There seems to be a BIG lull in the posts!… posts!…posts!…posts!(echo)
Does this lull have to wait for February?
30
Nov
Lull in the action
There seems to be a BIG lull in the posts!… posts!…posts!…posts!(echo)
Does this lull have to wait for February?
Olen Krontz wrote:
> There seems to be a BIG lull in the posts!… posts!…posts!…posts!(echo)
>
> Does this lull have to wait for February?
Even during the season, this is a fairly quiet group. We might get
four or five posts about a race, with a few followups, and then
things get real quiet until qualifying or thereabouts. During
off-weeks, r.a.s.n.m is a real graveyard.
Still, I enjoy the posts that do come through. I’m guardedly
optimistic that we’ll build up a critical mass of fans that will
raise the quantity of the posts as well as maintaining the
quality that the charter aims at.
While we’re hanging around waiting for someone to say something
polite and racing-related, I’d just like to say thanks to the
drivers, owners, teams, sponsors, and allies who put on a great
show for us this year. I enjoyed the season very much, especially
because a non-Hendricks team got to take the Cup home.
Meanwhile, Daytona does seem like it’s a long way off … off … offf
Marty
> Meanwhile, Daytona does seem like it’s a long way off … off … offf
75 days
Almond & Will wrote:
> > Meanwhile, Daytona does seem like it’s a long way off … off … offf
> 75 days
Yeah, but it’s not only in the next century, it’s in the next millenium,
too!
(If you’re an 00 millenialist, of course; the really scientific types
insist on 01 as the first year of the next 1000. I understand the
argument,
but, emotionally, 2000 sure looks like the start of something new.)
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
<snip>
> (If you’re an 00 millenialist, of course; the really scientific types
> insist on 01 as the first year of the next 1000. I understand the
> argument,
> but, emotionally, 2000 sure looks like the start of something new.)
I love that argument. The ’01 people act so superior and indignant when
they tell us 1/1/2000 is not the beginning of the millenium. I say
they’re a bunch of killjoys. Were the ’80s a decade? If so, did that
decade begin 1/1/1980 or 1/1/1981?
A millenium is a thousand years. Every second is the beginning of a new
millenium, when you get right down to it. It’s just easiest for most of
us to denote a millenium by the first digit of the year. Is that so bad?
geez, 75 days can seem like a lifetime. maybe i’ll hibernate and wake up
the day before, time will go faster that way.
I see alot of movin’ and shaken in the 24 camp again. I guess they miss Ray
alot more that they want to admit.
Does anyone have a clue as to how many more sponsors will be jumping on
board next year? I see some changes in sponsors but can’t imagine any
jumping ship right now with the growth of the NASCAR legacy coming into the
main stream more and more.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Doug Rogers wrote:
> Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> <snip>
> > (If you’re an 00 millenialist, of course; the really scientific types
> > insist on 01 as the first year of the next 1000. I understand the
> > argument,
> > but, emotionally, 2000 sure looks like the start of something new.)
> I love that argument. The ’01 people act so superior and indignant when
> they tell us 1/1/2000 is not the beginning of the millenium. I say
> they’re a bunch of killjoys. Were the ’80s a decade? If so, did that
> decade begin 1/1/1980 or 1/1/1981?
> A millenium is a thousand years. Every second is the beginning of a new
> millenium, when you get right down to it. It’s just easiest for most of
> us to denote a millenium by the first digit of the year. Is that so bad?
To Jews I think it’s something like 5572. I don’t know what it is in
China, but I know it isn’t 1999. It really doesn’t matter. I’m not
superior or indignant, but the first year AD was 1, not 0. You do the
math.
Doug Rogers wrote:
> I love that argument. The ’01 people act so superior and indignant when
> they tell us 1/1/2000 is not the beginning of the millenium. I say
> they’re a bunch of killjoys. Were the ’80s a decade? If so, did that
> decade begin 1/1/1980 or 1/1/1981?
The killjoys, of course, say that the decades run from 1 to 0 (81
to 90), just like the millenia (1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000, etc.).
> A millenium is a thousand years. Every second is the beginning of a new
> millenium, when you get right down to it. It’s just easiest for most of
> us to denote a millenium by the first digit of the year. Is that so bad?
It’s the way I feel about things. 2000 just gives me a thrill that
2001 lacks.
Meanwhile, back to NASCAR: has the new Ford Thunderbird come out?
I didn’t like the looks of the retro prototypes that I saw. I wonder
whether I’ll have to root for the Tauroids for the rest of my NASCAR
days. I didn’t like the oval shape at first, but I guess I’m getting
used to it. The Pontiacs, meanwhile, look great.
Marty
dfg
Olen Krontz wrote in message …
>There seems to be a BIG lull in the posts!…
posts!…posts!…posts!(echo)
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>:-)
>Does this lull have to wait for February?
>Meanwhile, Daytona does seem like it’s a long way off … off … offf
To the fans maybe, but to the teams,they may feel it’s coming too soon. NASCAR
made some changes in the roll cages and frames of the cars and all the teams
have to change every car they have unless they built them in the last month.
That’s a lot of work to do in a short while.
call me puter illiterate, but what the heck is "dfg". Although my one post
did generate about 16 replies. That was fun!!
74 DAYS and counting!
Ordie <fech…@ata.attmil.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:82nl55$6q2$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> dfg
> Olen Krontz wrote in message …
> >There seems to be a BIG lull in the posts!…
> posts!…posts!…posts!(echo)
> >:-)
> >Does this lull have to wait for February?
Bill wrote:
> To Jews I think it’s something like 5572. I don’t know what it is in
> China, but I know it isn’t 1999. It really doesn’t matter. I’m not
> superior or indignant, but the first year AD was 1, not 0. You do the
> math.
To Muslims, it’s something like 1377 or 1378 AH.
Marty
Olen Krontz wrote:
> call me puter illiterate, but what the heck is "dfg". Although my one post
> did generate about 16 replies. That was fun!!
In California, it’s the Department of Fish and Game.
In Germany, it’s the Deutsche Forschungeselleschaft.
Don’t know what the poster meant by it.
"Detestable Ford Groupie"?
Marty
dfg
abgah
Marty,
I don’t think the new Thunderbird would ever be considered for NASCAR duty.
The body is not a "sedan" or "coupe" style – strictly a low-volume boulevard
cruising convertible. Also, Ford would rather have it’s highest volume
passenger car model carrying the colors on national TV. I’m afraid Taurus is
it, however, the 2000 model is significantly less ovoid for both street and
track use. For example, no more oval rear window or oval headlights. The
’97-’99 Taurus did not compete well in the marketplace and Ford has made it
more mainstream for ’00. All new model is slated for 2003 or 2004; they are
studying whether they can use the Volvo S80 structure and build it cheaply
enough to compete at Taurus prices. Ford likes the S80 and owns the company
since earlier this year.
Dave
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Meanwhile, back to NASCAR: has the new Ford Thunderbird come out?
> I didn’t like the looks of the retro prototypes that I saw. I wonder
> whether I’ll have to root for the Tauroids for the rest of my NASCAR
> days. I didn’t like the oval shape at first, but I guess I’m getting
> used to it. The Pontiacs, meanwhile, look great.
> Marty
Dave_Danielson wrote:
> I don’t think the new Thunderbird would ever be considered for NASCAR duty.
> The body is not a "sedan" or "coupe" style – strictly a low-volume boulevard
> cruising convertible.
Yes. The concept car (which I dislike) is visible at
http://www.tbird.org/newtbird/index.shtml
For me, the archetypal Tbird is not the ’57, but the ’60 coupe.
> Also, Ford would rather have its highest volume
> passenger car model carrying the colors on national TV.
Makes sense.
> … the 2000 model is significantly less ovoid for both street and
> track use. For example, no more oval rear window or oval headlights.
Hmm, and I was just getting used to those darned crossed eyes!
> All new model is slated for 2003 or 2004; they are
> studying whether they can use the Volvo S80 structure and build it cheaply
> enough to compete at Taurus prices. Ford likes the S80 and owns the company
> since earlier this year.
The S80 is fairly stylish for a Volvo, I guess. My family drove Saabs
for a while (2-stroke, free-wheeling, teardrop shapes–strange little
cars). I learned to drive stick-shift on the Saab, then moved up to
Dad’s Ford Galaxie Sunliner.
Marty
Bill <maxx…@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: superior or indignant, but the first year AD was 1, not 0. You do the
: math.
I understand your arguement, but the first year AD started in 0AD.
I believe it started the moment After a supposed peson’s Death.
–
Aloha, Henry
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
~Reply to:<hkelleyAThawaiiDOTedu>OR<tinylightsAThotmailDOTcom>~
*GO #3,1,31,DT,6,88,94,66,18,10,44,99 GRATEFUL DEADHEAD 4 Life*
~ "You Can’t Erase Blood."-Millennium, "Trust No1"-X-Files ~
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
nascarw…@aol.com (NASCARWife) wrote:
>To the fans maybe, but to the teams,they may feel it’s coming too soon. NASCAR
>made some changes in the roll cages and frames of the cars and all the teams
>have to change every car they have unless they built them in the last month.
>That’s a lot of work to do in a short while.
Details? Some of us are curious about that kind of thing.
Incidently, it seems all you’d really _have_ to change would be a couple of
superspeedway cars (one for the 500, and one to wreck in the 125′s) and a couple
of intermediate cars (for the Rock, Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Darlington), which
would give you a little more time (of course, that’d be the minimum. I’m sure
all the big teams want different cars for each track).
John
I was hoping it meant "disqualification for Gordon"
Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:384FEB4D.D48D10D7@canisius.edu…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Olen Krontz wrote:
> > call me puter illiterate, but what the heck is "dfg". Although my one
post
> > did generate about 16 replies. That was fun!!
> In California, it’s the Department of Fish and Game.
> In Germany, it’s the Deutsche Forschungeselleschaft.
> Don’t know what the poster meant by it.
> "Detestable Ford Groupie"?
> Marty
> dfg
> abgah