<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RPG Richmond Tom in Bristol</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:04:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/comment-page-1#comment-7800</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol#comment-7800</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:54 CST, John McCoy &lt;igop...@ix.netcom.com&gt; wrote: &lt;br /&gt; &gt;&quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb...@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote in &lt;br /&gt; &gt;news:ugwhe.5859$5u4.20313@nnrp1.uunet.ca: &lt;br /&gt; &gt;&gt; 1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not &lt;br /&gt; &gt;&gt; to occur. &lt;br /&gt; &gt;Not to get into the issue of Tom&#039;s picks, but &quot;because they are more &lt;br /&gt; &gt;likely than not to occur&quot; isn&#039;t a very good definition for a gimme. &lt;br /&gt; &gt;There&#039;s nothing wrong (IMHO) with making a pick that&#039;s got a 60% or &lt;br /&gt; &gt;70% likelyhood of occuring (e.g. &quot;Gordon will get a top 10&quot;). &#160;Gimmies &lt;br /&gt; &gt;are the picks that are almost certain to be true. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;I&#039;ve argued for a relaxation of the gimme rule, too. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is a tough game to play. &#160;Even when you pick the &lt;br /&gt; favorites, they don&#039;t always run to form. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;The race is not always to the swift nor battle to &lt;br /&gt; the strong--but that&#039;s the way to bet.&quot; &#160;;o) &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; Marty &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:34:54 CST, John McCoy &lt;igop&#8230;@ix.netcom.com&gt; wrote: <br /> &gt;&quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb&#8230;@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote in <br /> &gt;news:ugwhe.5859$5u4.20313@nnrp1.uunet.ca: <br /> &gt;&gt; 1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not <br /> &gt;&gt; to occur. <br /> &gt;Not to get into the issue of Tom&#8217;s picks, but &quot;because they are more <br /> &gt;likely than not to occur&quot; isn&#8217;t a very good definition for a gimme. <br /> &gt;There&#8217;s nothing wrong (IMHO) with making a pick that&#8217;s got a 60% or <br /> &gt;70% likelyhood of occuring (e.g. &quot;Gordon will get a top 10&quot;). &nbsp;Gimmies <br /> &gt;are the picks that are almost certain to be true. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve argued for a relaxation of the gimme rule, too.  </p>
<p>This is a tough game to play. &nbsp;Even when you pick the <br /> favorites, they don&#8217;t always run to form.  </p>
<p>&quot;The race is not always to the swift nor battle to <br /> the strong&#8211;but that&#8217;s the way to bet.&quot; &nbsp;;o)  </p>
<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Marty </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/comment-page-1#comment-7798</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol#comment-7798</guid>
		<description>
  On 15 May 2005 00:00:01 GMT, &quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb...@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote: &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt;1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to &lt;br /&gt; &gt;occur. &#160;2 is questionable, I&#039;ll leave it to peer review. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;2 is a gimme, too. &#160;Carl Edwards should beat the Cheerios Dodge &lt;br /&gt; handily. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt;Your bonus is not &lt;br /&gt; &gt;approprirate, it&#039;s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in &lt;br /&gt; &gt;fact I&#039;d call it a gimmie prediction. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;No doubt about it. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BUT--Tom is playing &quot;Fantasy RPG.&quot; &#160;It&#039;s a new game. &#160;He&#039;s just &lt;br /&gt; imagining what it would be like to negatize all of Mr. Random&#039;s &lt;br /&gt; predictions. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tom knew the gimme police would be after him. &#160;;o) &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; Marty &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On 15 May 2005 00:00:01 GMT, &quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb&#8230;@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote: <br /> 
<p>&gt;1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to <br /> &gt;occur. &nbsp;2 is questionable, I&#8217;ll leave it to peer review. </p>
<p>2 is a gimme, too. &nbsp;Carl Edwards should beat the Cheerios Dodge <br /> handily.  </p>
<p>&gt;Your bonus is not <br /> &gt;approprirate, it&#8217;s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in <br /> &gt;fact I&#8217;d call it a gimmie prediction. </p>
<p>No doubt about it.  </p>
<p>BUT&#8211;Tom is playing &quot;Fantasy RPG.&quot; &nbsp;It&#8217;s a new game. &nbsp;He&#8217;s just <br /> imagining what it would be like to negatize all of Mr. Random&#8217;s <br /> predictions.  </p>
<p>Tom knew the gimme police would be after him. &nbsp;;o)  </p>
<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Marty </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/comment-page-1#comment-7799</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol#comment-7799</guid>
		<description>
  &quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb...@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote in &lt;br /&gt; news:ugwhe.5859$5u4.20313@nnrp1.uunet.ca: &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; 1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not &lt;br /&gt; &gt; to occur. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Not to get into the issue of Tom&#039;s picks, but &quot;because they are more &lt;br /&gt; likely than not to occur&quot; isn&#039;t a very good definition for a gimme. &lt;br /&gt; There&#039;s nothing wrong (IMHO) with making a pick that&#039;s got a 60% or &lt;br /&gt; 70% likelyhood of occuring (e.g. &quot;Gordon will get a top 10&quot;). &#160;Gimmies &lt;br /&gt; are the picks that are almost certain to be true. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;John &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Somebody&quot; &lt;someb&#8230;@nospam.russdoucet.com&gt; wrote in <br /> news:ugwhe.5859$5u4.20313@nnrp1.uunet.ca: <br /> 
<p>&gt; 1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not <br /> &gt; to occur. </p>
<p>Not to get into the issue of Tom&#8217;s picks, but &quot;because they are more <br /> likely than not to occur&quot; isn&#8217;t a very good definition for a gimme. <br /> There&#8217;s nothing wrong (IMHO) with making a pick that&#8217;s got a 60% or <br /> 70% likelyhood of occuring (e.g. &quot;Gordon will get a top 10&quot;). &nbsp;Gimmies <br /> are the picks that are almost certain to be true.  </p>
<p>John </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/comment-page-1#comment-7797</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol#comment-7797</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;&quot;Tom Duwe&quot; &lt;tom...@bvunet.net&gt; wrote in message &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;news:000001c558a4$62ac7f80$6700a8c0@thomasrzr6s4la... &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -&lt;/p&gt;&gt; Since I&#039;m just a &#039;Field Filler&#039; (but NOT a Whacker!) during this First &lt;br /&gt; Segment, I &lt;br /&gt; &gt; thought I&#039;d try sumpin&#039;! &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; Decided to try being the &quot;Mr. Reverse Random&quot; using Marty&#039;s Fearless &lt;br /&gt; Forecast! &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; I suspect some of these will fall dangerously close to the edge of the &lt;br /&gt; Gimme &lt;br /&gt; &gt; Gulch...but it&#039;s all just for giggles, anyhoo! &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; ;-&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; &lt;edits are enclosed in pair of asterisks&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; 1. GB #16 will finish 31st or *higher*. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; 2. CE #99 finish *ahead of* JGreen in the #43 Cheerios Dodge. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; 3. ES #38 will *not* finish 7th or higher. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; 4. JS #09 will *not* finish between 30th to 38th. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; 5. TR #192 will finish *behind* the #12 car. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; Bonus: there will *not* be zero Fords in the top 10. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; Tom in Bristol &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to &lt;br /&gt; occur. &#160;2 is questionable, I&#039;ll leave it to peer review. &#160;Your bonus is not &lt;br /&gt; approprirate, it&#039;s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in &lt;br /&gt; fact I&#039;d call it a gimmie prediction. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;-Russ. &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Tom Duwe&quot; &lt;tom&#8230;@bvunet.net&gt; wrote in message </p>
<p>news:000001c558a4$62ac7f80$6700a8c0@thomasrzr6s4la&#8230;  </p>
</p>
<p>- Hide quoted text &#8212; Show quoted text -</p>
<p>&gt; Since I&#8217;m just a &#8216;Field Filler&#8217; (but NOT a Whacker!) during this First <br /> Segment, I <br /> &gt; thought I&#8217;d try sumpin&#8217;! <br /> 
<p>&gt; Decided to try being the &quot;Mr. Reverse Random&quot; using Marty&#8217;s Fearless <br /> Forecast!  </p>
<p>&gt; I suspect some of these will fall dangerously close to the edge of the <br /> Gimme <br /> &gt; Gulch&#8230;but it&#8217;s all just for giggles, anyhoo!  </p>
<p>&gt; ;-&gt;  </p>
<p>&gt; &lt;edits are enclosed in pair of asterisks&gt;  </p>
<p>&gt; 1. GB #16 will finish 31st or *higher*.  </p>
<p>&gt; 2. CE #99 finish *ahead of* JGreen in the #43 Cheerios Dodge.  </p>
<p>&gt; 3. ES #38 will *not* finish 7th or higher.  </p>
<p>&gt; 4. JS #09 will *not* finish between 30th to 38th.  </p>
<p>&gt; 5. TR #192 will finish *behind* the #12 car.  </p>
<p>&gt; Bonus: there will *not* be zero Fords in the top 10.  </p>
<p>&gt; Tom in Bristol </p>
<p>1, 3, 4, and 5 are gimmies, because they are all more likely than not to <br /> occur. &nbsp;2 is questionable, I&#8217;ll leave it to peer review. &nbsp;Your bonus is not <br /> approprirate, it&#8217;s been true most of the time and not worth bonus points, in <br /> fact I&#8217;d call it a gimmie prediction.  </p>
<p>-Russ. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol/comment-page-1#comment-7796</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nascarracingclub.com/rpg-richmond-tom-in-bristol#comment-7796</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:46:21 CST, &quot;Tom Duwe&quot; &lt;tom...@bvunet.net&gt; wrote: &lt;br /&gt; &gt;Decided to try being the &quot;Mr. Reverse Random&quot; using Marty&#039;s Fearless Forecast! &lt;br /&gt; &gt;I suspect some of these will fall dangerously close to the edge of the Gimme &lt;br /&gt; &gt;Gulch...but it&#039;s all just for giggles, anyhoo! &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;No problem. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m planning to give Mr. Random a severe lecture about his &lt;br /&gt; prognostications ennaways. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[By the way, are things working OK for you? &#160;Did your &lt;br /&gt; ISP get his system set up right? &#160;Any tips to add to &lt;br /&gt; the &quot;Missing Posts Page&quot;?] &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; Marty &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:46:21 CST, &quot;Tom Duwe&quot; &lt;tom&#8230;@bvunet.net&gt; wrote: <br /> &gt;Decided to try being the &quot;Mr. Reverse Random&quot; using Marty&#8217;s Fearless Forecast! <br /> &gt;I suspect some of these will fall dangerously close to the edge of the Gimme <br /> &gt;Gulch&#8230;but it&#8217;s all just for giggles, anyhoo! </p>
<p>No problem.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m planning to give Mr. Random a severe lecture about his <br /> prognostications ennaways.  </p>
<p>[By the way, are things working OK for you? &nbsp;Did your <br /> ISP get his system set up right? &nbsp;Any tips to add to <br /> the &quot;Missing Posts Page&quot;?]  </p>
<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Marty </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

