Jason Waddell



this is getting to be quite the badass pugilist group.
very nascar-esque really.
crit pro and papai, magilla and phillip morris jr.
do you guys really live near each other?
know each other at races etc?
once in 7th grade this big dude named rasmussen who
was literally
like 6"4" challenged me to meet him for fisticuffs after school,
I was shitting bricks all day, but decided to
fight rather than be all wimpy and non-badass.
we met up and agreed not to fight, pretty anti-climatic really but
I just thought I'd share with you my fellow bad-asses.
but that kinda stuff really hasn't happened to me
since 7th grade for some reason, weird huh?
 
"this is getting to be quite the badass pugilist group.
very nascar-esque really.
crit pro and papai, magilla and phillip morris jr.
do you guys really live near each other?
know each other at races etc? "

critter non-pro is all talk. All talk, a nothing.
I already called him/her out.

magilla is a fascistic, hating, baiting (ala Tosi), uneducated,
trolling juvenile.
Scaredy cats like that only exist at this anonymnous level. They are
forbidden to "come out" and wage real intellectual war in RBR by
writing/posting and standing by their hateful convictions. I doubt they
ride a bike, even to the corner 7-11.

-Ken
 
k.papai wrote:

> "this is getting to be quite the badass pugilist group.
> very nascar-esque really.
> crit pro and papai, magilla and phillip morris jr.
> do you guys really live near each other?
> know each other at races etc? "
>
> critter non-pro is all talk. All talk, a nothing.
> I already called him/her out.
>
> magilla is a fascistic, hating, baiting (ala Tosi), uneducated,
> trolling juvenile.
> Scaredy cats like that only exist at this anonymnous level. They are
> forbidden to "come out" and wage real intellectual war in RBR by
> writing/posting and standing by their hateful convictions. I doubt they
> ride a bike, even to the corner 7-11.
>
> -Ken
>


Did you just seriously call me a "scaredy cat?" Goddamn you are gay.
Does your wife know yet?

Magilla
 
Magilla,

Why are you so interested in life? I assume that you are someone that
I know fairly well or you are friends with a good friend of mine. I
don't understand your fascination with my life and Sharper Image?

Sharper Image never asked for their money back. That is quite a stupid
statement.

My religious affiliation is of no concern to you or any of the wankers
on this group or the internet.

I retired because I am 31 this year and I would like to get out of Law
School after finishing my Bachelor degree sometime before I am old
enough to retire. I raced for 8 yrs, I wasn't the best, but I held my
own. That was enough for me. Obviously you still need more though...

Please email me directly if you have any further questions.

thanks,
jason






MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Does anyone know why Jason Waddell quit the sport and converted to
> Muslim? And what's up with the guy from Sharper Images wanting the
> sponsorship money back?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jason Waddell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I retired because I am 31 this year and I would like to get out of Law
> School after finishing my Bachelor degree sometime before I am old
> enough to retire. I raced for 8 yrs, I wasn't the best, but I held my
> own. That was enough for me.


Can't argue with those priorities and attitude...

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
"Jason Waddell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Magilla,
>
> Why are you so interested in life? I assume that you are someone that
> I know fairly well or you are friends with a good friend of mine. I
> don't understand your fascination with my life and Sharper Image?
>
> Sharper Image never asked for their money back. That is quite a stupid
> statement.
>
> My religious affiliation is of no concern to you or any of the wankers
> on this group or the internet.
>
> I retired because I am 31 this year and I would like to get out of Law
> School after finishing my Bachelor degree sometime before I am old
> enough to retire. I raced for 8 yrs, I wasn't the best, but I held my
> own. That was enough for me. Obviously you still need more though...


Jason, you're a bigger ****** for responding to that ******** than ever you
were as a racer. Now he'll have something to think about when he's jacking
off.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Jason Waddell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Magilla,
> >
> > Why are you so interested in life? I assume that you are someone

that
> > I know fairly well or you are friends with a good friend of mine.

I
> > don't understand your fascination with my life and Sharper Image?
> >
> > Sharper Image never asked for their money back. That is quite a

stupid
> > statement.
> >
> > My religious affiliation is of no concern to you or any of the

wankers
> > on this group or the internet.
> >
> > I retired because I am 31 this year and I would like to get out of

Law
> > School after finishing my Bachelor degree sometime before I am old
> > enough to retire. I raced for 8 yrs, I wasn't the best, but I held

my
> > own. That was enough for me. Obviously you still need more

though...
>
> Jason, you're a bigger ****** for responding to that ******** than

ever you
> were as a racer. Now he'll have something to think about when he's

jacking
> off.


Do you ever have anything nice to say about anything?? I'm stating to
think, well, no.

Jason, good response. Maybe the Gorilla will shut up now about you?
Nah, I doubt it. He's just a sucker.

Tom
 
"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Jason, you're a bigger ****** for responding to that ******** than
>> ever you were as a racer. Now he'll have something to think about
>> when he's jacking off.

>
> Do you ever have anything nice to say about anything?? I'm stating to
> think, well, no.


Maybe you better read that again.

> Jason, good response. Maybe the Gorilla will shut up now about you?
> Nah, I doubt it. He's just a sucker.


That's what I just said.
 
Um. You are talking about the Civil War, GWhite. Have you forgotten the
peace time alien and sedition acts?

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous bashing of people is not pure free speech; it's cowardice!

>
> Was Benjamin Franklin a coward when he published as Silence Dogood? Was

it
> "pure" free speech?
>
> > Free speech, as provided by our beautiful Constitution, prevents the
> > government and persons acting under color of the law from treating you
> > adversely for exercising your free speech rights.

>
> Allow me to follow my custom and go way off track.
>
> The Federalism outlined by The Constitution is dead. It was destroyed by
> "Honest" Abe.
>
> "You will take possession by military force, of the printing

establishments of
> the New York World and Journal of Commerce... and prohibit any further
> publication thereof... you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and
> imprison.., the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid

newspapers.
>
> -- order from DICTATOR ABRAHAM LINCOLN to General John Dix, MAY 18, 1864
>
> And that is hardly all. The train of abuses by the fork tongued master
> politician go on and on (I suppose he was trying to make King George look

good);
> the negative effects remain today. Hey, but he wasn't as bad as Lenin or
> Stalin. He didn't kill those imprisoned. (Only 600k+ soldiers died in

his
> brutal total war.) Whoopee!
>
 
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
>
> Um. You are talking about the Civil War, GWhite. Have you forgotten the
> peace time alien and sedition acts?


Lawyer Dumbass,

The A&D acts were enacted by Congress, not the edicts of a dictator (Lincoln).
(Ostensibly it was due to threat of war with France. yeah, right.) They had a
time limitation too -- one was repealed and the remainder expired. Moreover,
the A&R acts occurred much closer in time to the founding; so I can't see how
such an occurance close (in time) to the founding reinforces your comments about
"our beautiful Constitution, [which] prevents the government and persons acting
under color of the law from treating you adversely for exercising your free
speech rights." I happen to agree -- I just don't see how bringing up the A&E
acts would support your statement regarding the power of the Constitution to
prevent such a thing.

Since Lincoln unconstitutionally destroyed the ability to seceed with his brutal
war (secession is _exactly_ what the *free and independent states* did regarding
England) the federal government now decides the limits to its own powers. With
the threat of secession destroyed, the single most potent check to central power
is gone. The very real threat of secession still existed at the time of the A&E
acts.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its
republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with
which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-- Jefferson, 1801

"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this
confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day
should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of
these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall
give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into
hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties
no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by
constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred
at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect
Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated
parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." -- John
Q. Adams, 1839

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting
together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced
to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to
withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing
so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims
directly either by force or right." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Enjoy your speech while it lasts lawyer dumbass.
 
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
>
> Um. You are talking about the Civil War, GWhite. Have you forgotten the
> peace time alien and sedition acts?


Lawyer Dumbass,

The A&S acts were enacted by Congress, not the edicts of a dictator (Lincoln).
(Ostensibly it was due to threat of war with France. yeah, right.) They had a
time limitation too -- one was repealed and the remainder expired. Moreover,
the A&S acts occurred much closer in time to the founding; so I can't see how
such an occurance close (in time) to the founding reinforces your comments about
"our beautiful Constitution, [which] prevents the government and persons acting
under color of the law from treating you adversely for exercising your free
speech rights." I happen to agree -- I just don't see how bringing up the A&S
acts would support your statement regarding the power of the Constitution to
prevent such a thing.

Since Lincoln unconstitutionally destroyed the ability to seceed with his brutal
war (secession is _exactly_ what the *free and independent states* did regarding
England) the federal government now decides the limits to its own powers. With
the threat of secession destroyed, the single most potent check to central power
is gone. The very real threat of secession still existed at the time of the A&S
acts.

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its
republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with
which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
-- Jefferson, 1801

"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this
confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day
should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of
these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall
give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into
hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties
no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by
constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred
at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect
Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated
parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center." -- John
Q. Adams, 1839

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting
together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced
to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to
withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing
so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims
directly either by force or right." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Enjoy your speech while it lasts lawyer dumbass.
 
gwhite wrote:
> "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > Um. You are talking about the Civil War, GWhite. Have you

forgotten the
> > peace time alien and sedition acts?

>
> Lawyer Dumbass,
>
> The A&S acts were enacted by Congress, not the edicts of a dictator

(Lincoln).
> (Ostensibly it was due to threat of war with France. yeah, right.)

They had a
> time limitation too -- one was repealed and the remainder expired.

Moreover,
> the A&S acts occurred much closer in time to the founding; so I can't

see how
> such an occurance close (in time) to the founding reinforces your

comments about
> "our beautiful Constitution, [which] prevents the government and

persons acting
> under color of the law from treating you adversely for exercising

your free
> speech rights." I happen to agree -- I just don't see how bringing

up the A&S
> acts would support your statement regarding the power of the

Constitution to
> prevent such a thing.
>
> Since Lincoln unconstitutionally destroyed the ability to seceed with

his brutal
> war (secession is _exactly_ what the *free and independent states*

did regarding
> England) the federal government now decides the limits to its own

powers. With
> the threat of secession destroyed, the single most potent check to

central power
> is gone. The very real threat of secession still existed at the time

of the A&S
> acts.
>
> "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to

change its
> republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the

safety with
> which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to

combat it."
> -- Jefferson, 1801
>
> "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several

states of this
> confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart.

If the day
> should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the

people of
> these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal

spirit shall
> give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester

into
> hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold

together parties
> no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and

kindly
> sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held

together by
> constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents

which occurred
> at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a

more perfect
> Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the

separated
> parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the

center." -- John
> Q. Adams, 1839
>
> "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and

in uniting
> together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they

been reduced
> to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states

chooses to
> withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its

right of doing
> so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its

claims
> directly either by force or right." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
>
> Enjoy your speech while it lasts lawyer dumbass.


Greg I support everything but the last line, though I agree that free
speech is about done here.
Bill C
 
It was called the Alien and Sedition Acts. A President signed it into law.
Lincoln did not do anything unilaterally. Congress passed the Legislation
Lincoln signed.

You are just ****** off because your grandpa can't own slaves anymore. Hey,
that was the only way your ancestors could get laid, so I see why you are so
upset.

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > Um. You are talking about the Civil War, GWhite. Have you forgotten

the
> > peace time alien and sedition acts?

>
> Lawyer Dumbass,
>
> The A&D acts were enacted by Congress, not the edicts of a dictator

(Lincoln).
> (Ostensibly it was due to threat of war with France. yeah, right.) They

had a
> time limitation too -- one was repealed and the remainder expired.

Moreover,
> the A&R acts occurred much closer in time to the founding; so I can't see

how
> such an occurance close (in time) to the founding reinforces your comments

about
> "our beautiful Constitution, [which] prevents the government and persons

acting
> under color of the law from treating you adversely for exercising your

free
> speech rights." I happen to agree -- I just don't see how bringing up the

A&E
> acts would support your statement regarding the power of the Constitution

to
> prevent such a thing.
>
> Since Lincoln unconstitutionally destroyed the ability to seceed with his

brutal
> war (secession is _exactly_ what the *free and independent states* did

regarding
> England) the federal government now decides the limits to its own powers.

With
> the threat of secession destroyed, the single most potent check to central

power
> is gone. The very real threat of secession still existed at the time of

the A&E
> acts.
>
> "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to

change its
> republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety

with
> which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to

combat it."
> -- Jefferson, 1801
>
> "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states

of this
> confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If

the day
> should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people

of
> these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit

shall
> give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into
> hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together

parties
> no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
> sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held

together by
> constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which

occurred
> at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more

perfect
> Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the

separated
> parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the

center." -- John
> Q. Adams, 1839
>
> "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in

uniting
> together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been

reduced
> to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses

to
> withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of

doing
> so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its

claims
> directly either by force or right." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
>
> Enjoy your speech while it lasts lawyer dumbass.
 
Jason Waddell wrote:

> Magilla,
>
> Why are you so interested in life? I assume that you are someone that
> I know fairly well or you are friends with a good friend of mine. I
> don't understand your fascination with my life and Sharper Image?
>
> Sharper Image never asked for their money back. That is quite a stupid
> statement.
>
> My religious affiliation is of no concern to you or any of the wankers
> on this group or the internet.
>
> I retired because I am 31 this year and I would like to get out of Law
> School after finishing my Bachelor degree sometime before I am old
> enough to retire. I raced for 8 yrs, I wasn't the best, but I held my
> own. That was enough for me. Obviously you still need more though...
>
> Please email me directly if you have any further questions.
>
> thanks,
> jason


First of all, according to the President it's Internets (plural) and not
Internet, you red state pro-life dumbass. I have been fascinated with
your life for many years now - ever since you got 13th in some parking lot
crit in Oklahoma - and it was only recently that I decided to go public
with my fascination. So here I am.

First, let me say that it is a mistake for you to have converted to
Islam. Islam is a bad religion for bad people. It's for people who only
want to learn how to fly extended range 767-300's into skyscrapers.
Although I do concede the religion does have its advantage in that a woman
who is raped can be sentenced to being raped by the local town council as
punishment for disrespecting her family (for being raped). So your
conversion makes a lot of sense to not only me, but most women and
contemporary legal minds, and I don't question it.

Obviously, you've done a very smart thing by converting to Islam in a post
9/11 era in the United States. The only thing I can think of that would
be better is to carjack a SWAT van.

My question about Sharper Image was a follow-up from Crit Pro who made
that statement. This is not good for his credibility that, according to
you, it had no factual basis at all. I am considering what kind of
retaliation I need to take against him for proffering defamatory
information about you. I am sorry for propagating it.

I have no further questions at this time. That's all.


peace out,

THE COMMANDER Magilla
 
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
>
> It was called the Alien and Sedition Acts. A President signed it into law.
> Lincoln did not do anything unilaterally. Congress passed the Legislation
> Lincoln signed.


Dumbass,

No. No. No. Lincoln is widely regarded as having been a dictator -- this is
nothing new or unique to me. What all the fans of centralized power say -- and
this includes the dumbasses on both the left and the right -- is that he was a
"good" or "benevolent" dictator. Where I differ is that I don't call him
"good."

> You are just ****** off because your grandpa can't own slaves anymore. Hey,
> that was the only way your ancestors could get laid, so I see why you are so
> upset.


Dumbass (whom I even wonder is really lawyer Phil Moore, since even laywer Phil
Moore doesn't seem that stupid),

Dozens of countries were able to achieve emancipation peacefully in the 19th
century. To this pattern, the US is a standout contradiction with its bloody
war of total devastation. By 1840, all the slaves in the British Empire had
been freed without war, for example.

Lincoln made no bones about why he was warring: to hold the Union together
(really to centralize power). Lincoln only freed the slaves in the states he
was warring against, and where he had no power to do anything about it -- not
those in the Union. Some principles those are. He ended up using slavery as a
trump for gaining political power -- but that is not how he started.
Emancipation was the one good thing to come out of the war, but the simple fact
is that it did not require a brutal and devastating war to achieve it. Nor did
emancipation need to destroy the 10th and concentrate powers.

Lincoln was a racist, like most people of his time.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality
between the white and black races. There is a physical differ-
ence between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably
forever forbid their living together upon the footing of per-
fect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that
there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in
favor of the race to which I belong having the superior posi-
tion. I have never said anything to the contrary."
-- Abe Lincoln, in an 1858 debate in Ottawa, Illinois w/ Stephen Douglas
 
"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:
>>
>> It was called the Alien and Sedition Acts. A President signed it into
>> law.
>> Lincoln did not do anything unilaterally. Congress passed the
>> Legislation
>> Lincoln signed.

>
> Dumbass,
>
> No. No. No. Lincoln is widely regarded as having been a dictator -- this
> is
> nothing new or unique to me.


I know, you said the same thing about Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and
George W. Bush.

> Dozens of countries were able to achieve emancipation peacefully in the
> 19th
> century.


So you think that the civil war was about emancipation? BTW, which countries
were those who "peacefully emancipated"?

> Lincoln was a racist, like most people of his time.
>
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality
> between the white and black races. There is a physical differ-
> ence between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably
> forever forbid their living together upon the footing of per-
> fect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that
> there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in
> favor of the race to which I belong having the superior posi-
> tion. I have never said anything to the contrary."
> -- Abe Lincoln, in an 1858 debate in Ottawa, Illinois w/ Stephen Douglas


How observant of you to use Lincoln's Campaign speech to brand him a racist
for not speaking out against slavery in a time of extreme civil unrest
concerning slavery.
 
gwhite wrote:
> No. No. No. Lincoln is widely regarded as having been a dictator
> -- this is nothing new or unique to me. What all the fans of
> centralized power say ...


> Dozens of countries were able to achieve emancipation peacefully
> in the 19th century. To this pattern, the US is a standout
> contradiction with its bloody war of total devastation. ...


> Lincoln made no bones about why he was warring: to hold the Union
> together (really to centralize power). Lincoln only freed the slaves
> in the states he was warring against, and where he had no power to do
> anything about it -- not those in the Union. Some principles those
> are. He ended up using slavery as a trump for gaining political
> power -- but that is not how he started.


Yeah. Historians agree that Abe Lincoln was responsible for much
terrible suffering and what subsequently went wrong in America.
They also agree that JFK was going to undo some of the worst abuses
of the Civil War era, and this is why Abe Lincoln shot JFK.

-Ben
I read it on the Cato Institute web site.
 
"[email protected]" wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:
> > No. No. No. Lincoln is widely regarded as having been a dictator
> > -- this is nothing new or unique to me. What all the fans of
> > centralized power say ...

>
> > Dozens of countries were able to achieve emancipation peacefully
> > in the 19th century. To this pattern, the US is a standout
> > contradiction with its bloody war of total devastation. ...

>
> > Lincoln made no bones about why he was warring: to hold the Union
> > together (really to centralize power). Lincoln only freed the slaves
> > in the states he was warring against, and where he had no power to do
> > anything about it -- not those in the Union. Some principles those
> > are. He ended up using slavery as a trump for gaining political
> > power -- but that is not how he started.

>
> Yeah. Historians agree that Abe Lincoln was responsible for much
> terrible suffering and what subsequently went wrong in America.
> They also agree that JFK was going to undo some of the worst abuses
> of the Civil War era, and this is why Abe Lincoln shot JFK.
>
> -Ben
> I read it on the Cato Institute web site.


Alright, so you busted out of the dumbass pack. That's step one. But you'll
need to press the stupid pedals harder to catch the other two retards in the
break. You can do it!

Never mind that the title is an oxymoron, you'll feel right at home with it:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765809753/
 
Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:
> thirst for his palmares


PhilMo,
Looking at this thread, that was quite the digression. Getting back on
topic, I'd like to get a handle on your domestic racing acumen. To
what does Magilla aspire on this front?
-DA74
 
My domestic racing acumen is nearly non-existent since I no longer subscribe
to VeloNews. I still pick up Texas Racing Post sometimes and do keep up
with the TXBRA standings, but that's about it.

I don't really care 2 cents about Magilla's aspirations. I don't even know
who he is.

"DA74" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Philip W. Moore, Jr. wrote:
> > thirst for his palmares

>
> PhilMo,
> Looking at this thread, that was quite the digression. Getting back on
> topic, I'd like to get a handle on your domestic racing acumen. To
> what does Magilla aspire on this front?
> -DA74
>