Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:13:24 GMT
Sorry, but the constant posts and counter-posts of Jordan, MoonEE, Dix, Troy,
etc (heah, where's "Testosterone" JP in all this? Has his computer seat been
permanently occupied by his evil twin, Skip...er, Ed Hwang?), have FORCED me
to end this thread (hopefully!).
Now it started with trying to replace the name Tea Party. Now let's see, that
was a glorious moment in U.S. history when a small band of patriots faced an
overwhelming force and WON! Now, I ask you, is that an appropriate name for a
band that has made an art (under various and sundry names over the past decade)
of fetching defeat from the jaws of victory. I don't think so! And I therefore
agree that a change of names is indeed required.
Now maybe they should stay with a more fitting U.S.-history based name. How
'bout Little Big Horn, for Custer's last stand? How 'bout Bull Run, wherein
all of Washington, D.C. went to picnic and watch the Rebs rout the Union army?
(Also, considering all the bombast of the boys of Beantown -- nice
alliteration, eh? -- perhaps the BULL part is also a reasonable thought!).
Maybe we should consider Alamo? (But, then again, that lead to a victory down
the road which gave us, uhh, Texas. Err, all things considered, maybe we
SHOULD consider Alamo, after all!)
But, then again, the Boston crew is gunning for a World-class name (note how
they now have taken to challenging a British also-ran team -- STAN -- for
"bragging" rights). So, perhaps to widen the scope, might I suggest Waterloo?
Or maybe Dunkirk? What about the Maginot line (heah, they could even rename one
of their patented slack-off defenses to that!)? I'm sure that afficionados of
history would be glad to add further suggestions!
|Fidonet: Vic Kamhi 2:201/2137.1
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.