Gerry

There's a new report saying that in the 20 September, 1973, "Battle of the Sexes" match, Bobby Riggs threw the match to Billie Jean King in order for forgiveness of $100K in gambling debts owed by Riggs to the mob.

At the time of the event, King was a 29yo Wimbledon winner and women's liberation supporter, and Riggs was 55, who last won a championship in the 1940's.

In spite of this, and Riggs being 15+ lbs over-weight, he was still favoured to win with 5-2 odds.

This being a "milestone" event, in not only tennis, but sports in general, I wonder what the general feeling is, whether this claim is true or not.

The article in which I point to as evidence on this charge is from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist ), and describes what fascism is, and how it works.

It seems that, if we aren't already under a fascist regime, the US government is quickly headed towards becoming one. The conservatives are crying about socialism, yet they are pushing forth an agenda that would make a socialist state a utopian dream. When are their black shirts going to march down Main Street, USA, and is it too late for WE, THE PEOPLE, to stop it?

Am I the only one who is a little disappointed, purely for silly and humourous reasons, that William and Catherine were not fans of Johnny Cash? I knew they wouldn't name him that, but I still get a chuckle when I imagine running across "A Boy Named Sue."

Generally speaking, how "pleased" are you with the baby's name?

Given the current political climate, on both sides of the aisle, am I non-partisan by calling them a bunch of idiots? Or can you come up with a better phrase? (Keep it clean, folks! A kid just might need to reference this question for 'early 21st century politics' a hundred years from now!)

I mean, both were funny in their own ways, but overall, which one was better? Why?

I'm only talking the "live action" prime time versions of the shows, not the "saturday morning cartoon" versions. (Those are subject to another question from someone else.)

I used to work in a supermarket where a large portion of the clientele refused to believe that pigs were actually cleaner than turkeys or chickens, and believed that bottom feeders, like shrimp, clams & crabs were "clean" because they came from the water!

I am, admittedly, not the brightest person in the room, but I make the effort to correct my own ignorance. But, REALLY!!! How ignorant were/are these people?

The one at that national "Donut" shop that's known for "Dunking." (How's that for not directly mentioning their name?) I'm talking about the one with the bacon & egg on a glazed donut. I just had it. It wasn't "OMG! WOW!", nor was it "bleech." Good? Yes. Would I have it again? Maybe. Was it worth the $3.99? Not really, but they're generally overpriced anyway. (I'd pay more if I knew the workers there got a decent wage.)

I'm not an employee of theirs (or anyone's, right now), so don't think I'm a plant of the company

A "sure thing" meaning: NOT in a coma or a vegetative state, and little suffering.

There was no physical contact, nor any physical victim. Civil commitment is where they lock you away for life, based NOT on what you did, but what you MIGHT DO. (If they want to be fair, do that to drunk drivers, as well!) This is a matter of life and death

There was no physical contact, or physical victims. This is a serious question, and a matter of life or death

It is better than possible civil commitment