Vote for the Winner of the 2008 Blogging Scholarship
Who Should Win the 2008 Blogging Scholarship?
A list of the finalists, along with their schools and blogs, is located here.
309 Comments on “Vote for the Winner of the 2008 Blogging Scholarship”
Feed
Blog Info
Scholarships
- College Scholarships
- Our Scholarships
- Scholarship Search Engine
- Searching with Google
- Meta Search
- Scholarship Databases
November 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
He’s such an awesome guy! He deserves it!
November 7th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
[…] go vote. Tell your friends to go vote. Have them tell their friends. Derek and I have never done this for […]
November 7th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
[…] if would be even more an honor be one of the winners. If you enjoy what we have here, please vote early, and often. It’s like Daley’s Chicago, but without the mafia enforcers! Who knows […]
November 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
VOTE FOR SNIVELY, IF YOU KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR YOU!
November 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Dave Cameron has contributed tremendously to baseball journalism through his USS Mariner and Fangraphs blogs. He is truly nationally recognized and deserves this award.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
SNIVELY
November 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
[…] Vote for Michael Snively! […]
November 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
[…] of time, without making anything from it, to educating people about baseball…..lets help him out Vote for David Cameron INTEL E8400 // Gigabyte EP45 Extreme // 4GB DDR3-1600 // Palit HD 4870 // Antec 1200 // Seagate […]
November 7th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
[…] online voting process and needless to say, I could use that type of financial help. If you could, go vote for me, and tell your friends to do the same. Let’s put some money in a Conservative’s hands. […]
November 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
If this contest is based on one’s ability to self-promote and mobilize a voting population for his selfish needs, then David Cameron is your man. I have never before been able to understand so much about an individuals’ personality on the web. His narcissitic and acerbic style literally drips off of the screen. The funny thing about this is that his field of expertise (sabermetrics) is already populated with his type of guy, so for him to stand out in a field so ripe with arrogance really is an accomplishment.
If his blog post regarding an Open Letter is any indication of his ability as an analyst, let’s hope that he does’nt quit his day job. That particular masterpiece was more like an open letter to swiss cheese. If what you strive for is a guy that uses a faulty thesis statement and backs it up with sub-standard statistics, Dave is your man. When he then uses his stat-world to advise on the field behavior, he gets so laughably out of his depth, only his 100 or so sheep at his site keep his head out of the water. I am sure that you all will be hearing multiple times from them, but he has scores of critics in the area who find him to be somewhat of a fraud.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Dave’s insight and persistence in helping others to learn more themselves deserves to be rewarded.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Outstanding blog! I check it multiple times per day.
November 8th, 2008 at 1:09 am
[…] http://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-blogging-scholarship/ […]
November 8th, 2008 at 3:23 am
I’ve studied baseball all my life (I’m 63). I’ve read Dave (and his fellow authors)on his USSMariner blog for several years now. I’ve learned as much about the game in these last few years as I’ve learned the other 60.
Dave has an uncanny ability to judge talent. He’s right often.
He gets my vote.
November 8th, 2008 at 4:43 am
[…] https://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-blogging-scholars… […]
November 8th, 2008 at 5:49 am
[…] November 8, 2008 by cao2 Justin is competing for a $10,000 scholarship. Vote here online. […]
November 8th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The winner will be decided by competing promotions to vote early and often. What a ridiculously stupid way to disburse $10,000.
If you’re not one of his flock of bleating sheep then you might think twice before you vote early and often for Cameron, the scholarship worthy blogger who has blogged that Baseball Prospectus is a “cesspool influenced by a cadre that suck at living as human beings.” Check it out: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/cameron_giving_the_finger_to_bp/
November 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
VOTE SNIVELY!!!!!!!!!! HE GOES TO MIT, HE DESERVES IT
November 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Come on David just got married, we all know that he can’t afford anything right now, let along school. No one deserves this more Vote for Dave in ’08. I approve this message.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:10 am
American Papist is an awesome blog. Thomas Peters is such a hardworker and gets out sooooo much information. This guy deserves to win.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
CRA – 7/11
You write beautifully but man are you angry. Did you have an unhappy childhood?
November 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
David Cameron, through his USS Mariner blog, has dome more for my enjoyment of the Seattle mariners than any other writer, commentator, or newspaper. He consistently shows that he understands the game of baseball on the absolutely highest level, but goes out of his way to spend the time to pass that high level understanding on to others. I have read USS Mariner for near 5 years now and I can say without a doubt that I have recommended the site more often than any other over that time period.
David’s open letter to Felix Hernandez was remarkable in that he once again took modern baseball statistics and put them into a usable format that could be understood by all. In the case of the open letter he wound uplikely having a direct impact on the Mariner’s success as it found it’s eat to the pitching coach and Felix himself.
David cameron has unselfishly devotedthousands of hours of his life towards creating a better informed Mariner fanbase. He is MORE than deserving of this award.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Dave’s analysis and humor keep me coming back. And oh, at 1271, his fan-base just broke through the “100 or so sheep” ceiling. Go, Dave!
November 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
[…] Vote for Dave Saturday, November 08th, 2008 | Author: Doug Gray Dave Cameron of U.S.S. Mariner has been nominated to receive a $10,000 college scholarship due to his excellence in blogging. If […]
November 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I could not figure out how to vote for David Cameron, but I want to vote for David Cameron, many times over đ
November 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
SNIVELY SNIVELY
November 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I’ve been a reader of the USS Mariner site since they started up. It’s a really good site, but David Cameron is such an arrogant prick, I wouldn’t vote for him for anything (even dogcatcher), let alone to get $10,000!
Additionally, Cameron is almost 30 years old — shouldn’t he have gotten his college degree by now? I came to this site to find someone else to vote for – I see that Dave is ahead in the vote by a good margin so I voted for the #2 candidate, Michael Snively. Go Snively!
November 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
David Cameron’s baseball blogging has contributed to my life, my knowledge, and (most importantly) to my sense of statistics as a way of looking at and understand events.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Vote Thomas Peters! His blog is an excellent commentary on political, social, and religious issues from the nation’s capital.
November 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[…] All you have to do is VOTE Justin Higgins. Go to this link! […]
November 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Vote for Omar Hossino, he writes a clear and understandable blog on the economy and politics today!
November 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
VOTE FOR SNIVELY!!!!!!
November 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Feel the power of USSM.
Dave Cameron is certainly deserving. Vote Cameron in ’08!
November 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
[…] UA Transformation Plan by Evan Lisull on November 8th, 2008 Things have obviously been busy here (VOTE!); enough so that we somehow missed the release of the Strategic Planning and Budget […]
November 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Thomas Peters and his American Papist blog is the best.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Vote for Dave. Seattle sports NEEDS this.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I am not a fan of the Mariners but Dave Cameron is an outstanding baseball researcher and writer. He got my vote.
November 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
My support is fully For Cameron. Kudos, David. You deserve it.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Michael Snively is, in my opinion, one of the greatest bloggers I have had the fortune to stumble open in my many college quests. By reading his blog, I have learned the equivalent of countless trips to MIT, along with the Boston area. His clever writing and multiple pictures for new experiences and places complement each other well, and it is because of him that I am applying to MIT. Also as a result, I have a newly sparked interest in math/science centered schools and the true quest for Awesome.
Really, if you have only ever heard of one of these bloggers, read just one of Snively’s many blogs about college life. They will make you wish you were there.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Brian Switek is informed, insightful and and kicks paleo-blogging butt.
Go Brian go!
November 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Mr. Peters just might convince me yet to join the True Faith. He is most enlightening to what my soul needs to know. If nothing else, his PPOTD brings a most needed smile to my day.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
As a writing professional and journalist, I find Thomas Peters’ formidable contribution to online commentary on politics and culture as well as religion all the more impressive in view of his age. He writes with remarkable maturity and insight, and his hard work and shrewd judgment have earned his blog destination/reference status among older and seasoned bloggers and writing professionals. His new AmP NEWS video blogging initiative only raises the bar. A more deserving student blogger is hard for me to imagine.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
[…] November 2008 (4)October 2008 (17)September 2008 (38)August 2008 (64)July 2008 (13)June 2008 (32)May 2008 (72)April 2008 (54)March 2008 (127)February 2008 (92)January 2008 (81)December 2007 (1)November 2007 (13)October 2007 (1)September 2007 (1)June 2007 (3)May 2007 (1)April 2007 (1) A friend of mine has asked for some help for a deserving person looking to get a scholarship.Take a look below and help out by voting!"A person who I greatly respect, and whose writing is extremely deserving, has been nominated for a 2008 Blogging Scholarship Award.If you dont mind, please take a few minutes to vote for him, he runs a baseball blog (USSM) dedicated to the Seattle Mariners (MY TEAM), and also does some fantastic analysis at Fangraphs, another baseball blog.If you are into baseball at the statistical level, I highly recommend his work, and if you are just a common fan, impress your family and friends with in depth knowledge by checking out some of his stuff.http://ussmariner.com/http://www.fangraphs.com/He dedicates a great deal of time, without making anything from it, to educating people about baseball…..lets help him outVote for David Cameron https://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/20…ng-scholarship/" […]
November 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
@ CRA & Happy Camper
You guys (if indeed you are two separate people) are hilarious. Is there even a blogger on this list you’re supporting? Or did you just wander over here for the sole purpose of flaming Dave?
Obviously, there are more than just “100 or so sheep” that disagree with you. USS Mariner is one of the most well-written, well-read, and well-respected baseball blogs out there. Dave Cameron has a great mind, and his evaluations are usually right on the money. Additionally, he’s actually a pretty nice guy.
Perhaps you have written some of your own insightful pieces of analysis that you could share with us so we could better understand the expertise that colors your opinion? No? Then perhaps you are just jealous? đ
Dave, we appreciate the countless hours of quality work you put in to enriching our baseball enjoyment. Hope you win – you deserve it.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
[…] Thomas Peters is in the running to win a $10000 student blogging scholarship. You can help him by voting for him (”Thomas Peters”) in the 2008 student blogging […]
November 8th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
American Papist is a great blog. Thomas Peters deserves to win.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I have learned more about baseball from Dave Cameron than I have from a life time of reading the Seattle Times, the Seattle PI, Sporting News and Sports Illustrated.
While I am sure the other blogs are all deserving, Dave Cameron gets my vote. As for CRA, what is your problem? I can only conclude you are one of the other candidates. Face the facts: Dave is going to win the $10k. Well deserved, Dave.
November 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
If real progress and worthwhile knowledge are important to you, then VOTE for Brian Switek. His blog has bears and science!
November 8th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
[…] you like what you read there, I urge you to vote to send him on his way to winning the scholarship. Posted in General | Tagged The Arizona Desert Lamp […]
November 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Apparently the secret is to not use Firefox – FF only showed me the results, IE let me vote.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Keep it mature, guys.
November 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am
VOTE FOR MICHAEL SNIVELY!!!
November 9th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Dave Cameron deserves it as the work he puts into USSMARINER beggars belief. Mariners fans may not have the best team, but we have the best bloggers – and sometimes that’s enough.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:50 am
snively. yes please.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Never a blogger more deserving than David Cameron, he earns my vote again and again.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Just to be clear 100% clear, I have only voted once and I encourage everyone to do the same. Moderator can delete my comment if you wish, but I mean it when I say David Cameron contributes so much through his USSM blog, to our knowledge of baseball and beyond. The man makes the internet a more intelligent place.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Vote for Thomas Peters, very smart, logical, and hard working.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:21 am
I could not recommend Dave Cameron highly enough for the wonderful work he has done for U.S.S Mariner.
His blog is one of the few that I read every day. I value his accuracy and insight most. As an example, the 2008 Mariner preseason led off with a landmark trade which was heralded by ESPN pundits, local sports radio and the three market newspapers. Dave Cameron, instead of relying on outdated conventional baseball wisdom, blogged that the trade was a mistake. He provided evidence and conjecture that eventually was proved correct. The trade was a monumental bust.
That’s what he does day in and day out. His analysis has proven correct far more often than the aforementioned media outlets. That’s why I frequent his blog. Dave’s even got me reading articles he gets published on other blogs and his semi-weekly local radio interviews.
Accuracy and insight. They earned my vote.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Vote for David Malinowski~!!!
???~ ???!! ? ???????!??
November 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
@ Jerry
I wandered over out of curiosity. As one once rigorously vetted for a scholarship, I can’t support $10,000 being disbursed according to standards of a popularity contest. This one’s as asymmetrical as a beauty contest between men, women and sunsets.
Cameron writes clearly, but he’s a lot less sovereign when interacting. He quickly ridicules contrary opinions with zingers like “You know a lot less about this than you think” or “We’ve discussed why you’re dead wrong, feel free to just let it go.” And when he suspects that he or his pal’s been slighted, Davey really turns on the charm, as he did when he characterized Baseball Prospectus as “a cesspool influenced by a cadre that suck at living as human beings.” That’s not quality blogging.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I tried to vote, and found out that I couldn’t – I have now had to vote from an anonymous IP Proxy. It appears that College Scholarships.org is IP filtering the votes, so one vote per IP. Whilst this might seem a method to prevent multiple votes, those on AOL might find themselves blocked.
More worryingly, those on an institutional IP address, such as a college network, might not be able to register their vote. For a contenst for a COLLEGE scholarship to do this is worrying – if 100 people at the University of Anywhere independently decided to vote, then only one vote will be allowed. Any chance this might be corrected before the closing date?
November 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
VOTE FOR DAVID MALINOWSKI! I recommend David Malinowski!!! He loves langauge and technology. So he has created a cyber place where people who are interested in learning new languages and culture share their thoughts and experiences. I can see what other people feel and think about their learning experiences which always inspires me whose second language is English. So I love his blog! He deserves it!
November 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
David Malinowski,
? ?? ?? ???? ????. ???~!
November 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
really? a sports analysis blog?
how utterly useless.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I didn’t even know Thomas Peters was a college student until I saw this voting opportunity. His American Papist blog is a daily read for me, and has been for as long as he’s been running it. Papist Picture of the Day is a true highlight of the web, I’ve sent links to many of my friends.
And even though I’m a native of Seattle, nothing about the Mariners can compete with Peters’ discussion about truth over at American Papist.
Peters FTW!
November 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Vote for Thomas Peters. This guy gets information on current social, political and religious events disseminated in a humorous yet respectful way. The only thing he doesn’t have that I would recommend is bagpipes. His PPOTD never fails to elicit a smile.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
That just depends on where your priorities are and you passion lies, Brennon. 2,819 people appear to disagree.
I for one could not possibly recommend anyone more than Dave Cameron. Dave works hard to provide intelligent, inspiring analysis. He has had a direct impact on so many people and the way they approach baseball- and by extension- life. The blog may be about baseball, but the underlying philosophies of his analysis can easily be applied to all facets of life.
I can’t imagine anyone better at what he does than Dave Cameron is at baseball analysis. Should we all be that capable in our chosen fields, this world would be a far better place.
Dave Cameron is a good man and deserves this scholarship.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Brian Switek has truly earned my vote and deserves this scholarship!
November 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Once Again, the self-promoting Lord Cameron has deployed his cult of obsequious toads to sway public opinion in his favor.
Vote NO – to the little-boys-baseball-card-club lead by Dave âKoreshâ Cameron.
Slap Back – at his âstable boysâ who will surly dominant this list, by shear number (and proxy) rather than intellect.
Vote Yes – to one of the many other gifted writers who actually contribute something to society, rather than self-aggrandizement and narcissistic fueling schemes.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Happy Camper,
Unless it’s your $10k, I don’t see why you should care how they give it away. I don’t think they care if they have your support or not.
As far as the Cameron/Zumsteg/BP fallout…so what? Everyone is entitled to their opinions – no need to take it so personally. BP didn’t exactly handle that well either.
Fact is, Cameron’s blogging generates a good deal of impact in the national baseball scene. Whether or not you agree with or like him, that’s a worthy accomplishment.
November 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
About time the Mariners won something this year…
November 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Wow, Thomas Peters catching up…at the pace of one vote every thirty seconds exactly…hmmmm….
November 9th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Brennon,
Your comment is the only utterly useless aspect here. Just because one of the candidates was nominated for something he wrote on a sports analysis blog doesn’t mean he’s not the most worthy candidate here – unless you are so blind and biased against any or everyone other than your preference.
And to cite a very small portion of Dave’s writing, Jerry, you, sir, are being even more shortsighted than those you are lambasting for voting for him.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Brennon, make that “sports analysis blogs”.
Apparently, the panel which chose the finalists felt that at least two “useless” blogs about sports (and their authors) met the criteria that the winning blog should “contain unique and interesting information about you and/or things you are passionate about” — just as they did about the writers of blogs addressing food, language, religion, politics, the law…
The time, love, and thought put into all of these pages is impressive, especially when you factor in the authors’ classwork, likely other jobs, and “real life”.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Vote for the dynamic young Thomas Peters from the very informative and inspirational American Papist. His blog really helps this old hag daily:
http://americanpapist.com/blog.html
God Bless Thomas et al…
Aine
November 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Thank you USS Mariner! Go Dave!
November 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
@”Other” Paul:
Voting works just fine at my college. Most universities do not have just one IP address.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Brennon,
Yes, sports analysis. Major League Baseball is only a multi billion dollar company who enhances its product like most others, with product analysis. So when Team A is about to make a move that could be worth tens of millions of dollars and they turn to some ‘useless sports analyst’ to help them make the decision they probably should just flip a coin on the decision instead since its so obvious that sports analysis is so useless.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Peters!
November 9th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’m thinking the comments section was a poor choice.
Just kidding, sort of.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
SNIVELY!! GOOD LUCK…
November 9th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
An internet poll is a terrible way to choose a recipient of an award, and I really hope the award winner will not be determined by these votes. I have already seen someone state that they plan to write a bot to vote for their preferred candidate through many proxy servers, and it should be well-known that internet polls are not reliable collectors of unbiased data.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
[…] for him here. Read his stuff here, here, and […]
November 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“really? a sports analysis blog?
how utterly useless.”
Well…. at least people read it. And for the people upset at his attacks on baseball prospectus: he’s not exactly the only blogger on this list to direct criticism at somebody. At least he was funny.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
How in the hell did Gavin Rehkemper get put on there for “The Quad Blog.” It has rarely been updated in the last couple of months and includes very little writing. What a joke.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Oh yes Brennon, a sports analysis blog. How droll indeed. To think that the plebeians who follow something so barbaric as sport could get $10,000 for simply writing about it is utterly preposterous.
November 9th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
[…] You can vote for him here: College Scholarships […]
November 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Nobody more deserving than Dave Cameron. His insight into baseball generally, and the Seattle Mariners specifically, is without equal. U.S.S. Mariner is what all other blogs should aspire to be. It provides information not available anywhere else in an entertaining, insightful, and often humorous way.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I put in my vote for Michael Snively. We’ve even heard about him down here in New Zealand!
November 9th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Dave Cameron deserves the award the most!
November 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Why would anyone ever read snively’s blog more than once, it’s utter crap
November 9th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
VOTE FOR DAVID MALINOWSKI! I love your blog!
November 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I’m grateful I made the finals. It’s a great honor and I am very excited for the opportunity.
November 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
David Malinowski has taken on a crucially important topic: the interface of language and culture. Please read his blog “Found in Translation” and see how intriguing and sophisticated his (and his collaborators’) commentaries are. Vote for Malinowski!
November 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Urban Science Adventures creates an avenue for young children and adults to reach outside their door and explore the world around them. You’ll be surprised whats in your own backyard. Danielle brings science alive up close and personal in a urban setting thats makes it enjoyable and facinating. Science is available outside of the classroom. Let the adventure begin.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I can’t say that I, as a Mariners fan and fellow blogger, agree with Cameron all the time, but nobody writes a better blog, nobody. If you sweep across the entire country and read every sports blog that there is, nobody gets more national attention than USSM, and no other blog can statistically analyze better than Cameron.
Nobody deserves it more than Dave Cameron.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Monte…you use some big words, but you don’t make much sense. You also seem to have a bizarre amount of hatred for a poor baseball blogger.
Oh, and I think you mean “surely” not “surly,” “dominate” rather than “dominant,” and “sheer” instead of “shear.”
Jason, I think you confused me with the Happy Camper poster. But that’s okay, I won’t hold it against you.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Brian Switek received my vote. He’s a wonderful writer, and for being a science major, knows alot more about the history of science than I do! (and I am a history of science student). Wonderful photos, fun dino/monster vids, and intelligent posts…. give Brian your vote, he deserves it!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Thomas Peters might be a good person but his blog is nothing but rumors and gossip. Give your vote to someone more deserving.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:51 am
[…] like to encourage every HMNH visitor to click this link and vote for Brian. Here are a few reasons […]
November 10th, 2008 at 1:00 am
[…] that I have your attention: GO HELP BRIAN SWITEK WIN A $10,000 SCHOLARSHIP. You can get the full scoop from Brian himself over at […]
November 10th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Dave! Cameron! Dave Cameron! Do it! Seriously, the only sports blog I check every day, and I’m not even a Mariners fan!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Vote for Dave Cameron.. He took my virginity
November 10th, 2008 at 2:57 am
I agree with Brad regarding Thomas Peters blog. His blog really is a waste of time.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:32 am
hey, vote for Snively, he writes well.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:05 am
I voted for Dave Cameron. I first found out about USS Mariner from ESPN.com where there was a baseball chat going on. Someone asked about a possible trade, and what the blogosphere was saying about it. Well, I want to say it was Rob Neyer (but it could have been someone else) said that the M’s would be much better off just putting Dave Cameron and the USS Mariner staff in charge. And that they were the best blog on the net.
Well, I hope we prove them right.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Vote for Dingel: the best blogger the world has ever seen!!!!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 7:01 am
SNIVELY!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Jerry…To use paraphrase Cameron’s typical rejoinder, you know less about Cameron’s cesspool characterization than you think.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Someone has a man crush! It’s cute in a kinda creepy, childish way Happy.
I would have voted for Pamela Aghababian on the strength of the Chocolate Pumpkin Cups recipe alone posted on Cave Cibum, but alas, we are only allowed one vote and mine was cast in favor of Dave Cameron.
Cameron’s content is consistently thought provoking but the post that he was nominated for exemplifies the power of the blogoshpere. In the realm of “baseball” analysis, the masses are gravitating away from the big entities like ESPN and even local newsprint in favor of the more in depth, specialized, and a great majority of the time, more intellectually edifying content of blogs. USSmariner is among the elite in this regard and is bookmarked by a great many within the industry (both baseball and the media that covers the sport). In fact, the post being considered for the scholarship actually was discussed internally by the Mariners as the progress of one of their best pitchers was being considered.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am
[…] the vote’s open for another 10 days, this thing is far from over. So, if you haven’t, go vote. It takes a couple of mouse clicks. You’ll be done in 10 seconds. I really appreciate […]
November 10th, 2008 at 10:30 am
[…] the winner is chosen by public voting. So, if you’ve enjoyed any of my writing and want to help out, just click the link, vote for David Cameron, and I’ll be one step closer to […]
November 10th, 2008 at 10:52 am
CRA has sand in his panties over Dave Cameron. ‘Nuff said.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
[…] https://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-blogging-scholars… […]
November 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Another sheep to the flock, Dave got my vote, sorry kiddies.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
In the world of online baseball writing, the U.S.S. Mariner stands as one of the few anyone would call “required reading,” MSM or otherwise. Vote David Cameron, even if you don’t like him or his team.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I love baseball, and it was a heavenly day in 2004 when I came across http://www.USSMariner.com. Thought provoking? Yes. Engaging? Check that. Dave Cameron is to be commended for his contribution to baseball history and for making it accessible.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Happy Camper, Brennon, CRA,
Thanks for demonstrating why we aren’t voting for YOU here. I certainly hope that internet trolling is its own reward, because you sure mustn’t believe in karma.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Where can I get my yard signs?
And can I get them electrified, like that McCain/Palin supporter, so that people get electrocuted if they try & steal one???
Enough with the campaigning, people. A boring waste of time – everyone who votes is there to vote for one specific person.
It’s not a quality-of-blog contest, it’s a how-many-people-can-you-get-to-vote-for-you contest.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
David’s Found in Translation reflects his enthusiasm for language learning and education. It’s been a great way to reach out to the Berkeley community and beyond.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
good luck!
November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Good Luck Snively!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
[…] So go here and vote for Danielle! Show the young ones that they, too, can be a kickass vole-trapping scientist with the best hair on the prairie. […]
November 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
[…] As a former nominee for a blogging scholarship from College Scholarships.org, I encourage you all to vote for the best blog of 2008 from students, where the top prize is $10,000! […]
November 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
David Cameron
November 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Wow, for being a Happy Camper, you really hold a grudge. One would think Dave insulted your mother, not Baseball Prospectus.
Dave Cameron and co. author an intelligent, constantly updated, and insightful blog that is highly regarded in the baseball community.
Vote Dave Cameron.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
One thing I can vouch for — if he wins, Cameron’s not gonna take that 10 grand and blow it on beer. Now me, OTOH, were I eligible and popular enough…
I disagree with Dave quite a bit – and I’m definitely not one of his or DMZ’s “sheeple”. But having met him and spent a decent amount of time “offline” with him, there’s no finer person in the world that deserves this. Go get ’em Dave!
November 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Vote David Mauro. Daily KOS endorsed him as the only progressive candidate for the award.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
[…] vote for Brian […]
November 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I’m not a Mariners fan, but I do read USS Mariner. I think that’s a testament to David Cameron’s quality as a blogger.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m not a Mariners fan, and I really have no interest in whether or not the team does well. However, I check USS Mariner several times a week (and consider it one of my favorite baseball blogs) because I really appreciate Cameron’s style, particularly how he blends hard statistical analysis with a healthy dose of pragmatism about what can actually happen for the team. His take is usually not just a sabermetric look at the team that decides, “Ugh, we suck!” Rather, it’s a more nuanced look at how the team could improve and why fans of an admittedly down-in-the-dumps franchise should have some hope.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Without the USSMariner this season, Seattle Fans would have all committed suicide.
Happy Felix Day!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The greatest Blog post ever:
http://ussmariner.com/2006/03/12/bugs-bunny-greatest-banned-player-ever/
November 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Go David!!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I voted for Thomas Peters a very deserving young Catholic man
As you can see from the blog, Tom has most recently appeared on CNN, BBC World News, The Today Show & MSNBC.com, and has also appeared in Our Sunday Visitor, National Catholic Reporter, News Busters, LifeSiteNews, Inside Catholic, Busted Halo, Huffington Post, Catholic Exchange, and National Catholic Register, etc.
I feel it is so important that we encourage our young people particularly if they show a desire to spread the faith, and are smart at doing this.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
David Malinowski has my vote!!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I voted for and encourage others to vote for the most deserving Citizen, volunteer, and contributer to society (sorry-baseball commentary fails to inspire me to bestow a scholarship-maybe a howard Cossell award would be sufficent to his level of contribution to society..Ya Think!!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
by the way-the most deserving person is DAVID MAURO-good luck David!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY
November 10th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Vote David Cameron. Go Mariners!
November 11th, 2008 at 12:09 am
CRA says that 100 of the readers of USS MARINER are Dave Cameron’s sheep.
A cursory perusal of the comments on Dave’s recent preference of BETANCOURT over LOPEZ appears to show that that’s not the case.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Hey CRA
If you really want to see something laughable (and depressingly pathetic if you are a fan) just look at the previous few years of Mariners management. Hopefully 2008 was the peak of laughs – $100+ million payroll and 101 losses. If you read more of Dave Cameron you would understand just how bad the Mariners are, and you would know why.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:13 am
vote for SNIVELY because he really deserves it
November 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I do hope you realise the poll is utterly flawed. I had no problem getting multiple votes – in fairness, I spread these evenly among the also rans.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:54 am
GO Snively!!!! đ
November 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I vote for David Mauro. Tried to vote on the website, but there were no instructions on how to vote.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I voted for David. I will also pass it on to many of my friends.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Slap Back – at his âstable boysâ who will surly dominant this list, by shear number (and proxy) rather than intellect.
surely
dominate
sheer
Please continue lecturing people on their intellect.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Good luck! I enjoy reading your blog almost daily. đ
November 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
oo..my comment should say “Good luck, Thomas”..as in Thomas Peters. đ
November 11th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
David has committed himself to language learning and has been a subject near and dear to him for almost as long as I can remember (I’ve known him since childhood.) His dedication to an area largely ingored, if not openly rejected, in US culture–where “English Only” proponents are far more vocal–is highly commendable and evidence of his steadfast passion for this subject.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
AmP is one of the best sources we have for Catholic news. Good luck!
November 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Thomas Peters
November 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No shame at all in writing about sports, I love them, I just try to confine sports talk to the weekend. And Monday nights. And the occasional Thursday night. Ok… all the time.
Shameless plug to the thousands of Dave Cameron fans… if you’re looking for a national policy and human rights blog (I know, there are a lot on here), pleas check mine out đ
November 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
David Mauro all the way.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
David Mauro rocks!
November 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“I voted for and encourage others to vote for the most deserving Citizen, volunteer, and contributer to society ”
that of course assumes that you can tell, based upon the tiny slice of a person’s life that a blog exposes, just what they contribute to society.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“Daily KOS endorsed him as the only progressive candidate for the award.”
False assumption. Just because the others don’t blog about politics doesn’t mean they’re not progressive. Besides, I thought it was the skill of the blogger, not the author’s subject or beliefs that we are voting on here.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Tom Peters of American Papist does an awesome job. His video interview with Archbishop Chaput of Denver is worth my vote.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Good Luck, Brian!”
November 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
If he is like his Daddy he is ok in my books, Garry Mauro is a good man.
Walter
November 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Dave is a friend and fellow student at UNCG. He is a hard working, intelligent man. I, and many others, admire Dave for his character and dedication. There are few like him.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Good Luck David Mauro…you are awesome!
November 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Who Should Win the 2008 Blogging Scholarship? David Mauro!
November 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
thanks for your votes. Check out my essay that got me in the finals:
http://www.urban-science.blogspot.com/
November 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELYSNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY SNIVELY
November 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Go Thomas Peters!
November 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
David,
Your dad and I graduated from the same high school in Waco, Reicher Catholic High. Good luck to you.
Kathy
November 11th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Go get em David!
November 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Mr. Peters’ blog has evolved into one of the most informative, versatile and insightful blog. He works hard in keeping his viewers not only well informed and edified but also amused. He needs your vote now!
November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 am
@ Happy Camper –
You keep bringing up the BP fallout, but if memory serves, isn’t that related to their throwing DMZ under the bus over the Pete Rose story? DMZ got jobbed on that and was made a scapegoat. Dave’s sticking up for his pal. Can you blame him?
November 12th, 2008 at 2:08 am
I wish to vote for the eminently deserving Brian Switek. However, a bug is preventing me from voting. All I can see are the resulting tallies/percentages. I can’t see the voting mechanism that is supposed to precede it.
Judging from some comments at Brian’s blog, it seems that many others are experiencing the same problem, specifically several would-be Switek supporters. It would appear that if someone else at your same IP has already voted — as might be the case if you have a shared IP in an institutional setting, e.g., students who access the Internet through their university’s IP — then any subsequent votes are blocked as “repeats.”
This concerns me. It would be a shame if a widely appreciated and deserving blogger were kept from winning by a voting mechanism that effectively but erroneously disqualifies most of that blogger’s supporters. I hope this can be looked into and some kind of adjustment made.
I post this in case others are having the same problem and are initially mystified as I was.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:10 am
David Mauro has done a great job with fine research, excellent writing, and keeps it pithy. I have learned so much about Texas politics on the Burnt Orange Report!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:22 am
David is a chip off the old block. Extreming deserving of the confidence placed in him. He is not only asking for your support, he earns it everyday. A fine young man with a bright future.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:47 am
VOTE FOR MICHAEL SNIVELY,
his blogging style is so unique,and so different,
visit his blogs,u will become a fan too
November 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
@ Brent –
After Cameron blogged that BP was a cesspool of human beings that suck at living, DMZ admitted that BP was misunderstood, then deleted Cameronâs cesspool characterization, which was not one of the blogosphereâs finest moments.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Danielle Lee has beautiful pictures!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Thomas Peters, because he’s not your average Catholic!
November 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Michael deserves to win this scholarship!
November 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Good luck with the contest…. Keep the Dream Alive and blog ’bout Salems Riverfront Carousel!
November 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
[…] 2008 Blogging Scholarship Award — Vote Thomas Peters! […]
November 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
i vote for danielle lee!
November 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
[…] lead in the $10,000 Scholarship Voting is under 3,000 votes for the first time in several days. I liked my cushion. If you haven’t […]
November 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Thomas Peters is awesome.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I remember when Snively passed 6th grade block. My teaching obviously influenced him greatly. đ Keep up the excellent work!!
November 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Back after a few days to check progress on my boy Dave Cameron. I see that the angry hordes have been sent to slay those who would soil the internet with blasphemy. Sounds a bit more like a gaggle of hand-maidens caterwauling over the funeral pyre of a fallen knight. Glad to see that gaming the poll isn’t beneath the good ship. You other contestants might want to take notice and act accordingly.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Danielle is a rising star and deserves any support to help attain her goals. Kudos to Danielle for her dedication and perserverance!
November 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Vote for Michael SNIVELY! Way to go! đ
November 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
THOMAS PETERS. American Papist Blog is I would argue, the most unique.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
[…] help Thomas Peters get this money, all you have to do is go here and vote for him. That’s […]
November 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Vote for Danielle Lee! She’s a really classy sista, very intelligent with a very positive outlook. She deserves this scholarship so as to further her extensive knowledge in her Urban Sciences. Well Done Danielle! And GodSpeed!
November 12th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
[…] return the favor and vote for her! Vote for Danielle […]
November 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
GOOD LUCK!!!!
November 12th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I vote for Danielle Lee!
November 12th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
What would Pope Benedict do?
Peters đ
November 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
[…] in the 2008 Blogging Scholarship, and I’d really appreciate if you’d be willing to vote for me. Voting ends at 11:59pm PST on Thursday, November 20th, […]
November 12th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Happy Camper, I’m starting to suspect that you’re one of the trolls that frequents the Seattle Times website. Which one are you, Logan, Mr. X, or tugboatcritic?
Seems that over 6,000 people don’t care about Mr. Cameron’s stance on Baseball Prospectus (either that or they agree with his assessment). Could it be his personal feelings about that particular publication has no bearing on the level of analysis he puts into his work?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
David Mauro is the right guy to win and thats why I voted for him.He is a great guy and and a great blogger.
Everyone should vote for him.He must win the 2008 Blogging Scholarship
November 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
This young man has impressed me with his thoughtfulness and thorough expressions of faith and news
November 12th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
David Mauro is type of person that WILL ‘make a difference’ now and in the future.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Go, Thomas!
November 13th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Snively gets my vote because with a name like that, it’s about time the consolation prizes started rolling in.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Can someone tell what is so horrible about a sports blog getting recognized? For those of you generalizing, you haven’t read the baseball blog in question. It’s not “sportswriting” as you know if from your local broadsheet. There’s humor, there’s math… yes! both! And the guy has built a genuine community there. My housemates would vote for it too if this thing didn’t penalize us for sharing an ISP ID…
November 13th, 2008 at 5:37 am
@ Lane –
I doubt that there are over 6000 individuals who have voted for Cameron. Those that have probably don’t know about Cameron’s blogged personal opinion that BP is “a cesspool of human beings that suck at living.”
And they probably don’t know Cameron’s blogged personal opinion of Cy Young Lincecum. One year ago: “Lincecum, the most overhyped prospect in the history of time? Very possible. If everyone who loves Tim Lincecum and is convinecd that heâs the next great HOF pitcher could all just go move into a community without internet acccess together, thatâd be awesome. Thanks.”
If blogged personal opinions are irrelevent to the disbursement of scholarships for quality blogging, then to use a typical Cameron rejoinder, just feel free to ignore his personal opinions.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
If you’d like to direct me to the baseball analyst that’s never made a bold claim about a prospect that’s been proven wrong I’d love to see this seer of yours. The majority of the analysis Dave and USSM have done regarding the M’s over the last few years has been proven to be spot on.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am
[…] See my post at –> American Papist Blogger Award or go here –> College Scholarships […]
November 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
How do you vote on this thing? I just clicked on my choice, which is Danielle Lee, but I couldn’t quite tell whether or not it properly registered…
November 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@ happy camper
lol, have you had one too many comments deleted for being off topic at ussmariner?
November 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Go Thomas Peters!
November 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Happy Camper,
I happily voted for Dave and was aware both that he has had a major fallout with BP (as have many other people I like and respect – General consensus seems to be that BP is not run by very nice people these days) and was not as bullish on Lincecum during the 2006 draft as others. He’s still a good guy and a damn fine analyst.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
So, Happy Camper, are you accusing Mr. Cameron’s readers of rigging this poll? That’s a mighty serious claim to make.
What did Dave do to you to upset you this much? Seems like you’ve got a grudge that goes much, much deeper than his take on Baseball Prospectus. I suspect you’re merely a person that hates sabermetric analysis in general. It just so happens that this poll features one of the field’s biggest proponents.
The USSM is a blog that is extraordinarily thought provoking. Unfortunately, your hatred towards Mr. Cameron seems to have blinded you to the fantastic work that appears on that particular blog. Shame, really. In the end it’s only you that misses out.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Please people. Don’t feed the trolls.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Ahhhhh, unrequited love. Now there should be a blog about that….
“Let no one who loves be called unhappy (camper). Even love unreturned has its rainbow.”
James Matthew Barrie (plus edit by SS)
November 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I’m proud to be a Papist. I vote for Thomas Peters to win the 2008 Blogging Scholarship.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Go Thomas, Go!
November 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Go, Michael. Go Olys!! Best of luck,
Mr. Heer
November 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
David Mauro worked tirelessly blogging and more during this past election campaign – I watched it first hand as one of the attorneys volunteering! Go David!
November 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
David Mauro is a great guy with a bright future ahead of him–especially if he goes to UT. Even if he follows his dad’s footsteps and goes to Texas A&M he deserves the scholarship. Of course we would like to benefit from his political participation here in Capitol City. In either case, I vote for him.
Best,
Frances Morey
November 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Please vote for Thomas Peters!
November 13th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I VOTED FOR SNIVELY! I encourage all other people to get their democracy on and vote for Snively too.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Happy Camper reeks of Mr. X on the times blog.
Go back to your hole now.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
SNIVELY
RHYMES WITH LIVELY
SNIVELY
RHYMES WITH LIVELY
VOTE LIVELY
……….
VOTE SNIVELY
November 13th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I wish you all could win. Unfortunately, there can only be one.
Vote for Danielle Lee
November 13th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
He did a Great Job. Work It!
November 14th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I vote for Thomas Peters.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Go Dave GoDave Yeah!!!
November 14th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Heâs still a good guy and a damn fine analyst. – By JH on November 13th, 2008
âDamn fine analystâ is a stretch for someone who âmisunderestimatedâ Cy Young Lincecum, not only in 2006 but as recently as September 2007. While not a ringing endorsement of his judgement, itâs more excusable than âBP is a cesspool of human beings that suck at livingâ, so âgood guyâ is a stretch for someone who can get ugly so quickly, in this case over what DMZ said were no issues at all.
In terms of clarity, style and explication – Cameron writes well. In terms of content â if he were as “spot on” as his fans here claim, then heâd already be in some clubâs employ – provided he wasn’t fired for failing to draft Lincecum :). In terms of character â Iâm not saying itâs poor, just that his blogging behavior is not exemplary enough to justify $10,000.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Go Michael! Hope you win! Say hello to Chris for me.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
David does a great job!
November 14th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Thomas Peters
November 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Gaming the poll?
If someone were gaming the poll there would be a 20,000 vote lead by now. I see no evidence of poll gaming here. The rate of voting has followed an entirely natural looking pattern.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“I doubt that there are over 6000 individuals who have voted for Cameron.”
You fail to grasp the reach of Dave’s work. Baseball blogs across the continent have praised him and encouraged their readers to vote. A major Seattle newspaper’s web site has championed him. His candidacy got a mention by a writer on ESPN.com. Mainstream media exposure for a blogger and his ideas is exactly the sort of thing this scholarship is supposed to reward, isn’t it?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
An excellent example of Dave’s work, by the way:
http://ussmariner.com/2006/08/29/evaluating-pitcher-talent/
November 14th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Go Luck Papist
November 14th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Justin Varner must stop at once. He is a danger to society and mankind as a whole. Folks, what ever you do, do not let this bastard enter your home or he will eat your watermelons and drink your grape drinks. Don’t vote for him if you are gay.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I know very little about David,but if he is like his dad he is a fine and very sensible young man. His dad is the only Dem I ever voted for. His honesty and devotion to the people he served is surely passed on to David. I haven’t had the honor of knowing David, but I will surely see his name in bold print. Good luck David in all your endevors.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
David Cameron is the Leader of the Opposition in Britain, and therefore in 2 years everyone in the UK will be voting for David Cameron!
November 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Happy Camper, if you’ll recall *why* Dave Cameron was opposed to drafting Lincecum, it wasn’t because the guy can’t pitch — it was because he doesn’t expect him to last long.
So far, he’s done nothing to prove Dave wrong.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Happy camper – many teams failed to draft Lincecum. I don’t think that they all fired their scouting staffs
November 14th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Go David Malinowski!!!
November 14th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
David Mauro continues the Mauro legacy of dedicated, passionate, and compassionate service to and for the people. I cast my vote and urge others to support this fine young man. He is talented, driven, and committed. JUST DO IT! Bonny Terry
November 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Post script: How is it possible that D. Cameron received 7137 or 30% of all votes? Should one total tally all candidates votes, Cameron far exceeds far exceeds the combined numbers. hmmm…
November 15th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Snively- because his blogs showcase one of the most honest, informative, yet interesting stories that I ever have read.
SNIVELY, PLEASE, SNIVELY!!!!!!!
November 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
awesome thomas! i rarely find contemporaries of mine brazen enough to manifest intransigently that Catholics are Roman..one must love profoundly the Holy Father..i vote for thomas peters..
November 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Happy Camper, if youâll recall *why* Dave Cameron was opposed to drafting Lincecum, it wasnât because the guy canât pitch â it was because he doesnât expect him to last long.
So far, heâs done nothing to prove Dave wrong. – By The Ancient Mariner
So far, heâs done nothing to prove Dave right.
Convinced of an in-house prediction of a Cy Young performance within a few years of the draft â what a top sabermetrician should be able to do – ANY club would draft INDEPENDENT of Cameronâs expectation that the draftee wouldnât âlast longâ. Bank it.
November 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
[…] more, honestly, and just focus on baseball, but I feel like it’s wisdom to remind you all of the $10,000 scholarship I’ve been nominated for thanks to my work here. Hopefully, if you’re reading this, […]
November 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Happy Camper, you’re a very sad individual. You haven’t endorsed anyone in this poll, all you’ve done is made it your mission to slander Dave Cameron.
Go back and troll the Seattle Times blogs if your only goal is to make Mr. Cameron miserable.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I don’t like baseball but I voted for Cameron in protest of trolls.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I agree with some here that a web poll probably is not the best way to award a $10,000 scholarship. It seems as if such an award should be handed down by an appointed board that objectively discusses those nominated and comes to a consensus who the best candidate is. Democratic? No. But given how prone “contests” like these are prone to fraud and never-ending meaningless campaigning, it seems as if it is a better choice.
That said, the blogger I am most familiar with in this contest is (unsurprisingly) Dave Cameron. Both the haters and the unconditional supporters have good points as to why or why not he is the right choice. Without a doubt, Cameron is an excellent baseball mind who has selflessly contributed a large portion of his time eradicating baseball ignorance using a variety of methods and striving to better evaluate all aspects of the game. He is well-liked by a majority of the sabermetrics community and I’m skeptical that more than a handful of people find him to be a “fraud”. However, he certainly can be irritatingly arrogant and inflammatory… even toward his own readers. There are numerous occasions where he has come off as crass or inhospitable toward opposing viewpoints. I don’t feel as if this should be a disqualifying factor, because, frankly, it has nothing to do with what this contest is about.
I agree with Dave on many of his ideas and much of his analysis. I also disagree with him often. I’ve met Dave and spent some time with him in both a baseball and non-baseball capacity. He has personality strengths and weaknesses, but so does every other blogger here. So, enough with the flaming, enough with the blind support. Go to every blog listed here and go to USSM and figure it out for yourself.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Instead of bashing and putting down the candidates for the scholarship, I believe this board should be used to post reasons we should vote for these fine candidates. What it has become is a series of attack on people you may not even know. Obviously each candidate deserves to be on the list, and each candidate is getting their share of votes. Instead of wasting your time as well as all of ours, give us a good reason to vote for one of the other candidates rather than the few that you have been using to attempt to soil a candidates reputation. Mr. Cameron is a fine blogger, and I have been reading since the beginning and he is truly deserving of this award. The means for deciding it has been set, and your childish remarks and bad blood towards him are just causing ill-will and annoyance to many.
This contest should be about the good qualities the group of fine bloggers has been able to showcase, not their faults. We have all had moments of emotion where things may have been said, published, or done in anger. It’s human nature, and I’m sure each of the names on here is guilty of the same. If this were a contest of who was the most perfect, there would be no winner, for we all have had our ups and downs. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, as one great man once said. If those who wish to soil reputation through this message board meet this criteria, you should certainly also have the power to change the vote to your candidate with a snap of your fingers.
My vote goes to Mr. Cameron because he has changed my one major aspect of my life, and I can truly say contributed to making me a more knowledgeable and well rounded individual on the topic of baseball as well as other parts of my life.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Happy Camper, you are a piece of garbage. Your penny ante complaints about Dave are laughable, and you need a serious attitude adjustment.
You deserve a good old fashioned Seattle beating, and a hot cup of Starbucks right in the face. It’d be worth the 5 dollars to see you screaming in pain, and blind you piece of SHlT!
November 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Kyle deserves this more than anyone!
November 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
David Mauro is a great blogger of ideas!
November 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Cameron writes a tremendous blog with an enormous readership. Anyone who suspects foul play should check out the page-view numbers for USSM and the other contenders. Not everyone agrees with him, like this happy camper character, but it’s not about agreement or congeniality, or even being right all the time is it?
It’s about putting in a tremendous amount of effort day in day out to produce something that people are interested in reading. And it looks like more people are interested in reading his work than that of any other writer here (which is no knock against them).
Also, hc, maybe you should start a blog about why you dislike David Cameron – you might get a scholarship out of it!
November 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Dailykos is run by Markos Moulistas Zuniga, a world class smear merchant who is despised not only by Republicans but by most Democrats. Therefore my vote goes to David Cameron although I’m sure Mr. Mauro is a decent guy. He is just associated with the wrong person here.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
This discussion is worse than politics.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:52 am
USSM and Lookout Landing are the two best baseball blogs on the internet, hands down. Even with that no-good rebel Graham, and his uncontrollable angry Slant-Rants. He belongs on a womens golf blog.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
What does the world need more…. progressive bloggers or progressive economists?
Vote your conscience. Vote for change. Vote for Cameron!!!!!!!!
November 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
My vote is for David Mauro. In years where most people were happy to sit back and kvetch pointlessly, David has organized, informed and inspired. Arguably, the efforts of David and those like him have led to the overwhelming shift in the population away from right-wing propaganda and towards faith and hope in the future.
Great job, David!! No matter what happens in this contest, please know that you have made a difference, and are appreciated for it.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
This is the most unfortunate way to award a scholarship, as internet polls are easily manipulated with proxy assistants and amounts to nothing more than who has wider marketing capabilities.
College Scholarships should be ashamed of this lazy, worthless approach to rewarding quality work.
Ever heard of an independent, qualified judge or panel?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
vote for michael, he has helped many get through hard times!
November 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
For those who argue that baseball blogging isn’t as important as progressive blogging, I ask this:
If baseball isn’t vital to our national security, why then does the President throw out the first pitch? Also for what it’s worth, Cameron is a huge proponent of cutting edge defensive metrics.
Vote Cameron- Progressive economics-strong on defense!!!!!
November 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I was going to vote for Cameron after reading his site for a few years now, but after the sad, pathetic smear campaign he is waging on his site, not only will I not vote for him, I am done reading his site.
I voted for Snively because he seems to have a lot of support here and clearly needs the votes.
To David Cameron and his supports, I am ashamed of the negative campaign you are running, and the bad name you have given to his/your own site. Truly pathetic, and David has shown that he does not deserve such an amazing gift.
November 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
[…] If you read this and haven’t already, please drop by https://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/vote-for-the-winner-of-the-2008-blogging-scholars… and vote for Dave Cameron. Yes, perhaps USSMariner is “just” a sports blog, but the […]
November 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Justin Varner is God!!
November 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
As a long time reader of dKos, BP, USSM, and BOR… Dave Cameron wins this thing hands down. Sorry Mauro – you’re good. Cameron is better. I just wish there had been some kind of judging panel instead of who can get rile up the most people to go freep the poll. There is nothing out there that can compete with the coveted Kos stamp of approval when it comes to getting masses of people to click a button.
Besides, don’t Mariners fans suffer enough?
November 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Umm. Let’s not blame Markos Moulitsas for the format of College Scholarships.org’s contest. Markos served our nation proudly and has created a novel website. He’s no smear merchant. Don’t believe the fox news fear, dailykos is a wonderful website. Cameron was “Shamelessly self promoting” from the beginning of this thing, his supporters should not bash others for doing the same thing. As an Oakland A’s fan and DKos reader I’m happy to vote for David Mauro.
As far as Cameron goes, I think statistical analysis has been overblown by people like Nate Silver and Billy Beane. I’m happy to see Beane has abandoned his bean counting and given me a reason to be happy to go out and see some games next year.
November 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Happy Camper, you are a piece of garbage. Your penny ante complaints about Dave are laughable, and you need a serious attitude adjustment. You deserve a good old fashioned Seattle beating, and a hot cup of Starbucks right in the face. Itâd be worth the 5 dollars to see you screaming in pain, and blind you piece of SHlT! – The_Marinator
This is just like Cameron calling BP âa cesspool of human beings that suck at livingâ.
———————————————————————
USSM and Lookout Landing are the two best baseball blogs on the internet – The_Marinator
Elitists whoâve declared that âSafeco is filled to capacity with idiots who donât know what theyâre talking aboutâ. They blog accordingly.
———————————————————————
Also, hc, maybe you should start a blog about why you dislike David Cameron – amused
I donât dislike Cameron; I dislike the way he blogs.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Vote for Michael Snively !
November 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
The neat thing about Dave Malinowski’s blog is that it highlights observations about his inventive and effective ways of teaching Korean. He brings to your attention many different facets about a language and culture that cannot be ignored through just plain language instruction. He certainly deserves as much support as he can get for furthering the Korean language, and the principles/methods that go into language instruction in general. I hope he wins this scholarship. It is certainly well deserved.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
In my estimation, no one deserves it more than David Malinowsky.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
[…] to see this man rewarded for his years of dedication to writing on a subject he loves. Follow this link and vote for David Cameron, in less time it takes to extract an espresso you’ll be doing him, […]
November 16th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Vote For David Mauro. David Mauro is a Kossack and he’s white. I’m from a lilywhite state in NewHampshire and love white people. I was proud to attend YearlyKos in 2007 and go on the record as saying that blacks are stupid, uneducated and poor.
DailyKos is freeping this poll for David Mauro. Vote David Mauro.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Thomas Peters is an excellet candidate.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Gee it might be better if votes came from the actual readers of the specific blogs, rather than readers of dailykos. Just a thought.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:41 am
What a ridiculous way to decide who gets a 5-figure scholarship. You guys should be embarrassed about this.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:45 am
I voted for David Cameron of USS Mariner – he’s amazing both for the quantity and quality of work that he produces, to say nothing of his influence in improving the quality of the thinking in an entire group of fans.
Having said that, and hoping he wins, this is a completely asinine way to award a scholarship. If the idea is to judge the quality of work through a popularity contest, why not look at the traffic of the blogs proposed and leave it at that? It’s a lousy way to judge quality, but it’s still more direct than this, which in effect judges the traffic of the friends and associates of these bloggers.
Cameron had the power Mariners blogosphere behind him – Mauro had the even more powerful liberal blogosphere. Really, nobody else had a chance, and that’s only tangentially to do with the quality of the work.
I hope whoever wins (likely Mauro at this point) makes good use of this award, but honestly I hope this ridiculous selection method gets revisited. How about somebody actually makes a real decision on who deserves the award? Because this is a waste of time and bandwidth.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Vote for Dave Cameron! VOTE FOR DAVE CAMERON! He’s got just about the best blog in America, let alone for baseball!!!
November 17th, 2008 at 1:53 am
It took a little research but I was able to find out who was in the lead without voting. Ussmariner (dave cameron’s site) used to be good for updates, but over the years they are less about the team and more about stats, which is fine, but kinda boring. The guys that run that sight are so full of themselves too, they actually claim they coined “King Felix” haha, vote for Mauro!
Chet Masters
(yea, I’m still around)
November 17th, 2008 at 2:02 am
David Cameron writes of a quality and quantity that is worthy of recognition. In my opinion his work is a benchmark for both passionate sports blogging and cool headed statistical analysis. I sometimes direct my university students to USS Mariner to understand probability, and other examples of applications for what they learn in stats courses. It is also witty, and somehow maintains a local and national flavor. It is everything a blog should be, and he’s been working hard at it with no renumeration for a long, long time.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:16 am
David Mauro? More like, David Moron. Go Irish!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
You would think that a scholarship oriented towards the internet would take advantage of the medium they are promoting and make each of the names above a LINK to the work of the candidate so that those of us who didn’t come here to shill for a particular candidate could have some idea what kind of work each of them does and make an informed decision.
Dave
http://www.republicofdave.com
November 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I vote for David Cameron.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Vote for Dave Cameron.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Give me a Mariner Fan anytime
November 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
[…] those of you who missed last week’s post, or have not voted yet, Dave Cameron is up for a $10,000 college scholarship because of the fine work he’s done blogging over at U.S.S. Mariner. He is currently in 2nd […]
November 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
[…] Vote Dave Cameron […]
November 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Okay, so my comment about this voting process was deleted? I was critical – I think this is an awful way of judging a blog’s popularity, much less its quality – but it wasn’t nearly as caustic as a lot of this discussion.
I’ll say it again. Choosing a recipient for a $10,000 is – or should be – serious business. It should be done on merit. This method is at least three steps away from judging on merit. Popularity is not a good way of judging quality – but even if you’re interested in popularity this isn’t a good way to judge it. Why not just look at the traffic of each blog and just hand out the scholarship based on that?
Sure, that’s not particularly smart. But it’s at least more direct than what’s going on here, which is effectively measuring popularity of the blogger and the traffic his friends get. Right? Dave Cameron has the power of the Mariners and Seattle sports blogosphere behind him; Dave Mauro has the power of the liberal blogosphere behind him.
All you’re effectively doing is trying to measure the two against each other. It’s essentially meaningless and a waste of time. It has little to do with the blogger himself. Some of the other bloggers on this list are being judged unworthy of this award because they don’t have a machine behind them like Cameron or Mauro have. I voted for Cameron because his blog is excellent and his contributions have been major – but even had he won this is a ridiculous way to select a winner.
If you want to offer a scholarship to a deserving party, it’s your responsibility to choose the worthy recipient. Use some judgement. Make a choice.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Ah – perhaps I was just awaiting moderation. If so, my apologies.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Thomas Peters has a very professional and informative blog which I and many others read daily. His analysis as well as his coverage of the news pertinent to his readers is excellent. I highly recommend him.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Mauro was nowhere near Dave, and the all of a sudden, like overnight (2 nights ago) he shot up. Probably not a legit. way to hand out a scholarship.
Dave Cameron deserves it more…
November 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Vote for Dave. He man!
November 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
David Mauro is my choice! He is a thoughtful and intelligent blogger on the Burnt Orange Report.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Good luck and God bless!
November 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
[…] Vote here (takes two seconds) and score one for someone who writes his ass off for one of the home town teams. Then vote on your home computer. Then your coworkers’ computers. And pretty much wherever you can. […]
November 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I would like to vote for David Cameron.
November 17th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
[…] I am going to throw this out there and hope you can help out. Dave Cameron of USS Mariner is up for a $10,000 College Scholarship. Dave writes about the Mariners and also baseball in general at Fangraphs. He is one of the most knowledgeable people I know on the topic of baseball and he has shaped my understanding of the game greatly. He is in a fierce battle for this scholarship which is determined by an online poll found here. […]
November 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
This should go to a run-off election if no one garners 50% plus 1. At that point the persons that placed 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc could weigh in with their endorsements. Lets make this as fair and real and nasty as possible. Nothing is a better use of time than a blogger war! Oh, and Mauro should stop begging everyone on every website he can get on to vote for him. His daddy was a powerful elected official in Texas that later ran for governor. Does he really need the 10k or is this about something else?
November 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I voted for Dave Cameron because it is the only blog I read everyday. He presents very informed and factually backed up arguments and promotes discussion and analysis of said arguments. Reading USS Mariner has inspired me to learn more about Baseball and question the standard arguments presented by the people in Baseball.
I took a look around at the blogs written by others doing well in this contest and I was surprised to see how they were more opinion blogs with little to no basis in factual information. I’m sure they are interesting and it is great that they exist, but USS Mariner brings blogging to a whole other level.
November 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
[…] and seeing as how he’s in 2nd place by 500 votes, I wanted to ask if you’d please click this link and vote for the phenomenal David Cameron. It takes 5 seconds and a vote for Cameron is a proxy way […]
November 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
mainboard stand up, yallr slackin
November 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’ve met David M before, he has a really nice kitchen.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Vote for Dave Cameron he hates Graham Slant just as much as the rest of us! He just doesn’t have the heart to tell him đ
November 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
[…] place. I’m in serious running to receive a $10,000 scholarship for blogging as a student. Voting for me here (”Thomas Peters”) only takes a few seconds, and I would deeply appreciate you spreading […]
November 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Go David!
November 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
@Dave Nalle: If you go to https://www.collegescholarships.org/blog/2008/11/06/announcing-the-2008-blogging-scholarship-finalists/ there are links to each of the 20 candidates blogs there so you can make a properly informed decision, for what that may be worth in this popularity driven format.
HTH.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
[…] Those of you who read USSMariner or FanGraphs probably know 1) who Dave Cameron is and 2) that he’s up for a $10K blogging scholarship that is determined, bizarrely, by a fan vote. You can read about it from Dave, or you can simply vote for Dave here. […]
November 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
He’s a great guy!
November 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Dave Cameron should win because he is the best ever. No one even is close to him.
Vote for Cameron.
The others suck compare to him and those who voted for David Mauro have no brains.
Cameron we trust!