Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihuxi!moore1
From: moore1@ihuxi.UUCP (Moore)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: (Orphan) Re: PAC 10 FOOTBALL (we win
Message-ID: <1310@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jan-86 16:25:02 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.1310
Posted: Tue Jan 21 16:25:02 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 08:14:16 EST
References: <1294@ihuxi.UUCP.UUCP> <30400018@ISM780B.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 60

> 
> 
> >Pac 10 does better than the Big 10 in big games?  Pac 10 was 2:2 in bowl     s
> >game this year and Big 10 3:3.  Seems even to me, unless somebody can't do
> >simple math.
> >
> >Robert (note that he can't even get my name right.  Not much on brains, is   ?)
> >he?)
> >
> >  A.  Ekblaw
> 
> Whew, back to normal.  Even though the message you're responding to didn't
> come from me, I'll jump in.
> 
> In the second place, EVERYONE on this net except the new, blind, feeble, and
> Alzheimer-stricken aged knows your name; if they forget your first name, it's
> simply because a posting of yours wasn't on-screen at the time.  (It was a
> nice 2-3 weeks without you; I hope you enjoyed your vacation as much as the
> rest of us did.)  To climb on a guy for making the equivalent of a
> typographical error or minor memory lapse only reinforces opinions about your
> abilities to incisively cut to the central point of an argument, make an
> intelligent appraisal, and deliver a cogent argument.
> 
> In the first place, as MY message on conferences stated, all the conference
> records were pretty comparable.  HOWEVER, when it came to the big one, the
> direct Pac-10 vs. the vaunted Big-10 in the Rose Bowl, the Big-10 sucked the
> green weenie.  Using standard tie-breaking rules, head-to-head competition,
> the thrashing left no doubt in many peoples minds which conference was
> superior.  (Oh, wasn't the Peach Bowl nice, too?   Are you by any chance on
> the UI coaching staff?  You seem to have the requisite intelligence.)
> 
> In the third place, back to your name, your annoyance indicates possible
> concern about identity and/or immortality.  Rest easy.  As your exposure
> continues, I suspect that the intransitive verb "to ekblaw", meaning "to
> make obnoxious and hostile assertions without visible means of support", will
> gain increasing currency in the English language.   (Anyone out there in
> net-land got a better definition?)  Example of usage:  "I'm sorry if I
> ekblawed last night...."
>
> There, now just because I agreed with you on the preceeding message you won't
> think I'm growing soft in my old age.
> 
> 
>       -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet
> 
> 		  {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb  (most reliable)
> 
> 		  ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb
> 
> 
> 		  or   jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa
> 				   ^
> 				   this asterisk is necessary!


Hey, Jimbo...no one thinks you're going soft, least of all me.  I do
appreciate your comments in the above article.  Since I'm fairly new
to the net, I'm not as familar with some of the kooks who write to
net.sport.football as I'm sure I will be in the future (I'm a foot-
ball nut myself).  Once again, thanks