From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Tue Jun 27 23:47:09 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5RMkHF00198 for britdisc-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:46:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@snowdrop [137.205.192.31]) by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5RMkFe00192 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:46:15 +0100 (BST) Received: from hose.pipex.net (hose.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.58]) by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5RMkAY19569 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:46:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from oemcomputer (userap91.uk.uudial.com [62.188.136.52]) by hose.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EB15E46B1 for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:46:05 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003c01bfe08a$3b96a3e0$3488bc3e@oemcomputer> From: "Si and/or Jack" <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net> To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <40BC86874C46D4118D7D0000F8023F0D57B568@GB-CHW-MAIL2> <008101bfdfdc$5ba1e900$c59b7ed4@default> Subject: Re: Tour III - nanny state rule and its exploitation Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:36:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk I think its great that BD has come back to live in recent weeks. Here are some other comments (nothing very controversial!). 1. When I first saw what was going on between DSM and BAF I was quite outspoken with BAF about what I thought (not entirely unusual for me). Some time later I learnt that it was all written down in the rules for the tourney: a) Tour events are not supposed to have rules of their own - one of the reasons for having the tour is to standardise across main events - can't work out how this situation came to happen. That said - if its written down - we can hardly complain. b) I disagree with it (see below) - but if its in the rules - then hey! - thanks to anybody for taking the trouble to run a tournament, write things down and generally try to move things in the direction they believe to be correct. c) I am extremely embarrased and would like to apologise to BAF for my rudeness - (I already mentioned this to Chris who received the main brunt of my displeasure on Sunday morning!) 2. Please don't compare ultimate with Euro 2000: a) its nonsense b) it makes me nervous about our game against Denmark to reach the quarter-finals/top-8 on Monday 7th August. 3. Here's my story - (Stu did this, so I can too) - hope you can see the point! At Ross several years ago a new team of crap players called Catch 22 had to play the mighty Shotgun - who turned up with 4 (or maybe 5) players - I think the others were busy sitting down. Excited at the prospect we immediately realised that we should play 7 against 4 - hey! that would teach them. I spoke with some American-sounding bloke about this. Not wanting to betray my true colours I suggested that maybe "we'd give them a better game than if we played 4 against 4". He tried to hide his amusement and said that would be fine. About 15 minutes later I could see why he had been laughing - although I think we did score one or two points. My feeling (and I think this went for much of the team) was that if we couldn't even beat them 7 against 4 then it was our privelige to get the chance to play them at all. Our response to this (and other similar drubbings) was to go away and practice. Eventually, (quite a few years later) we beat them - just! Thanks to Skunks for a brilliant tourney. Si (Catch 22)