From: catcher@netcom.com (Paul W. Francisco)
Subject: Re: NHL LETTER (***QUITE LONG***)
Organization: Night People
Lines: 56

In article <1993Apr26.002033.22710@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1993Apr25.224654.23092@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> phoenix@startide.ctr.columbia.edu (Ali Lemer) writes:
>>I'm not even going to bother to reply to your ranting post; the letter is 
>>addressed to Gary Bettman, not you. He can reply as he wishes.
>
>Not so.  Your post is addressed to all.  I quote:

As she said, the letter is addressed to Bettman.  The post (which, though
having pretty much the same content, is an entirely different entity) was
addressed to all.  When she puts the letter in the mail I doubt it will
say "To: All".  I figure she wanted to let people here see what was in it
since it is a topic that interests a lot of folks here.  That's an entirely 
different purpose than sending the letter to Bettman.

Unfortunately...

>And I guess I let you know didn't I?

>You do NOT represent a *large* body of hockey fans by any standard you care
>to use to define "large".  65 people constitutes nothing more than a tiny 
>group of fanatics and is in no way representative of "a large body of hockey
>fans on the Internet" let alone of "one of the largest computer networks in 
>the world." 

The "largest computer networks in the world" phrase is a definition of 
the Internet, not a group as a whole that she claims to represent.  As
for the business of whether or not it is large, it is large compared
to say, the number of folks on r.s.h. who are sending a letter to thank
him for changing the names, at least to this point.  And just for my
own curiosity I thought I'd look up the "official" definition of large
in the dictionary.  It reads:

large - 1.  having more than usual power, capacity, or scope.    
        2.  exceeding most other things of like kind in quantity or size.

Now I have no idea how many letters Bettman may have gotten on the issue
or how many people may have signed them.  65 people may be up there, 
thereby validating definition 2.  I would also wager that the geographical
range of signatures is quite large, which would give it a large scope.

>He might be impressed by the size of the list of names.

Why would he be impressed with this unless it were "large"? 

I am of course assuming that you actually agree with what you are writing
and are not simply trying to be a pain about the whole issue to hear
yourself speak.  

I personally don't know whether or not I agree with the letter.  I have
very mixed emotions about it.  I like the names as they are, and don't
think they make it that difficult to learn the game, but there might be
a shred of validity to the change.  

-- 
Paul W. Francisco        	    In the shadow an angel cries...
catcher@netcom.com                      - Front Line Assembly
