Where did everyone go?

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
advance.

Ray Gaer
www.soldiersintime.com
Raygun1966
www.soldiersintime.com
37 answers Last reply
More about where
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Actually there's quite a few of us around. We have managed to influence
    the more obnoxious ones to leave or tone down the flame wars. Group can
    be quite quiet at times without all that acrimony.

    mjc

    Raygun1966 wrote:
    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    > advance.
    >
    > Ray Gaer
    > www.soldiersintime.com
    > Raygun1966
    > www.soldiersintime.com
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Raygun1966" <raygun1966@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com...
    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those
    > great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks
    > in
    > advance.

    We are still here, also on various yahoogroups & TMP.

    Usenet use generally is just nosediving these days.

    Cheers
    Martin
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Raygun1966" <raygun1966@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com...
    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those
    > great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks
    > in
    > advance.


    I think many people are using either specific yahoo groups or web site
    forums now.
    Bit of a shame really, since web sites dilute readership each time another
    one opens up and they aren't archived (and searchable) like usenet.

    --
    Regards,
    Andy O'Neill
    www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
    or, for no javascript and a faster load...
    www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Well, Ty is evidently trolling R.G.FRP.Misc with more of his
    counterarguments to a position no one there (or here, as far as I can
    tell) took. I've been stickingm ostly with TMP -- at least the
    political posts are quarrentined to a forum away from the forums for
    people who are into miniatures.

    Raygun1966 wrote:

    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    > advance.
    >
    > Ray Gaer
    > www.soldiersintime.com
    > Raygun1966
    > www.soldiersintime.com
    >
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Quid Veritas" <quidveritas@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:v0Gfd.3692$kM.3091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Actually there's quite a few of us around. We have managed to influence
    > the more obnoxious ones to leave or tone down the flame wars. Group can
    > be quite quiet at times without all that acrimony.

    You did?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Mike Monaco and said

    > Well, Ty is evidently trolling R.G.FRP.Misc with more of his
    > counterarguments to a position no one there (or here, as far as I can
    > tell) took.

    To be fair it's all counter arguments to positions that no one has taken.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Robert Singers wrote:

    > Out from under a rock popped Mike Monaco and said
    >
    >>Well, Ty is evidently trolling R.G.FRP.Misc with more of his
    >>counterarguments to a position no one there (or here, as far as I can
    >>tell) took.
    >
    > To be fair it's all counter arguments to positions that no one has taken.
    >

    True enough. I've gotten embroiled in some of those myself. Now I see
    how utterly pathetic these arguments are. I wonder what motivates
    people to bring OT political arguments to forums like this? Loneliness?
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Mike Monaco and said

    >> To be fair it's all counter arguments to positions that no one has
    >> taken.
    >
    > True enough. I've gotten embroiled in some of those myself. Now I
    > see how utterly pathetic these arguments are. I wonder what motivates
    > people to bring OT political arguments to forums like this?
    > Loneliness?

    In my case having to be in front of a computer when I should be painting.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Mike Monaco" <mmonaco.No@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:wcXfd.57273$5v2.3532@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >
    >
    > Robert Singers wrote:
    >
    > > Out from under a rock popped Mike Monaco and said
    > >
    > >>Well, Ty is evidently trolling R.G.FRP.Misc with more of his
    > >>counterarguments to a position no one there (or here, as far as I can
    > >>tell) took.
    > >
    > > To be fair it's all counter arguments to positions that no one has
    taken.
    > >
    >
    > True enough. I've gotten embroiled in some of those myself. Now I see
    > how utterly pathetic these arguments are. I wonder what motivates
    > people to bring OT political arguments to forums like this? Loneliness?
    >

    I blame the bears
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Perhaps we can list some of the Yahoo or other groups we are currently a part
    of in hopes pumping up the readership/membership in those groups. I would be
    interested in knowing where everyone is hanging out. Im currently a member in
    these groups at yahoo:
    15mm-Miniatures
    Ares-Variants
    squadleader
    wargame-creators
    SoloWarGame (personal favorite)

    I look forward to your replies.
    Good gamin' to ya.

    Raygun1966
    www.soldiersintime.com
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    >What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    >people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    >advance.
    >
    >Ray Gaer
    >www.soldiersintime.com
    >Raygun1966
    >www.soldiersintime.com

    I think we are still around, just not much to say I guess these days.
    Or maybe people are finally learning to "if you can't say anything nice
    or well thought out, then don't say anything at all."

    -Ray
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    trochim@rintintin.colorado.edu (Ray Trochim) wrote in message news:<cluct9$ii$1@peabody.colorado.edu>...
    > >What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    > >people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    > >advance.
    > >
    > >Ray Gaer
    > >www.soldiersintime.com
    > >Raygun1966
    > >www.soldiersintime.com
    >
    > I think we are still around, just not much to say I guess these days.
    > Or maybe people are finally learning to "if you can't say anything nice
    > or well thought out, then don't say anything at all."
    >
    > -Ray

    BJ: May I assume that if "nice" or "Well thought out" are the
    criteria, that you are saying that R.G.M.H. is, indeed, dead?

    BJ
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On 29 Oct 2004 21:41:21 -0700, highwiremedia@earthlink.net (Bob Jones)
    wrote:

    >trochim@rintintin.colorado.edu (Ray Trochim) wrote in message news:<cluct9$ii$1@peabody.colorado.edu>...
    >> >What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    >> >people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    >> >advance.
    >> >
    >> >Ray Gaer
    >> >www.soldiersintime.com
    >> >Raygun1966
    >> >www.soldiersintime.com
    >>
    >> I think we are still around, just not much to say I guess these days.
    >> Or maybe people are finally learning to "if you can't say anything nice
    >> or well thought out, then don't say anything at all."
    >>
    >> -Ray
    >
    >BJ: May I assume that if "nice" or "Well thought out" are the
    >criteria, that you are saying that R.G.M.H. is, indeed, dead?
    >
    >BJ

    Nice way to help out the group, well thought out, Bob. :)

    Bill
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    About Right - Many of those I corresponded with way back have left because of
    the poor attitudes and manners of a very few.

    Really ruined this newsgroup

    Rich R.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Raygun1966" <raygun1966@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com...
    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those
    great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks
    in
    > advance.

    Still here, just lurking these days.

    Of course, I may not be one of the "great people" <shrug>.

    --Ty
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    raygun1966@aol.com (Raygun1966) wrote in message news:<20041029002325.22420.00001552@mb-m06.aol.com>...
    > Perhaps we can list some of the Yahoo or other groups we are currently a part


    Here is a list of most of the hobby groups I am on.

    10mm-Miniatures
    15mm_Painter
    15mm-Miniatures
    1listSculpting
    20mm-Miniatures
    2mm
    6mm_Miniatures
    6mm-Miniatures
    acwmb
    Age-of-Reason
    AgeOfSail
    AmazonMiniatures
    AMS_Hoplon
    AncientTactics
    ancmed
    AoCM
    ArcaneWarfare
    ARMATI
    AsianWar
    awi_thru_acw
    Battlestandard_Ancients_Rules
    baueda
    BB_Contest
    berdan-sharpshooters
    bibushi
    Borodino2002
    borodinoepic
    caliverbooks
    chadwick-ancients
    Classical-Hack
    ColonialWars
    dbmlist
    dogs_of_war_rules
    eagles_to_glory
    ElanDeluxe
    Empire_Napoleonics
    EMWargames
    FieldsOfConflict
    figuretrades
    fireandfury
    foundry
    Gekokujo
    Gettysburg
    GI_Newsletter
    GMSN
    GoreAMwar
    grand_armee
    Grand_Manner
    GrandeArmee
    HMGS_Clubs
    HMGS-East
    hmgs-east_issues_forum
    hmgsmarketingteam
    hmgsmidwest
    HRN3
    jriii
    LaceWarfare
    LaceWars
    LegionandEmpire
    MaximilianWar
    MexAmWar
    Might-of-Arms
    Napofig
    NapoleonicFireandFury
    Napoleonics
    napoleonicwargaming
    NapoleonicWars
    Napoleons_Campaigns
    napsbattles
    NapWarfare
    NOVAGList
    NRPlayTest
    OMG2004
    orientalarmies
    Painting_Guru
    panzerblitz
    PaWM
    PB_PL
    pendrakenminis
    Piquet
    Raven_Ram
    Roman_History_Books
    SAGAWarfare
    SAU_USW
    slminiatures
    slw-club
    slw-salute
    Southern_Maryland_Partizans
    System7
    TalkAntietam
    talkingwargames
    terrainmakers
    The_Magic_Brush
    The_Rogues
    TriangleSimSociety
    Valmy_to_Waterloo
    VictorianWarfare
    visbellica
    VLBRules
    vnblist
    WABlist
    WAB-Lite
    war_galley
    warflag
    wargamersdigest
    wargames_nostalgia
    wargamesclubs
    wargamesfigures
    WargamesinChinaAsia
    WaterlooAllies
    WaterlooFrench
    WaterlooPrussians
    WoodenWalls
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <10o8ndklcbirg8b@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    >"Raygun1966" <raygun1966@aol.com> wrote in message
    >news:20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com...
    >> What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those
    >great
    >> people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks
    >in
    >> advance.
    >
    >Still here, just lurking these days.
    >
    >Of course, I may not be one of the "great people" <shrug>.
    >
    Oh you are, Ty, you are. Personally I thought the ng was much more
    interesting in the old days, but if people like it better now then
    that's life, I guess.
    --
    John Secker
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "John Secker" <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:9KYw7qDh9QhBFwRJ@secker.demon.co.uk...
    > In message <10o8ndklcbirg8b@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    > <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    > >"Raygun1966" <raygun1966@aol.com> wrote in message
    > >news:20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com...
    > >> What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of
    those
    > >great
    > >> people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me
    know...thanks
    > >in
    > >> advance.
    > >
    > >Still here, just lurking these days.
    > >
    > >Of course, I may not be one of the "great people" <shrug>.
    > >
    > Oh you are, Ty, you are. Personally I thought the ng was much more
    > interesting in the old days, but if people like it better now then
    > that's life, I guess.

    I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)

    --Ty
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Good heavens!

    --Ty

    "James Mattes" <vojvoda13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:de8334fc.0410311057.505a229d@posting.google.com...
    > raygun1966@aol.com (Raygun1966) wrote in message
    news:<20041029002325.22420.00001552@mb-m06.aol.com>...
    > > Perhaps we can list some of the Yahoo or other groups we are currently a
    part
    >
    >
    > Here is a list of most of the hobby groups I am on.
    >
    > 10mm-Miniatures
    > 15mm_Painter
    > 15mm-Miniatures
    > 1listSculpting
    > 20mm-Miniatures
    > 2mm
    > 6mm_Miniatures
    > 6mm-Miniatures
    > acwmb
    > Age-of-Reason
    > AgeOfSail
    > AmazonMiniatures
    > AMS_Hoplon
    > AncientTactics
    > ancmed
    > AoCM
    > ArcaneWarfare
    > ARMATI
    > AsianWar
    > awi_thru_acw
    > Battlestandard_Ancients_Rules
    > baueda
    > BB_Contest
    > berdan-sharpshooters
    > bibushi
    > Borodino2002
    > borodinoepic
    > caliverbooks
    > chadwick-ancients
    > Classical-Hack
    > ColonialWars
    > dbmlist
    > dogs_of_war_rules
    > eagles_to_glory
    > ElanDeluxe
    > Empire_Napoleonics
    > EMWargames
    > FieldsOfConflict
    > figuretrades
    > fireandfury
    > foundry
    > Gekokujo
    > Gettysburg
    > GI_Newsletter
    > GMSN
    > GoreAMwar
    > grand_armee
    > Grand_Manner
    > GrandeArmee
    > HMGS_Clubs
    > HMGS-East
    > hmgs-east_issues_forum
    > hmgsmarketingteam
    > hmgsmidwest
    > HRN3
    > jriii
    > LaceWarfare
    > LaceWars
    > LegionandEmpire
    > MaximilianWar
    > MexAmWar
    > Might-of-Arms
    > Napofig
    > NapoleonicFireandFury
    > Napoleonics
    > napoleonicwargaming
    > NapoleonicWars
    > Napoleons_Campaigns
    > napsbattles
    > NapWarfare
    > NOVAGList
    > NRPlayTest
    > OMG2004
    > orientalarmies
    > Painting_Guru
    > panzerblitz
    > PaWM
    > PB_PL
    > pendrakenminis
    > Piquet
    > Raven_Ram
    > Roman_History_Books
    > SAGAWarfare
    > SAU_USW
    > slminiatures
    > slw-club
    > slw-salute
    > Southern_Maryland_Partizans
    > System7
    > TalkAntietam
    > talkingwargames
    > terrainmakers
    > The_Magic_Brush
    > The_Rogues
    > TriangleSimSociety
    > Valmy_to_Waterloo
    > VictorianWarfare
    > visbellica
    > VLBRules
    > vnblist
    > WABlist
    > WAB-Lite
    > war_galley
    > warflag
    > wargamersdigest
    > wargames_nostalgia
    > wargamesclubs
    > wargamesfigures
    > WargamesinChinaAsia
    > WaterlooAllies
    > WaterlooFrench
    > WaterlooPrussians
    > WoodenWalls
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Well this is a most impressive list but . . . how do you find time to
    read all this? Geeze -- just the time to join is a significant investment.

    Still thanks for the list -- I had no idea some of these things existed.

    mjc

    James Mattes wrote:
    > raygun1966@aol.com (Raygun1966) wrote in message news:<20041029002325.22420.00001552@mb-m06.aol.com>...
    >
    >>Perhaps we can list some of the Yahoo or other groups we are currently a part
    >
    >
    >
    > Here is a list of most of the hobby groups I am on.
    >
    > 10mm-Miniatures
    > 15mm_Painter
    > 15mm-Miniatures
    > 1listSculpting
    > 20mm-Miniatures
    > 2mm
    > 6mm_Miniatures
    > 6mm-Miniatures
    > acwmb
    > Age-of-Reason
    > AgeOfSail
    > AmazonMiniatures
    > AMS_Hoplon
    > AncientTactics
    > ancmed
    > AoCM
    > ArcaneWarfare
    > ARMATI
    > AsianWar
    > awi_thru_acw
    > Battlestandard_Ancients_Rules
    > baueda
    > BB_Contest
    > berdan-sharpshooters
    > bibushi
    > Borodino2002
    > borodinoepic
    > caliverbooks
    > chadwick-ancients
    > Classical-Hack
    > ColonialWars
    > dbmlist
    > dogs_of_war_rules
    > eagles_to_glory
    > ElanDeluxe
    > Empire_Napoleonics
    > EMWargames
    > FieldsOfConflict
    > figuretrades
    > fireandfury
    > foundry
    > Gekokujo
    > Gettysburg
    > GI_Newsletter
    > GMSN
    > GoreAMwar
    > grand_armee
    > Grand_Manner
    > GrandeArmee
    > HMGS_Clubs
    > HMGS-East
    > hmgs-east_issues_forum
    > hmgsmarketingteam
    > hmgsmidwest
    > HRN3
    > jriii
    > LaceWarfare
    > LaceWars
    > LegionandEmpire
    > MaximilianWar
    > MexAmWar
    > Might-of-Arms
    > Napofig
    > NapoleonicFireandFury
    > Napoleonics
    > napoleonicwargaming
    > NapoleonicWars
    > Napoleons_Campaigns
    > napsbattles
    > NapWarfare
    > NOVAGList
    > NRPlayTest
    > OMG2004
    > orientalarmies
    > Painting_Guru
    > panzerblitz
    > PaWM
    > PB_PL
    > pendrakenminis
    > Piquet
    > Raven_Ram
    > Roman_History_Books
    > SAGAWarfare
    > SAU_USW
    > slminiatures
    > slw-club
    > slw-salute
    > Southern_Maryland_Partizans
    > System7
    > TalkAntietam
    > talkingwargames
    > terrainmakers
    > The_Magic_Brush
    > The_Rogues
    > TriangleSimSociety
    > Valmy_to_Waterloo
    > VictorianWarfare
    > visbellica
    > VLBRules
    > vnblist
    > WABlist
    > WAB-Lite
    > war_galley
    > warflag
    > wargamersdigest
    > wargames_nostalgia
    > wargamesclubs
    > wargamesfigures
    > WargamesinChinaAsia
    > WaterlooAllies
    > WaterlooFrench
    > WaterlooPrussians
    > WoodenWalls
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message news:<10ob4f8g3b68hb7@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > Oh you are, Ty, you are. Personally I thought the ng was much more
    > > interesting in the old days, but if people like it better now then
    > > that's life, I guess.
    >
    > I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >
    > --Ty

    BJ: Nahhh! You'd make a prediction and be wrong...and then I'd point
    out just how wrong you had been...and then you'd say something clever
    like "Liar,liar! Pants on fire!" and then claim that the electoral
    college was either a.) A great thing, or b.) An evil liberal plot-
    depending on whether George got a majority of votes while losing the
    presidency.

    Then Insane Ranter and Singer would say something irrelevant that
    would prompt Secker and Bill to respond.

    Then 85 emails later Quid Veritas would say the list was so much nicer
    when nobody was posting.

    The thread would be titled "Deja vu all over again."

    BJ

    PS Both Ohio and Florida are trending badly for you guys-better start
    the intimidation of voters and purge lists early this year! :-)
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0411010622.49c9420f@posting.google.com...
    > "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote in message
    > news:<10ob4f8g3b68hb7@corp.supernews.com>...
    >> > Oh you are, Ty, you are. Personally I thought the ng was much more
    >> > interesting in the old days, but if people like it better now then
    >> > that's life, I guess.
    >>
    >> I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >>
    >> --Ty
    >
    > BJ: Nahhh! You'd make a prediction and be wrong...and then I'd point
    > out just how wrong you had been...and then you'd say something clever
    > like "Liar,liar! Pants on fire!"

    Only if you resort to falsehoods that can easily be confirmed with your own
    evidence...

    > and then claim that the electoral
    > college was either a.) A great thing, or b.) An evil liberal plot-
    > depending on whether George got a majority of votes while losing the
    > presidency.

    <shrug>

    Okay, you talked me into it.

    I generally blame defeats on the candidate, not on other factors. I'll leave
    the conspiracy theories to you, Bob.

    FWIW, I like the electoral college and always have. Even when Clinton (and
    her husband) won in 1992 and 96. :-)

    IMHO, if Bush loses, it will be his own fault (absent convincing evidence of
    voter fraud on an unprecedented scale). How incompetent do you have to be to
    lose to a pompous, lightweight trophy husband? :-)

    The same with Kerry. How incompetent do you have to be to lose to a redneck
    from Texas with a speech impediment? :-)

    Besides, there's a silver lining no matter who wins:

    1. If Kerry wins, then us right wingers will never have to hear from the
    Clintons again. And I know more than a few Republicans who would make that
    trade...

    2. If Bush wins, then you lefties get Hillary in 2008 -- which is what you
    really want anyhow.

    And no matter who wins, certain things make me less worried about the
    outcome of the election:

    1. Barring a spectacular failure in the polling data, the Congress will
    remain firmly in Republican hands. (Note that a number of polls failed to
    predict the Republican congressional victory in 1994, so there's some
    precedent for a surprise). The real political power in this country is in
    the Congress -- something the pre-Clinton Democrats understood rather well.
    If given a choice, I'll trade the presidency for the Congress any day.
    Indeed, I happen to think that this is what allowed Clinton to have such a
    successful presidency (in economic terms anyhow). Clinton, as a Democrat,
    could propose things like Free Trade and Welfare Reform without being
    excoriated by the press (and his fellow Democrats). The Republican Congress
    made it possible for such things to get passed and implemented.

    2. Although I do not like or respect Kerry, I think it's very unlikely that
    he will do much damage to our foreign policy. I expect him to contunue the
    same course as Bush -- and I don't expect French troops to be behind us (and
    I do mean "behind" us) in Iraq. Of course, the absence of our French
    "allies" should make the British and UK troops breathe easier, but I
    digress. Kerry's tax and spending policies would slow the economy down, but
    it shouldn't kill the economy either. Plus, a Republican controlled Congress
    is unlikely to give Kerry those things anyhow.

    3. Perhaps I am unduly optimistic, but I really don't expect as close an
    election (in the Electoral College) as the pundits are generally predicting.
    I think that one side or the other will do much better than the polls
    predict. This is mostly a gut feeling and isn't supported by evidence -
    kinda like everything *you* post, Bob. An argument for Kerry winning a
    surprising victory is the huge number of new voters (who traditionally favor
    Democrats) that have signed up. My understanding is that the pollsters are
    having a hard time quantifying this new factor. An argument for Bush winning
    a surprising victory is that (a) polls rate either Iraq or the War on Terror
    as the most important issue for ~60% of the people. These are "leadership
    issues" and Bush has a decisive edge in the polls on these issues. Seems odd
    for someone to say "Iraq is the most important issue for me, I think Bush
    will do the best job, I think Bush is most trustworthy, decisive, etc. But
    I'm voting for Kerry." Of course, bad weather in certain key states could be
    disastrous for the Democrats.

    4. If it's close, whoever loses will be faced with a dilemma. I really think
    that the American people don't want a repeat of 2000. If it's close, the
    loser well give it up because his party will risk a backlash at against
    perceived poor sportsmanship. When one recalls the close margins that Ford
    and Nixon lost by, one hopes that the loser will follow their example.

    5. If you think that Bush will win, I'd buy as many puts as possible on the
    stocks of companies that make antidepressants...

    As an interesting aside, I was invited to be a poll watcher in Ohio last
    week. Seems someone had me figured as a conservative lawyer (who saw *that*
    coming?). They would pay airfare and expenses -- but not any wages. I
    declined. It just isn't that important to me.

    --Ty
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Ty" <tylawyerSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:uyshd.4088$fC4.911@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

    > 5. If you think that Bush will win, I'd buy as many puts as possible on
    > the stocks of companies that make antidepressants...

    Sorry, you want "calls" not "puts".

    --Ty
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    In message <10ob4f8g3b68hb7@corp.supernews.com>, Ty
    <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> writes
    >> >Still here, just lurking these days.
    >> >
    >> >Of course, I may not be one of the "great people" <shrug>.
    >> >
    >> Oh you are, Ty, you are. Personally I thought the ng was much more
    >> interesting in the old days, but if people like it better now then
    >> that's life, I guess.
    >
    >I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >
    Yes, I see the Ukrainian election has been declared below the standards
    expected of a democratic nation.
    Or is there some other election going on at the moment?
    --
    John Secker
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Ty wrote:

    >
    > I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >
    > --Ty
    >
    >

    Well, the challengers won't be in the polls after. Turns out the judges
    agreed with most sensible people that since there are already safeguards
    about voter fraud, there is no need to duplicate efforts. It will most
    likely rain tomorrow, though, so the GOP may be able pull off a victory
    if enough people are discouraged by the weather. Then again we constant
    rain in NE Ohio anyway so I don't expect to see much of an effect. I
    predict

    1) that Kerry will win by a "large" margin (say 50 to 45) because all
    the polls either ignore first-time voters or fail to catch the younger,
    educated voters who rely on cell phones. Undecideds almost always swing
    to the challenger, after all they know plenty about the incumbent as it
    is.

    2) Diehard GOP partisans will challenge the results, claiming voter
    fraud. Evidence will be lacking, but right-wing talk radio and Matt
    Drudge will keep rumors alive for months.

    3) Many more examples of attempts at voter suppression such as those
    already documented (see today's NYT) will be reported by independent
    media but will be largely ignored by the corporate press.

    4) At least one electronic voting machine will have its plug kicked out
    by a careless poll worker or sabotage. It will be almost certainly be a
    model with no paper trail.

    5) Kerry will inherit skyrocketing deficits, record job loss, and the
    quagmire in Iraq. The GOP congress will do everythnig in its power short
    of shutting down the government again to sabotage any efforts he makes
    to repair the damage Bush has done. A few moderate Republicans will
    choose their country over their party and work with Kerry. The 2006
    elections will see a modest growth in Democrats in congress.

    6) Renquist will retire and Bush will attempt to replace him with John
    Ashcroft or some other Christian extremist while congress is out and
    before the inauguration.

    Fire away. :)

    Mike
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Mike Monaco" <mmonaco.No@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:poxhd.65836$xf6.34786@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > Ty wrote:

    > > I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)

    > Well, the challengers won't be in the polls after. Turns out the judges
    > agreed with most sensible people that since there are already safeguards
    > about voter fraud, there is no need to duplicate efforts.

    Works for me -- assuming that there really are safeguards against voter
    fraud in place. Now I'm doubly glad I refused the GOP's offer...

    > It will most
    > likely rain tomorrow, though, so the GOP may be able pull off a victory
    > if enough people are discouraged by the weather. Then again we constant
    > rain in NE Ohio anyway so I don't expect to see much of an effect. I
    > predict

    > 1) that Kerry will win by a "large" margin (say 50 to 45) because all
    > the polls either ignore first-time voters or fail to catch the younger,
    > educated voters who rely on cell phones. Undecideds almost always swing
    > to the challenger, after all they know plenty about the incumbent as it
    > is.

    I agree that there is a chance of that.

    > 2) Diehard GOP partisans will challenge the results, claiming voter
    > fraud. Evidence will be lacking, but right-wing talk radio and Matt
    > Drudge will keep rumors alive for months.

    Well, given the conduct of Gore in 2000, it would be entertaining to see the
    Democrats flip-flopping on that point...

    > 3) Many more examples of attempts at voter suppression such as those
    > already documented (see today's NYT) will be reported by independent
    > media but will be largely ignored by the corporate press.

    Sorry, I don't read the NYT for political news -- I prefer to go to the
    source and read Kerry's website :-)

    > 4) At least one electronic voting machine will have its plug kicked out
    > by a careless poll worker or sabotage. It will be almost certainly be a
    > model with no paper trail.

    Probably.

    > 5) Kerry will inherit skyrocketing deficits, record job loss, and the
    > quagmire in Iraq.

    Well, the unemployment rate is lower than it was when Clinton was re-elected
    in 1996 (and the press breathlessly went on and on about how great the
    economy was). As a % of GNP, Bush's deficits are not higher than Clinton's
    first term deficits (this was true when I looked at this some month ago). I
    don't agree that Iraq is a quagmire, but I am not interested in going down
    that path again.

    > A few moderate Republicans will
    > choose their country over their party and work with Kerry. The 2006
    > elections will see a modest growth in Democrats in congress.

    The President's party usually loses in the midterm elections. The
    Republicans picked up seats (IMHO) because of 9-11. Hard -- now -- to see
    the Dems doing that in 2006.

    > 6) Renquist will retire and Bush will attempt to replace him with John
    > Ashcroft or some other Christian extremist while congress is out and
    > before the inauguration.

    How many appointments did Clinton make in his last month?

    --Ty
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Mike Monaco wrote:

    > Ty wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >>
    >> --Ty
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Well, the challengers won't be in the polls after.

    er, "...in the polls in Ohio after all."
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Out from under a rock popped Bob Jones and said

    > Then Insane Ranter and Singer would say something irrelevant that
    > would prompt Secker and Bill to respond.

    Actually I'd point out that if you weren't such a rude Asshat you'd manage
    to get people's name right.

    --
    rob singers
    pull finger to reply
    Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Mike Monaco <mmonaco.No@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message news:<poxhd.65836$xf6.34786@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
    > Ty wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    > >
    > > --Ty
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Well, the challengers won't be in the polls after. Turns out the judges
    > agreed with most sensible people that since there are already safeguards
    > about voter fraud, there is no need to duplicate efforts. It will most
    > likely rain tomorrow, though, so the GOP may be able pull off a victory
    > if enough people are discouraged by the weather. Then again we constant
    > rain in NE Ohio anyway so I don't expect to see much of an effect. I
    > predict

    BJ: Sadly, The 6th District Court ruled that each party may have one
    "Challenger" and overturned the lower court. This may backfire in an
    angry increase of voting by blacks in Cleveland and other large metro
    areas.
    >
    > 1) that Kerry will win by a "large" margin (say 50 to 45) because all
    > the polls either ignore first-time voters or fail to catch the younger,
    > educated voters who rely on cell phones. Undecideds almost always swing
    > to the challenger, after all they know plenty about the incumbent as it
    > is.

    BJ: All trends that I'm watching on several sites are showing Kerry
    trending up in Florida and Ohio and Wisconsin returning to the Blue
    states. There is a strong chance that Bush may win the popular vote
    by up to 1 million votes and lose in the electoral college. His
    margins in the red states will far excced Kerry's margins in the
    states he wins. That will be proof to some that a cosmic justice does
    exist.

    >
    > 2) Diehard GOP partisans will challenge the results, claiming voter
    > fraud. Evidence will be lacking, but right-wing talk radio and Matt
    > Drudge will keep rumors alive for months.

    BJ: Limbaugh will have to pop few extra pills before trying to explain
    his prediction of a Bush landslide. Right-wingers have an odd mix of
    paranoia that they are going to lose the vote while "knowing" they are
    a majority. It accounts for their passive-aggressive behavior.
    >
    > 3) Many more examples of attempts at voter suppression such as those
    > already documented (see today's NYT) will be reported by independent
    > media but will be largely ignored by the corporate press.

    BJ: No, I think the story is too juicy to be ignored. My own feeling
    is that there will be few actual cases and they will all be in large
    battleground states.
    >
    > 4) At least one electronic voting machine will have its plug kicked out
    > by a careless poll worker or sabotage. It will be almost certainly be a
    > model with no paper trail.

    BJ: Located in Florida-specifically in a Democratic stronghold.
    >
    > 5) Kerry will inherit skyrocketing deficits, record job loss, and the
    > quagmire in Iraq. The GOP congress will do everythnig in its power short
    > of shutting down the government again to sabotage any efforts he makes
    > to repair the damage Bush has done. A few moderate Republicans will
    > choose their country over their party and work with Kerry. The 2006
    > elections will see a modest growth in Democrats in congress.

    BJ: Right on. Butressing this will be Kerry asking several
    Republicans, from its reasonable wing, into his government. McCain,
    Chafee, possibly Chuck Hagel.
    >
    > 6) Renquist will retire and Bush will attempt to replace him with John
    > Ashcroft or some other Christian extremist while congress is out and
    > before the inauguration.

    BJ: Not a chance at 60 votes to pull this off. Even 6-9 Republicans
    wouldn't go along. TY asked how many Clinton did at the end of his
    term-the answer is none. It should also be pointed out that nearly
    90% of all Bush judicial appointments have been approved by the
    Senate. This is much higher than the Republicans allowed Clinton.
    BTW The vote mentioned above by the 6th District Court in Ohio was
    2-1. Guess the party affiliations of the voting judges! The judicial
    appointments are crucial to our future rights and not allowing justice
    in America to recede to the point where, as the old saw goes, "The
    rich and the poor have equal rights to sleep under a bridge or in a
    park at night."

    BJ
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Ty wrote:
    > "Mike Monaco" <mmonaco.No@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    > news:poxhd.65836$xf6.34786@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    >
    >>Ty wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>I guess we could liven it up with a discussion about the election. :-)
    >
    >
    >>Well, the challengers won't be in the polls after. Turns out the judges
    >>agreed with most sensible people that since there are already safeguards
    >>about voter fraud, there is no need to duplicate efforts.
    >
    >
    > Works for me -- assuming that there really are safeguards against voter
    > fraud in place. Now I'm doubly glad I refused the GOP's offer...
    >

    There are four "election judges" at each precint polling location, two
    Ds & 2 Rs, who verify voter IDs. The challengers are there to add extra
    partisanship, possibly intimidate voters but most importantly slow down
    the whole process so that lines get longer and people give up. Every
    other time I've voted in the past, I had to do it before work, or on my
    lunch break, and if the lines are more than 45 min long anyone trying
    that will likely run out of time. Sadly, the 6th circuit appeals court
    stayed the two other federal court decisions to keep out challengers, so
    the challengers will be there. But the press, of course, has been
    barred for the first time in Ohio history from entering polling places.
    Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. The GOP has made it clear
    that they will focus on predominantly poor & black precints. The black
    community in particular is ready to take up arms to defend their votes,
    so I can't imagine a good outcome of sending in a bunch of white
    lawyers, mainly from rural Ohio and the South, to make trouble.


    >
    >>2) Diehard GOP partisans will challenge the results, claiming voter
    >>fraud. Evidence will be lacking, but right-wing talk radio and Matt
    >>Drudge will keep rumors alive for months.
    >
    >
    > Well, given the conduct of Gore in 2000, it would be entertaining to see the
    > Democrats flip-flopping on that point...

    Gore conceded rather gracefully once the counting stopped. He or any
    other Democrat in the Senate could have signed the petition from the
    Black Caucus to open an inqury and demand a recount but did not. Do you
    think right-wing Republicans aren't going to dust off their "Not my
    president" bumperstickers when Kerry is elected?

    >>5) Kerry will inherit skyrocketing deficits, record job loss, and the
    >>quagmire in Iraq.
    >
    >
    > Well, the unemployment rate is lower than it was when Clinton was re-elected
    > in 1996 (and the press breathlessly went on and on about how great the
    > economy was). As a % of GNP, Bush's deficits are not higher than Clinton's
    > first term deficits (this was true when I looked at this some month ago). I
    > don't agree that Iraq is a quagmire, but I am not interested in going down
    > that path again.

    Presumably you are aware that unemployment figures only reflect those
    still activley looking for work. Those who have given up or settled for
    underemployment don't get counted. That is the only thing giving the
    impression that unemployment is not horrific. The relative size of the
    deficit to GNP (which I doubt is lower than 10-12 years ago) is hardly
    the whole story. You should also look at the rate of change -- after
    all, Bush inherited a record surplus and solid economy. Now, tax
    revenues are quite low (Bush just gave away another 136 billion or so in
    corporate welfare) so there is no reason to believe it is going down on
    his watch.

    Regarding Iraq, I don't blame you. Weren't you argunig that it was
    justified as a Humanitarian mission? According to the recent study
    published in the Lancet, some 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since we
    invaded. Mostly women & children. At that rate, we are set to outpace
    Saddam quite rapidly. Perhaps something akin to an election will happen
    in January there and the government will be able to wash its hands, but
    the truth is we will all as Americans bear some measure of responsibilty
    for the mess there for years to come.

    >
    >>6) Renquist will retire and Bush will attempt to replace him with John
    >>Ashcroft or some other Christian extremist while congress is out and
    >>before the inauguration.
    >
    >
    > How many appointments did Clinton make in his last month?

    Still obsessed with Clinton?!? I don't recall hearing about any judicial
    appointments. The GOP congress had obstructed most of his appointments
    throughout his terms. Not that it would have any bearing on #6.

    >
    > --Ty
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0411020826.1953491b@posting.google.com...
    > Mike Monaco <mmonaco.No@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:<poxhd.65836$xf6.34786@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...

    > > 1) that Kerry will win by a "large" margin (say 50 to 45) because all
    > > the polls either ignore first-time voters or fail to catch the younger,
    > > educated voters who rely on cell phones. Undecideds almost always swing
    > > to the challenger, after all they know plenty about the incumbent as it
    > > is.

    > BJ: All trends that I'm watching on several sites are showing Kerry
    > trending up in Florida and Ohio and Wisconsin returning to the Blue
    > states. There is a strong chance that Bush may win the popular vote
    > by up to 1 million votes and lose in the electoral college. His
    > margins in the red states will far excced Kerry's margins in the
    > states he wins. That will be proof to some that a cosmic justice does
    > exist.

    Well, prognostication does indeed have its risks, eh Bob?

    As I type this, it appears that Bush will win Ohio by >100,000 votes and
    Florida by >374,000. The fat lady is preparing to belt one out, I think.

    At this point, with 78% of precincts reporting, Bush is 3.5 million ahead in
    the popular vote.

    It looks to me like (once again) the pollsters have overpredicted the
    Democrats.

    I hate to see you lose all faith in cosmic justice (though I note that Bush
    carried your home state). So I will note one amusing absurdity in
    Colorado -- seems that evangelical Christians overwhelmingly voted for a
    certain Mr. Coors. As an evangelical who likes his beer, I found this rather
    amusing. Nearly as funny as a medical malpractice trial lawyer complaining
    about the rising cost of health care.

    > > 2) Diehard GOP partisans will challenge the results, claiming voter
    > > fraud. Evidence will be lacking, but right-wing talk radio and Matt
    > > Drudge will keep rumors alive for months.

    > BJ: Limbaugh will have to pop few extra pills before trying to explain
    > his prediction of a Bush landslide. Right-wingers have an odd mix of
    > paranoia that they are going to lose the vote while "knowing" they are
    > a majority. It accounts for their passive-aggressive behavior.

    Heh...talk to Michael Moore, Dan Rather and all the other despondent lefties
    in the morning.

    Assuming that Bush's numbers hold, we might even manage to avoid needless
    litigation. The reason is that the numbers are sufficiently large that most
    rational recount scenarios won't change the result. That would be good for
    the nation and particularly good for the Democrats. The American people
    detest sore losers and I think that what happened in 2000 along with
    incessant whining during the campaign by the Democrats makes them
    particularly vulnerable to that charge. (10 minutes after typing this,
    Kerry's campaign manager announced that they would indeed contest the Ohio
    voting -- terrible mistake IMHO, unless Bush's margin in Ohio changes *very*
    dramatically, with only 10% of the vore left to count. Ohio law will not
    grant an automatic recount with the margin. There are at most 250,000
    "provisional ballots" in Ohio; most would have to be valid and they would
    have to break hugely for Kerry for him to evn have a chance. Surely Kerry
    will take a step back and concede the election before wrecking the
    Democratic party...)

    <snip of Kerry victory predictions>

    Personally, I think that Kerry had little chance of winning. He's to be
    congratulated for coming as close as he did. But he was in an untenable
    position -- half his base supported the war in Iraq, half opposed it. So he
    was unable to take a clear stand one way or another. This made him look weak
    and vacillating.

    Here are the winners and losers, in my opinion:

    Winners

    1. GWB hisself. While I personally thought he ran a rather poor campaign,
    once again, GWB just wins. He will get 51+% of the popular vote (more than
    Clinton ever did IIRC). The economy is booming again, and Bush will reap
    that benefit as well.

    2. The Clintons. A Kerry victory would have put paid to Hillary's
    presidential aspirations. His defeat now opens the way for her. You can bet
    that the Clintons will start working on her presidential campaign today.

    3. The blogosphere. Their humiliation of Dan Rather (and other members of
    the mainstream press) would have amounted to little had Kerry been
    re-elected. The mainstream media pulled out all stops for Kerry; their
    failure to alter the outcome of the election will hasten their precipitous
    decline in credibility. Fox will similarly benefit IMHO.

    4. Mental health professionals and companies that make antidepressants. The
    pissy, angry left will all be in therapy after this beating.

    5. The stock market. Had Kerry delievered on his promise to repeal the tax
    break on stock dividends, stock values would have dropped. (A major
    component of a stock's price is the value of its net cash flow).

    6. Kerry -- if he does not litigate the Ohio vote. I still don't like him,
    but the fact is that he made this campaign *far* closer than it should have
    been. Although he received considerable help from the media, he deserves
    much credit for doing as well as he did. All this will be for nothing if he
    plays the role of poor sport in the days to come.

    Losers

    1. The Democrats. Even worse than their loss of the presidency is their loss
    of 3-4 seats in the House and 1-5 Senate seats. The Congress is where the
    real political power resides in this country, and the Democrats have now
    been out of power for 10 years. Worse, I suspect that this beating will not
    be enough to discredit the far left of the party. In that peculiar manner
    that extremists have of rationalizing a beating, I expect the party leaders
    to conclude that the Democratic Party was simply not far enough to the left.
    They would do well to recall how their most effective president seized the
    middle and governed from the center. I fear they won't. Don't be shocked if
    they lose more Congrssional seats in 2006...

    2. Bin Laden. While I don't think that Kerry would have been intentionally
    easy on Bin Laden, his innate indecision might have given OBL some kind of
    break.

    3. The Iraqi Insurgents. Again, I don't think that Kerry would have
    intentionally gone soft on them. But his willingness to subordinate US
    interests to those of France might have resulted in a break being granted to
    the bad guys.

    4. The French. Looks like the US won't be deferring to their wishes anytime
    soon.

    5. The Hollywood Left. The gibbering hordes of semiliterate, uneducated,
    self-indulgent celebrities might well have overplayed their hand this time.

    6. Tubby Riefenstahl (aka Michael Moore). While he made a fortune with his
    polemics, I'd be very surprised if there's much enthusiasm for his gibberish
    now.

    7. John Edwards. Once considered a rising star in the Democratic Party,
    Edwards was exposed as a shallow, hapless lightweight who looked like Dan
    Quayle and talked like Forrest Gump. His disastrous showing against Cheney
    was even worse that Quayle's beating at the hands of Lloyd Bentsen. I could
    not understand why Kerry chose him as a running mate. He added absolutely
    nothing to the ticket.

    8. The UN. Investigation into its corrupt food for oil program will
    continue.

    9. Kerry -- if he chooses to litigate the vote in Ohio.

    Well, this is how I see it. For my lefty friends out there, I have a song
    for you to keep in mind:

    The sun'll come out
    Tomorrow
    So ya gotta hang on
    'Til tomorrow
    Come what may
    Tomorrow!
    Tomorrow!
    I love ya
    Tomorrow!
    You're always a day away
    Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love ya, tomorrow
    You're always a day away!

    --Ty
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Bob Jones" <highwiremedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:73e9b810.0411020826.1953491b@posting.google.com...

    > ...Guess the party affiliations of the voting judges! The judicial
    > appointments are crucial to our future rights and not allowing justice
    > in America to recede to the point where, as the old saw goes, "The
    > rich and the poor have equal rights to sleep under a bridge or in a
    > park at night."

    Some interesting things about the election:

    1. Bush got more votes (in raw numbers) that even Ronald Reagan. First
    president since 1988 to get >50% of the vote.

    2. Al Gore's popular vote edge in Ohio was a few hundred thousand. If that
    was a significant edge -- as Democrats have continually asserted over the
    last 4 years -- then surely Bush's 3.5 million vote edge is *very*
    significant.

    3. It appears that the "get out the vote" effort was a success -- but it did
    not ultimately help the Democrats. Unfortunately, it appears that there was
    little increase in percentage turnout of blacks, hispanics and
    (particularly) young people (all traditionally strongly pro-Democrat).

    4. I think that Kerry should concede ASAP. The math is simply not there for
    him in Ohio. It's now being reported that there are only 150,000 or so
    provisional ballots in Ohio. With Bush's victory margin ~136,000, it becomes
    mathematically impossible for Kerry to win. Continuing to drag this out
    makes Kerry (and the Democratic Party) look like very poor losers. Surely
    Kerry will do what's best for the country and get it over.

    5. The Democrats were effectively routed in the Congress. Party strategists
    have some serious work ahead of them. If they don't find a way to stop the
    hemorraging, they will take a beating again in 2006.

    6. Many polling organizations have been exposed (again) as flawed. They have
    tended to overpredict Democrats (see Zogby for instance who predicted Bush
    49.4%, Kerry 49.1% in popular vote; Bush 213, Kerry 311 in electoral
    college) for years. The exit polling organization, in particular, was
    utterly incompetent. The exit polls showed a decisive Kerry edge throughout
    most of the day.

    7. Let's see -- in the largest voter turnout in history, in the face of an
    unprecedented media and celebrity campaign to bring him down, Bush wins the
    popular vote by >3.5 million. Bush wins the electoral college. The
    Republicans pick up seats in both houses of Congress. I dunno...maybe the
    "angry left" overplayed their hand?

    --Ty
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:47:15 -0600, "Ty" <tbeardSPAM@tyler.net> wrote:


    >7. Let's see -- in the largest voter turnout in history, in the face of an
    >unprecedented media and celebrity campaign to bring him down, Bush wins the
    >popular vote by >3.5 million. Bush wins the electoral college. The
    >Republicans pick up seats in both houses of Congress. I dunno...maybe the
    >"angry left" overplayed their hand?
    >
    >--Ty
    >
    Ty,

    I think even you would have to agree that the Republican party
    concentrated on wedge issues this campaign. They got a lot of people
    in the midwest to vote against their own economic interest in favor of
    family values.

    It remains to be seen whether in the long run that will prove to be a
    winner in years to come.

    Its now up to Bush to prove his case. He had his war, now he has to
    make things better on the home front. He can't complain about an
    adversarial relationship with congress. He better use it, or the
    Republicans will lose it in 2008.

    Bill
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Hey BJ - Guess you really blew this one - Not only did Bush win the Republicans
    gained in both houses.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Well, if you read on, you'll find out. You posted an honest message,
    and instead of talking about gaming, you wind up with a political
    discussion. A lot of gamers have been chased away by such diatribe.

    Or maybe they went to Arby's for the roast beef sale!

    raygun1966@aol.com (Raygun1966) wrote in message news:<20041027002940.16740.00002531@mb-m11.aol.com>...
    > What happened to this newsgroup? Is there a place I can find all of those great
    > people I used to find here? Are they at Yahoo? Please let me know...thanks in
    > advance.
    >
    > Ray Gaer
    > www.soldiersintime.com
    > Raygun1966
    > www.soldiersintime.com
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    "Darryl Smith" <darryl@highstream.net> wrote in message
    news:73885041.0411041743.2e8918ad@posting.google.com...
    > Well, if you read on, you'll find out. You posted an honest message,
    > and instead of talking about gaming, you wind up with a political
    > discussion. A lot of gamers have been chased away by such diatribe.
    >
    > Or maybe they went to Arby's for the roast beef sale!

    <blink>

    Arby's has a sale on roast beef sandwiches?

    --Ty
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Oh well life moves on. Anyway, If anyone is interested, I have uploaded some
    generic game counters (like march, charge, etc..) to my website for anyone who
    might need counters and not have the means of creating them. Everything is free
    so enjoy....bullocks to politics.


    Raygun1966
    www.soldiersintime.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Newsgroup Games Yahoo Video Games