I used to listen to the AM radio broadcast when I went to the races to keep
up with the action on the track. Dawgoneit, now they’ve done gone and put a
delay in the broadcast. It sures screws up my race routine because now the
broadcast is out of sync with the real race. Dawgoneit, why couldn’t she
have just left her clothes on?!?
February 26, 2010
Janet Jackson screwed up my race routine
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:08:01 CST, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com> wrote:
>I used to listen to the AM radio broadcast when I went to the races to keep
>up with the action on the track. Dawgoneit, now they’ve done gone and put a
>delay in the broadcast. It sures screws up my race routine because now the
>broadcast is out of sync with the real race. Dawgoneit, why couldn’t she
>have just left her clothes on?!?
That IS a tragedy.
AH–get a scanner. I know it’s more expensive than an AM radio,
but you should get the radio guys live and unedited. You can hear
them talking to each other during the commercial delays. And
it’s fun to eavesdrop on the drivers, too.
Marty
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
get a scanner.
"Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:115ee7k506qftc1@corp.supernews.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>I used to listen to the AM radio broadcast when I went to the races to keep
>up with the action on the track. Dawgoneit, now they’ve done gone and put
>a delay in the broadcast. It sures screws up my race routine because now
>the broadcast is out of sync with the real race. Dawgoneit, why couldn’t
>she have just left her clothes on?!?
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
I have a scanner. I listen to the AM radio in the background and the driver
chatter breaks in when the driver talks.
So, I need another $200 scanner because of Janet Jackson?!? I hate her.
"David T." <da…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hYG5e.36031$vL3.1614@bignews4.bellsouth.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> get a scanner.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:37:07 CST, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com> wrote:
>I have a scanner. I listen to the AM radio in the background and the driver
>chatter breaks in when the driver talks.
Hmm. You’re already tech-savvy. Here I thought we were helping
you. :o(
>So, I need another $200 scanner because of Janet Jackson?!?
It seems so. But you’ll have the baddest scanner setup of
anyone at the track!
> I hate her.
We who enjoy the sunlight above the clouds that gather in
nearby Gimme Valley do not reveal the measure of the
contempt we feel for Ms. Jackson, her dance partner,
and the wardrobe mistress. We pass over these things
in silence.
Marty
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
On 9 Apr 2005 02:30:08 GMT, in article
<68fe51piij2r4ajglrkqh75r9uvjkdf…@4ax.com>, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
>AH–get a scanner. I know it’s more expensive than an AM radio,
>but you should get the radio guys live and unedited. You can hear
>them talking to each other during the commercial delays. And
>it’s fun to eavesdrop on the drivers, too.
Just a quick techie question, where is the delay built into the
broadcast; at the racetrack or at the radio station’s distribution net?
Cheers,
—
Alex Holden
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
> Just a quick techie question, where is the delay built into the
> broadcast; at the racetrack or at the radio station’s distribution net?
I believe that it’s at the broadcasting end. The local radio "live mike" at
the track is still live, I believe.
I guess my only reason for posting this is that never in my wildest
imaginings did I think that Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction would
affect my racing routine.
Sometimes, it’s just odd how the unintended consequences affect our lives,
though it’s not the most critical or consequential thing going on in the
world.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:37:07 CST, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com> wrote:
>>I have a scanner. I listen to the AM radio in the background and the driver
>>chatter breaks in when the driver talks.
> Hmm. You’re already tech-savvy. Here I thought we were helping
> you. :o(
>>So, I need another $200 scanner because of Janet Jackson?!?
> It seems so. But you’ll have the baddest scanner setup of
> anyone at the track!
>>I hate her.
> We who enjoy the sunlight above the clouds that gather in
> nearby Gimme Valley do not reveal the measure of the
> contempt we feel for Ms. Jackson, her dance partner,
> and the wardrobe mistress. We pass over these things
> in silence.
> Marty
Oh no, Janet Jackson DOES NOT dwell in Gimme Valley. We think she is a
citizen of Contemptible Canyon.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
"Cindy Murray" <cind…@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5YqdnehI_aNkAcTfRVn-oA@comcast.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:37:07 CST, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com>
wrote:
> >>I have a scanner. I listen to the AM radio in the background and the
driver
> >>chatter breaks in when the driver talks.
> > Hmm. You’re already tech-savvy. Here I thought we were helping
> > you. :o(
> >>So, I need another $200 scanner because of Janet Jackson?!?
> > It seems so. But you’ll have the baddest scanner setup of
> > anyone at the track!
> >>I hate her.
> > We who enjoy the sunlight above the clouds that gather in
> > nearby Gimme Valley do not reveal the measure of the
> > contempt we feel for Ms. Jackson, her dance partner,
> > and the wardrobe mistress. We pass over these things
> > in silence.
> > Marty
> Oh no, Janet Jackson DOES NOT dwell in Gimme Valley. We think she is a
> citizen of Contemptible Canyon.
> All this hubbub, and we didn’t even get to see her nipple.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
On 10 Apr 2005 21:40:06 GMT, in article
<115j6u5mfka4…@corp.supernews.com>, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com>
wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
>I believe that it’s at the broadcasting end. The local radio "live mike" at
>the track is still live, I believe.
>I guess my only reason for posting this is that never in my wildest
>imaginings did I think that Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction would
>affect my racing routine.
To be perfectly honest, and I don’t want to sound like a blunt
Englishman here, but with all due respect, I cannot, for the life of me
understand why there has been so much of a puritan response to this
wardrobe malfunction. I watched that Superbowl (in the early hours of
the morning, that’s the problem with being 5 hours ahead of Eastern
time) live, but I just thought that the issue was just a bit of an
"oops" and I never expected to see a fine of the level that was set.
Maybe it’s a culture thing, I don’t know, but I don’t think that there
would have been such an outcry if a similar thing happened at our FA Cup
Final (the world’s oldest domestic soccer knockout tournament,) which is
as close to a Superbowl as you’re going to get over here.
>Sometimes, it’s just odd how the unintended consequences affect our lives,
>though it’s not the most critical or consequential thing going on in the
>world.
Too true, too true. What would have happened if Jr hadn’t been docked 25
points at Talladega last fall? Would he have driven differently? Would
KB still be the champ? Would he still be driving the real #8 car chassis
instead of the #15 cars painted up as the #8? Did Janet Jackson cost Jr
a championship?
Cheers,
—
Alex Holden
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:12:25 CST, Alex Holden <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk>
wrote:
>To be perfectly honest, and I don’t want to sound like a blunt
>Englishman here, but with all due respect, I cannot, for the life of me
>understand why there has been so much of a puritan response to this
>wardrobe malfunction.
You guys got rid of your puritan problem by shipping them
all over here. :-P
> … Would he still be driving the real #8 car chassis
>instead of the #15 cars painted up as the #8?
Haven’t heard about that. What’s the scoop?
> … Did Janet Jackson cost Jr
>a championship?
No. I doubt that the fine affected Jr.’s on-track
behavior.
Marty
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:12:25 CST, Alex Holden <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>… Would he still be driving the real #8 car chassis
>>instead of the #15 cars painted up as the #8?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> Haven’t heard about that. What’s the scoop?
Alex is referring to the switch that happened over winter. DEjr and MW
switched teams, cars, etc. The only thing that stayed the same is DEjr
is #8 in the red car and MW is #15 in the blue car.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:51:39 CST, in article
<44ko511vn99ad6j5dfhgdp08kafdo9j…@4ax.com>, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
<mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
>You guys got rid of your puritan problem by shipping them
>all over here. :-P
lol!
>> … Would he still be driving the real #8 car chassis
>>instead of the #15 cars painted up as the #8?
>Haven’t heard about that. What’s the scoop?
It’s something that I think is pretty important, certainly from a
psychlogical perspective.
When Dale Jr and Mikey swapped crew chiefs, that wasn’t the only thing
that they swapped. They swapped everything, and that included the crews
and cars.
So essentially, the car that Mikey will be driving round Pheonix in 2
weeks time is the car that Dale Jr drove to victory there in 03 and 04.
I think that it’s that sort of thing that can affect a driver, and that
may explain partly Jr’s slow start to the season.
At Daytona, the car that Mikey drove was the one that Jr drove to
victory at the race that didn’t mean s**t. Jr had an old 15 car. That’s
got to rankle with a driver, seeing through the paint scheme and seeing
"your" car being driven by somebody else. And that has to hurt more when
you’re racing at somewhere where you’ve won with that car, and you’re
struggling to get to grips with a new chassis and a new team…
Cheers,
—
Alex Holden
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:12:29 CST, Alex Holden <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk>
wrote:
> … That’s
>got to rankle with a driver, seeing through the paint scheme and seeing
>"your" car being driven by somebody else. And that has to hurt more when
>you’re racing at somewhere where you’ve won with that car, and you’re
>struggling to get to grips with a new chassis and a new team…
Interesting.
Do you think Jr. had no say in the team/hardware switch?
Marty
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote …
> Alex Holden wrote:
>> … That’s
>>got to rankle with a driver, seeing through the paint scheme and seeing
>>"your" car being driven by somebody else. And that has to hurt more when
>>you’re racing at somewhere where you’ve won with that car, and you’re
>>struggling to get to grips with a new chassis and a new team…
> Interesting.
> Do you think Jr. had no say in the team/hardware switch?
I wonder too. But you have to think it’s a big deal switch and adjustment. Of
all the possible switches, this seems the most drastic and disruptive. OTOH, if
things ain’t right, and disruptive is what you’re lookin’ for … that’s the
shotgun to pull off the wall.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
"Alex Holden" <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hcho511v7dpee84bulb9s74so9i6hue2ro@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 10 Apr 2005 21:40:06 GMT, in article
> <115j6u5mfka4…@corp.supernews.com>, "Tommy Wood" <tgw…@nospam.com>
> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
> To be perfectly honest, and I don’t want to sound like a blunt
> Englishman here, but with all due respect, I cannot, for the life of me
> understand why there has been so much of a puritan response to this
> wardrobe malfunction. I watched that Superbowl (in the early hours of
> the morning, that’s the problem with being 5 hours ahead of Eastern
> time) live, but I just thought that the issue was just a bit of an
> "oops" and I never expected to see a fine of the level that was set.
> Maybe it’s a culture thing, I don’t know, but I don’t think that there
> would have been such an outcry if a similar thing happened at our FA Cup
> Final (the world’s oldest domestic soccer knockout tournament,) which is
> as close to a Superbowl as you’re going to get over here.
> Cheers,
> —
> Alex Holden
> I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Good one about u blunt Englishmen shipping we Colonists yore Puritans.
Shirley u know Alex that the majority within even this discussion group
are not decrying the staged shocker of that white boy fomenting
the wardrobe malfunction. Just having a good time with it, but unfortunately
NA$CAR Inc. must watch what they sanction.
U probably are too young to remember this, but didja ever see
The Grand Knockout? Brits dressed in oversized playing cards, etc.
One of the funniest programs i ever did see. Funnier than Benny Hill even!
Language barrier? What does naff mean as in: ‘F1 is naff. That’s why i watch NA$CAR.’
CRU-Hungarian-German-Irish
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
> Do you think Jr. had no say in the team/hardware switch?
> Marty
I thought Jr. is the one who planned the changes?!? I read that somewhere.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:04:48 CST, in article
<3c5qcgF6moqm…@individual.net>, "Crusader" <cr…@comcast.net> wrote
in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
>Shirley u know Alex that the majority within even this discussion group
>are not decrying the staged shocker of that white boy fomenting
>the wardrobe malfunction. Just having a good time with it, but unfortunately
>NA$CAR Inc. must watch what they sanction.
Nascar has to watch out, because of the fallout over what happened
there. Heavy FCC fines do not make for happy shareholders, on that I
think we’re all agreed. My view is that the FCC went too far, and that
is having an effect on other sports, hence Nascar’s rule. The FCC forced
Nascar to respond in that way.
>U probably are too young to remember this, but didja ever see
>The Grand Knockout? Brits dressed in oversized playing cards, etc.
>One of the funniest programs i ever did see. Funnier than Benny Hill even!
Oh, I saw "It’s A Knockout" which is what you’re writing about; they’ve
started to run it again. It’s naff though.
>Language barrier? What does naff mean as in: ‘F1 is naff. That’s why i watch NA$CAR.’
>CRU-Hungarian-German-Irish
Naff means seedy or tacky. Think one step above trailer parks.
naff Adj. 1. Rubbishy, useless, of poor quality. [1960s]
2. Unfashionable. [1960s]
Cheers,
—
Alex Holden
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
Comment by admin — February 26, 2010 @ 4:19 pm