Group: rec.autos.sport.nascar
NASCAR and other professional stock car racing.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 22, 11:34 am, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:18:42 GMT, chuck st...@nospam,com (Chuck Steak)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>"Ask even the most casual of motor sports fans who the biggest name in
> >>drag racing is and you are almost always sure to hear one name – Don
> >>“The Snake” Prudhomme. A true legend of the sport,
>
> >>Along the way, Prudhomme reached many important milestones and broke
> >>several barriers in the sport.
> >>*******
>
> >>Overrreactionists on RASN are much more knowledgeable about drag
> >>racing than this guy.
>
> >I don't think anyone is questioning his racing credentials.
> >But that doesn't mean he is an authority on track design.
> >Anymore than Dale Earnhardt was an authority on the
> >proper way to mount seatbealts....
>
> Neither one is rocket science.
>
> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>
> Huh?
LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
the basics.... priceless, really.
On Jun 22, 11:34 am, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:18:42 GMT, chuck st...@nospam,com (Chuck Steak)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>"Ask even the most casual of motor sports fans who the biggest name in
> >>drag racing is and you are almost always sure to hear one name – Don
> >>“The Snake” Prudhomme. A true legend of the sport,
>
> >>Along the way, Prudhomme reached many important milestones and broke
> >>several barriers in the sport.
> >>*******
>
> >>Overrreactionists on RASN are much more knowledgeable about drag
> >>racing than this guy.
>
> >I don't think anyone is questioning his racing credentials.
> >But that doesn't mean he is an authority on track design.
> >Anymore than Dale Earnhardt was an authority on the
> >proper way to mount seatbealts....
>
> Neither one is rocket science.
>
> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>
> Huh?
LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
the basics.... priceless, really.
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
<jpchick83@gmail,com > wrote:
>> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
>> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>>
>> Huh?
>
>LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
>the basics.... priceless, really.
"Often times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest
things, after the fact, are so obvious."
The sentence above does not make sense in the English language. The
introductory phrase, "often times, until there is an issue with
something" does not connect to the conclusion, "the simplest things,
after the fact, are so obvious" in any meaningful way. The sentence is
not structured properly. I am not a grammar nazi by any stretch, and I
structure sentences improperly all the time, but they usually still
make sense. Dan's sentence might make sense to you, while my own seem
nothing more than drivel, but I think that says more about you than it
does about me. Still, if you want to get down to basics, we can,
despite the fact that, as you point out, I do not get them.
If we rearrange the sentence in an attempt to clarify it, we get "the
simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious, often times, until
there is an issue with something." Now remove "often times", and "so",
which are just extra fluff and do not really belong, and you have "the
simplest things, after the fact, are obvious, until there is an issue
with something". This is a bit easier to understand grammatically, but
the problem here is that the statement is not true. Simple, obvious
things tend to remain that way. Some unknown issue with something
usually does not change that fact. You do not even need to rearrange
the sentence to see this. Remove the fluff from the original: "Until
there is an issue with something, the simplest things, after the fact,
are obvious." Having seen the point he was trying to make, it is clear
that this sentence is inadequate.
Dan might have been better off using two sentences. I suggest: Often
times, we do not realize there is a problem with something until there
is an issue exposing it. And instead of "the simplest things, after
the fact, are so obvious", he could have used a more tried and true
cliche, such as "hindsight is 20/20". It is, after all, hard to argue
with that logic. None of this changes the fact that drag racing is
dangerous, but let's not nitpick, OK?
I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
Ashley's best interest in mind here.
This leads us to the main problem. All this discussion about what
makes a sensible sentence has been a distraction from the true nature
of this discussion. What good is your discovery that strapping your
ass to a rocket and going 300 mph can result in injury or death if you
can't communicate it properly? How are you going to get John Force to
realize the error of his ways? The man obviously knows way less than
you do about how dangerous drag racing is, or else why would he let
his defenseless daughter recklessly risk her life for no good reason?
I'm sure she could achieve the same level of success in any endeavor
of her choosing, so why race? Maybe she should quit racing today and
start being a doctor or lawyer tomorrow. Given, she would have to be a
damn good doctor or lawyer to replace the income from racing prize
money, sponsorships, and her TV show, but that's not her decision to
make, is it? You decide what the appropriate level of risk/reward is
for her, and then tell her daddy what she can do.
If you try a different tactic, and decide to write a note to Ashley
Force, begging her to quit drag racing until they make it death-proof,
and mail it to her pinned to a cute, cuddly teddy bear, I know you
will want her to understand it when she reads it. If you write "Often
times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest things,
after the fact, are so obvious", her reaction will probably be "Huh?"
She will probably just get right back into a race car, not even
realizing that they are dangerous. She might even think she has some
psycho stalker sending her teddy-grams in disjointed phrases and call
the FBI or something. The FBI, knowing that gibberish notes pinned to
cute, cuddly teddy bears are sure signs that some loon has snapped and
is about to strike, will hunt you down and make you disappear. And
that would just deepen this tragedy.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
<jpchick83@gmail,com > wrote:
>> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
>> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>>
>> Huh?
>
>LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
>the basics.... priceless, really.
"Often times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest
things, after the fact, are so obvious."
The sentence above does not make sense in the English language. The
introductory phrase, "often times, until there is an issue with
something" does not connect to the conclusion, "the simplest things,
after the fact, are so obvious" in any meaningful way. The sentence is
not structured properly. I am not a grammar nazi by any stretch, and I
structure sentences improperly all the time, but they usually still
make sense. Dan's sentence might make sense to you, while my own seem
nothing more than drivel, but I think that says more about you than it
does about me. Still, if you want to get down to basics, we can,
despite the fact that, as you point out, I do not get them.
If we rearrange the sentence in an attempt to clarify it, we get "the
simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious, often times, until
there is an issue with something." Now remove "often times", and "so",
which are just extra fluff and do not really belong, and you have "the
simplest things, after the fact, are obvious, until there is an issue
with something". This is a bit easier to understand grammatically, but
the problem here is that the statement is not true. Simple, obvious
things tend to remain that way. Some unknown issue with something
usually does not change that fact. You do not even need to rearrange
the sentence to see this. Remove the fluff from the original: "Until
there is an issue with something, the simplest things, after the fact,
are obvious." Having seen the point he was trying to make, it is clear
that this sentence is inadequate.
Dan might have been better off using two sentences. I suggest: Often
times, we do not realize there is a problem with something until there
is an issue exposing it. And instead of "the simplest things, after
the fact, are so obvious", he could have used a more tried and true
cliche, such as "hindsight is 20/20". It is, after all, hard to argue
with that logic. None of this changes the fact that drag racing is
dangerous, but let's not nitpick, OK?
I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
Ashley's best interest in mind here.
This leads us to the main problem. All this discussion about what
makes a sensible sentence has been a distraction from the true nature
of this discussion. What good is your discovery that strapping your
ass to a rocket and going 300 mph can result in injury or death if you
can't communicate it properly? How are you going to get John Force to
realize the error of his ways? The man obviously knows way less than
you do about how dangerous drag racing is, or else why would he let
his defenseless daughter recklessly risk her life for no good reason?
I'm sure she could achieve the same level of success in any endeavor
of her choosing, so why race? Maybe she should quit racing today and
start being a doctor or lawyer tomorrow. Given, she would have to be a
damn good doctor or lawyer to replace the income from racing prize
money, sponsorships, and her TV show, but that's not her decision to
make, is it? You decide what the appropriate level of risk/reward is
for her, and then tell her daddy what she can do.
If you try a different tactic, and decide to write a note to Ashley
Force, begging her to quit drag racing until they make it death-proof,
and mail it to her pinned to a cute, cuddly teddy bear, I know you
will want her to understand it when she reads it. If you write "Often
times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest things,
after the fact, are so obvious", her reaction will probably be "Huh?"
She will probably just get right back into a race car, not even
realizing that they are dangerous. She might even think she has some
psycho stalker sending her teddy-grams in disjointed phrases and call
the FBI or something. The FBI, knowing that gibberish notes pinned to
cute, cuddly teddy bears are sure signs that some loon has snapped and
is about to strike, will hunt you down and make you disappear. And
that would just deepen this tragedy.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 22, 3:41 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
>
> <jpchic...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
> >> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>
> >> Huh?
>
> >LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
> >the basics.... priceless, really.
>
> "Often times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest
> things, after the fact, are so obvious."
>
> The sentence above does not make sense in the English language. The
> introductory phrase, "often times, until there is an issue with
> something" does not connect to the conclusion, "the simplest things,
> after the fact, are so obvious" in any meaningful way. The sentence is
> not structured properly. I am not a grammar nazi by any stretch, and I
> structure sentences improperly all the time, but they usually still
> make sense. Dan's sentence might make sense to you, while my own seem
> nothing more than drivel, but I think that says more about you than it
> does about me. Still, if you want to get down to basics, we can,
> despite the fact that, as you point out, I do not get them.
Yes, his sentence does make perfect sense not just to me, but
apparently to anyone else who has read it. You are the only one who
has registered a complaint. I'm sorry you don't comprehend it, but
that says more about you than me, him or anyone else for that matter.
>
> If we rearrange the sentence in an attempt to clarify it, we get "the
> simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious, often times, until
> there is an issue with something." Now remove "often times", and "so",
> which are just extra fluff and do not really belong, and you have "the
> simplest things, after the fact, are obvious, until there is an issue
> with something". This is a bit easier to understand grammatically, but
> the problem here is that the statement is not true. Simple, obvious
> things tend to remain that way. Some unknown issue with something
> usually does not change that fact. You do not even need to rearrange
> the sentence to see this. Remove the fluff from the original: "Until
> there is an issue with something, the simplest things, after the fact,
> are obvious." Having seen the point he was trying to make, it is clear
> that this sentence is inadequate.
Inadequate for your comprehension, perhaps.
>
> Dan might have been better off using two sentences. I suggest: Often
> times, we do not realize there is a problem with something until there
> is an issue exposing it. And instead of "the simplest things, after
> the fact, are so obvious", he could have used a more tried and true
> cliche, such as "hindsight is 20/20". It is, after all, hard to argue
> with that logic. None of this changes the fact that drag racing is
> dangerous, but let's not nitpick, OK?
LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking. Dan could have expressed his
views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
to express himself was clear and concise.
>
> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
>
> This leads us to the main problem. All this discussion about what
> makes a sensible sentence has been a distraction from the true nature
> of this discussion. What good is your discovery that strapping your
> ass to a rocket and going 300 mph can result in injury or death if you
> can't communicate it properly? How are you going to get John Force to
> realize the error of his ways? The man obviously knows way less than
> you do about how dangerous drag racing is, or else why would he let
> his defenseless daughter recklessly risk her life for no good reason?
> I'm sure she could achieve the same level of success in any endeavor
> of her choosing, so why race? Maybe she should quit racing today and
> start being a doctor or lawyer tomorrow. Given, she would have to be a
> damn good doctor or lawyer to replace the income from racing prize
> money, sponsorships, and her TV show, but that's not her decision to
> make, is it? You decide what the appropriate level of risk/reward is
> for her, and then tell her daddy what she can do.
Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
>
> If you try a different tactic, and decide to write a note to Ashley
> Force, begging her to quit drag racing until they make it death-proof,
> and mail it to her pinned to a cute, cuddly teddy bear, I know you
> will want her to understand it when she reads it. If you write "Often
> times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest things,
> after the fact, are so obvious", her reaction will probably be "Huh?"
> She will probably just get right back into a race car, not even
> realizing that they are dangerous. She might even think she has some
> psycho stalker sending her teddy-grams in disjointed phrases and call
> the FBI or something. The FBI, knowing that gibberish notes pinned to
> cute, cuddly teddy bears are sure signs that some loon has snapped and
> is about to strike, will hunt you down and make you disappear. And
> that would just deepen this tragedy.
You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
should take as a result.... constructing a whole delusional fantasy
that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
On Jun 22, 3:41 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
>
> <jpchic...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >> >Often times, until there is an issue with something,
> >> >the simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious..
>
> >> Huh?
>
> >LMFAO.... after all that drivel you just spewed, you still don't get
> >the basics.... priceless, really.
>
> "Often times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest
> things, after the fact, are so obvious."
>
> The sentence above does not make sense in the English language. The
> introductory phrase, "often times, until there is an issue with
> something" does not connect to the conclusion, "the simplest things,
> after the fact, are so obvious" in any meaningful way. The sentence is
> not structured properly. I am not a grammar nazi by any stretch, and I
> structure sentences improperly all the time, but they usually still
> make sense. Dan's sentence might make sense to you, while my own seem
> nothing more than drivel, but I think that says more about you than it
> does about me. Still, if you want to get down to basics, we can,
> despite the fact that, as you point out, I do not get them.
Yes, his sentence does make perfect sense not just to me, but
apparently to anyone else who has read it. You are the only one who
has registered a complaint. I'm sorry you don't comprehend it, but
that says more about you than me, him or anyone else for that matter.
>
> If we rearrange the sentence in an attempt to clarify it, we get "the
> simplest things, after the fact, are so obvious, often times, until
> there is an issue with something." Now remove "often times", and "so",
> which are just extra fluff and do not really belong, and you have "the
> simplest things, after the fact, are obvious, until there is an issue
> with something". This is a bit easier to understand grammatically, but
> the problem here is that the statement is not true. Simple, obvious
> things tend to remain that way. Some unknown issue with something
> usually does not change that fact. You do not even need to rearrange
> the sentence to see this. Remove the fluff from the original: "Until
> there is an issue with something, the simplest things, after the fact,
> are obvious." Having seen the point he was trying to make, it is clear
> that this sentence is inadequate.
Inadequate for your comprehension, perhaps.
>
> Dan might have been better off using two sentences. I suggest: Often
> times, we do not realize there is a problem with something until there
> is an issue exposing it. And instead of "the simplest things, after
> the fact, are so obvious", he could have used a more tried and true
> cliche, such as "hindsight is 20/20". It is, after all, hard to argue
> with that logic. None of this changes the fact that drag racing is
> dangerous, but let's not nitpick, OK?
LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking. Dan could have expressed his
views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
to express himself was clear and concise.
>
> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
>
> This leads us to the main problem. All this discussion about what
> makes a sensible sentence has been a distraction from the true nature
> of this discussion. What good is your discovery that strapping your
> ass to a rocket and going 300 mph can result in injury or death if you
> can't communicate it properly? How are you going to get John Force to
> realize the error of his ways? The man obviously knows way less than
> you do about how dangerous drag racing is, or else why would he let
> his defenseless daughter recklessly risk her life for no good reason?
> I'm sure she could achieve the same level of success in any endeavor
> of her choosing, so why race? Maybe she should quit racing today and
> start being a doctor or lawyer tomorrow. Given, she would have to be a
> damn good doctor or lawyer to replace the income from racing prize
> money, sponsorships, and her TV show, but that's not her decision to
> make, is it? You decide what the appropriate level of risk/reward is
> for her, and then tell her daddy what she can do.
Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
>
> If you try a different tactic, and decide to write a note to Ashley
> Force, begging her to quit drag racing until they make it death-proof,
> and mail it to her pinned to a cute, cuddly teddy bear, I know you
> will want her to understand it when she reads it. If you write "Often
> times, until there is an issue with something, the simplest things,
> after the fact, are so obvious", her reaction will probably be "Huh?"
> She will probably just get right back into a race car, not even
> realizing that they are dangerous. She might even think she has some
> psycho stalker sending her teddy-grams in disjointed phrases and call
> the FBI or something. The FBI, knowing that gibberish notes pinned to
> cute, cuddly teddy bears are sure signs that some loon has snapped and
> is about to strike, will hunt you down and make you disappear. And
> that would just deepen this tragedy.
You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
should take as a result.... constructing a whole delusional fantasy
that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:40 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
<jpchick83@gmail,com > wrote:
>LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking.
I just typed "Huh?" That's not nitpicking. If I wanted to nitpick, I
would have done it in my reply to him. I really just wanted to see if
Dan could come up with any more digs at Earnhardt. But since you felt
the need to insinuate yourself into the conversation with basically no
contribution of your own, I decided to take a few moments of my day
and entertain myself with you.
>Dan could have expressed his
>views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
>to express himself was clear and concise.
I guess it's not a big deal. At least it wasn't when I was replying to
him.
>> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
>> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
>> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
>> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
>> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
>> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
>> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
>
>Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
I will not assume you have the best intentions anymore, and couldn't
care less about your interests.
>Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
You did.
"question's have been raised about the increasing speeds and the
resulting safety issues not being properly addressed, so it isn't as
easy to write this one off and move on from it."
"As a parent, I know I wouldn't be able to blindly put my kid back in
a car without examining the safety issues much more closely"
"and I do recall him commenting about not liking Ashley being in
harm's way... perhaps he will encourage her to give it up."
OK, it's not you saying you want her to quit racing, but its a
reasonable inference. Oops, big word. Sorry. What I just said there is
that while you did not say you want her to quit, you said that perhaps
her father would encourage her to give it (racing) up. In the context
of the discussion, it seems like you think that would be a good idea.
After all, you hope he encourages her to give it up, you hope he
doesn't, or you don't care. If you hope he doesn't, you probably would
have expressed that. If you do not care if he does, why would you have
mentioned the notion in the first place? So, as far as I'm concerned,
those two possibilities are eliminated
The only thing left is you hope he does encourage her to give it up.
OK, so maybe you personally wouldn't take Ashley Force to the side and
tell her it's time to give up on her career, but you would be glad if
someone else did.
But there is no doubt that you would not put your 26 year old kid
(Ashley Force's age) back in a race car without examining the safety
issues more closely, because that is what you said. And everyone
knows that 26 year olds cannot make decisions for themselves, their
parents do that for them. This is sarcasm, by the way. I don't know if
you have a 26 year old kid, or if you have kids at all. The comment is
really about how you think Ashley Force is some little girl that can't
make her own decisions, and her daddy is the one that needs to make
them for her.
>You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
>people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
Rearranging sentences is a way of analyzing them when their meaning is
not clear. You don't rearrange the sentence to change the meaning, but
to clarify it. Since the whole thing went way over your head the first
time, I won't get into that again.
>presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
>should take as a result....
Having second thoughts about the teddy-gram? I did not say you should
send one, I really said you shouldn't. At least one with gibberish on
it, because that would be a bad idea. I even explained why. So if you
do send one, and the FBI takes you in for questioning, I'm on record
discouraging you from sending it. If fact, for the record, I don't
think it's a good idea for you to contact the Forces at all. Please do
not tell John Force to tell his daughter anything. Seriously. If you
do, and the FBI contacts me, ~M~, about you, I will have to be honest
and tell them I cannot vouch for your intentions.
>constructing a whole delusional fantasy
>that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
>already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
I was really just killing time by calling you a twit in 800 words.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:40 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
<jpchick83@gmail,com > wrote:
>LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking.
I just typed "Huh?" That's not nitpicking. If I wanted to nitpick, I
would have done it in my reply to him. I really just wanted to see if
Dan could come up with any more digs at Earnhardt. But since you felt
the need to insinuate yourself into the conversation with basically no
contribution of your own, I decided to take a few moments of my day
and entertain myself with you.
>Dan could have expressed his
>views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
>to express himself was clear and concise.
I guess it's not a big deal. At least it wasn't when I was replying to
him.
>> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
>> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
>> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
>> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
>> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
>> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
>> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
>
>Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
I will not assume you have the best intentions anymore, and couldn't
care less about your interests.
>Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
You did.
"question's have been raised about the increasing speeds and the
resulting safety issues not being properly addressed, so it isn't as
easy to write this one off and move on from it."
"As a parent, I know I wouldn't be able to blindly put my kid back in
a car without examining the safety issues much more closely"
"and I do recall him commenting about not liking Ashley being in
harm's way... perhaps he will encourage her to give it up."
OK, it's not you saying you want her to quit racing, but its a
reasonable inference. Oops, big word. Sorry. What I just said there is
that while you did not say you want her to quit, you said that perhaps
her father would encourage her to give it (racing) up. In the context
of the discussion, it seems like you think that would be a good idea.
After all, you hope he encourages her to give it up, you hope he
doesn't, or you don't care. If you hope he doesn't, you probably would
have expressed that. If you do not care if he does, why would you have
mentioned the notion in the first place? So, as far as I'm concerned,
those two possibilities are eliminated
The only thing left is you hope he does encourage her to give it up.
OK, so maybe you personally wouldn't take Ashley Force to the side and
tell her it's time to give up on her career, but you would be glad if
someone else did.
But there is no doubt that you would not put your 26 year old kid
(Ashley Force's age) back in a race car without examining the safety
issues more closely, because that is what you said. And everyone
knows that 26 year olds cannot make decisions for themselves, their
parents do that for them. This is sarcasm, by the way. I don't know if
you have a 26 year old kid, or if you have kids at all. The comment is
really about how you think Ashley Force is some little girl that can't
make her own decisions, and her daddy is the one that needs to make
them for her.
>You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
>people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
Rearranging sentences is a way of analyzing them when their meaning is
not clear. You don't rearrange the sentence to change the meaning, but
to clarify it. Since the whole thing went way over your head the first
time, I won't get into that again.
>presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
>should take as a result....
Having second thoughts about the teddy-gram? I did not say you should
send one, I really said you shouldn't. At least one with gibberish on
it, because that would be a bad idea. I even explained why. So if you
do send one, and the FBI takes you in for questioning, I'm on record
discouraging you from sending it. If fact, for the record, I don't
think it's a good idea for you to contact the Forces at all. Please do
not tell John Force to tell his daughter anything. Seriously. If you
do, and the FBI contacts me, ~M~, about you, I will have to be honest
and tell them I cannot vouch for your intentions.
>constructing a whole delusional fantasy
>that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
>already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
I was really just killing time by calling you a twit in 800 words.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 22, 7:01 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:40 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
>
> <jpchic...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking.
>
> I just typed "Huh?" That's not nitpicking. If I wanted to nitpick, I
> would have done it in my reply to him. I really just wanted to see if
> Dan could come up with any more digs at Earnhardt. But since you felt
> the need to insinuate yourself into the conversation with basically no
> contribution of your own, I decided to take a few moments of my day
> and entertain myself with you.
resist the urge next time.... you're far from entertaining.
>
> >Dan could have expressed his
> >views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
> >to express himself was clear and concise.
>
> I guess it's not a big deal. At least it wasn't when I was replying to
> him.
it certainly was, or you wouldn't have written 500 words about how he
should have written it differently.
>
> >> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
> >> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
> >> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
> >> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
> >> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
> >> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
> >> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
>
> >Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
>
> I will not assume you have the best intentions anymore, and couldn't
> care less about your interests.
you most certainly do, in fact, clearly my intentions and interests
have been analyzed closely by you today.
>
> >Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
>
> You did.
no, I didn't
>
> "question's have been raised about the increasing speeds and the
> resulting safety issues not being properly addressed, so it isn't as
> easy to write this one off and move on from it."
>
> "As a parent, I know I wouldn't be able to blindly put my kid back in
> a car without examining the safety issues much more closely"
>
> "and I do recall him commenting about not liking Ashley being in
> harm's way... perhaps he will encourage her to give it up."
>
> OK, it's not you saying you want her to quit racing, but its a
> reasonable inference.
No, it's not a reasonable inference at all.... it's your poorly
constructed and completely erroneous straw man's argument.
Oops, big word. Sorry. What I just said there is
> that while you did not say you want her to quit, you said that perhaps
> her father would encourage her to give it (racing) up.
which is not even close to being the same thing.
In the context
> of the discussion, it seems like you think that would be a good idea.
perhaps in your mind... but I don't think that way at all
>
> After all, you hope he encourages her to give it up, you hope he
> doesn't, or you don't care. If you hope he doesn't, you probably would
> have expressed that. If you do not care if he does, why would you have
> mentioned the notion in the first place? So, as far as I'm concerned,
> those two possibilities are eliminated
I don't care whether he does or doesn't, but my feelings on that were
irrelevant so I didn't mention them.
> The only thing left is you hope he does encourage her to give it up.
> OK, so maybe you personally wouldn't take Ashley Force to the side and
> tell her it's time to give up on her career, but you would be glad if
> someone else did.
>
> But there is no doubt that you would not put your 26 year old kid
> (Ashley Force's age) back in a race car without examining the safety
> issues more closely, because that is what you said.
No, I wouldn't encourage MY kid to go in the car, but I am an
overprotective mother.
And everyone
> knows that 26 year olds cannot make decisions for themselves, their
> parents do that for them. This is sarcasm, by the way. I don't know if
> you have a 26 year old kid, or if you have kids at all. The comment is
> really about how you think Ashley Force is some little girl that can't
> make her own decisions, and her daddy is the one that needs to make
> them for her.
I don't think that at all.
>
> >You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
> >people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
>
> Rearranging sentences is a way of analyzing them when their meaning is
> not clear. You don't rearrange the sentence to change the meaning, but
> to clarify it. Since the whole thing went way over your head the first
> time, I won't get into that again.
what went over your head is that the sentence needed no rearranging.
It was crystal clear to everyone but your moronic self.
>
> >presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
> >should take as a result....
>
> Having second thoughts about the teddy-gram? I did not say you should
> send one, I really said you shouldn't. At least one with gibberish on
> it, because that would be a bad idea. I even explained why. So if you
> do send one, and the FBI takes you in for questioning, I'm on record
> discouraging you from sending it. If fact, for the record, I don't
> think it's a good idea for you to contact the Forces at all. Please do
> not tell John Force to tell his daughter anything. Seriously. If you
> do, and the FBI contacts me, ~M~, about you, I will have to be honest
> and tell them I cannot vouch for your intentions.
put the crack pipe down, netloon.... try sticking to what's real
rather than you delusional ranting.
>
> >constructing a whole delusional fantasy
> >that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
> >already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
>
> I was really just killing time by calling you a twit in 800 words.
too bad you didn't succeed ~ what you did manage to do was waste 800
words showing yourself to be an moronic ass.
On Jun 22, 7:01 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:30:40 -0700 (PDT), jpchick
>
> <jpchic...@gmail,com > wrote:
> >LMAO.... you're the one nitpicking.
>
> I just typed "Huh?" That's not nitpicking. If I wanted to nitpick, I
> would have done it in my reply to him. I really just wanted to see if
> Dan could come up with any more digs at Earnhardt. But since you felt
> the need to insinuate yourself into the conversation with basically no
> contribution of your own, I decided to take a few moments of my day
> and entertain myself with you.
resist the urge next time.... you're far from entertaining.
>
> >Dan could have expressed his
> >views in a variety of different ways, but he didn't. The way he chose
> >to express himself was clear and concise.
>
> I guess it's not a big deal. At least it wasn't when I was replying to
> him.
it certainly was, or you wouldn't have written 500 words about how he
should have written it differently.
>
> >> I know that you will probably dismiss this as "drivel", even if you
> >> read through the whole thing. I probably wasted a few minutes of my
> >> time with this long, drawn out explanation, when the simple "huh?"
> >> that I used previously would normally suffice. However, I have been
> >> working on something that really isn't all that interesting to me and
> >> needed the break. I'm sure you mean well, and only have poor little
> >> Ashley's best interest in mind here.
>
> >Don't presume to know what my interests or intentions are.
>
> I will not assume you have the best intentions anymore, and couldn't
> care less about your interests.
you most certainly do, in fact, clearly my intentions and interests
have been analyzed closely by you today.
>
> >Who said I would want to dissuade her from racing?!?!
>
> You did.
no, I didn't
>
> "question's have been raised about the increasing speeds and the
> resulting safety issues not being properly addressed, so it isn't as
> easy to write this one off and move on from it."
>
> "As a parent, I know I wouldn't be able to blindly put my kid back in
> a car without examining the safety issues much more closely"
>
> "and I do recall him commenting about not liking Ashley being in
> harm's way... perhaps he will encourage her to give it up."
>
> OK, it's not you saying you want her to quit racing, but its a
> reasonable inference.
No, it's not a reasonable inference at all.... it's your poorly
constructed and completely erroneous straw man's argument.
Oops, big word. Sorry. What I just said there is
> that while you did not say you want her to quit, you said that perhaps
> her father would encourage her to give it (racing) up.
which is not even close to being the same thing.
In the context
> of the discussion, it seems like you think that would be a good idea.
perhaps in your mind... but I don't think that way at all
>
> After all, you hope he encourages her to give it up, you hope he
> doesn't, or you don't care. If you hope he doesn't, you probably would
> have expressed that. If you do not care if he does, why would you have
> mentioned the notion in the first place? So, as far as I'm concerned,
> those two possibilities are eliminated
I don't care whether he does or doesn't, but my feelings on that were
irrelevant so I didn't mention them.
> The only thing left is you hope he does encourage her to give it up.
> OK, so maybe you personally wouldn't take Ashley Force to the side and
> tell her it's time to give up on her career, but you would be glad if
> someone else did.
>
> But there is no doubt that you would not put your 26 year old kid
> (Ashley Force's age) back in a race car without examining the safety
> issues more closely, because that is what you said.
No, I wouldn't encourage MY kid to go in the car, but I am an
overprotective mother.
And everyone
> knows that 26 year olds cannot make decisions for themselves, their
> parents do that for them. This is sarcasm, by the way. I don't know if
> you have a 26 year old kid, or if you have kids at all. The comment is
> really about how you think Ashley Force is some little girl that can't
> make her own decisions, and her daddy is the one that needs to make
> them for her.
I don't think that at all.
>
> >You're awfully full of yourself aren't you?!?!... suggesting how
> >people should rearrange their sentences to better suit you....
>
> Rearranging sentences is a way of analyzing them when their meaning is
> not clear. You don't rearrange the sentence to change the meaning, but
> to clarify it. Since the whole thing went way over your head the first
> time, I won't get into that again.
what went over your head is that the sentence needed no rearranging.
It was crystal clear to everyone but your moronic self.
>
> >presuming to know what people are thinking and what actions they
> >should take as a result....
>
> Having second thoughts about the teddy-gram? I did not say you should
> send one, I really said you shouldn't. At least one with gibberish on
> it, because that would be a bad idea. I even explained why. So if you
> do send one, and the FBI takes you in for questioning, I'm on record
> discouraging you from sending it. If fact, for the record, I don't
> think it's a good idea for you to contact the Forces at all. Please do
> not tell John Force to tell his daughter anything. Seriously. If you
> do, and the FBI contacts me, ~M~, about you, I will have to be honest
> and tell them I cannot vouch for your intentions.
put the crack pipe down, netloon.... try sticking to what's real
rather than you delusional ranting.
>
> >constructing a whole delusional fantasy
> >that centers around your (incorrect) assumptions....get over yourself
> >already, you truly come across as an egotistical ass.
>
> I was really just killing time by calling you a twit in 800 words.
too bad you didn't succeed ~ what you did manage to do was waste 800
words showing yourself to be an moronic ass.
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
it wasn't the most bestest English.
Dan
****************************************
When people say, 'can I ask you a question?',
you really don't have much of a choice...
In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
it wasn't the most bestest English.
Dan
****************************************
When people say, 'can I ask you a question?',
you really don't have much of a choice...
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
"Chuck Steak" <chuck steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
>
>
Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
rasn.
"Chuck Steak" <chuck steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
>
>
Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
rasn.
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
In article "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox,net > wrote:
>"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
>> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>> it wasn't the most bestest English.
> She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of rasn.
I don't know "M"...
that's hot...
Dan
****************************************
When people say, 'can I ask you a question?',
you really don't have much of a choice...
In article "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox,net > wrote:
>"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
>> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>> it wasn't the most bestest English.
> She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of rasn.
I don't know "M"...
that's hot...
Dan
****************************************
When people say, 'can I ask you a question?',
you really don't have much of a choice...
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:32:56 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox,net >
wrote:
>
>"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
>news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
>> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>>
>>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>>
>>
>> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
>rasn.
I must be crazy for doing this, but...
Huh?
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:32:56 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox,net >
wrote:
>
>"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
>news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
>> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>>
>>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>>
>>
>> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
>rasn.
I must be crazy for doing this, but...
Huh?
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 22, 9:27 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:32:56 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox,net >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Chuck Steak" <chuck st...@nospam,com > wrote in message
> >news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> >> In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
> >> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> >> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> >> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
> >Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
> >rasn.
>
> I must be crazy for doing this, but...
>
> Huh?
>
I got it, and it's pretty damn funny.
On Jun 22, 9:27 pm, ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:32:56 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox,net >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Chuck Steak" <chuck st...@nospam,com > wrote in message
> >news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> >> In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
> >> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> >> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> >> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
> >Do not pay any attention to her. She thinks that she is the Paris Hilton of
> >rasn.
>
> I must be crazy for doing this, but...
>
> Huh?
>
I got it, and it's pretty damn funny.
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:28:24 GMT, chuck_steak@nospam,com (Chuck Steak)
wrote:
>In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
>After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>it wasn't the most bestest English.
Could be that most did. And like I said, I am not a grammar nazi, and
in fact I don't care for them most of the time. I was happy to leave
it at "Huh?", since it is hard to respond specifically to something
that maybe we can call vague. You seem reasonable to me and my
intention was not to pick a fight with you, but rather to pick a fight
with people that think auto racing could exist if there was not some
level of danger involved. If racing was not dangerous, people would
not watch it. Does that mean that people need to die for racing to be
interesting? No. But it must be true, or else TNT would be showing
NASCAR 08 races from XBox live.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:28:24 GMT, chuck_steak@nospam,com (Chuck Steak)
wrote:
>In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
>After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
>However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
>it wasn't the most bestest English.
Could be that most did. And like I said, I am not a grammar nazi, and
in fact I don't care for them most of the time. I was happy to leave
it at "Huh?", since it is hard to respond specifically to something
that maybe we can call vague. You seem reasonable to me and my
intention was not to pick a fight with you, but rather to pick a fight
with people that think auto racing could exist if there was not some
level of danger involved. If racing was not dangerous, people would
not watch it. Does that mean that people need to die for racing to be
interesting? No. But it must be true, or else TNT would be showing
NASCAR 08 races from XBox live.
--
"If you're not a race driver, stay the hell home. Don't come here and
grumble about going too fast. Get the hell out of the race car if
you've got feathers on your legs or butt. Put a kerosene rag around
your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat that candy ass."
- Dale Earnhardt
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
>
Try to do more better next time Dan.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel,net
"Chuck Steak" <chuck_steak@nospam,com > wrote in message
news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
> In article ~M~ <mwillnotread@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
>
> After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
>
Try to do more better next time Dan.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel,net
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 23, 12:21 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel,net > wrote:
> "Chuck Steak" <chuck st...@nospam,com > wrote in message
>
> news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
>
> > In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
> > After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> > However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> > it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
> Try to do more better next time Dan.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM...@alltel,net
Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
link(s)?
On Jun 23, 12:21 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel,net > wrote:
> "Chuck Steak" <chuck st...@nospam,com > wrote in message
>
> news:I6C7k.4026$i5.1395@trndny07...
>
> > In article ~M~ <mwillnotr...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >>Dan might have been better off using two sentences.
>
> > After I read it, I realized it wasn't a literary masterpiece.
> > However, I think "most" understood what it meant, even though
> > it wasn't the most bestest English.
>
> Try to do more better next time Dan.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM...@alltel,net
Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
link(s)?
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
"TS02_05champ" <tonystewart02_05champ@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:73cce232-f21f-46f8-aa37-659861a381b3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
> the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
> link(s)?
The utube sites have a bunch of stills. Not sure if they're from still
cameras or single frames from fast video. There's some from the side wall,
pretty much even with the car, showing the cockpit blowing off, and there's
one almost head-on that shows the engine really letting go.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel,net
"TS02_05champ" <tonystewart02_05champ@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:73cce232-f21f-46f8-aa37-659861a381b3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
> the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
> link(s)?
The utube sites have a bunch of stills. Not sure if they're from still
cameras or single frames from fast video. There's some from the side wall,
pretty much even with the car, showing the cockpit blowing off, and there's
one almost head-on that shows the engine really letting go.
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel,net
Re: Scott Kalitta Fatal Crash Video
On Jun 24, 8:04 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel,net > wrote:
> "TS02 05champ" <tonystewart02 05ch...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:73cce232-f21f-46f8-aa37-659861a381b3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
> > the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
> > link(s)?
>
> The utube sites have a bunch of stills. Not sure if they're from still
> cameras or single frames from fast video. There's some from the side wall,
> pretty much even with the car, showing the cockpit blowing off, and there's
> one almost head-on that shows the engine really letting go.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM...@alltel,net
All I can find are the 3 videos. Don't see anywhere to search for
stills?!?!
On Jun 24, 8:04 am, "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREM...@alltel,net > wrote:
> "TS02 05champ" <tonystewart02 05ch...@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>
> news:73cce232-f21f-46f8-aa37-659861a381b3@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > Mike, I can only find one pic of the crash (not really the crash, just
> > the car on fire), you said there were many pics with different angles,
> > link(s)?
>
> The utube sites have a bunch of stills. Not sure if they're from still
> cameras or single frames from fast video. There's some from the side wall,
> pretty much even with the car, showing the cockpit blowing off, and there's
> one almost head-on that shows the engine really letting go.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> mmarlowREM...@alltel,net
All I can find are the 3 videos. Don't see anywhere to search for
stills?!?!
Next: I ' ll tell you what ... the announcers just arent
Previous: Say what ? No LOCAL SENSATION to sing the anthem ? :)
