From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Fri May 26 09:10:44 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e4Q89uH16467
	for britdisc-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:09:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4Q89sp16459
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from mx1.organic.com (mx1.organic.com [207.76.139.5])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e4Q89rV00095
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from fwd1-sf.organic.com (fwd1-sf [207.76.139.9])
	by mx1.organic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20820;
	Fri, 26 May 2000 01:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from po1-sf.organic.com (po1-sf.organic.com [192.168.5.47])
	by fwd1-sf.organic.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01347;
	Fri, 26 May 2000 01:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inside.organic (inside.organic.com [192.168.5.80])
	by po1-sf.organic.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA21745;
	Fri, 26 May 2000 01:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simonlaptop by inside.organic (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id BAA03533; Fri, 26 May 2000 01:09:30 -0700
Message-ID: <000401bfc6e9$be527da0$a088a8c0@organic.com>
From: "simon" <simon.norris@virgin.net>
To: "Si and/or Jack" <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net>,
   <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
References: <20000525134235.95239.qmail@hotmail.com> <003801bfc6e7$b3d6b140$eb85bc3e@oemcomputer>
Subject: Re: Tour 2 results
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:09:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

this is boring, and in danger of descending into playground bickering.

I reiterate again that, to a man we backed the decision of Catch to pull out
of T2. Our argument isnt with Catch, however given that we finished 8th out
of merit and not due to any free wins where we would have played them  you
can understand how we feel.  It leaves us with the opinion that we also
should have withdrawn, and therefore kept 6th position for T3...

Simon
speaking for my team.




----- Original Message -----
From: Si and/or Jack <JackAndSi.Hill@ukgateway.net>
To: <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Tour 2 results


> David Eastman wrote:
> > Better wait for confirmation - Catch may have been given an automatic
> entry
> > here too.
> >
> > >
> > >Can anyone tell me who won spirit at Tour 2?
> > >
> > >Balti
> > >BAF 34
> > >
>
> That was a question about Tour 2.  Where have you been?  We didn't play at
> Tour 2.
>
> I'm afraid I can't actually remember who you are, but I think you must
play
> for Hammerage (I guess that the one or two games that we get each year are
> pretty short).  For what its worth I have a preference for the seeding
being
> based on a cumulative mechanism rather than the last tournament - which
> would have left you in the top 8 at the next tournament.  I'm sorry that
you
> won't be in our pool at T3.
>
> Si - 22
>
> still not talking for the team
>
> ps - incidentally did we get any spirit votes at T2?  Or maybe some people
> didn't like what we did and tried to give us a negative spirit vote?
> (Although I don't think such a thing really exists.)
>