Re: Jimmie Johnson killed NASCAR

#21

"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

In article "Mike/Speeed" <SpeedracerREMOVE24 (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

"Chuck Steak" <Chuck_Steak (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message

We can find examples to illustrate either position,
however, the chances are much much greater that there
will be a closer battle WITH the chase.
Past championship races bear that out.

Since the chase started, each title could have been won
by as many as 5 guys, going in to the last race.
In the 20 years prior to that, that scenario never occured,
In fact, only half of them was it close to possible for the
second place driver to win.
7 times the winner won by over 200 points, meaning it was a lock
way before the end. 4 times it was over 350.
The highest was 489

Since the chase they have been won by
8, 35, 56, 69, 77.

"Manufactured Drama"...... Isn't it great?

whatever.

I would have expected better...

Geez Mike.
I spent 20 minutes doing research for my post,
you give me a 2 word response, and expected "better"??
Sorry.

Sorry Chuck, but your research made my point even easier to make - and it
was actually five words...

#22

"Rod's work news" <rod.gramlich (AT) ualberta (DOT) ca> wrote

Quote:

What is that makes folks like you so opposed to "The Chase" ?? ..... me
thinks it may have something to do with the age old, inherent human
problem of not being able to cope/deal with change. Not to worry
.......... you're not suffering alone - there a literally millions
afflicted.

It's shortsighted to assume resistance to some changes is a reflection of an
"inherent human problem of not being able to cope/deal with change". For
one - you consider it to be a "problem". Not really a firm foundation
you're standing on there Rod. For another - "not being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net

#23

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Rod's work news" <rod.gramlich (AT) ualberta (DOT) ca> wrote in message
news:hbkgis$sb9$1 (AT) tabloid (DOT) srv.ualberta.ca...

What is that makes folks like you so opposed to "The Chase" ?? ..... me
thinks it may have something to do with the age old, inherent human
problem of not being able to cope/deal with change. Not to worry
.......... you're not suffering alone - there a literally millions
afflicted.

It's shortsighted to assume resistance to some changes is a reflection of
an "inherent human problem of not being able to cope/deal with change".

Not really. It's a pretty well known behaviour.

For

Quote:

one - you consider it to be a "problem".

It definitely can be (the reverse can also be true, of course - depending on
what the change is)

Not really a firm foundation

Quote:

you're standing on there Rod.

I won't disagree - but that's partly the point. For those opposed (to the
chase), the prevalent argument seems to be, "it's not it was in the good old
days". That is equally not a firm foundation (imho).

For another - "not being able to cope/deal

Quote:

with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm sure
you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :>

Quote:

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net

#24

Rod's SHAW wrote:

Quote:

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

For another - "not being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm sure
you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :

Or, "it is what it is".

#25

"Rod's SHAW" <rod.gram (AT) removethis (DOT) shaw.ca> wrote

Quote:

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:4fd3c$4adfd289$6215adae$17987 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET...

It's shortsighted to assume resistance to some changes is a reflection of
an "inherent human problem of not being able to cope/deal with change".

Not really. It's a pretty well known behaviour.

Not really. Resistance to change is well known, but to identify that as an
inherent human problem is not at all well known.

Quote:

For
one - you consider it to be a "problem".

It definitely can be (the reverse can also be true, of course - depending
on what the change is)

That's the only reason I called out the use of the phrase "inherent human
problem".

Quote:

Not really a firm foundation
you're standing on there Rod.

I won't disagree - but that's partly the point. For those opposed (to the
chase), the prevalent argument seems to be, "it's not it was in the good
old days". That is equally not a firm foundation (imho).

I agree.

Quote:

For another - "not being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm sure
you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :

I also agree re: the ongoing debate. I was no supporter of the Chase (as
most here know), but that battle has been lost. Time to find a new war to
fight.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net

#26

"TS02_05champ" <tonystewart02_05champ (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Rod's SHAW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote For another - "not
being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm
sure you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :

Or, "it is what it is".

And "It ain't what its not."

#27

"TS02_05champ" <tonystewart02_05champ (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Rod's SHAW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote For another - "not
being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm
sure you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :

Or, "it is what it is".

Or ( r u ready for this) ...........

"It is what it is, ... deal with it"

#28

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

"Rod's SHAW" <rod.gram (AT) removethis (DOT) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EuQDm.11980$Hn5.8758 (AT) newsfe23 (DOT) iad...

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:4fd3c$4adfd289$6215adae$17987 (AT) ALLTEL (DOT) NET...

It's shortsighted to assume resistance to some changes is a reflection
of an "inherent human problem of not being able to cope/deal with
change".

Not really. It's a pretty well known behaviour.

Not really. Resistance to change is well known, but to identify that as
an inherent human problem is not at all well known.

ok ............ how about 'inherent human characteristic'

?:<

#29

"TS02_05champ" <tonystewart02_05champ (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Rod's SHAW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote For another - "not
being able to cope/deal
with" is an almost laughable assumption.

No more laughable than the ongoing debate about the chase format. I'm
sure you're familar with the old saying, "deal with it" :

Or, "it is what it is".

Doesn't change the fact that it "is" currently stupid.