Steve Williams

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 27 Aug 2006 12:51:18
From: CinderellaBoy
Subject: Steve Williams

Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
of the vest....

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:24:27
From: Tighthead
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> >
> >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
>
> If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:01:54
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Here we go again. Another leftists trying to set the standard of what
is enough. "Enough for anyone"? I think I am going to hurl. This guy
would remove the profit motive from our economy and we would be Sweden
so fast your head would spin. High taxes, higher welfare. Plus
Dhimmitude because these lefties will not stand firm agains Islamic
terrorism.

I peg Steve Williams at about $300K. Plus expenses. Plus he gets a lot
of time off.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> They do - look at most of them and they have their player's sponsorships
> on their hats too.
>
> Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
> not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.
>
> William Clark

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:12:30
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156741314.702696.318470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Here we go again. Another leftists trying to set the standard of what
> is enough. "Enough for anyone"? I think I am going to hurl. This guy
> would remove the profit motive from our economy and we would be Sweden
> so fast your head would spin. High taxes, higher welfare. Plus
> Dhimmitude because these lefties will not stand firm agains Islamic
> terrorism.
>
> I peg Steve Williams at about $300K. Plus expenses. Plus he gets a lot
> of time off.
>
> Ken
>
Let's see, have you ever LIVED in one of these countries you have this
cliched vision of? I thought not.

If Steve Williams earns only $300K a year, you should be running the
Treasury Department. Seems like your prejudice would go well with their
incompetence.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:08:04
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Bow Tie" wrote:
<neocon swill snipped >
> I peg Steve Williams at about $300K. Plus expenses. Plus he gets a lot
> of time off.

How do you figure that?

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:45:58
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
hit a lick.

"From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.

I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 21:24:36 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> >modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> >in a lifetime.
> >
> >Bobby is right,
> >
> >You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> >move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
> >
> >Ken
>
> No, Ken. I didn't call him a Communist. Read my post carefully. I
> said that his post gave neocons the chance to call him a liberal
> pinko.
>
> This is a great example of you misunderstanding, or altering,
> someone's words. I don't think you intend to do it, but it happens.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:08:03
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
> guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
> hit a lick.
>
> "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
> Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
> motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
> never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
>
> I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
> 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
> will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.

Most likely, the amount of money you make isn't worth anyone worrying about
where it should go.

Who cares what time you'll be at your desk?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:02:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156740358.605115.4620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
> guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
> hit a lick.
>
> "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
> Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
> motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
> never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
>
> I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
> 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
> will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.
>
> Ken
>
Moronic nonsense, Ken. You need to get this chip off your shoulder
before it makes you fall down.

Oh, by the way, by 6:15 this morning I had already completed editorial
changes on a publication of considerable technical importance. That is
after having spent the weekend working on it. You need to get your head
out of the sand about what goes on in our Universities, and the
workloads of those that work in them.

William Clark

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:26:48
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Williams does not earn a fortune. Light up another bowl, Comrade.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> If the player did it by ripping off his shirt on the 18th green to
> reveal a sponsor's logo on his chest, that would be stopped immediately.
> Williams earns a fortune from Tiger's winnings and sponsorships - why
> does he NEED this crass and tasteless way to earn more?
>
> William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:18:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156739208.897984.71000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Williams does not earn a fortune. Light up another bowl, Comrade.
>
> Ken
>

Tell you what, Ken, let's try this quote:

" . . New Zealander Steve Williams has even started his own charitable
foundation using some of the several million dollars he has earned
toting Woods' bag. . . " (Steve Sailer, UPI, 12/4/03)

Now tell me your source for the $300K a year nonsense. Otherwise, why
not trot out a few more tired old epithets - they substitute well for
rwal thought.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:08:04
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> Williams does not earn a fortune. Light up another bowl, Comrade.

I'm sure that you and Larry are in the far righthand wingtips of the annual
income and net worth distributions. In fact, I'm looking at that data right
now and can see both of your fellows' datapoints!

Ken, you must be a real charmer in your binary world. If anyone says
something you don't like, you relentlessly insult them. If they agree with
your philosophy, they're the best of friends.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:24:36
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
in a lifetime.

Bobby is right,

You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <uug4f2tvggg6l62qoaii79e2hut6r3te39@4ax.com>,
> Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> > >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> > >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> > >
> > >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> > >
> > >William Clark
> >
> >
> > I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> > on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
> >
> > If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> > Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> > ___,
> > \o
> >

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:29:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On 27 Aug 2006 21:24:36 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
>modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
>in a lifetime.
>
>Bobby is right,
>
>You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
>move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
>
>Ken

No, Ken. I didn't call him a Communist. Read my post carefully. I
said that his post gave neocons the chance to call him a liberal
pinko.

This is a great example of you misunderstanding, or altering,
someone's words. I don't think you intend to do it, but it happens.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:58:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <82s4f29elhmkfl74j9k4cgir4r7t3nkg5j@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2006 21:24:36 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> >modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> >in a lifetime.
> >
> >Bobby is right,
> >
> >You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> >move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
> >
> >Ken
>
> No, Ken. I didn't call him a Communist. Read my post carefully. I
> said that his post gave neocons the chance to call him a liberal
> pinko.

Thank you, Bobby. I think Ken just made your point perfectly. Name
calling is always so much easier than gathering accurate information and
constructing a logical position.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156739076.859686.106120@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> in a lifetime.
>
> Bobby is right,
>
> You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <uug4f2tvggg6l62qoaii79e2hut6r3te39@4ax.com>,
> > Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> > > >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> > > >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> > > >
> > > >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> > > >
> > > >William Clark
> > >
> > >
> > > I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> > > on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
> > >
> > > If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> > > Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> > > ___,
> > > \o
> > >

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:26:41
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> Sorry, but there is no way Steve makes only $300K a year. Quite apart
> from his percentage of TW's enormous winnings, he gets various retainers
> from Tiger's sponsors, and he gets appearance fees at various golf
> outings etc. This is a man who has enough money to a) start his own
> charitable foundation in NZ to assist junior golfers, and b) can afford
> to run his own stock car racing team, for which he often drives in NZ.
> He is reported to be New Zealand's highest paid sportsman, in a country
> where Rugby players, among others, earn $400-500K a year. $300K a year
> would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> local community college.
<snip >

William, are you sure about the level of annual pay (in USD) you cite above
for college professors?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 09:30:26
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <5iBIg.1037$N84.524@trnddc08 >, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net>
wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> > Sorry, but there is no way Steve makes only $300K a year. Quite apart
> > from his percentage of TW's enormous winnings, he gets various retainers
> > from Tiger's sponsors, and he gets appearance fees at various golf
> > outings etc. This is a man who has enough money to a) start his own
> > charitable foundation in NZ to assist junior golfers, and b) can afford
> > to run his own stock car racing team, for which he often drives in NZ.
> > He is reported to be New Zealand's highest paid sportsman, in a country
> > where Rugby players, among others, earn $400-500K a year. $300K a year
> > would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> > local community college.
> <snip>
>
>
> William, are you sure about the level of annual pay (in USD) you cite above
> for college professors?

Maybe I should have added a smiley - it is really tough to squeak by on
$300K a year.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 02:13:09
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

> > "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> > > Sorry, but there is no way Steve makes only $300K a year. Quite apart
> > > from his percentage of TW's enormous winnings, he gets various
retainers
> > > from Tiger's sponsors, and he gets appearance fees at various golf
> > > outings etc. This is a man who has enough money to a) start his own
> > > charitable foundation in NZ to assist junior golfers, and b) can
afford
> > > to run his own stock car racing team, for which he often drives in NZ.
> > > He is reported to be New Zealand's highest paid sportsman, in a
country
> > > where Rugby players, among others, earn $400-500K a year. $300K a year
> > > would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> > > local community college.
> > <snip>

JJK wrote:
> > William, are you sure about the level of annual pay (in USD) you cite
above
> > for college professors?

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> Maybe I should have added a smiley - it is really tough to squeak by on
> $300K a year.

Thankfully, I'll never have to know.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:26:01
From: Daisy
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

(snip)

>Sorry, but there is no way Steve makes only $300K a year. Quite apart
>from his percentage of TW's enormous winnings, he gets various retainers
>from Tiger's sponsors, and he gets appearance fees at various golf
>outings etc. This is a man who has enough money to a) start his own
>charitable foundation in NZ to assist junior golfers, and b) can afford
>to run his own stock car racing team, for which he often drives in NZ.
>He is reported to be New Zealand's highest paid sportsman, in a country
>where Rugby players, among others, earn $400-500K a year. $300K a year
>would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
>local community college.

The above post is accurate as to Steve Williams probable earnings. I
live in NZ and it is well known here that he is the highest paid local
sportsperson.

>
>I believe that it is you who would be more at home in North Korea. For
>certain, your comprehension of basic economics is right in line with
>their "economic miracle".
>
>William Clark

Daisy

Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!

Date: 29 Aug 2006 04:15:47
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> $300K a year
> would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> local community college.

You can't be serious.
My stepdaughter is on the faculty of UC Berkeley, and I just called
her: an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, not a community college
by a long shot, makes in the neighborhood of 60K. Top.
Full professors start at under 100K.
300K is unthinkable for a professorship, unless it's some
super-endowed chair in the hard sciences, and even then, that's a
considerable stretch.
No community college official or professor in California makes
anywhere near 300K a year. And California academic salaries are not
the bottom of the barrel, either.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:57:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <jef7f21qml50smtnl3a6jcvkqu8edujfro@4ax.com >,
Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > $300K a year
> > would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> > local community college.
>
> You can't be serious.
> My stepdaughter is on the faculty of UC Berkeley, and I just called
> her: an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, not a community college
> by a long shot, makes in the neighborhood of 60K. Top.
> Full professors start at under 100K.
> 300K is unthinkable for a professorship, unless it's some
> super-endowed chair in the hard sciences, and even then, that's a
> considerable stretch.
> No community college official or professor in California makes
> anywhere near 300K a year. And California academic salaries are not
> the bottom of the barrel, either.

God help us, do we HAVE to put smileys on every mildly ironic post? My
point was that getting the kind of income Steve Williams gets for
carrying a bag around a golf course should satisfy anyone. Almost any
PhD academic I know would willingly trade incomes and working hours with
him.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:27:50
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:57:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> In article <jef7f21qml50smtnl3a6jcvkqu8edujfro@4ax.com>,
> Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > $300K a year
> > > would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> > > local community college.
> >
> > You can't be serious.
> > My stepdaughter is on the faculty of UC Berkeley, and I just called
> > her: an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, not a community college
> > by a long shot, makes in the neighborhood of 60K. Top.
> > Full professors start at under 100K.
> > 300K is unthinkable for a professorship, unless it's some
> > super-endowed chair in the hard sciences, and even then, that's a
> > considerable stretch.
> > No community college official or professor in California makes
> > anywhere near 300K a year. And California academic salaries are not
> > the bottom of the barrel, either.
>
> God help us, do we HAVE to put smileys on every mildly ironic post? My
> point was that getting the kind of income Steve Williams gets for
> carrying a bag around a golf course should satisfy anyone. Almost any
> PhD academic I know would willingly trade incomes and working hours with
> him.
>
Usually I catch irony when it shows up, and I must confess that I
missed it completely in your post.
Mea maxima culpa. Please. Use the leather...

Date: 29 Aug 2006 20:25:24
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <aaj9f2tu1ko1iii0ss4frjk6707n9vu0gf@4ax.com >,
Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:57:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <jef7f21qml50smtnl3a6jcvkqu8edujfro@4ax.com>,
> > Peter Strauss <pfs126@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:56:47 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > $300K a year
> > > > would barely pay for a first year assistant professor in English at a
> > > > local community college.
> > >
> > > You can't be serious.
> > > My stepdaughter is on the faculty of UC Berkeley, and I just called
> > > her: an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, not a community college
> > > by a long shot, makes in the neighborhood of 60K. Top.
> > > Full professors start at under 100K.
> > > 300K is unthinkable for a professorship, unless it's some
> > > super-endowed chair in the hard sciences, and even then, that's a
> > > considerable stretch.
> > > No community college official or professor in California makes
> > > anywhere near 300K a year. And California academic salaries are not
> > > the bottom of the barrel, either.
> >
> > God help us, do we HAVE to put smileys on every mildly ironic post? My
> > point was that getting the kind of income Steve Williams gets for
> > carrying a bag around a golf course should satisfy anyone. Almost any
> > PhD academic I know would willingly trade incomes and working hours with
> > him.
> >
> Usually I catch irony when it shows up, and I must confess that I
> missed it completely in your post.
> Mea maxima culpa. Please. Use the leather...

No problem - but be careful admitting to any weakness or mistake on rsg.
The vultures will be on you like road kill.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:08:26
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article
<clark.31-95D0F5.07564728082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >,
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> In article <1156739076.859686.106120@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> > modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> > in a lifetime.
> >
> > Bobby is right,
> >
> > You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> > move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <uug4f2tvggg6l62qoaii79e2hut6r3te39@4ax.com>,
> > > Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> > > > >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> > > > >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> > > > >
> > > > >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> > > > >
> > > > >William Clark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> > > > on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
> > > >
> > > > If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> > > > Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> > > > ___,
> > > > \o
> > > >

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:25:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <marti285-82E927.15082628082006@lenny.tc.umn.edu >,
marti285@umn.edu wrote:

> In article
> <clark.31-95D0F5.07564728082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <1156739076.859686.106120@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> > > modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> > > in a lifetime.
> > >
> > > Bobby is right,
> > >
> > > You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> > > move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > In article <uug4f2tvggg6l62qoaii79e2hut6r3te39@4ax.com>,
> > > > Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > > > > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline,
> > > > > >>so
> > > > > >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the
> > > > > >Valvoline
> > > > > >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >William Clark
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> > > > > on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> > > > > Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> > > > > ___,
> > > > > \o
> > > > >

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:15:40
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:11:38
From: art_classmn
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:

> Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.

Considering the amount of PGA coverage devoted to boner medication, I
don't really find Stevie's conduct tacky.

There are rules on caddy attire. As long as they are followed, no
harm, no foul. The PGA tour survives because of sponsors. Williams
wearing logos is no different.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:47:17
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

CinderellaBoy wrote:
> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....

Along with the book stevie wrote, this is another reason why i think
tiger is gonna can him pretty soon. Players don't like famous caddies.
As smart as tiger is, he doesn't need a caddy for advice anyway. All
he needs is some big guy to act as body-guard and bag carrier.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:35:46
From: WhiteOut
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"CinderellaBoy" <jbahel@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156708278.738061.202290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....
>

one of the announcers mentioned this--seemed to think it was more of a bit
of gamesmanship than anything else...

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156708278.738061.202290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
"CinderellaBoy" <jbahel@aol.com > wrote:

> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....

Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.

Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.

William Clark

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:24:23
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Seems a bit curous to me.

Why should a player be able to leverage sponsorhip for tens of millions of
dollars but the caddy can't?

Otto

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-B546F3.21012727082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
>
> Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
>
> William Clark

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:59:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <WArIg.26678$j8.9033@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> Seems a bit curous to me.
>
> Why should a player be able to leverage sponsorhip for tens of millions of
> dollars but the caddy can't?
>
> Otto
>
>
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-B546F3.21012727082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> > he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> > logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> >
> > Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> >
> > William Clark

If the player did it by ripping off his shirt on the 18th green to
reveal a sponsor's logo on his chest, that would be stopped immediately.
Williams earns a fortune from Tiger's winnings and sponsorships - why
does he NEED this crass and tasteless way to earn more?

William Clark

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:07:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:59:01 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <WArIg.26678$j8.9033@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Seems a bit curous to me.
>>
>> Why should a player be able to leverage sponsorhip for tens of millions of
>> dollars but the caddy can't?
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-B546F3.21012727082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
>> > he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
>> > logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
>> >
>> > Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>
>If the player did it by ripping off his shirt on the 18th green to
>reveal a sponsor's logo on his chest, that would be stopped immediately.
>Williams earns a fortune from Tiger's winnings and sponsorships - why
>does he NEED this crass and tasteless way to earn more?
>
>William Clark

Because he can.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:40:13
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very
well payed working stiff.

Otto wrote:
> Seems a bit curous to me.
>
> Why should a player be able to leverage sponsorhip for tens of millions of
> dollars but the caddy can't?
>
> Otto
>
>
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-B546F3.21012727082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
>> he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
>> logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
>>
>> Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
>>
>> William Clark
>
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:49:49
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/444029p-373972c.html

>m h o
>=A0v =83 e

>d r i v i n g =A0l e s s =A0l o w e r s =A0g a s =A0p r i c e s =A0

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:50:04
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

The tour players are also paid quite well.

Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the grunts
carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't have
sponsors?

Otto

"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very well
> payed working stiff.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:00:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <_YrIg.26686$j8.5655@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> The tour players are also paid quite well.
>
> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the grunts
> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't have
> sponsors?
>
> Otto
>
>
>
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very well
> > payed working stiff.

They do - look at most of them and they have their player's sponsorships
on their hats too.

Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:15:23
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <_YrIg.26686$j8.5655@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The tour players are also paid quite well.
>>
>> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the grunts
>> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't have
>> sponsors?
>>
>> Otto
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very well
>>> payed working stiff.
>
> They do - look at most of them and they have their player's sponsorships
> on their hats too.
>
> Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
> not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.

Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
earned enough according to someone else's standard?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:10:26
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <J6ednTrXdozTTW_ZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <_YrIg.26686$j8.5655@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The tour players are also paid quite well.
> >>
> >> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the
> >> grunts
> >> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't
> >> have
> >> sponsors?
> >>
> >> Otto
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> >> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very
> >>> well
> >>> payed working stiff.
> >
> > They do - look at most of them and they have their player's sponsorships
> > on their hats too.
> >
> > Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
> > not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.
>
> Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
> earned enough according to someone else's standard?

If he paid me seven figures a year, I'd be happy to say "enough". What
do you do with your income above the $1,000,000 mark?

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:03:17
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-6BFB7E.08102628082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <J6ednTrXdozTTW_ZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > In article <_YrIg.26686$j8.5655@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> > "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The tour players are also paid quite well.
>> >>
>> >> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the
>> >> grunts
>> >> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance
>> >> can't
>> >> have
>> >> sponsors?
>> >>
>> >> Otto
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >>> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very
>> >>> well
>> >>> payed working stiff.
>> >
>> > They do - look at most of them and they have their player's
>> > sponsorships
>> > on their hats too.
>> >
>> > Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
>> > not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.
>>
>> Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
>> earned enough according to someone else's standard?
>
> If he paid me seven figures a year, I'd be happy to say "enough". What
> do you do with your income above the $1,000,000 mark?
>
> William Clark

A million bucks dosent buy what it used to considering the median house
prices these days are close to 300K.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:29:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <J6ednTrXdozTTW_ZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <_YrIg.26686$j8.5655@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The tour players are also paid quite well.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the
>>>> grunts
>>>> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't
>>>> have
>>>> sponsors?
>>>>
>>>> Otto
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very
>>>>> well
>>>>> payed working stiff.
>>> They do - look at most of them and they have their player's sponsorships
>>> on their hats too.
>>>
>>> Besides, how much do you think Steve earns in a year? I guarantee it is
>>> not less than seven figures. Enough for anyone.
>> Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
>> earned enough according to someone else's standard?
>
> If he paid me seven figures a year, I'd be happy to say "enough". What
> do you do with your income above the $1,000,000 mark?

I dream about it.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:08:04
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Bert Robbins" wrote:
> Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
> earned enough according to someone else's standard?

I don't think William Clark meant that. His suggestion may have been
restricted to the way Steve makes money pushing Valvoline. Frankly, ripping
the bib off to show the sponsor emblems seems pretty silly and cheap.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 09:31:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <E0BIg.1035$N84.888@trnddc08 >, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net>
wrote:

> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
> > Do you ask your employer to stop paying you every year when you have
> > earned enough according to someone else's standard?
>
> I don't think William Clark meant that. His suggestion may have been
> restricted to the way Steve makes money pushing Valvoline. Frankly, ripping
> the bib off to show the sponsor emblems seems pretty silly and cheap.

Thank you. At least one person sees the point.

William Clark

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:58:34
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

What happened to Tiger and Fluff?

Otto wrote:
> The tour players are also paid quite well.
>
> Why is it ok to for them to adorn themselves in sponsor logos but the grunts
> carrying the bags and reading their puts and giving them distance can't have
> sponsors?
>
> Otto
>
>
>
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:DO2dnbMudezi1G_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> The caddy is a working stiff and in the case of Steve Williams a very well
>> payed working stiff.
>
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:54:54
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

>What happened to Tiger and Fluff?
=3D=3D=3D
good question, didn't he carry the bag for Furyk?

But it looked like someone else was on Furyk's bag to-day.

And who is on Kite's bag these days?

>m h o
>=A0v =83 e

>d r i v i n g =A0l e s s =A0l o w e r s =A0g a s =A0p r i c e s =A0

Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:57:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:58:34 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>What happened to Tiger and Fluff?

They are working on the tour.

Separately.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:12:34
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:58:34 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What happened to Tiger and Fluff?
>
> They are working on the tour.
>
> Separately.

Bingo.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:19:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
>he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
>logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
>
>Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
>
>William Clark

I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.

If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
Remember that it's all about money anyway.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <uug4f2tvggg6l62qoaii79e2hut6r3te39@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:01:27 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >>Steve obviously has some lucrative sponsorship deal with Valvoline, so
> >he pulls off the bib as the last putt goes down so that the Valvoline
> >logo on his shirt gets the maximum exposure.
> >
> >Cheap and tacky, and the PGA Tour should clamp down on it.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> I would agree if you included the players. There are so many logos
> on the players, that they're beginning to look like NASCAR.
>
> If Steve can make a few bucks, it's no worse than the players.
> Remember that it's all about money anyway.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 22:13:12
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
>not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
>very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
>
>William Clark

Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
"pinko liberals", thank you.
___,
\o

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:48:09
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
>>not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
>>very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
>>
>>William Clark
>
>
> Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
> possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
> pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
> tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
> them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
> "pinko liberals", thank you.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:16:49
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:48:09 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:

>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
>>>not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
>>>very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
>>>
>>>William Clark
>>
>>
>> Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
>> possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
>> pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
>> tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
>> them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
>> "pinko liberals", thank you.

>> bk
>
>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>
>
>really, you think??
>:)

If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
ultra-liberal. Go figure.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:11:40
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <8gr4f290ssp0tt93g3lg8uhiogetj6p280@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:48:09 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
> >>>not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
> >>>very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
> >> possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
> >> pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
> >> tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
> >> them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
> >> "pinko liberals", thank you.
>
> >> bk
> >
> >William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >
> >
> >really, you think??
> >:)
>
> If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
> ultra-liberal. Go figure.

If somebody having a difference of opionion repulses you, I suggest you
are completely repulsed by the constitutional principles at the
foundation of this country.

B. Martin

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:30:15
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:11:40 -0600, marti285@umn.edu wrote:

>> If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
>> ultra-liberal. Go figure.
>
>
>If somebody having a difference of opionion repulses you, I suggest you
>are completely repulsed by the constitutional principles at the
>foundation of this country.
>
>B. Martin

Your suggestion is ridiculous. Our constitution guarantees free
speech. It doesn't guarantee acceptance of that speech.

Opinion is one thing...fringe ranting and parroting of
unsubstantative political charges is another, and that's what
ultra-righists and ultra-leftists do. They repulse me, and that's
protected by the constitution.
bk

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:37:45
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:30:15 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:11:40 -0600, marti285@umn.edu wrote:
>
>
>>> If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
>>> ultra-liberal. Go figure.
>>
>>
>>If somebody having a difference of opionion repulses you, I suggest you
>>are completely repulsed by the constitutional principles at the
>>foundation of this country.
>>
>>B. Martin
>
>Your suggestion is ridiculous. Our constitution guarantees free
>speech. It doesn't guarantee acceptance of that speech.
>
> Opinion is one thing...fringe ranting and parroting of
>unsubstantative political charges is another, and that's what
>ultra-righists and ultra-leftists do. They repulse me, and that's
>protected by the constitution.
>bk

Don't you guys have each other's email addresses?
--

jvdp
The only way to beat me is to make a hole in one
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 28 Aug 2006 14:09:48
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:30:15 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:11:40 -0600, marti285@umn.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
>>>>ultra-liberal. Go figure.
>>>
>>>
>>>If somebody having a difference of opionion repulses you, I suggest you
>>>are completely repulsed by the constitutional principles at the
>>>foundation of this country.
>>>
>>>B. Martin
>>
>>Your suggestion is ridiculous. Our constitution guarantees free
>>speech. It doesn't guarantee acceptance of that speech.
>>
>>Opinion is one thing...fringe ranting and parroting of
>>unsubstantative political charges is another, and that's what
>>ultra-righists and ultra-leftists do. They repulse me, and that's
>>protected by the constitution.
>>bk
>
>
> Don't you guys have each other's email addresses?

HEY! don't turn off the show now...it's right at the good part :)

Date: 28 Aug 2006 16:11:09
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:09:48 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:

>John van der Pflum wrote:

>> Don't you guys have each other's email addresses?
>
>HEY! don't turn off the show now...it's right at the good part :)

The oddity is that marti285 and I probably think much alike on this
subject.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 15:53:02
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:37:45 -0400, John van der Pflum
<jpflumjr@ughookugh.com > wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:30:15 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:11:40 -0600, marti285@umn.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If there's anything that repulses me more than a neocon, it's an
>>>> ultra-liberal. Go figure.
>>>
>>>
>>>If somebody having a difference of opionion repulses you, I suggest you
>>>are completely repulsed by the constitutional principles at the
>>>foundation of this country.
>>>
>>>B. Martin
>>
>>Your suggestion is ridiculous. Our constitution guarantees free
>>speech. It doesn't guarantee acceptance of that speech.
>>
>> Opinion is one thing...fringe ranting and parroting of
>>unsubstantative political charges is another, and that's what
>>ultra-righists and ultra-leftists do. They repulse me, and that's
>>protected by the constitution.
>>bk
>
>Don't you guys have each other's email addresses?

No
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:09:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <WHtIg.3790$gN7.1938@newsfe05.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> > <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
> >>not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
> >>very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
> >>
> >>William Clark
> >
> >
> > Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
> > possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
> > pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
> > tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
> > them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
> > "pinko liberals", thank you.
> > ___,
> > \o
> >

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:44:49
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
(snip)
>>
>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>>
>>
>>really, you think??
>>:)
>
>
> Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>
> It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> think.
>
> William Clark

I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:47:44
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> (snip)
> >>
> >>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >>
> >>
> >>really, you think??
> >>:)
> >
> >
> > Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >
> > It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> > think.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)

Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:48:16
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>really, you think??
>>>>:)
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>>>
>>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
>>>think.
>>>
>>>William Clark
>>
>>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)
>
>
> Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
> daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
>
> William Clark

ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
liberal

Date: 29 Aug 2006 04:18:46
From: Peter Strauss
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:48:16 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>(snip)
> >>
> >>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>really, you think??
> >>>>:)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >>>
> >>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> >>>think.
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)
> >
> >
> > Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
> > daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
> liberal

Now just watch it, mister, you're getting too damn close now.
:-)

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:54:10
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>(snip)
> >>
> >>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>really, you think??
> >>>>:)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >>>
> >>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> >>>think.
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)
> >
> >
> > Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
> > daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
> liberal

Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
vocabulary?

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:56:57
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>>>In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
>>> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>really, you think??
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
>>>>>think.
>>>>>
>>>>>William Clark
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
>>>daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
>>>
>>>William Clark
>>
>>ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
>>liberal
>
>
> Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
> vocabulary?
>
> William Clark

no, just getting started, you overeducated, holier than thou buffoon. At
least I play golf. All that I see that you accomplish in your RSG life
is constantly sniping your liberal BS where no one cares. How about a
golf related post from you for a change?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:35:42
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <V1OIg.28$JQ2.1@newsfe07.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> >>> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>(snip)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>really, you think??
> >>>>>>:)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> >>>>>think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>William Clark
> >>>>
> >>>>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal
> >>>>:)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
> >>>daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
> >>liberal
> >
> >
> > Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
> > vocabulary?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> no, just getting started, you overeducated, holier than thou buffoon. At
> least I play golf. All that I see that you accomplish in your RSG life
> is constantly sniping your liberal BS where no one cares. How about a
> golf related post from you for a change?

Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
and show your faces. How sad.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 06:33:32
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <V1OIg.28$JQ2.1@newsfe07.lga>,
> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>
>>>In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
>>> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
>>>>>long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>really, you think??
>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
>>>>>>>think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>William Clark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a liberal
>>>>>>:)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
>>>>>daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
>>>>>
>>>>>William Clark
>>>>
>>>>ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
>>>>liberal
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
>>>vocabulary?
>>>
>>>William Clark
>>
>>no, just getting started, you overeducated, holier than thou buffoon. At
>>least I play golf. All that I see that you accomplish in your RSG life
>>is constantly sniping your liberal BS where no one cares. How about a
>>golf related post from you for a change?
>
>
> Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
> right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
> and show your faces. How sad.
>
> William Clark

everyone here who matters knows who I am. How many RSG events have you
been to? Oh, that's right...none, because you don't even play golf

Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:04:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <GmXIg.110$j56.46@newsfe05.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <V1OIg.28$JQ2.1@newsfe07.lga>,
> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
> >>> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> >>>>>long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>(snip)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>really, you think??
> >>>>>>>>:)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> >>>>>>>think.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>William Clark
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a
> >>>>>>liberal
> >>>>>>:)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of my
> >>>>>daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>William Clark
> >>>>
> >>>>ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
> >>>>liberal
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
> >>>vocabulary?
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>no, just getting started, you overeducated, holier than thou buffoon. At
> >>least I play golf. All that I see that you accomplish in your RSG life
> >>is constantly sniping your liberal BS where no one cares. How about a
> >>golf related post from you for a change?
> >
> >
> > Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
> > right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
> > and show your faces. How sad.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> everyone here who matters knows who I am. How many RSG events have you
> been to? Oh, that's right...none, because you don't even play golf

So attending rsg events is your sole criterion for defining a golfer? A
little narrow-minded, don't you think?

Try again.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:30:20
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

William A. T. Clark wrote:
(snip)
>>>Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
>>>right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
>>>and show your faces. How sad.
>>>
>>>William Clark
>>
>>everyone here who matters knows who I am. How many RSG events have you
>>been to? Oh, that's right...none, because you don't even play golf
>
>
> So attending rsg events is your sole criterion for defining a golfer? A
> little narrow-minded, don't you think?
>
> Try again.
>
> William Clark

OK, let me ask you a direct question: do you play golf?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:06:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <rYZIg.4344$cR.367@newsfe06.lga >,
long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> (snip)
> >>>Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
> >>>right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
> >>>and show your faces. How sad.
> >>>
> >>>William Clark
> >>
> >>everyone here who matters knows who I am. How many RSG events have you
> >>been to? Oh, that's right...none, because you don't even play golf
> >
> >
> > So attending rsg events is your sole criterion for defining a golfer? A
> > little narrow-minded, don't you think?
> >
> > Try again.
> >
> > William Clark
>
>
> OK, let me ask you a direct question: do you play golf?

Let me give you a direct answer - of course I do. Not as much as I would
like, but regularly during the season here.

Next question?

William Clark

Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:06:18
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-4434E9.15063729082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <rYZIg.4344$cR.367@newsfe06.lga>,
> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> (snip)
>> >>>Oh, there are plenty of those. It's just this revulsion I feel for far
>> >>>right name callers hiding under "anonymous" tags. Can't even stand up
>> >>>and show your faces. How sad.
>> >>>
>> >>>William Clark
>> >>
>> >>everyone here who matters knows who I am. How many RSG events have you
>> >>been to? Oh, that's right...none, because you don't even play golf
>> >
>> >
>> > So attending rsg events is your sole criterion for defining a golfer? A
>> > little narrow-minded, don't you think?
>> >
>> > Try again.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>>
>> OK, let me ask you a direct question: do you play golf?
>
> Let me give you a direct answer - of course I do. Not as much as I would
> like, but regularly during the season here.
>
> Next question?
>
Boxers or briefs?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:17:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-C15475.18541028082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
> long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
>> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> >>(snip)
>> >>
>> >>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>really, you think??
>> >>>>:)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>> >>>
>> >>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
>> >>>think.
>> >>>
>> >>>William Clark
>> >>
>> >>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a
>> >>liberal :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of
>> > my
>> > daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>> ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
>> liberal
>
> Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
> vocabulary?
>
> William Clark

Such wit. From a twit.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:05:30
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <4lj7koF20jvlU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-C15475.18541028082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> > In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
> >> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> >>(snip)
> >> >>
> >> >>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>really, you think??
> >> >>>>:)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having to
> >> >>>think.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>William Clark
> >> >>
> >> >>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a
> >> >>liberal :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple of
> >> > my
> >> > daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
> >> >
> >> > William Clark
> >>
> >> ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an asshole
> >> liberal
> >
> > Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of your
> > vocabulary?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Such wit. From a twit.

And that was worth troubling the Internet for?

Sheesh.

William Clark

Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:05:51
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-3A0DBC.15053029082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4lj7koF20jvlU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-C15475.18541028082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > In article <w%FIg.14$W26.1@newsfe03.lga>,
>> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> >> > In article <xjDIg.159$Gl3.57@newsfe04.lga>,
>> >> > long&left <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> >> >>(snip)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>William T Clark ... pinko liberal
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>really, you think??
>> >> >>>>:)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Oh, gosh. Wasn't that clever?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>It's just sooo easy to yell labels, isn't it? Makes up for having
>> >> >>>to
>> >> >>>think.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>William Clark
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I wasn't yelling anything at anyone, I was just having fun with a
>> >> >>liberal :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, good - how clever. When you're done with that, I have a couple
>> >> > of
>> >> > my
>> >> > daughter's teddy bears I can let you play with.
>> >> >
>> >> > William Clark
>> >>
>> >> ooh, speaking of clever...not only are you a liberal, you're an
>> >> asshole
>> >> liberal
>> >
>> > Wow, this get better and better. Or have you now reached the end of
>> > your
>> > vocabulary?
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>> Such wit. From a twit.
>
> And that was worth troubling the Internet for?
>
> Sheesh.
>
> William Clark

Sure, it's not just for porn anymore.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:07:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <chn4f2ltniu6mlj3437ke38b731glgflim@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
> >not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
> >very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
> possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
> pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
> tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
> them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
> "pinko liberals", thank you.
> ___,

That was not my point at all. Steve earns a great deal of money each
year, so he does not need every last dollar to feed his family. I have
no problem with him making deals on his own, but I do object to the
cheap and tacky tactic of ripping off his bib on the 18th green just to
get that logo on tv by jumping on the bandwagon of Tiger's reflected
glory. I'd like to see him rip off those white overalls on the 18th at
Augusta, and see what the liberal members have to say.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:17:41
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:02:53 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Steve makes more bucks in a year than most people in a lifetime. Let's
>> not try to make him out as some poor bluecollar stiff. He can survive
>> very well, thank you, without cheap tricks like this.
>>
>> William Clark
>
> Do you really think that a cap should be placed on anyone's
> possibilites to earn more...no matter what they're making. That's
> pure bullshit. I'm sure that you would turn down a raise, or refuse
> tenure. Next you'll suggest that we all pool our incomes and average
> them out. This is the kind of thinking that have the neocons yelling
> "pinko liberals", thank you.

You don't have to be a neocon to yell "pinko liberals!"

Date: 27 Aug 2006 18:37:37
From: twfsa
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

You make a buck where you can!

Tom

"CinderellaBoy" <jbahel@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156708278.738061.202290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....
>

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:23:54
From: Capt. Courageous
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

There should be rules against what Steve does. I think it is a shame and
just points to the media/advertising excess in our society today.
Funny thing today - he took it off on the 18th hole of regulation and then
had to put it back on. HA!

Kevin

"CinderellaBoy" <jbahel@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156708278.738061.202290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:34:05
From: Darrell Jefress
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Capt. Courageous" <kcollie820_nospam@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:eQpIg.2164$xQ1.1632@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> There should be rules against what Steve does.

It seems to be the same each round, which makes me suspect the rule is
worded in such a way that Stevie is exploiting some sort of ambuguity in the
wording. For instance, if the rule were written as "a caddie will not remove
his bib before the final green", it might just be a badly worded rule that
intends to have caddies keep their bibs on until the player holes out on the
final green.

DJJ

Date: 27 Aug 2006 20:21:06
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Big deal, who cares as long as it is decent? The concern should be among
those closely involved.

>m h o
>=A0v =83 e

>d r i v i n g =A0l e s s =A0l o w e r s =A0g a s =A0p r i c e s =A0

Date: 28 Aug 2006 08:14:52
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Maybe I'm not the average viewer, but I saw him without it but never gave it
another thought. Only after a commentator mentioned it, did I even notice.
Maybe it was significant to someone, but not me........The extra holes were
very enjoyable to watch though.

"CinderellaBoy" <jbahel@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1156708278.738061.202290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Lately I have noticed that Stevie Williams has a habit of taking off
> his caddie vest before Tiger finishes putting out on 18. I'm assuming
> that's so Steve can give some more exposure to his sponsors (in
> particular Valvoline). That's the best I can figure since I've never
> seen this from any other caddie before. Couple of questions: one - are
> there rules about the wear of caddie vests? Also, since Steve is one of
> the only caddies I can see that has his own sponsors how long before he
> either doesn't wear a vest at all or wears his sponsors on the outside
> of the vest....
>

Date: 28 Aug 2006 10:34:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:14:52 -0700, "Terry" <TrukkerTerry@aol.com >
wrote:

>Maybe I'm not the average viewer, but I saw him without it but never gave it
>another thought. Only after a commentator mentioned it, did I even notice.
>Maybe it was significant to someone, but not me........The extra holes were
>very enjoyable to watch though.
>
>
Nor have I ever noticed it. Who cares anyway? I don't buy Valvoline,
and won't no matter who wears their logo.
___,
\o

Date: 28 Aug 2006 11:30:53
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

I've noticed Steve's bib shedding but don't really care one way or the
other. It might well be the start of a new trend of caddies getting
small endorsement contracts for wearing logos. Steve is just leading
the charge for change.

If I remember correctly it wasn't until a few years ago that caddies
could wear shorts on the course, the long pants requirement for their
pros applied to them, also. Who lead the charge for change? Tiger and
Steve. It was, I think, at a Los Angeles area event, one of the
made-for-TV things, when it was hot and Steve wanted to wear shorts. I
think that it came down to if Steve couldn't wear shorts Tiger wasn't
going to play. Guess who won. You will note that now almost all of the
caddies wear shorts.

And my guess is that any of us would do about what Steve is doing. If I
was making $1.000,000 a year and someone offered me high five or six
figures to do what I was already doing but wear their logo on my shirt I
would probably make the deal in a heartbeat. assuming that the logo was
for a recognized and legitimate product; no snake oil companies need
apply.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 21:05:01
From: RoR
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:30:53 -0500, grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:

>I've noticed Steve's bib shedding but don't really care one way or the
>other. It might well be the start of a new trend of caddies getting
>small endorsement contracts for wearing logos. Steve is just leading
>the charge for change.
>
>If I remember correctly it wasn't until a few years ago that caddies
>could wear shorts on the course, the long pants requirement for their
>pros applied to them, also. Who lead the charge for change? Tiger and
>Steve. It was, I think, at a Los Angeles area event, one of the
>made-for-TV things, when it was hot and Steve wanted to wear shorts. I
>think that it came down to if Steve couldn't wear shorts Tiger wasn't
>going to play. Guess who won. You will note that now almost all of the
>caddies wear shorts.
>
>And my guess is that any of us would do about what Steve is doing. If I
>was making $1.000,000 a year and someone offered me high five or six
>figures to do what I was already doing but wear their logo on my shirt I
>would probably make the deal in a heartbeat. assuming that the logo was
>for a recognized and legitimate product; no snake oil companies need
>apply.

Endorsement contracts are dependent on the exposure given a particular logo displayed. It
isn't sufficient that a contracted player/caddy (except for the players like
Tiger/Mickelson/etc) just wear the logo, it has to be seen. They get payment for each
time that logo appears on screen. It is easy to understand why Steve would attempt to get
the greatest exposure for his sponsor possible.

Rick R

Date: 28 Aug 2006 05:43:36
From: GolfBlogger
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

I have read in several reputable places that Steve Williams would --
were he on tour -- would be in the top five of player earnings.

We can figure out what he's earned this year. Caddies traditionally get
10% of a player's earnngs -- 15% if they win.

Tiger has now earned $7 million and change this year. That means
Williams -- under the ten percent figure -- has earned 700,000. But
Tiger has won six times this year, meaning that Stevie's cut will be
much higher. Figure him closer to $1 million this year.

---
www.golfblogger.com

Bow Tie wrote:
> Williams does not earn a fortune. Light up another bowl, Comrade.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > If the player did it by ripping off his shirt on the 18th green to
> > reveal a sponsor's logo on his chest, that would be stopped immediately.
> > Williams earns a fortune from Tiger's winnings and sponsorships - why
> > does he NEED this crass and tasteless way to earn more?
> >
> > William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 05:43:13
From: GolfBlogger
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

I have read in several reputable places that Steve Williams would --
were he on tour -- would be in the top five of player earnings.

We can figure out what he's earned this year. Caddies traditionally get
10% of a player's earnngs -- 15% if they win.

Tiger has now earned $7 million and change this year. That means
Williams -- under the ten percent figure -- has earned 700,000. But
Tiger has won six times this year, meaning that Stevie's cut will be
much higher. Figure him closer to $1 million this year.

Bow Tie wrote:
> Williams does not earn a fortune. Light up another bowl, Comrade.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > If the player did it by ripping off his shirt on the 18th green to
> > reveal a sponsor's logo on his chest, that would be stopped immediately.
> > Williams earns a fortune from Tiger's winnings and sponsorships - why
> > does he NEED this crass and tasteless way to earn more?
> >
> > William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 18:10:34
From:
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

>We can figure out what he's earned this year.
>Caddies traditionally get 10% of a player's earnings -- 15% if they
win.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
What I have seen for caddy earnings is in the 5 - 10% range, Since they
are private contractors, there is not a set amount common to all
caddies, each caddy / pro determine the contractual provisions.
=3D=3D=3D=3D
Steve has an agreement with Valvoline about wearing / displaying the
valvoline logo at the 18th, and a different set-up with Valvoline in
Australia.

Goggle has additional info on the subject matter.

>m h o
>=A0v =83 e

>d r i v i n g =A0l e s s =A0l o w e r s =A0g a s =A0p r i c e s =A0

Date: 28 Aug 2006 21:35:16
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

And you claim to understand economics.

Former Phillie Lenny Dykstra has a very large car wash, convenience
store, gas station and auto repair shop here in Ventura County where I
am staying lately. I bet the place employs about 50 people and brings
in all kinds of tax revenue for the city, the county and the state.

That is what you do with more than $1M. You invest and you grow the
economy. A lot of successful people do it in their home town areas.
What would you do with the excess above $1M that Dykstra was making,
Comrade? Redistribution? Right?

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William A. T. Clark wrote:

> If he paid me seven figures a year, I'd be happy to say "enough". What
> do you do with your income above the $1,000,000 mark?
>
> William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 09:02:38
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156826115.945826.316760@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> And you claim to understand economics.
>
> Former Phillie Lenny Dykstra has a very large car wash, convenience
> store, gas station and auto repair shop here in Ventura County where I
> am staying lately. I bet the place employs about 50 people and brings
> in all kinds of tax revenue for the city, the county and the state.
>
> That is what you do with more than $1M. You invest and you grow the
> economy. A lot of successful people do it in their home town areas.
> What would you do with the excess above $1M that Dykstra was making,
> Comrade? Redistribution? Right?
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > If he paid me seven figures a year, I'd be happy to say "enough". What
> > do you do with your income above the $1,000,000 mark?
> >
> > William Clark

Oh, dear, missed the point again, Ken? Which is that I could live just
how I wanted on that income, and still have plenty to invest in
enterprises to enhance the marginal revenue. In other words, I would be
content to take up that deal - wouldn't you? And without the need to
pull off cheap stunts on the 18th green to grub a few dollars more.

So why not drop the silly "comrade" name calling? It is tired and
cliched, and belongs in the McCarthy era.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:00:26
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Attn-RSG (was Re: On top of the clubhouse?)

John van der Pflum wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>long&left wrote:
>>
>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>>Don't even go there. There are players here that have 10 times that
>>>>amount at risk two or three times a week. Big deal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you mean, you can bet on golf? damn! ya learn something new every day :)
>>
>>I'd never bet ya...your tan is too good and your hair is almost
>>silver...
>>
>>Tex
>
>
> And you should see the SOB putt.........

why thank you, but you know the old saying: "putt for show, score for
beer" :)
Dave

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:10:28
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

10% is no longer the norm. Many loopers get a flat rate per event or
round.

Neanderthal eh? Nice, thanks.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

marti285@umn.edu wrote:
> In article <1156739076.859686.106120@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That is a lie. I peg Steve at about $300K plus expenses. Including the
> > modest Valvoline deal. I feel sorry for anyone who makes less than that
> > in a lifetime.
>
> I have always assumed caddies make minimally 10% of players' earnings so
> Williams must make more than $300,000 USD each year. Woods has earned
> well over $3 million per year while playing.
>
>
> > Bobby is right,
>
>
> > You are nothing but a Communist hiding out at a university. You should
> > move to North Korea, you'd fit right in.
>
> With your lack of logic skills, you are nothing but a neanderthal hiding
> out as a homo sapien.
>
> B. Martin

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:06:34
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

The defense budge is never more than 20% of the total budge. You should
be concerned about so called entitlement programs that take more than
50%.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:01:54 -0700, Bow Tie wrote:
>
> > Here we go again. Another leftists trying to set the standard of what is
> > enough. "Enough for anyone"? I think I am going to hurl. This guy would
> > remove the profit motive from our economy and we would be Sweden so fast
> > your head would spin. High taxes, higher welfare. Plus Dhimmitude
> > because these lefties will not stand firm agains Islamic terrorism.
>
> We didn't "stand firm" against terrorism. We invaded Iraq. Not the same
> thing at all, since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Now
> Iraq is a hopeless quagmire and there are are more anti-American
> terrorists than ever. And how much have we spent (borrowed) there? 400
> billion? 500? How many kids have we sent over there to die? How many
> families destroyed? But hey, at least Halliburton made a lot of money. The
> profit motive is the only thing that matters, right?
>
> Will you still feel that way when the deficits generated by this war
> strangle the economy?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:27:31
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On 28 Aug 2006 20:06:34 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>The defense budge is never more than 20% of the total budge. You should
>be concerned about so called entitlement programs that take more than
>50%.

Why? Money spent in this country gets multiplied in this country.
Education creates workers who pay taxes. Dams create power which
creates wealth. Getting the poor jobs helps us all.

Bombs exploding in Iraq don't.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:33:57
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bombs don't grow on trees. Some of them poor folk you are so worried about
actually have jobs making bombs in this country.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:rvc7f2lealt51hnl43h2i3o4sva3nml70m@4ax.com...
> On 28 Aug 2006 20:06:34 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The defense budge is never more than 20% of the total budge. You should
>>be concerned about so called entitlement programs that take more than
>>50%.
>
> Why? Money spent in this country gets multiplied in this country.
> Education creates workers who pay taxes. Dams create power which
> creates wealth. Getting the poor jobs helps us all.
>
> Bombs exploding in Iraq don't.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:42:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:33:57 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

>Bombs don't grow on trees. Some of them poor folk you are so worried about
>actually have jobs making bombs in this country.

The multiplier works better for products consumed here. It is to
everybody's advantage when those poor people become productive tax
payers. The Trickle Down theory works best when the money stays
home.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 28 Aug 2006 20:00:26
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

My sister and brother in law are both PhD, retired faculty from Texas
A&M and both publish. You get the big arrogant chip off your shoulder.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1156740358.605115.4620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Moronic nonsense, Ken. You need to get this chip off your shoulder
> before it makes you fall down.
>
> Oh, by the way, by 6:15 this morning I had already completed editorial
> changes on a publication of considerable technical importance. That is
> after having spent the weekend working on it. You need to get your head
> out of the sand about what goes on in our Universities, and the
> workloads of those that work in them.
>
> William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:37:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156820426.598833.164420@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> My sister and brother in law are both PhD, retired faculty from Texas
> A&M and both publish. You get the big arrogant chip off your shoulder.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1156740358.605115.4620@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Moronic nonsense, Ken. You need to get this chip off your shoulder
> > before it makes you fall down.
> >
> > Oh, by the way, by 6:15 this morning I had already completed editorial
> > changes on a publication of considerable technical importance. That is
> > after having spent the weekend working on it. You need to get your head
> > out of the sand about what goes on in our Universities, and the
> > workloads of those that work in them.
> >
> > William Clark

Which of course has nothing to do with my response to your post, which
you intended to show how you are the only person in this discussion that
works hard. It just isn't true, and if you could ever take those
prejudiced blinkers off, you might possibly see it.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:40:02
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> > > Oh, by the way, by 6:15 this morning I had already completed editorial
> > > changes on a publication of considerable technical importance. That is
> > > after having spent the weekend working on it. You need to get your
head
> > > out of the sand about what goes on in our Universities, and the
> > > workloads of those that work in them.

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> > My sister and brother in law are both PhD, retired faculty from Texas
> > A&M and both publish. You get the big arrogant chip off your shoulder.

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Moronic nonsense, Ken. You need to get this chip off your shoulder
> > > before it makes you fall down.

> Which of course has nothing to do with my response to your post, which
> you intended to show how you are the only person in this discussion that
> works hard. It just isn't true, and if you could ever take those
> prejudiced blinkers off, you might possibly see it.

William, who said that Ken works hard? He merely said that he was at his
desk by 6:15 AM. Don't connect dots that aren't there!

Date: 29 Aug 2006 08:54:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <CAWIg.2910$XD1.2631@trnddc01 >, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net>
wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> > > > Oh, by the way, by 6:15 this morning I had already completed editorial
> > > > changes on a publication of considerable technical importance. That is
> > > > after having spent the weekend working on it. You need to get your
> head
> > > > out of the sand about what goes on in our Universities, and the
> > > > workloads of those that work in them.
>
> "Bow Tie" wrote:
> > > My sister and brother in law are both PhD, retired faculty from Texas
> > > A&M and both publish. You get the big arrogant chip off your shoulder.
>
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > Moronic nonsense, Ken. You need to get this chip off your shoulder
> > > > before it makes you fall down.
>
> > Which of course has nothing to do with my response to your post, which
> > you intended to show how you are the only person in this discussion that
> > works hard. It just isn't true, and if you could ever take those
> > prejudiced blinkers off, you might possibly see it.
>
>
> William, who said that Ken works hard? He merely said that he was at his
> desk by 6:15 AM. Don't connect dots that aren't there!

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. You see, I really don't like to
jump to conclusions about people I don't know - unlike others I could
name.

William Clark

Date: 29 Aug 2006 11:23:52
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-A99E22.08540229082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> You see, I really don't like to jump to conclusions about people I don't
> > know

Since when Billy?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:10:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <4lj80pF22pmbU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-A99E22.08540229082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> > You see, I really don't like to jump to conclusions about people I don't
> > > know
>
> Since when Billy?

Since forever. For example, I will assume that you are a decent,
rational, person. Is that too much of a conclusion to jump to?

William Clark

Date: 30 Aug 2006 12:07:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-18B247.15104629082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4lj80pF22pmbU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-A99E22.08540229082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >
>> > You see, I really don't like to jump to conclusions about people I
>> > don't
>> > > know
>>
>> Since when Billy?
>
> Since forever. For example, I will assume that you are a decent,
> rational, person. Is that too much of a conclusion to jump to?
>
I hang out in RSG, how rational can I be. :-)

Date: 30 Aug 2006 17:09:30
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <4lluugF2jcaeU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-18B247.15104629082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4lj80pF22pmbU1@individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark.31-A99E22.08540229082006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >
> >> > You see, I really don't like to jump to conclusions about people I
> >> > don't
> >> > > know
> >>
> >> Since when Billy?
> >
> > Since forever. For example, I will assume that you are a decent,
> > rational, person. Is that too much of a conclusion to jump to?
> >
> I hang out in RSG, how rational can I be. :-)

Good point - I withdraw.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 19:57:32
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Want to compare w2's from 2005? You have better be in six figures.

Everybody around here hates me, but that doesn't mean I'm not very good
at what I do.

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JJK wrote:
> "Bow Tie" wrote:
> > I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
> > guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
> > hit a lick.
> >
> > "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
> > Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
> > motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
> > never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
> >
> > I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
> > 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
> > will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.
>
>
> Most likely, the amount of money you make isn't worth anyone worrying about
> where it should go.
>
> Who cares what time you'll be at your desk?

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:33:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

In article <1156820252.567168.302330@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Want to compare w2's from 2005? You have better be in six figures.
>
> Everybody around here hates me, but that doesn't mean I'm not very good
> at what I do.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> JJK wrote:
> > "Bow Tie" wrote:
> > > I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
> > > guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
> > > hit a lick.
> > >
> > > "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
> > > Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
> > > motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
> > > never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
> > >
> > > I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
> > > 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
> > > will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.
> >
> >
> > Most likely, the amount of money you make isn't worth anyone worrying about
> > where it should go.
> >
> > Who cares what time you'll be at your desk?

More wit and wisdom from rsg's professional victim.

William Clark

Date: 28 Aug 2006 23:01:10
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

How about comparing W2's for 2002, the year I got laid off in February?

Bow Tie wrote:
> Want to compare w2's from 2005? You have better be in six figures.
>
> Everybody around here hates me, but that doesn't mean I'm not very good
> at what I do.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> JJK wrote:
>> "Bow Tie" wrote:
>>> I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
>>> guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
>>> hit a lick.
>>>
>>> "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
>>> Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The profit
>>> motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
>>> never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
>>>
>>> I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
>>> 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
>>> will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.
>>
>> Most likely, the amount of money you make isn't worth anyone worrying about
>> where it should go.
>>
>> Who cares what time you'll be at your desk?
>

Date: 29 Aug 2006 12:40:02
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> > > I called him a Communist, it's obvious he would take all of the money
> > > guys like you and I make and pass it out to slugs like multi who won't
> > > hit a lick.
> > > "From each according to his means, to each according to his need."
> > > Sounds just wonderful until you try to put it into practice. The
profit
> > > motive is a wonderful thing and ivory tower types like this guy will
> > > never understad that hard work and reward go hand in hand.
> > >
> > > I will be out of bed and on the road with my first cup of coffee at
> > > 0530 Pacific. I'll be at my desk at about 0615. multi and WAT Clark
> > > will still be asleep dreaming of commisars and collectives.

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> Everybody around here hates me, but that doesn't mean I'm not very good
> at what I do.

JJK wrote:
> > Most likely, the amount of money you make isn't worth anyone worrying
about
> > where it should go.
> >
> > Who cares what time you'll be at your desk?

"Bow Tie" wrote:
> Want to compare w2's from 2005? You have better be in six figures.

Six is absolutely no problem. However, do you want me to include investment
income too?

Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:45:13
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Six left of the decimal point.

"JJK" <surpher@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:CAWIg.2911$XD1.1770@trnddc01...
>
> Six is absolutely no problem. However, do you want me to include
> investment
> income too?
>
>

Date: 29 Aug 2006 23:45:52
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

"JJK" wrote:
> > Six is absolutely no problem. However, do you want me to include
> > investment income too?

"sfb" wrote:
> Six left of the decimal point.

Of course.

Date: 29 Aug 2006 03:36:42
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bow Tie wrote:
> Want to compare w2's from 2005? You have better be in six figures.

Kenny Boy...the $ and the comma don't count.

> Everybody around here hates me, but that doesn't mean I'm not very good
> at what I do.

You are very good at what you do....but people don't get paid for being
a victim.

Tex

Date: 29 Aug 2006 15:47:10
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Steve Williams

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:06:34 -0700, Bow Tie wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:01:54 -0700, Bow Tie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here we go again. Another leftists trying to set the standard of what
> >>>> is enough. "Enough for anyone"? I think I am going to hurl. This guy
> >>>> would remove the profit motive from our economy and we would be
> >>>> Sweden so fast your head would spin. High taxes, higher welfare. Plus
> >>>> Dhimmitude because these lefties will not stand firm agains Islamic
> >>>> terrorism.
> >>> We didn't "stand firm" against terrorism. We invaded Iraq. Not the same
> >>> thing at all, since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. Now
> >>> Iraq is a hopeless quagmire and there are are more anti-American
> >>> terrorists than ever. And how much have we spent (borrowed) there? 400
> >>> billion? 500? How many kids have we sent over there to die? How many
> >>> families destroyed? But hey, at least Halliburton made a lot of money.
> >>> The profit motive is the only thing that matters, right?
> >>>
> >>> Will you still feel that way when the deficits generated by this war
> >>> strangle the economy?
> >
> >> The defense budge is never more than 20% of the total budge. You should
> >> be concerned about so called entitlement programs that take more than
> >> 50%.
> >
> > You seem to have evaded the issue. The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, which
> > had -0- to do with 9/11, so far has cost about half a trillion dollars and
> > the lives of thousands of American troops. A majority of Americans think
> > this voluntary attack has been a total, hopeless failure and just not
> > worth the cost. Are you one of the few who still think it was a good idea?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Second, like a teen-ager with a shiny new credit card, we are deficit
> > financing the enormous cost of this war with no thought to the
> > consequences. Does running up these enormous deficits seem financially
> > responsible to you? What effect do you think this will have on the
> > economy?
>
> We need to move welfare, SS, Medicare and the other "entitlements" to
> the state level. This is not what the federal government should be doing.

Better yet, move those to the personal level. America was not founded
on the principles of Government caring for you from cradle to grave.
But a great first step is to go to the State level. If you don't like
how your State deals with it, you can move to another State (read:
competition) or you have better control over local elections.

Tex