's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Where was this in the print edition of USA Today?(49 posts)

Where was this in the print edition of USA Today?94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 5:49 AM
Probably back page of the section.

How does one chnge his tune so quickly? Oh yeah, whatever it takes to (try to) get one elected I guess.
you actually read USA TODAY?MJ
Jan 14, 2004 5:53 AM
do you really consider it a news source or can we just agree it's info-tainment?

the funny thing is that you didn't just pick it up somewhere - you looked at the on-line site - whichever side you're on you should know there's better news sources out there than USA Today

ridiculous - you gonna link us to Entertainment Tonight to make your next stunning political comment?
I notice you didn't mention the article or its substance.94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 8:28 AM
If it's true, does the fact that it was printed in the USAToday make it untrue?

Platform of the left:
1. Attack
2. Attack
3. Attack
4. And so forth
attack attack attackMJ
Jan 14, 2004 8:35 AM
and yet still we on the left haven't invaded a country after we lied to the world - go figure

if you consider USA Today a "source" it doesn't surprise me you are unable to distinguish and undertsnad the differences between Bosnia mid-1990's and Iraq 2003 - in fact if that's your paper of choice I'd be surprised if you could have found either country on a map prior to US invasion - US invasion appears to be the only way remedial Americans such as yourself ever get any understanding of geography - perhaps the Pentagon is some sort of shadow division of Education?

seriously try reading a real paper...
Whatever you say, MJ. You've still said nothing...94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 8:43 AM
of substance. As usual.
a stunning comebackMJ
Jan 14, 2004 8:46 AM
which clearly establishes you are well read on current affairs - I still find it difficult to believe that you cited USA Today online as a news "source" - I'm embarassed for you
So, you are capable of feeling. Interesting. (nm)94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 8:54 AM
OT - 94NoleNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 8:56 AM
We both lost only one underclassman to the draft so far. Do you know when is the last day to declare? Has it already passed?
Jan 15, I think. Can't believe that PK bailed. The news was...94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 9:10 AM
that he was pi$$ed about not getting enough touches in the Orange Bowl.

His brother, Lorne Sam, also a WR, is coming up behind him.
Jan 15, I think. Can't believe that PK bailed. The news was...No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:35 AM
Thanks. I was afraid we were going to lose our entire defensive line. Nazel (senior) and Udezi are gone, hopefully no others.

The media has really been touting SC, however, I'm not quite as optimistic. I fear what our D might be. We're losing critical positions, D line, corners, etc. Most of our offense remains, which is good.

Miami is going to hurt, what an exodus from that place. Lots of seniors.

Now, if you'd just get rid that jerk Bowden you guys would be in good shape!!!!!! :)
If you are referring to Jeff Bowden, then okay. If Saint...94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 10:29 AM
Bobby, then you've stepped over the line.;-)

8 or 9 of the starting defense in the Orange Bowl were seniors. But as usual, we have quite a stable of studs ready to play every week.

Fabian Walker, highly touted QB and unlucky enough to come in the same time as Rix, has announced that he is transferring to I-AA Valdosta State. Our loss but he never would've gotten any snaps behind Rix.

I was one of his fans, I think he should have come back as the #1 QB after his start in the 2003 Sugar Bowl. He got robbed of what could have been an outstanding college football career at just about any other D-1 school.
re: Where was this in the print edition of USA Today?bill105
Jan 14, 2004 5:59 AM
it wont be there, or on nbc or on abc or on cbs with anything other than an "oh, by the way".

he is so all over the place it isnt even funny.
clearly you're another fan of journalism lite - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 6:04 AM
As I've said, he should be thoroughly embarrassedNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 8:05 AM
at himself. Good ol' *pin cushion* Dean!
useful comments from another RBR intellectual giant - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 8:37 AM
Eunuch obsessed with men on another continent. Yawn. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 8:48 AM
hey - why don't you challenge me to a fight again ? - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 8:57 AM
Fight? Who said? You won't find "fight" in any of my posts.nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:24 AM
why? did you realise how stupid you were challenging a stranger in an internet forum to a fight? - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:44 AM
Sorry, once again, I didn't challenge anyone to a fight.No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:52 AM
You may search my posts did the day you die, you won't find that.
cause Doug deleted them you moron - now you're a liar too - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:54 AM
Sorry, once again you're wrong. I never challengedNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:57 AM
anyone to a fight, in a post that remains in the archive or a post that was deleted.

Move on Eunuch boy, get over it, your obsession with men and another continent and this issue is unhealthy.
liar - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:03 AM
Prove it or move on Eunuch boy. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:25 AM
hard to prove when it was deleted by Doug - nmMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:57 AM
Will witness testamony be allowed?dr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 11:27 AM
I saw it.

You are both childish and should move on. I can't believe you get any value out of this kind of exchange.
Bull. I never said fight. You are wrong. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 11:33 AM
Prove it :-)dr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 11:43 AM
You walked right into that one. Too easy.

Enjoy the rest of your Huffy grade flame war.
Enjoy reading it. nmNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 11:45 AM
mostly I don't, but I skim the topic lines.dr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 11:56 AM
And since that is the depth your argument goes to 95% of the time, I get everything you have to provide. And sometimes I can't resist casting some bait your way. I am suprised you fell for that last one though. I doubt Johnny Cochrane would have fallen into that, and since you claim to be at his level...

But then, I doubt he would be on an internet message board all day, since he is probably racking up billable hours at a rate far higher than yours. You don't bill people for time you are on RBR do you? Of course not, that would be wrong!
I bill on 1/4 incrementsNo_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 11:59 AM
and since I'm so good and get things done so effeciently, there is always plenty of time left over. :)
There is help. There is counseling. There are support groups.BottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 10:18 AM
Avail youself, please.
More insights you might arrive at.BottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 9:11 AM
If you'd continue with therapy, that is.

The theme of being emasculated comes up repeatedly in your posts. Almost as frequently as the *attack* theme. I'm sure these memories could be recovered with time. I know it's scary but you will never be a whole person until you confront these demons from your past.
surely these referencesMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:01 AM
are a thinly veiled cover to his tendencies which he has found so distressing when discussed in public

he's always going in about men and emasculating and eunuchs - I suppose there are some difficult issues there
Attack! Attack! Attack! Keep it up, MJ, you're doing great (nm)94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 8:53 AM
Attack! Attack! Attack! Keep it up, MJ, you're doing great (nm)bill105
Jan 14, 2004 8:57 AM
its the easiest thing to do when you cant explain or spin away the fact that dean himself, the all caring metrosexual, advocated unilateral invasion of another country but wants to attack bush for doing the same in iraq. the funny thing is dean wasnt privy to the intel in either case but still thinks someone cares about his opinion.
wow - very goodMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:00 AM
but I see you have no thoughts on how Bush is "winning the war on terrorism" - it appears you have bowed out of that thread - I suppose it required too much thought for you?
Inhalants this early, bill? nmBottomBracketShell
Jan 14, 2004 9:02 AM
whenever you're ready smart guyMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:08 AM
MJ "Why Bush is losing the war on terror" 1/14/04 5:58am
Everyone bowed out of that one. You're not popular.No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 9:26 AM
Your post got 169 views as of right now. Dr. Hoos right below has 919 right now.

Most everyone didn't bother.
I'm upset now - hey I got an ideaMJ
Jan 14, 2004 9:46 AM
how about you challenge me to a fight again?
YAY! I'm popular!dr hoo
Jan 14, 2004 10:13 AM

My estimate is that there are about 50 "core" readers of this page. The number of regular readers (including core) is likely about 100. There might be 200 total.

Of course that is only if my understanding of how the "views" algorithm works is correct. But it seems clear that views does NOT equal users who looked at the thread.

And since most threads with high views are filled with bill105, nosprint, czardonic, mj, etc. insult exchanges, I don't think "popular" is something that matches up with the content tone of "high view" threads.
Can you say spin?No_sprint
Jan 14, 2004 10:18 AM
Just about everyone bowed out of his thread. Spin it however you'd like. There weren't many views either in comparison to just about every other thread. Spin it however you'd like.
HEHEHE - agreedMJ
Jan 14, 2004 10:19 AM
but hey - you get involved in exchanges too!!
YAY! I'm popular!bill105
Jan 14, 2004 10:21 AM
its just because youre so silly
Nole, you better step up the dosageCory
Jan 14, 2004 9:38 AM
Lemme 'splain this again:
A) There is no liberal media conspiracy. You're talking about companies that profit hugely from the status exactly quo. If you knew the profit margin of newspaper companies compared to almost any other business, you'd just hurl (the LMC was created by Spiro Agnew, I think, to give people somebody besides Nixon to hate).
B) If there were a liberal media conspiracy, USA Today wouldn't be a member. It's published by a company that pays very close attention to the bottom line, and you don't sell newspapers by ranting to the left. You sell them by telling the middle that they're right, things are tough on folks like us just now, but they're going to get better soon if we all pull together and put American flags on the antennas of our SUVs. I'm in the loop; I get those memos.
I'm just bewildered by people who see things in the mainstream media, then complain because the mainstream media didn't cover them. YOU READ IT IN USA TODAY, man. How much more mainstream can you get?
C) Is 94Nole a reference to college? In that case, sign me 72Tan, and Go, Spartans.
youre right,bill105
Jan 14, 2004 9:51 AM
peter jennings and dan rather are republicans, just really bad ones.
I guess you haven't been watching 60 MinutesLive Steam
Jan 14, 2004 11:02 AM
Their programming has targeted this administration and how it can influence the next election. Just look at their programming for the last month or two, and how it was covered.

Case in point was their piece on Mandatory Sentencing In Drug Cases. The piece would give ill-informed viewers the idea that this administration is responsible for them. The coverage they gave the O'Neill story and many other stories, certainly show a bias, as did the coverage of Guantanimo Bay, any story on Saddam or Iraq War and the state of domestic affairs. One would have to be brain-dead not to notice what their intent is. But I am sure you would never see it or admit to its existance :O)
Yes to answer your wuestion in C).94Nole
Jan 14, 2004 11:36 AM
I guess I just want equal play of what I see as a double standard. If it's in USAT, then why not in NYT, LAT, etc.? Maybe it was and I just didn't see it.

Why not reported on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.? Maybe it was, and I didn't see it. I really watch little TV.

Just wondering. Educate me.