Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	Inseparable part of American culture, but never fear, the Welsh
	do the same for Rugby, the French, Italians, and countless others
	do for Football (soccer), the West Indians, Aussies, and Kiwis do 
	for cricket, the Iranians do for War.........


Richard.

Depends upon your definition of "sport", really. I saw something going on on 
Channel 4 last night that was called "American football". New York appeared to 
be taking on Denver (or was it the other way round?). As it was only able to 
hold my attention for about 4 minutes before I changed channel, whatever it
was, I certainly wouldn't call it sport...

Tarik.

Re: -1

Suzanne, maybe you're right, that was a bit harsh (perhaps I forgot which 
conference I was in...:-). However, I do have a serious point to make about it, 
although it probably doesn't belong here. I will nevertheless make it: 

<Flame on-ish...>
Any sport that panders to the whims and needs of television and its commercial 
interest, rather than the original objective of the game is a suspect to be
included in the category of 'junksport'. I suppose it's all a question of
degree really, (the current cricket so-called 'World Series' in Australia
certainly has an element of it, but is nevertheless quite entertaining), but I
am sure you know what I mean. The case of American football is one of the
worst, where, as I understand it, they seem to have totally unnecessary
stoppages at given points in a game so that the TV companies can show their
commercials. Now, if they actually decided to let the game flow instead, get
rid of all that unlimited substitution rubbish, and just generally de-organised
it a bit, you might have quite an entertaining game there. As it stands, I
think I'd have more fun watching paint dry. 

An example of the American TV companies killing the goose that laid the golden
egg is when they tried to do that with football (aka "soccer"). As I again
understand it, they even tried to change the laws from the internationally 
accepted FIFA set, with the result that they effectively killed the 11-a-side
game in North America, along with the league. 

So, my point, whilst sport makes good television, television does not make good
sport. 
<Flame off>

Hope that's cleared that up :-).

Tarik.

    
    re .4
    
    Well Suzanne, isn't that special?
    

    I went to a "SuperBowl party" at a coworker's house last night.
    Of about 20 or so people in the room (mostly men), only about two
    seemed to be paying any attention to the game at all.  The rest
    of us were watching for the good commercials which often appear
    during this program.  (The only good one I saw was from an athletic
    shoe store chain - we didn't spot any clever Apple or IBM ads.)
    
    				Steve

>    The rest of us were watching for the good commercials which often appear
>    during this program.  (The only good one I saw was from an athletic
>    shoe store chain - we didn't spot any clever Apple or IBM ads.)
 
     This is exactly what my roomate and I did. I had expected IBM and 
     Apple to announce something as at least one newspaper suggested.
     I especially wanted more ads around the half-time show. 

     John

    
    What is the name for the shape of a football?
    
    PRC

    I think the word is "ovoid."

        Of course, as subtly hinted by many furriners, when discussing
        the shape of a football, one must consider whether the football
        is in the U.S.A., or anywhere in the rest of the world, since
        the two answers are quite different.
        
        An international football is a sphere.
        
        A football in the U.S.A., however, is substantially more
        difficult to describe.  "ovoid" is egg-shaped, and while
        that's a rough approximation, I wouldn't think that would
        convey the proper impression to someone who didn't already
        know.  Maybe a "sharpened ovoid"?
        
        	/dave

    The ball used in the game known as "American Football" is similar in 
    shape to that used in Rugby Football, from which the  American  game 
    was derived. The shape is I believe called an "ellipsoid" (the shape 
    derived by rotating an ellipse around its major axis).
    
    The ball used in Football is approximately spherical  (depending  on 
    how much air is in it :-)
    
    Incidentally why is the American game  called  [American]  FOOTball, 
    when  the  ball  is  touched  by  the  feet of the players on so few 
    occasions?
    
    Why is the primary scoring  man�uvre  called  a  "touch  down"  when 
    typically  the ball does not touch the ground (unlike in rugby where 
    the ball must touch the ground in the end zone to score a try)?
              
    FIFA howled when the Americans tried to change one rule in  football 
    (they  changed the offside rule by introducing an off-side line half 
    way between the centre line and the goal line).   However  I suspect 
    FIFA guessed this was the thin-end of the wedge.  After all American 
    Football was derived from Rugby by changing only two rules initially 
    (they  allowed  one forward pass per down, and allowed substitutes), 
    and look what we have now!
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    PS I'm not really "knocking" American  Football,  I  actually  quite 
    like  the  game, and even played it during a brief period when I was 
    at school in  Washington,  DC.    But  you  do  have  to  admit that 
    stretching a 60 minute game to over three hours with all the various 
    stoppages is a bit extreme! Goodness gracious they don't even always 
    stop  play  in  a Rugby game for injuries (unless the injured player 
    gets in the way of the play).

    
    Just for a moment...
    Back to the original questions this note ask, Football, what's the
    attraction?
    Beats me!  Personally I'm a lover of warm sunny days.  Having only
    two days a week off,  I prefer to spend them in a more productive
    way.  Anything that gets me outside.  Spending four butt-numbing hours
    on a warm Sunday afternoon in front of TV is not my idea of fun.
    But I don't watch Monday night football either.  I never have enjoyed
    watching football for hours on end.
    
    I confess I did turn on the Superbowl in the 3rd quarter to see who
    was winning.  It was Denver up by 1 point when I tuned in.  25 minutes
    later the Giants had scored twice and I turned off the TV.

    My father always thought there was somthing wrong with me becuase I
    wouldn't sit with the rest of the "men" and watch football.
    I think I still turned out ok.
    
    Go ahead and flame if there's anything here worth flamming about.
    I wore my asbestos underware today.  

    
    Sir Keith (the chafed)
    

>    FIFA howled when the Americans tried to change one rule in  football 
>    (they  changed the offside rule by introducing an off-side line half 
>    way between the centre line and the goal line).   However  I suspect 
>    FIFA guessed this was the thin-end of the wedge.

Good point Ian, as I'm sure we all did. Mind you, that is what FIFA is for. I
personally would like to see the offside law (remember they're called 'laws' in
football:-) changed so that the forward only needs to be level with the last
defender. But what this has got to do with the original note, I have no idea.

Marge, I think you'll find that they can reasonably call themselves the World 
Champions. Where else in the whole world could they get another team to beat 
them? They've only just started playing American football in England a couple 
of years ago, and they are all still definitely amatuers (largely ex-patriate 
Americans too!).

tarik.

      
       It sounds to me like many of you are to ignorant to take the
    time and learn something about the sport.  Mind you I'm not professing
    to be a know-it-all about the sport but I do feel that you all are
    a little prejudice.  
       How many of you people have actually spent the time to learn
    about this sport you're knocking?
       How many of you have sat down with someone who knows the sport
    and had the game explained?
       As for scoccer,  This sport has it's advantages and it's
    disadvantages but to me it is still pretty confusing.  To understand
    any of the plays that are happenning are very hard.  I used to have
    the same opinion about scoccer that you all have about (American)
    football but over last summer during the world cup one of the guys
    I live with started to explain this sport and its rules and now
    I can even sit down and watch some of it rather than turning it
    off right away.  
       So next year why don't you all sit down with someone who understands
    and appreciates the game of (american) football and try learn a
    little about it.
    
    Jesse
       

    re:.-1

    A valid  point  I  think.    When American Football first apeared on 
    British TV a few years ago, Channel 4 would show  edited  highlights 
    of  the  previous  Monday  Night  game  (ie they would show about 45 
    minutes of the actual 60 minutes of play), plus about 10 minutes  of 
    another game. Initially they spent a lot of effort in explaining the 
    rules.  After the  first  season  though  they  got  very  lax about 
    explaining the rules, but better at explaining the strategy (some of 
    you reading this may remember that a few seasons ago the New England 
    Patriots  had an English kicker, and may have wondered what happened 
    to him after he "left" - well he got a  job  as  a  commentator  for 
    Channel  4!)  In  those  early  days I remember a lot of people were 
    confused.  I found it much  easier  and  more  pleasurable  to watch 
    because having played (albeit only at school) I knew a little of the 
    rules and tactics involved.
    
    In general I enjoy watching sports I have played - and I have played 
    a fair  number,  not all of which make good spectator sports - and I 
    tend not to enjoy  sports  that  I  have  not  played.    Hence when 
    something like the Olympics is on I get totally frustrated when they 
    gloss over  the  [interesting]  sports  that  I  want  to  see,  and 
    concentrate on the [boring] sports that I don't want to see.  But in 
    general I guess I would rather be doing than watching, and  watching 
    comes a very poor second.
    
    /. Ian .\

>       As for scoccer,  This sport has it's advantages and it's
>    disadvantages but to me it is still pretty confusing.  To understand
>    any of the plays that are happenning are very hard.


1	What's Scoccer?

2	I had wondered why American football is stopped every few minutes.
	Now I realise that it is enable the spectators (and players?) can 
	catch up on the "plays".

@ @
 ^ )
\_/

Richard.

  The problem with pro football is that it isn't a game any more,
it's entertainment. As long as there are lots of people who are
willing to sit in their living rooms and watch 3 hours of com-
mercials, commentary, etc. mixed in with 1 hour of play, it will
continue. I only watch football on rare occasions but I watched my
first pro game on TV 20 years ago and it's incredible what they
have done to stretch out the game. And the season. It doesn't make
sense to play in 90 degree heat in August or -10 in January (in an
outdoor stadium up north) except that a longer season means more
profits for the TV networks. Not every Northern city can afford
the luxury of an enclosed stadium. 
  I read in TV Guide that the NFL is planning to speed up the game
a little. That sounds good, but the financial demands of TV will
never allow it to speed up to the point that people like me would
be interested.

The attraction of any televised "sport" (i.e., not meant to
include things like wrestling, etc., that are "pre-fixed":-))
is that, unlike almost every other show you watch on television,
NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT'S GOING TO TURN OUT!!  Even the "actors" (and
they're pretty ridiculous actors in football, a la the "dancing
Giants")!  You know that almost every other show is completely
unspontaneous and preordained--but NOT sports!

American football is probably the worst of the professional sports
in this country, in terms of spontaneity, since so many of the
players appear to be "ham actors" who've rehearsed their little
victory dances and hand-slapping routines ad nauseam prior to the
game.  Basketball, baseball (I mean, really, do you think Carlton
Fisk was thinking about what he looked like when he was jumping up
and down like a fool on that home-run in '75?), and even hockey are
much less corrupted by television...so far.

The only time I see something on television that's not Sports and
not totally predictable, it's a major disaster (like the Challenger,
or like that morning we watched the police blow the **** out of the
house where Patty Hearst and SLA were supposed to be).

    I am glad that MENNOTES has finally come to its senses and has a
    really important issue to discuss like football.  Let me begin by
    stating that North American football is the greatest team sport on the
    face of the earth.  What is that I hear--derisive laughter?  Ah,
    such is laughter of the unenlightened.
    
    No other sport involves so much strategy.  The reason for those
    "stoppages" is that in football, each side must constantly rethink
    its position and make new plans.  Thus we have the "huddle".  In
    boring continuous action sports, such as soccer and professional
    basketball, there is much in way of tactics, but little strategy.
    Even baseball, which is not a continuous action game, has fewer
    strategic decisions in the course of a game than football does.
    Football is a test of wills, as each team tries to out-think the other.
    Will the defense blitz this time?  Will the offense run or pass?
    In the Super Bowl, the Giants used two trick plays (the fake punt and
    the flea-flicker).  A trick play is a gambit, as in chess, is a concept
    that reflects the strategic nature of football.

    And no other sport offers anything as beautiful to watch as a completed
    long pass.

    Yes, football seems to go hand in hand with television.  But that is, again,
    due to the strategic nature of the game.  During the "stoppages"
    between plays you can review the previous play, in slow motion, with
    the television announcer circling key players on the screen and identifying 
    what you should look out for.  In continuous action games you don't have
    any time for that kind of ongoing analysis.

    There is no doubt that football games run too long.  And rules changes 
    have apparently made them longer (rules that encouraged forward passes
    meant that teams were passing more, which meant that teams were throwing
    more incomplete passes, which stopped the game clock more often).  The 
    Canadian football league has the right idea by using a shorter period
    of time between plays (something like 25 seconds, instead of 30), and
    allowing only one time out per half.  In fact, Canadian football has
    a lot of good ideas that the U.S. could adopt, but that is another
    subject.  In any case, Canadian football games do seem to run faster than
    U.S. games.

    It seems to me that the problem with so many sports nowadays is that they
    have been tinkering with the rules to include more scoring and less
    strategy.  The shot clock has ruined basketball and the designated
    hitter has ruined AL baseball.  The last bastion of thinking-man's sports
    is North American football.

    
    That is, if you ignore the fact the people are constantly getting
    their heads bashed in and being carried off on stretchers.
    
    --Mike

        Something tells me that the love of strategy is not the prime
        motivator for the vast audiences devoted to U.S. football...
        else one must wonder why it is that chess matches (a *true*
        "thinking man's sport") are so singularly *unpopular*.
        
        I think the last line of .30 encapsulates the love for football
        much more accurately: "people are constantly getting their
        heads bashed in and being carried off on stretchers".  As
        further evidence, notice the popularity of Stallone and Norris
        movies, which are very similar in basic intent.
        
        	/dave 

    Re: 32.
    
    	You might mention in passing (pun intended) Denver was beaten
    so badly they really shouldn't have taken the field, excelent
    quarterback or poor quarterback ;-)
    
    	I still enjoy college football and basketball, though I rarely
    spend much time watching same on the tube or in the stadium.  I
    have no time for the pro version of either sport.  They are nothing
    more, to me, than money machines as a result of their prostitution
    to TV.  It seems the average 60 minute football game takes better
    than 120 minutes to complete (ignoring half time pause).
    
    	Hockey, for my money, is as close as 'civilized' man has come
    to "Rollerball."  Sport for the blood of it!  Baseball is great!
    Talk about saving money on sleeping tablets!
    
    	Is chess a sport?  I enjoy palying chess and I also enjoy well
    televised matches but ...
    
    	Sports I enjoy?  Track and field.  Almost all events, including
    a well televised marathon.  The professional attempts at track and
    field, including the Boston Marathon, are not interesting to me.
    Too many of them have sold out to TV.
    
    	Most boring sport on the face of the earth?  Cricket.  I learned
    a bit about the game in India, as a member of the Peace Corps, and
    never enjoyed any aspect of it, including playing various positions
    (which I did very badly).
    
    Douglas

>    	Most boring sport on the face of the earth?  Cricket.  I learned
>    a bit about the game in India, as a member of the Peace Corps, and
>    never enjoyed any aspect of it, including playing various positions
>    (which I did very badly).


Speaks for itself.

Oh yeah? Well if it's so great how come the rest of the world ignores it in 
preference to the REAL people's sport of Football. Given that the behaviour of
most British supporters is more likely to start the Third World War, I
nevertheless still maintain that it is the one thing that unites the world!! 
eg when in a garage in Athens trying to communicate with the bloke fixing my
car, seeing a poster on the wall, I said "Olympiakos?" (a team from Athens)
	"Nai!"
	"Panathaniekos?" (the other team from Athens)
bloke spits on the ground, and says:
	"Manchester United? Liverpool?"
Me:	"Oxi! Oxi! West Ham!"
and smiles all round. See? It's an international language!

OK OK, I'll tell you what. I'll stop knocking it if you stop calling it 
"football". As a purist, we get football from "ball", a round thing, and "foot" 
the thing you generally use to propel it. Where are these things in your game?

As for cricket, this is a game that requires the most all round precision skill
that I have ever seen. It *is* slow, and the rules are very technical, but it's
always been that way! 

Tarik.

	No disrespect Suzanne, but you could begin by calling
	your football American Football, as its known throughout
	the rest (except Australia) world. And (not applying to
	you personally, Suzanne) you could recognise that American
	football is, in world terms, a minority sport, and stop
	bleating about it like it was the leading edge of all that
	is brilliant in the world of sport today!

Richard.

    
    Ok, ok, enough!!!!   We all have our sports and we probaly all use
    these for entertainment, relaxing, gambling, or whatever.  What
    good is it to beat each other over the head with mine_is_better_then_
    yours crap?  All sports are great!  We can enjoy 'em, get excited
    over 'em, scream at 'em, and let all our frustations out.
    
    In the States we like our football the way it is.  We also like
    our Soccer the way it is.  Chess?  never tried to watch a chess
    match although I could imagine the live version would be quite slow,
    I know what its like when I play :-)  Now, if we all agree that
    we enjoy our sports I think we can stop the "fighting".  OK?  There,
    now the international riff is patched :-)
    
    As for the base note, I am one who enjoys NFL football.  (Let us
    not forget Canadian Football, slightly different).  I do get annoyed
    with all the commericals, hipe, dollars, etc. but its still a game.
    I can go watch high school football to watch it in the purest sense
    but I enjoy a Sunday afternoon or a Monday night with the guys watching
    the game.
    
    How do we, both female and male, rank our sports?  Interesting.....
    
    GOG
    
    PS.  Suzanne....where were you when I was single....I would love
    for my wife to sitdown and enjoy a game....never will happen....
    
    

I'd like to make a point here:  I've seen some notes in here saying how football
is the greatest team sport on the face of the earth.  I think I can provide
facts to deny this claim.  In my opinion, the only "true" team sport is volley-
ball.


First, football, as with most "team" sports, can be dominated by an individual
if the person is of a tremendous caliber -- that is, he/she plays on a plane
very much higher than the other players around him/her.  In football, we have
O.J. Simpson as an example.  He took an absolutely horrible team, the Buffalo
Bills, and enabled them to win games they shouldn't have.  Let's face it, he
was awesome.  However, if you look at volleyball, you can look at Karch Kirali
as an example ( most say he is the best in the world ).  Now if you put him
on a team with people very much inferior to himself, he couldn't do anything
to help that team ( excepting sporadic plays ).  This is because volleyball is
a carefully orchestrated game, where each person must contribute towards the
play on every play ( when the game is played on the highest level ).  It is
impossible for one person to dominate.  And it takes a _complete_ team -- if
you have just one weak link, the other team will find it and exploit it ( if
they're any good! ).  You can't "hide" any substandard players in volleyball.


And look at the difficulties volleyball presents:  serves which curve or have
a "knuckler" effect, spikes coming at you at speeds over 100 mph ( even when
you're lucky enough to "dig" one of those, you're gonna feel it for awhile! ),
making sure everyone knows where to shift to after every hit of the ball, and
the incredibly precise timing required for many of those hits.  And so much
more I don't have time to list.  I've played both sports ( and many others ),
and I mastered football fairly quickly while I'm still constantly learning
about volleyball!


Now after all that, let me just say that I _love_ football and love to watch
it.  I'm not putting it down, I'm just saying that I think there are other
games much more challenging and much more team-oriented.  Be careful in your
use of superlatives -- there are always other opinions.


Brian

    
    RE .30 -- A Little Historical Footnote
    
    In the old days college teams simply lined up & called
    their plays. The was no huddle. However, one college team
    did not call their plays at the line. Instead, they formed
    a circle, & the QB drew the plays in the dirt. There were
    no audible signals either. Once the team set, they counted
    to themselves & took off. They won by a wide margin.
                               
    Now, the rest of the story...
                                
                                 
    The team that played & won was not considered a contender
    by any means. In fact the match was played as a favor. The
    opposing team made jokes in the first quarter, but were
    desperate at half time & depressed at the end. They copied
    the strategy and it became part of the game.
                               
    The team that won was composed of students who could not 
    hear. The huddle was created so that they could show who
    was to run where. The inaudible count was the only way they
    could get off the line without incurring a penalty. Their
    contribution to the strategy of football has been ignored,
    but to this day, with few exceptions, their tactic is repeated
    at every level of play.
                               
    And now you know.....the REST of the story
                               
                               
                               

    Re .48 -- Interesting story!

    As for the raging controversy about what to call the sport, I have
    heard both UK and Australian commentators refer to the American game as
    "gridiron" football.  This phrase is not ambiguous and avoids the
    objections raised against calling it "American football". (In the U.S.,
    "gridiron" is sometimes used to refer to the playing field, though not
    to the game itself.) Because this is an international network, perhaps
    we should try to be extra considerate about not using "local" terms
    that mean something different to the rest of the world.  As Oscar Wilde
    once said (not an exact quote), "The British and the Americans have a
    great deal in common, except of course for language." 
    
    By the way, I can think of several varieties of football that are played
    around the world, and I am sure there are several I have left out:
    
    North American (gridiron) varieties:
    	U.S. football
    	Canadian football
    Australian rules football (is there more than one variety?)
    Rugby:
        Rugby Union
    	Rugby League
    "Soccer" (the "real" football to much of the world)
    
    --Mike

    Suzanne:
    
    	Is it at all possible you, and some other lovers of this or
    that sport, are going a bit 'round the bend; as are some of the
    non-pro sports lovers?  Sporting events are sporting events.  Should
    they be elevated (lifted ;-) ) to a higher level?
    
    	I ask the question of you because of how flamed you became at
    a small, unimportant poke at the Bronco's.  
    
    Douglas

    re. 38
    
    If soccer is called football because they play with a round ball,
    and propel it with their feet, does that mean that cricket is 
    called cricket because they throw and hit crickets? :-)
    
    John (who rooted for the Broncos
          after they beat the Pats)
    

	RE:  .50


	I wasn't picking on anyone in particular.  I just thought I had read
several notes in that vein.  But after having read all 46 in one sitting, I
admit it gets hard to keep track ( I was "catching up" ).  So, sorry, but
I didn't intend to pick out anyone ( I couldn't in fact, because I couldn't
possibly remember who wrote what! ).


Brian

    Okay, I admit I was the one who said it was the greatest sport on
    the face of the earth.  I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but
    also I was responding (admittedly in knee-jerk fashion) to note
    after note bashing my favorite sport.  I just felt like taking the
    offensive.  I really do not mean to imply that any sport is *better*
    than any other; it is all a matter of personal taste.
    
    --Mike

	Re -1
	You eventually got the message!.....and there it was in the title
	all along! (eight shift six shift zero)

Richard.

    Re .-1
    
    Huh?

    
    keys:  <8><shift><6><shift><0> make:
    
    8^)

>    we should try to be extra considerate about not using "local" terms
>    that mean something different to the rest of the world.  

    This is a good point except that a lot of us don't realize the problem.
    To get "knocked up" in the morning, means two very different things
    between Americans and British (English??, I can't keep the two
    straight)  In England, its a wake-up call, but in America its, well,
    uh, very different.  To say you have a "bird under your bonnet"
    won't mean the same thing to each.  How many would know?  But, its
    a very good point to try and use "generic" terms, or explain.
    
    In this vein, before I went to Germany, football to me was plain
    old ovoid, oblong, eliptical, American football.  After I got to
    Germany, I found that football to a European was the same as soccer
    to Americans.  The german word for football/soccer is 'fussball',
    fuss meaning foot.  We lived close to a 'fussball stadion' (stadium)
    and I expected to find a stadium full of coin operated tables with
    little wooden soccer players.  Foosball tables.  I didn't see any.
    I guess I've had a sheltered life.  I would like to find a notefile
    on the differences between our languages.  Some of them are very
    humourous.
    
    I once heard a program on the radio.  It concerned a country hayseed
    who visited a big city and saw his first American football game.
    He couldn't figure out why 2 gangs of extremely muscular men would
    fight so hard over a ball that was so worn out that the ends were
    bulging.  They'd all get out in the middle of the pasture and form
    lines facing each other.  Then one guy would throw the ball back
    to a guy who obviously didn't want it.  The first chance he'd get,
    he'd throw it to someone else before the other gang jumped him for
    it.  About half of the gang would try to keep the other gang from
    beating him up because he had the ball and some of them would run
    way down the pasture to get away from the fight and then the guy
    would throw the ball to one of them and the other gang would start
    to chase him.  Once the other gang caught the guy with the ball
    and beat him to the ground, some guy in a striped shirt would just
    walk right up in the middle of the fight and pick up the ball. 
    He didn't have any muscles to speak of, but both gangs were afraid
    of him.  He would take the ball back out to the middle of the pasture
    and just set it down in the grass.  Neither gang would go get the
    ball now because this man in the striped shirt had put it there.
    Well, the gang that had the ball before must have gotten mad because
    he took it and they all went back aways and got in a circle to discuss
    what to do about it.  Then they all came back and did it all over
    again.  
    
    I'm not a big fan of football, I have better things to do.  During
    the Super Bowl, since the Broncos were playing, I figured that the
    ski slopes would be barren of people, so we went skiing.  We listened
    to part of the second inning and part of the intermission on the
    way to a restaurant after skiing.  We got updates of the score as
    points were made.  All we wanted was for the Broncos to win, we
    didn't care how they did it.  We DID wear our Bronco ski hats. 
    We root for the Broncos because they represent our state, nothing
    to do with how well they make goals. ;-)  
    
    I do wish we had a baseball team, though, but until then, how 'bout
    them Mets.
    
    Spence
    
    BTW, Keystone (ski area) was packed, as usual.