Frances Bavier

The hypothetical issue of a "sundown" clause on seeding in the 64th is a non-issue. As far as I know, the schools didn't even discuss such a scenario, so it is a moot point. Someone feel free to correct me, if I am wrong. Frances

I have to say that I am getting quite the chuckle, watching a couple of our strong conservatives revile a person for committing the crime of making money. According to the list posted by HHSDad, Ronald and Nancy Reagan donated an even lower percentage of their income to charity. Where are the cries of injustice against them? Personally, I couldn't care less what anyone donates to charity. It is a personal act, and anything short of emulating Mother Teresa is simply a matter of degree. Frances

Willful ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry have a way of turning people off ... Frances

Well, as Jack Palance once said: "The day ain't over yet".... Let's limit the question to Iraq, for another week or two at least... Frances

I'll let you start this exchange of honest answers. IF we didn't invade Iran (a sovereign nation) for oil, then please tell me what the real reason was. Frances

Hootscoot - I don't think anyone is saying that Elliott didn't earn this win. I think that it is clearly obvious that they did. They hit shots that they needed to hit, they were behind in the second half and didn't give up, they played good defense (which forced turnovers), and they kept a cool head in the closing minutes. Without question, they earned the win. Frances

Then it must have been extremely arcane, because I thought H addressed the salient point of your post (the disruption of the supply of oil). If, on the other hand, your main point was intended to be that "the Democrats would invade a country just to keep us in oil", then I would have to disagree. We weren't experiencing any real threats to the oil supply prior to the invasion of Iraq, but as H pointed out, if we invade Iran as well, you can bet your last dollar that the price of a gallon will be going up - WAY UP. I don't see an invasion of Iran as a way to keep the cost of oil down - and I doubt that many other people would see it that way. Frances

Well, I'm not Catholic, and I'm not really certain that I buy into "sainthood", but I CAN say (unequivocally) that Mother Teresa was in very rare company, in terms of her impact on the lives of the poor. Let's call her the Babe Ruth of charity. Frances

A little bias? Yes - but it's usually in support of a given school (usually an Alma Mater). Not that often that you see someone go after a guy like Sutton for nothing more than committing the sin of not being named Jim Hicks. Frances

You know, it's hard to believe that Sutton could be THAT bad of a coach. Hicks has been out of the saddle for about a month, and all of a sudden, these athletes that were in topnotch condition are doubled over gasping for air? The only way that is possible is if Sutton is force feeding them Twinkies for the entire length of a two hour practice everday. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were a little biased in your views, Slick. Frances

Wisdom, good sense, and the ability to learn from past mistakes? Frances PS - never mind. I just realized whom we are talking about.

Exactly, GIAT. Frances

I'm with HHSDad on this aspect of the question. I would be shocked to find anyone in upper government that didn't believe this to already be the case. Frances

Where oh where is Donald Rumsfeld when we need him the most? If he were back in the SECDEF chair, I'm sure he could coerce the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade Iran with a single battalion of infantry, and ensure a quick victory, followed by our being hailed as liberators. At least we can still rely on the unwincing wisdom of Dick Cheney to lead us through the morass, and find the best political solution to this brewing problem ... Frances

LRCW - Please don't misunderstand me. Like you and scooterbob, I see seeding as the friend of both Ashland and Boyd, and the draw as the best arrangement for Fairview and Rose Hill. I have absolutely no problem with you, me, scooterbob, or anyone else with seeing it however they wish to. My point was not that scooterbob would be wrong to see it this way (it is, after all, an opinion that all three of us share). Rather, my point is that I would think that scooterbob probably won't be quite as "loud" in his protests, nor as demanding to see the facts, in this instance as he would be if he felt that Ashland had somehow hoodwinked Rose Hill again. I'm guessing that he will voice his displeasure, and then quietly move on to the next thread. I could be wrong about how he handles it - it was simply my response to a point made by another poster. Frances