilled by Kennedy and Johnson. Nixon, for all his sins,
had the stones to get us out of that mess. For this and his
improving relations with China, he should get some credit.
> country is in a far bigger pile of shit than most of us will admit. We
> have allowed our political types to turn the entire country over to the
> military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of, and then
> we've allowed that complex to turn internationalist, leaving the U.S.
> pretty well uncovered in the event of a really major problem.
>
Again, I think you underestimate the pressure of The Sheeple. The desire
to have gasoline at a price people feel like paying, without regard to
the geopolitical consequences has driven 'internationalization' of our
policy to a noteworthy degree, for example.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Boxing is such a good sport. Why do these people seem to want to tart
>>it up.
>
>
> Money. It has to attract a large audience.
>
> I've watched many a boxing match, but I don't consider it a "good" sport. I
> just cannot imagine people allowing themselves to get bashed in the head
> being normal.
>
>
I believe the intention is to *avoid* being bashed in the head ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tom Watson"wrote in message
> My Dad fought Golden Gloves in Philly during the Late Thirties and
> Early Forties and then went on to box on aircraft carriers during the
> Second World War.
> He couldn't stand to watch Victory At Sea with me, because it was
> entirely too personal to him but, we could watch boxing together.
Some amazing parallells, Tom. Dad, who is doing well at 82 and can outwork
me on his racehorse farm to this day, fought in GG in S Louisiana the same
time as your Dad. He was well known during that time for his opponents
falling, face down, from a left hook to the body ... a punch we practiced
countless times when he was teaching me to box as a kid.
He was also in the Pacific during WWII (His Army unit was dropped off on
Okinawa to wipe out the suicide boat bases a week _before_ the Marines
landed, only a handfull survived ... one of the true "mission impossibles",
and an episode in American military history that you'd think would be worthy
of a movie script).
I certainly got my love of boxing from him ... and, just as you, we watched
the Gillette fights together countless times.
> I've always enjoyed the undercard. The heavies are usually too damned
> slow and throw too few punches.
> Give me a nice Cruiser or Light Heavy bout.
Me also ... although Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, and Archie Moore were my
heroes as a kid.
> I enjoyed boxing as a boy and, now that I am not, I still train with
> the heavy, speed and rope.
>
> I don't look pretty at it but it still breaks a good sweat and keeps
> me from drinking too much the night before.
I boxed throughout HS and was on Texas A&M's last intercollegiate boxing
club (was once picked to spar an exhibition round with Cleveland "The Big
Cat" Williams ... it was literally cat playing with mouse). I've also dodged
a few playfully thrown (and pulled) punches from George Foreman, who used to
sit on the tailgate of my pickup holding his horses for me in the
horseshoeing days of my 'yoot'. In my early twenties I did fight for prize
money in the loosely organized bareknuckle pub bouts down in Australia that
were popular during the mid 60's and never missed a single payout, mainly
due to having the advantage of actually being a boxer, instead of a brawler
... and like Mohammed Ali, I managed to stay pretty. ;)
> Boxing is one hell of a sport, regardless of what the Politically
> Correct dipshits say. It's a good sport and a good discipline that
> gives you a solid sense of what you can take and what you can dish
> out.
I could not agree more ... the confidence in knowing you can handle
yourself, if you have to, can get you out of a lot of confrontations
gracefully ... or not, with good results. ;)
> I haven't been in a ring in thirty five years but I'm teaching the
> sport to my young'un, even though the big gloves look silly on him.
I've been toying with the idea of installing a body and speed bag lately,
but it would have to be in the shop, a place where real estate is at a
premium.
BTW, I weigh in at an 203 at the moment and, if you'll promise to go easy on
a 63 year old man, could maybe last a couple of _relaxed_ sparring rounds
whenever you're ready ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/17/05
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> OTH, while he has invoked a major energy-savings program at the white
> house, he should've got on a train in a special series of cars, and
> then once in the area he could comandeer a copter or whatever was
> needed to get to all the parishes.
Not the choice of the president. The secret service makes those decisions.
The best decision would have been for him to stay home after the first visit
and save a lot of resources that would be best used to assist the people in
the disaster area.
On 29 Sep 2005 12:16:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> There is no logic in the people opposing the president, only pure,
>> unadulterated hatred -- it doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.
>>
>
>There is no logic in the people attacking the opposition to
>the present administration. But there is a method.
>
>Whenever they know that the facts are against them, which is
>often the case, they resort to the classic tactic of a cheating
>spouse and other persons with a morally indefensible positon.
>They accuse the other of that of which they themselves are
>guilty.
>
>In the instant case, they are acting out of pure, unadulterated
>hatred.
hey, hadn't you heard? anyone who criticizes the president hates
freedom....
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> I hate boxing movies, but I love boxing.
Damn, Tom ... I enjoyed visiting with you on the phone, you like my favorite
music, now you confess to being a boxing fan ... a decidedly politically
incorrect endeavor these days. Wanna dance? ;)
To SWMBO"S utter disgust, much of my TV watching is catching ESPN's classic
boxing reruns of all those great fights in the last century. When I was a
kid in the early fifties I had to be dragged away from Gillette's Friday
Night Fights on that big 8" TV screen.
Notice, if you will, that most fight fans went to the fights in the 40's and
50's in a suit and tie, then switch channels and take a good look when
corporate religion's TV cameras pan the audience ... now chew on that
awhile :)
.... and watch Archie Moore fight Yvon Durelle for a few rounds and you can
see where Mohammed Ali got much of his style and shtick.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/17/05
I'd have to agree that phoney or not, W has to be on-scene with the
perhaps the biggest natural disaster this country has witnessed on
live TV ever. Those people are _still_ hurting like we can't imagine,
and there's only one person they want to see (like him or not) and
that's the President... and not some delegated cheerleader. They
don't want a token "Hey... I showed up three times since the
Hurricane" so I have to move on to other issues president.
OTH, while he has invoked a major energy-savings program at the white
house, he should've got on a train in a special series of cars, and
then once in the area he could comandeer a copter or whatever was
needed to get to all the parishes.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:22:52 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Heh. Like our Prez, who cautions all of us to think about how we use
>> fuel as he steps onto AF 1 to make a seventh (or whatever) wholly
>> unneeded trip to the hurricane zone, thus guaranteeing another 20,000
>> gallons of jet fuel wasted.
>>
>
>And if he doesn't he gets skewered for not caring about the little
>people. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
>
>Glen
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I believe the intention is to *avoid* being bashed in the head ...
I learned many years ago that blocking with your face is simply poor technique.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]