Re: Donovan's Friends - Dally, Lee, Willy, Dopey

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Donovan Rebbechi, Aug 6, 2005.

  1. On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Your leader has just crumbled - unable to reply with a simple 'yes' or 'no'
    > to a simple question - (refer to the latest thread 'Athlete question for
    > Donovan') - maybe one of you can reply? Surely one of you has the guts to
    > give a definitive reply. It can't be any easier - either the person
    > described is an athlete or he isn't an athlete. No need for explanations.
    > (For instance, if such a person refers to himself as an athlete he will not
    > want to have to qualify it every time he makes the reference)
    > So I am waiting for your gems - is this person an athlete?? or is this
    > person not an athlete?
    >
    > " A person of poor or low fitness level,
    > who may have various physical disabilities including obesity,
    > to be described as an athlete using the
    > proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in low
    > level competitive events and with only a very modest level of performance?


    Physical disabilities may or may not have any effect on performance. An
    olympic lifter may have a heart condition, but that won't affect his or her
    performance. Physical disabilities do not preclude someone from becoming an
    athlete. An elite wheelchair competitor for example is certainly an athlete.
    A midpack wheelchair racer could also be an athlete.

    I don't accept your implicit notion that people who train regularly will end
    up as fat slobs, so I'm not sure what you mean by "poor or low fitness level".
    I don't believe a high level of general fitness is necessary to be an athlete
    though. Even elite strength athletes may have mediocre aerobic fitness, for
    example.

    > In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
    > does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can he/she
    > be considered an athlete?"


    There have been mediocre athletes for as long as there has been athletics.

    If you remove the words "of poor or low fitness level", my answer is "yes".

    Otherwise, I believe your question is simply ill-posed as people who train
    frequently do in my experience demonstrate reasonable fitness in their
    activity.

    CHeers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
    Tags:


  2. David

    David Guest

    "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Your leader has just crumbled - unable to reply with a simple 'yes' or

    'no'
    > > to a simple question - (refer to the latest thread 'Athlete question for
    > > Donovan') - maybe one of you can reply? Surely one of you has the guts

    to
    > > give a definitive reply. It can't be any easier - either the person
    > > described is an athlete or he isn't an athlete. No need for

    explanations.
    > > (For instance, if such a person refers to himself as an athlete he will

    not
    > > want to have to qualify it every time he makes the reference)
    > > So I am waiting for your gems - is this person an athlete?? or is this
    > > person not an athlete?
    > >
    > > " A person of poor or low fitness level,
    > > who may have various physical disabilities including obesity,
    > > to be described as an athlete using the
    > > proper definition of the word, provided he/she is able to compete in

    low
    > > level competitive events and with only a very modest level of

    performance?
    >
    > Physical disabilities may or may not have any effect on performance. An
    > olympic lifter may have a heart condition, but that won't affect his or

    her
    > performance. Physical disabilities do not preclude someone from becoming

    an
    > athlete. An elite wheelchair competitor for example is certainly an

    athlete.
    > A midpack wheelchair racer could also be an athlete.
    >
    > I don't accept your implicit notion that people who train regularly will

    end
    > up as fat slobs, so I'm not sure what you mean by "poor or low fitness

    level".
    > I don't believe a high level of general fitness is necessary to be an

    athlete
    > though. Even elite strength athletes may have mediocre aerobic fitness,

    for
    > example.
    >
    > > In other words, if this person performs in a low level competitions and
    > > does not distinguish himself in that sport or event in any way, can

    he/she
    > > be considered an athlete?"

    >
    > There have been mediocre athletes for as long as there has been athletics.
    >
    > If you remove the words "of poor or low fitness level", my answer is

    "yes".
    >
    > Otherwise, I believe your question is simply ill-posed as people who train
    > frequently do in my experience demonstrate reasonable fitness in their
    > activity.


    The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or 'no' -
    if you have to write a book when you reply to a simple question then it
    ain't no reply at all. You are simply re-creating the dictionary definition
    and making things up as you go along. Until you can give a simple reply to
    a simple question, then 'sit down and shut up' Is that person an athlete or
    is he not an athlete? Aint no middle ground!
     
  3. David

    David Guest

    "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or

    'no' -
    >
    > My answer is perfectly clear. If you find my answer confusing, that's your
    > problem. Not mine.
    >

    Typical. Keep talking Donovan - you are looking more foolish by the minute
     
  4. Joe Humble

    Joe Humble Guest

    On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:51:22 -0400, "Steve Freides"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or
    >>> 'no' -

    >>
    >> My answer is perfectly clear. If you find my answer confusing, that's
    >> your
    >> problem. Not mine.

    >
    >David has been in my killfile for some time now. I recommend you
    >consider taking similar action.
    >
    >-S-
    >http://www.kbnj.com


    I think that is foolish. He is abrasive without doubt but the points
    he makes are often valid. If you killfile people based on
    abrasiveness then this is really not the newsgroup for you.


    --
    Is this thing on?
     
  5. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:04:12 GMT, Joe Humble <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:51:22 -0400, "Steve Freides"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>> On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or
    >>>> 'no' -
    >>>
    >>> My answer is perfectly clear. If you find my answer confusing, that's
    >>> your
    >>> problem. Not mine.

    >>
    >>David has been in my killfile for some time now. I recommend you
    >>consider taking similar action.
    >>
    >>-S-
    >>http://www.kbnj.com

    >
    >I think that is foolish. He is abrasive without doubt but the points
    >he makes are often valid.


    >"If you killfile people based on abrasiveness then this is really not the newsgroup for you."


    Worthy of sig line material! ;o)
     
  6. "Joe Humble" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:51:22 -0400, "Steve Freides"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>> On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]om.au> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or
    >>>> 'no' -
    >>>
    >>> My answer is perfectly clear. If you find my answer confusing, that's
    >>> your
    >>> problem. Not mine.

    >>
    >>David has been in my killfile for some time now. I recommend you
    >>consider taking similar action.
    >>
    >>-S-
    >>http://www.kbnj.com

    >
    > I think that is foolish. He is abrasive without doubt but the points
    > he makes are often valid. If you killfile people based on
    > abrasiveness then this is really not the newsgroup for you.


    I respectfully disagree. My time is precious and how I manage it isn't your
    call. And discussing the relative merits or lack thereof isn't something I
    care to spend time on, either.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com


    >
    >
    > --
    > Is this thing on?
     
  7. David

    David Guest

    "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Joe Humble" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:51:22 -0400, "Steve Freides"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>news:[email protected]
    > >>> On 2005-08-06, David <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The question is simple - the reply should also be simple - 'yes' or
    > >>>> 'no' -
    > >>>
    > >>> My answer is perfectly clear. If you find my answer confusing, that's
    > >>> your
    > >>> problem. Not mine.
    > >>
    > >>David has been in my killfile for some time now. I recommend you
    > >>consider taking similar action.
    > >>
    > >>-S-
    > >>http://www.kbnj.com

    > >
    > > I think that is foolish. He is abrasive without doubt but the points
    > > he makes are often valid. If you killfile people based on
    > > abrasiveness then this is really not the newsgroup for you.

    >
    > I respectfully disagree. My time is precious and how I manage it isn't

    your
    > call. And discussing the relative merits or lack thereof isn't something

    I
    > care to spend time on, either.


    Of course, your time is precious - but not that precious that you have time
    to advise others about how to spend *their* time?
     
Loading...
Loading...