"I have rights!"



On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ******** - there is no compulsion to quote actual times and training habits
> etc in this type of debate. We are talking 'in principle'

If we're talking 'in principle', then you agree that we're working with a
hypothetical -- and I've already made the argument for not debating
hypotheticals.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:

> Donovan - you know you are wrong - it is certainly within probability there
> are many fat people

I'm not sure why you bring body composition into it, but there are many bona
fide athletes (e.g. olympic caliber) who are fat. Examples of these include
weightlifters in the unlimited class, and shotputters.

> who train regularly (Dally is a case in point) and who
> can barely achieve times of sedentary but otherwise 'average' people. If

Dally is a masters female athlete who performed better than the median of
everyone including the male and open class athletes in her event. If she is
above the median in the open class of people who competed, she is considerably
better than most untrained 40+ year old females.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ******** - there is no compulsion to quote actual times and training
habits
> > etc in this type of debate. We are talking 'in principle'
>
> If we're talking 'in principle', then you agree that we're working with a
> hypothetical -- and I've already made the argument for not debating
> hypotheticals.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Thanks. I like that. It's a good principle and I will follow it.
 
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>******** - there is no compulsion to quote actual times and training habits
>>etc in this type of debate. We are talking 'in principle'
>
>
> If we're talking 'in principle', then you agree that we're working with a
> hypothetical -- and I've already made the argument for not debating
> hypotheticals.

He's being specific about me. I crank out 10 minute miles in 5K races.

I am a bad runner. I'm too heavy and I'm too prone to over-use injury.
At any given moment I have two joints throbbing. I'm not recovering
as well in my 40's as I did in my misspent youth. Every time I run my
5K time seems to get a little worse.

I try to train smart, I read the books, I get coaching once in a while.
I normally do 8 to 12 miles a week, with about 10 being average. (I
do a four mile run, maybe two miles of repeats or hill work or intervals
and a 5k tempo run most weeks with maybe a mile of warm-up run someplace
else.) I'm a jogger who is trying to be faster but keeps getting
injured on the already low-mileage. (Besides running three or four
times a week I also cycle and swim at least twice a week each... it's
the nature of being a triathlete, y'know?)

It hurts him that I'm out there competing as an athlete when he's so
much more gifted than I am but is squandering his youth through fear and
laziness. He could beat me, but he hates his own frailty so he figures
I must be beneath contempt. This is David's baggage and he isn't going
to lose it without extensive therapy. I'd say let it go, Donovan.

Dally
 
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> Dally is a masters female athlete who performed better than the median of
> everyone including the male and open class athletes in her event. If she is
> above the median in the open class of people who competed, she is considerably
> better than most untrained 40+ year old females.

My triathlon was a women-only event. I am considerably slower than the
average trained male in all three events.

Dally
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Donovan - you know you are wrong - it is certainly within probability
there
> > are many fat people
>
> I'm not sure why you bring body composition into it, but there are many
bona
> fide athletes (e.g. olympic caliber) who are fat. Examples of these
include
> weightlifters in the unlimited class, and shotputters.
>
> > who train regularly (Dally is a case in point) and who
> > can barely achieve times of sedentary but otherwise 'average' people. If
>
> Dally is a masters female athlete who performed better than the median of
> everyone including the male and open class athletes in her event. If she
is
> above the median in the open class of people who competed, she is
considerably
> better than most untrained 40+ year old females.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Being better than the median means she is in the top half of her class. If
that is your definition of 'athlete' I feel sorry for you
 
David wrote:

> Being better than the median means she is in the top half of her class. If
> that is your definition of 'athlete' I feel sorry for you

You frigging idiot. It wasn't that I finished in the top half. What
makes me an athlete is participating actively in an athletic
competition. I trained for it, registered, showed up, gave my best, got
a medal and went home tired.

Try it some time, asshole. You have no idea what you're missing.

Dally
 
Charles wrote:

> The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
> high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
> regard for the well-being of their intended targets.

Are you referring to bu$h, Blair, or both of those lying
war criminals, toturers, and mass murderering terrorists?

> This is a mentality which we can understand and which
> perhaps we can do something about.

Yep. Put the tragic human scum on trial for war crimes.

-

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf ******

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
 
Larry Hodges wrote:

> Muslim = potential terrorist, period.

bu$h and Blair = proven war criminals and terrorists, period.


-


http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf ******

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:

> Being better than the median means she is in the top half of her class. If
> that is your definition of 'athlete' I feel sorry for you

Well, for once, we agree. That definition is quite preposterous.

I stated my definition of athlete. It is the standard english definition,
based on the both a literal reading of the dictionary, and a historical
interpretation of the latin origin of the word. That definition has nothing
to do with level of performance or competition.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:36:22 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Rudeness doesn;t become you.. (I haven;t a clue what you are talking about -
>no one changed anything. Your debating skills are pathetic)

You just won Donovan. He retired thoroughly defeated when he resorts
to this. I'd say your debating skills served you well.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:05:22 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I am the one who used the word 'eke' -

On the contraire'. I first brought it up, go look at the posts. I know
because I considered if I was spelling it right.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 22:53:39 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Donovan - you know you are wrong - it is certainly within probability there
>> are many fat people
>
>I'm not sure why you bring body composition into it, but there are many bona
>fide athletes (e.g. olympic caliber) who are fat. Examples of these include
>weightlifters in the unlimited class, and shotputters.
>
>> who train regularly (Dally is a case in point) and who
>> can barely achieve times of sedentary but otherwise 'average' people. If
>
>Dally is a masters female athlete who performed better than the median of
>everyone including the male and open class athletes in her event. If she is
>above the median in the open class of people who competed, she is considerably
>better than most untrained 40+ year old females.

You're starting to make it up as you go along now Donovan, which is
not like you.

Have another look back in the thread and read her own account of what
she *really* achieved, and then tell me she is not only an athlete but
also a "triathlete".

As I said earlier, she can be whatever she wants to be, and your
confirmation of whatever she chooses to be won't necessarily validate
it.

She can **** in the middle of the street, but that doesn't make her a
fountain!! ;o)
 
"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:36:22 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Rudeness doesn;t become you.. (I haven;t a clue what you are talking
about -
> >no one changed anything. Your debating skills are pathetic)
>
> You just won Donovan. He retired thoroughly defeated when he resorts
> to this. I'd say your debating skills served you well.
>

Ha ha. Besides being a politically challenged, you are also a comedian
 
"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 21:05:22 GMT, "David" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I am the one who used the word 'eke' -
>
> On the contraire'. I first brought it up, go look at the posts. I know
> because I considered if I was spelling it right.
>
I did look. I said it first. You eked after my eke
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:06:31 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:10:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>Note the word alleged.
>>>
>>>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>>>state suit you better bunky?
>>>
>>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>>>"bunky"?!!
>>>
>>
>>We will never be both FREE and 100% protected. No one is trying to
>>destroy our way of life except for our elected "reps". The so-called
>>terrorists are lashing out against decades of US and British
>>interference in their internal affairs.
>
>Er... not so Anton, they are settling in the UK in their millions,
>among a people they despise and whose way of life they deplore.
>
>They then set about attempting to change the British way of life to
>their own entire satisfaction, aided and abetted by the woolly minded
>liberati and PC Brigade, who are even attempting to have Christmas
>banned in order not to offend our new 'friends'!!
>

You are mixing in something completely different. For one thing, I
don't think most of those people coming to Britain are terrorists.
But forget that for a moment, it was STUPID for the British to allow
so many immigrants just like it's STUPID for the US to let itself be
invaded by the Mexicans. It's got nothing to do with them being
terrorists, they just do not appreciate the US culture and want to
turn it into the Mexican/Arab culture. Let them stay in their own
country and keep their own culture. But as I said, that's all an
entirely different issue.


>Why should we have to change our culture in order to absorb theirs?
>Quite frankly that is outrageous, yet it is our own people that are
>advocating such policies, backed up by politicians looking for votes
>and supported by a judiciary bent on defeating the will of Parliament.
>
>>I don't approve of their
>>methods but what other means do they have left? As we saw with Bush,
>>COMPLETE acquiescence to US demands was NOT enough to prevent the US
>>from attacking them.
>
>There can never be a good reason for cowardly terrorism. Always
>painting the US the UK and their allies as imperialist war-mongers is
>trite and naive. You need to understand how these matters have evolved
>and look at them with an open mind.
>
>>

You need to take your own advise. WE (the western world) started
this.


>>
>>>>
>>>>I have close to zero faith in the gvt's desire to protect me or my
>>>>rights so I'd just as soon keep as many constraints on them as
>>>>possible and continue that gvts world wide observe all the requisite
>>>>laws and treat EVERYONE as innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just
>>>>assumed guilty. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
>>>
>>>You make valid points, but you offer nothing about how to handle
>>>international terrorism. Equally you overlooked the point of my
>>>posting which was the irony of a "would-be" bomber "blubbing" and
>>>claiming his "rights"!!
>>>
>>
>>We handle it like any other threat. As the investigations of what we
>>were doing BEFORE 9.11 showed, we were ALREADY collecting ALL the
>>necessary data to prevent 9/11, we just weren't paying attention to
>>it. So what did we do? We gave the police all sorts of new ways to
>>put their jackboots on our neck, ways they did NOT need, as the
>>investigations had already showed. Yet we still have terrorists and
>>if we maintain our current policies we always will.
>
>That's because we are too soft on them and always opposing them with
>one hand tied behind our backs, pandering to our own liberal left
>loonies.
>
>>You want a
>>solution? How about we keep our noses out of other peoples business.
>
>I suppose it's fine with you that Iran and North Korea should be
>allowed to develop Nuclear weapons. It may not be acceptable to the
>rest of us and in the interests of world peace it may be necessary to
>intervene there.
>

Yes, it is fine with me. You call what we have now world peace? Let
them have nukes. If they dare use one for anything other then
self-defense, then we blow them up. But they have the SAME right to
self-defense against us as we do against them. The only country going
out of it's way to attack people these days on a global scale is the
US.


>>Before we tried to force western style culture on them we never had a
>>problem, they ran their culture in accordance with centuries of
>>success and we did the same. They didn't come over here and try and
>>change us but we certainly keep going over there trying to change
>>them.
>
>That is so much nonsense, see the history of Islamic imperialism, and
>their stated aim of a world given over to the worship of the Muslim
>God complete with Sharia law. All who oppose those ideals are infidels
>and worthy only of death.
>

That's just a few hard asses, no different then if you only listen to
the lunnies in the bush administration and think it represents all of
America.


>>
>>Try to look at what's gone on for the past hundred years as if you
>>came from a different planet and had no axe to grind and ask yourself
>>"who started this".
>
>The possession of the bulk of the world's energy requirements has made
>some very backward countries unbelievably wealthy. That they have not
>managed that wealth to the betterment of their populations, is not the
>fault of the users of their essential product.
>

Some say the same about the US. Others obviously don't give a rat's
ass about us killing 100,000's of them "backwards country's" people
yet they pretend they care how their leaders treated them.


>What they have done is to use that wealth to sponsor their religious
>war and effectively bite the hand that feeds them.
>

No one makes anyone buy the oil from them. It wasn't them that made
the US stop building clean, efficient nuclear electric plants 30 years
ago.


>Of course the real answer is to find quickly an alternative energy
>source, and be free of the bastards for good. Close the borders, end
>immigration, repatriate those that don't want to 'fit in' and then we
>will be able to let them get on with "their own culture" and we can
>live peacefully in ours.
>

Exactly, and the sooner the better.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
>>>>>frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
>>>>>rights!!
>>>>>
>>>>>He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
>>>>>attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
>>>>>that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
>>>>>about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
>>>>>'successful' bombings?
>>>>>
>>>>>The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
>>>>>high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
>>>>>regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
>>>>>mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
>>>>>something about.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
>>>>>martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
>>>>>more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
>>>>>western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
>>>>>cousins. I do hope so!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)
>>
>>
>>Me too, worked on my tan.
>
>We haven't seen the sun for a week!
>
>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
Peter Allen wrote:
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> I heard an interesting piece of information the other day, and I
>> don't know if it's true. It was that the Christian Crusades were in
>> response to the ongoing Muslim crusade. I would like to learn more
>> about that. If true, and given our modern day circumstances, it
>> would make that period of time for Christianity look a lot less dark.
>>
>> Any confirmation on this?
>
> Not really true. On the other hand, the crusades never were really
> about Christianity either.
>
> Basically, the traditional thing was for a noble's first son to
> inherit, the rest would become knights (not much else to do). Since
> there were a lot of wars, there was a lot of demand for knights.
> Around 1000 a lot of borders became more stable, and a lot of knights
> found themselves with nothing to do. They mainly amused themselves by
> kicking **** out of the local peasants and each other, which of
> course wasn't too productive. The Pope objected to this, tried to get
> them to stop it, failed, produced the Pax Dei and Treuga Dei; the
> first essentially says 'don't keep attacking the peasants', the
> second says 'at least don't do it during Easter and Christmas'. These
> got treated about the same way drugs laws are treated now.
> For some while before that there had been a lot of border dispute
> between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Turks, which generally
> the Turks were getting the better of (this is what you heard about,
> I'd guess). Exactly the same sort of thing that had been going on all
> through Europe and had (temporarily) quietened down at this point.
> The Emperor tried to blag some cheap mercenaries from the Pope to
> shift the balance back the other way; again this is very much
> business as usual for that time. The Pope saw an opportunity to
> offload his trouble out of Europe, preached holy war against the
> infidel occupying Palestine, shifted a load of troublemakers out of
> Europe via the Byzantine Empire, where they apparently caused a lot
> of embarrassment (along the lines of the Emperor not being willing to
> feed a huge army especially when the army wasn't interested in
> getting his land back from the Turks but wanted to go straight on to
> Jerusalem).
> This dealt with the Pope's local violence problems fairly well, and
> the knights that came back did so with loot so were fairly happy.
> Result being that several more crusades happened; the next three were
> relatively major, after that most of the lootable stuff in that area
> had been looted (including Constantinople, which was then the capital
> of the Byzantine Empire and very definitely Christian), the Muslims
> had developed better anti-knight tactics and the popular support
> dropped; most of the rest of the crusades were essentially the result
> of successive popes going for the 'it solved the violence problem
> last time' approach. Then the Great Famine and the Black Death killed
> off enough people to ensure jobs for second sons for a while, and the
> Muslim Ottoman Empire became powerful enough to discourage later
> attacks.
> Peter

Interesting. Thanks.
--
-Larry
 
Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
> First, one observation -- people who train seriously at distance
> running for many years are rarely 10 minute milers.

I'm more like 100 min miler, but that's because of the cast iron
Soviet made CD player on sleighs that I'm normally pulling through the
asphalt pavement.

Definitions of the word athlete aside I think Dally has every reason
to be proud of her fitness and weight loss accomplishments.
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> First, one observation -- people who train seriously at distance
>> running for many years are rarely 10 minute milers.
>
>I'm more like 100 min miler, but that's because of the cast iron
>Soviet made CD player on sleighs that I'm normally pulling through the
>asphalt pavement.

I thought you didn't like listening to heavy metal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back