OK, here goes:
1: Jeff Gordon will not finish on the lead lap
2: Jr retains chase lead
3: Robbie Gordon drives a clean race
4: Kasey gets the pole
5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
OK, here goes:
1: Jeff Gordon will not finish on the lead lap
2: Jr retains chase lead
3: Robbie Gordon drives a clean race
4: Kasey gets the pole
5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:21:59 CST, in article
<2o68l0dklp7q8qtehua3vpn37muhvp2…@4ax.com>, Alex Holden
<newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
>1: Jeff Gordon will not finish on the lead lap
Wishful thinking on my part -1
>2: Jr retains chase lead
18 points off the lead does not a lead make -1
>3: Robbie Gordon drives a clean race
The deal with Stewart near the start was nothing really, so I’ll put
this down as a +1
>4: Kasey gets the pole
Well a red dodge got the pole but it wasn’t the #9 -1
>5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
There were 8 chasers in the top 10, my prediction should have said
minimum – that was my intention and I was going to score this as a +1
till I read it again. I’ll score it as a 0, sorry folks.
That makes the score -2
Cheers,
—
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
"Alex Holden" wrote …
>>5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
> There were 8 chasers in the top 10, my prediction should have said
> minimum – that was my intention and I was going to score this as a +1
> till I read it again. I’ll score it as a 0, sorry folks.
> That makes the score -2
> Cheers,
> —
You also didn’t say no more than 6.
Did 6 CCs finish in the top 10? Yes.
I’d give you one for this (and admonish you not to be so conservative next time,
go for 8 or 9 or 10!)
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:20:07 GMT, Alex Holden
<newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote:
>>1: Jeff Gordon will not finish on the lead lap
>Wishful thinking on my part -1
I was real unhappy to see him in 3rd at the end of
the race. Just like DE Sr.: you can’t count him out
until the fat lady sings. :o(
>>3: Robbie Gordon drives a clean race
>The deal with Stewart near the start was nothing really, so I’ll put
>this down as a +1
TS is gonna stop by your place and give you a tour of
the woodshed after he’s done discussing the issue
with RG.
BUT I’m OK with your score. Looks like it was
"dumb driving," not dirty driving.
Hmm. Two weeks in a row RG costs TS some peace
of mind. Hmm. I think I feel a prediction coming on.
It might be a gimme …
>>5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
>There were 8 chasers in the top 10, my prediction should have said
>minimum – that was my intention and I was going to score this as a +1
>till I read it again. I’ll score it as a 0, sorry folks.
I’d give you a point. You didn’t say "only 6." 6 is a subset of
8, so (on this interpretation), what you said is true.
Marty
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:52:45 GMT, in article
<82SdnbiJZ85ykcXcUSd…@ptd.net>, "WildWeasel" <wweasel…@HooYah.com>
wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Alex Holden" wrote …
>>>5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
>> There were 8 chasers in the top 10, my prediction should have said
>> minimum – that was my intention and I was going to score this as a +1
>> till I read it again. I’ll score it as a 0, sorry folks.
>> That makes the score -2
>> Cheers,
>> —
>You also didn’t say no more than 6.
>Did 6 CCs finish in the top 10? Yes.
>I’d give you one for this (and admonish you not to be so conservative next time,
>go for 8 or 9 or 10!)
OK, I’ll take the 1 after peer review, but I’m not going for a number of
chasers finishing in the top 10 at Talledega, I may go for a number of
"finishers" that is cars finishing within 5 laps of the leader. 20 or
less, I think.
Cheers,
—
I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
news:mc3gl09br04aaajdmc00k5r7nh8d9mjqiv@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:20:07 GMT, Alex Holden
> <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote:
> >>1: Jeff Gordon will not finish on the lead lap
> >Wishful thinking on my part -1
> I was real unhappy to see him in 3rd at the end of
> the race. Just like DE Sr.: you can’t count him out
> until the fat lady sings. :o(
> >>3: Robbie Gordon drives a clean race
> >The deal with Stewart near the start was nothing really, so I’ll put
> >this down as a +1
> TS is gonna stop by your place and give you a tour of
> the woodshed after he’s done discussing the issue
> with RG.
> BUT I’m OK with your score. Looks like it was
> "dumb driving," not dirty driving.
Then how are we gonna define a "clean race"? it’s ok if you take someone
out, as long as it’s because of stupidity?
Michael
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:43:38 GMT, "Michael McGaha"
<mich…@electricdreams.com> wrote:
> … Then how are we gonna define a "clean race"? it’s ok if you take someone
>out, as long as it’s because of stupidity?
Heaven only knows, and Heaven hasn’t volunteered to act
as a NASCAR referee.
If the "takeout" is artistic enough to appear like "one o’
them racin’ deals," it’s clean.
If not, not.
The truth is inside the driver’s heart. Our judgment has to
be based on appearances, except when the driver
confesses (as RG seems to have done with the
Biffle bop).
Marty
Alex i’ll give u a +1 also but with this caveat:
Don’t predict number of Chasers finishing in the Top10
at Dega, otherwise u will get a sure minus 1.
—
Crusader
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Alex Holden" <newsp…@alex-holden.co.uk> wrote in message news:bu5gl0503t79mf5hhs2o1ntgl6sh3ju3m1@4ax.com…
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:52:45 GMT, in article
> <82SdnbiJZ85ykcXcUSd…@ptd.net>, "WildWeasel" <wweasel…@HooYah.com>
> wrote in rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated:
> >"Alex Holden" wrote …
> >>>5: Chase contenders make up 6 of the top 10.
> >> There were 8 chasers in the top 10, my prediction should have said
> >> minimum – that was my intention and I was going to score this as a +1
> >> till I read it again. I’ll score it as a 0, sorry folks.
> >> That makes the score -2
> >> Cheers,
> >> —
> >You also didn’t say no more than 6.
> >Did 6 CCs finish in the top 10? Yes.
> >I’d give you one for this (and admonish you not to be so conservative next time,
> >go for 8 or 9 or 10!)
> OK, I’ll take the 1 after peer review, but I’m not going for a number of
> chasers finishing in the top 10 at Talledega, I may go for a number of
> "finishers" that is cars finishing within 5 laps of the leader. 20 or
> less, I think.
> Cheers,
> —
> I don’t speak for anybody but myself.
"Michael McGaha" <mich…@electricdreams.com> wrote in
news:_FV5d.1758$q67.514@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole…@canisius.edu> wrote in message
> news:mc3gl09br04aaajdmc00k5r7nh8d9mjqiv@4ax.com…
>> BUT I’m OK with your score. Looks like it was
>> "dumb driving," not dirty driving.
> Then how are we gonna define a "clean race"? it’s ok if you take someone
> out, as long as it’s because of stupidity?
I think contact with another car, either thru malicious intent or
egregious stupidity, does not count as "clean racing". Which of
course then leaves us with arguing about the maliciousness or
egregiousness of the event….just like we always debate whether
it’s "one of those racin deals".
For the record, I would not call Robbie’s race "clean", but I’m
OK with calling it "close enough" for scoring.
John