Re: Merger: round 2

#11

You seem to get it. Why not the dot?

#12

"SG" <spaamtrapper (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"." <. (AT) dot (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Uy%Uf.1184$qd.654 (AT) fed1read08 (DOT) ..
"Period" <haysooce (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1143243447.112003.142290 (AT) j33g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
CCWS needs the IRL as much as the IRL needs CCWS.

We have all known one series would be better for all
concerned since ,
oh...I guess...1998. KK said Tony was much more receptive
(this time)
since all the guys that shunned him in the early 90s are now
gone from
CCWS.

I guess they are all in the IRL now. ;-)

Oh yeah, fewer races, fewer drivers, fewer teams,
fewer venues, fewer telecasts, fewer opportunities ...
are all just so much better for all concerned aren't they.

So, do you think one series would be better for all, or not?

The Latin phrase 'res ipsa loquitur' applies.

Every time I consider I've at long last finally witnessed the
very depths of ignominious stupidity, some poor soul comes
along with a post that once again sets yet another standard.

"... but I don't mean that in a bad way" - Dom Irrera

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Re: Merger: round 2

Indy Car motor racing Discussions About Indy Car motor racing (rec.autos.sport.indy)

Re: Merger: round 2 - 03-24-2006 , 08:18 PM

Re: Merger: round 2 - 03-25-2006 , 12:42 PM