Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56807 > unrolled thread

OT: Congratulations Canuckistan!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-02-21 14:10 -0500
    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-21 19:55 +0000
      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-02-23 00:37 -0500
    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-21 15:46 -0500
    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-21 16:34 -0500
    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-02-22 00:35 -0500
      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-22 15:49 -0500
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 21:31 +0000
          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-22 21:54 +0000
            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-22 22:16 +0000
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-23 02:37 +0000
                Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-23 02:50 +0000
                  Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 03:42 +0000
                    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 05:05 +0000
                      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 05:57 +0000
                        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 16:16 +0000
                          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 11:55 -0500
                          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:25 +0000
                            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 23:18 +0000
                              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 07:41 +0000
                          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2014-02-25 11:04 -0800
                            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 20:08 +0000
                              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 21:35 +0000
                            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-25 15:18 -0500
                            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-25 21:35 +0000
                      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 16:43 -0500
                        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 16:52 -0500
                        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-24 22:22 +0000
                        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-25 00:48 +0000
                Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-02-24 13:06 +0100
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-22 19:29 -0500
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-23 04:09 +0000
    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-23 15:55 +0000
      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-23 12:35 -0500
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 03:44 +0000
          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-02-24 07:10 +0000
            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 10:49 +0000
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-02-24 19:55 +0000
                Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:21 +0000
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 16:59 -0500
                Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:23 +0000
                  Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-02-25 00:29 +0000
                    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 07:25 +0000
                  Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-24 20:23 -0500
                    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-02-25 04:34 +0000
                    Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 07:29 +0000
            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-02-25 10:05 -0500
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-25 20:08 +0000
          Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 08:37 -0500
            Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-02-24 20:52 +0000
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-24 17:14 -0500
              Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 22:24 +0000
      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-02-23 12:57 -0500
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-23 13:32 -0500
      Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-23 15:31 -0600
        Re: OT: Congratulations Canuckistan! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-02-23 19:08 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#57073

Jolly Roger wrote:

> I didn't say they hated IKEA. I said IKEA is crap.

And your recommendation would be?

This is not an idle question, as we're about to redo our kitchen, and 
anything we've found that's better looks to be about three times the price.

Paul Magnussen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57078

In message <6-ednXbQhMSgdJHOnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
  Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>> I didn't say they hated IKEA. I said IKEA is crap.

> And your recommendation would be?

> This is not an idle question, as we're about to redo our kitchen, and 
> anything we've found that's better looks to be about three times the price.

That was our take. We went with the IKEA kitchen.

-- 
I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57087

On 2014-02-25, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <6-ednXbQhMSgdJHOnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>   Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> I didn't say they hated IKEA. I said IKEA is crap.
>
>> And your recommendation would be?
>
>> This is not an idle question, as we're about to redo our kitchen, and 
>> anything we've found that's better looks to be about three times the price.
>
> That was our take. We went with the IKEA kitchen.

Naturally, if cost is your primary concern, you'll love places like
IKEA.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57079

In article <6-ednXbQhMSgdJHOnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > I didn't say they hated IKEA. I said IKEA is crap.
> 
> And your recommendation would be?
> 
> This is not an idle question, as we're about to redo our kitchen, and 
> anything we've found that's better looks to be about three times the price.
> 
> Paul Magnussen

That depends where you live and how much research you do. We went 
through that twice, and both times we came up with better looking, more 
durable, and better priced stuff than Ikea. Once was in Montreal from an 
independent kitchen place; then again in Ontario from (believe it or 
not) Rona.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57086

On 2014-02-25, Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> I didn't say they hated IKEA. I said IKEA is crap.
>
> And your recommendation would be?

I'm not qualified to make such recommendations; but in general, I tend
to prefer real wood over particle board, high-quality metal over Chinese
crap metal, and so on. I also tend to prefer American-made furniture
over most things imported. But that's just me.

> This is not an idle question, as we're about to redo our kitchen, and 
> anything we've found that's better looks to be about three times the price.

"You get what you pay for" does apply in a whole lot of circumstances.
Good luck!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56986

On 14-02-24 00:05, Jolly Roger wrote:

> I'm talking about actual Swedes *in Sweden*.

They don't exist. They have all moved to North America to play hockey in
the NHL :-)

This is a bit why the "professional" olympics are strange because you
have team mates from one NHL team playing against each other because of
where they were born.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56988

In article <530bbcf9$0$45927$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> This is a bit why the "professional" olympics are strange because you
> have team mates from one NHL team playing against each other because of
> where they were born.

They get into fights too ...
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56998

On 2014-02-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-02-24 00:05, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about actual Swedes *in Sweden*.
>
> They don't exist. They have all moved to North America to play hockey in
> the NHL :-)

I'll be sure to tell them that. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57037

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> This is a bit why the "professional" olympics are strange because you
> have team mates from one NHL team playing against each other because of
> where they were born.

Stranger yet is the fact that the Canadian olympic men's hockey team 
consists of players from 16 different NHL teams, and who get into 
fistfights with each other during NHL games.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56962

On 2014-02-23, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> As for the Swedes, I see a lot of them in IKEA (I knew, because they're
> speaking Swedish) shopping for stuff.

They'll be there for the Swedish style meatballs in the restaurant. :-)

--
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56873

In article <53090d6f$0$9270$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-02-22 00:35, Davoud wrote:
> 
> > That puts me in a bind. I have friends in Canada and in Sweden, and Im
> > already under pressure on Facebook to pick a side.
> 
> 
> The Swedes don't need a gold medal, they already have their Saunas with
> naked blue eyed long haired blonde females with perfect bodies. They
> also have IKEA.

So what you are saying is that you have take the good with bad?
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56880

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The Swedes don't need a gold medal, they already have their Saunas

Isn't that the Finns?

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56896

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> Gold medal game, Canada vs. Sweden, on Sunday.

We win! 3-0!

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56908

On 2014.02.23, 10:55 , Király wrote:
> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>> Gold medal game, Canada vs. Sweden, on Sunday.
>
> We win! 3-0!

I connected to the game about 1 minute before the 3rd goal.

The Swedes were overwhelmed ... in the 3rd period they had 4 shots on 
goal.  On their powerplay they almost got scored on...

Price: over 8 periods of play without letting a puck by.

Canada's had a respectable haul of medals to be sure.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56943

In message <U5Kdnd8eRuLUrJfOnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.02.23, 10:55 , Király wrote:
>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>>> Gold medal game, Canada vs. Sweden, on Sunday.
>>
>> We win! 3-0!

> I connected to the game about 1 minute before the 3rd goal.

> The Swedes were overwhelmed ... in the 3rd period they had 4 shots on 
> goal.  On their powerplay they almost got scored on...

> Price: over 8 periods of play without letting a puck by.

> Canada's had a respectable haul of medals to be sure.

The only thing I know about the Olympics is that the US Media is
reporting that the US came in second in medal count and the rest of the
world is (rightly) reporting they came in 4th.

-- 
By the authority vested in me by Kaiser William II, I pronounce you man
and wife. Proceed with the execution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56956

In article <slrnlglg1c.fcb.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
Lewis  <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>The only thing I know about the Olympics is that the US Media is
>reporting that the US came in second in medal count and the rest of the
>world is (rightly) reporting they came in 4th.


I guess you don't count Time Magazine as part of the "US Media"?
Headline: "U.S. Fourth In Sochi Gold Medal Count"

Or the New York Times?
Russia
Norway
Canada
United States

Or the L.A. Times?
Russia  
Norway  
Canada  
United States

I don't see that there's an inherently "right" way to count. 
Total medals is more logical to me, because only counting gold 
medals seems disrespectful to silver and bronze winners. But
I know that some people prefer that method, so I can't see how 
anyone can claim that either method is the only "right" one.


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56961

In message <530af05f$0$52744$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> 
  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnlglg1c.fcb.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
> Lewis  <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>The only thing I know about the Olympics is that the US Media is
>>reporting that the US came in second in medal count and the rest of the
>>world is (rightly) reporting they came in 4th.


> I guess you don't count Time Magazine as part of the "US Media"?
> Headline: "U.S. Fourth In Sochi Gold Medal Count"

I was thinking of the broadcasts, actually. I overheard national news
and two local newscasts yesterday, all said the US finished second.

> I don't see that there's an inherently "right" way to count. 
> Total medals is more logical to me, because only counting gold 
> medals seems disrespectful to silver and bronze winners. But
> I know that some people prefer that method, so I can't see how 
> anyone can claim that either method is the only "right" one.

The official count is Gold, then silver, then bronze.

So, if country A has 4 7 3 and country be has 4 3 12, country A "won"


-- 
I know it all. I just can't remember it simultaneously.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56977

In article <slrnlgm8u2.94e.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
Lewis  <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>The official count is Gold, then silver, then bronze.

Is that in the IOC's rules?


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56996

In message <530ba3c5$0$52824$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> 
  Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <slrnlgm8u2.94e.g.kreme@amelia.local>,
> Lewis  <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>The official count is Gold, then silver, then bronze.

> Is that in the IOC's rules?

It is how the IOC lists the medal counts. I've never had the slightest
inclination to read their rules.

-- 
And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew
them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56991

On 14-02-24 05:49, Lewis wrote:

> I was thinking of the broadcasts, actually. I overheard national news
> and two local newscasts yesterday, all said the US finished second.

I never understood why NBC, who is unable to cover olympics properly
keeps getting the contracts.

Still remember for the Sydney 2000 games, NBC not only didn't air the
opening ceremonies live, but on the US morning show, aired AFTER the
real opening ceremonies, the announcers pretended the opening ceremonies
had not been held yet and would be held "tonight".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web