On 14 Mar 2005 13:35:21 -0800, "Virgo Cluster" 
wrote:

>Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you cannot hack the fact that, *even with
>> a five minute head start*, which was a more than 10%
>> cheat, compared with the MAN'S time who came in first,
>> NO woman runner was able to perform at as good as 90%
>> the level of the men.
>
>Something that has me curious is if being able to
>run faster/better is such an enviable thing, why don't
>I see the streets full of runners training to better
>themselves? Or is this only a positive attribute when
>the individual already has the desired superior ability
>without having to do anything to get it? Personally,
>I'm more impressed by those who aren't handed things
>on a silver platter, and when I look around where I live,
>it seems to be mostly girls who are running and using
>the cardio machines in the gym (until you get to the
>over 40 group, and then it's mostly men).



This is kind of a stupid question.  The winner is the one who gets to
the finish line first.  It doesn't make any difference HOW he got
there.


>However, I realize that the point of this is to appear
>superior by association. Since the top male distance
>runners are better than the top female distance runners,
>then it follows somehow that you too must be superior
>in some ways, never mind that your posting history hardly
>includes anything about exercise, let alone running.
>Call me lazy, but I prefer the direct route to achieving
>superiority, namely by action rather than by association.


That would make you somewhat unique among women, and frankly I DON'T
believe you.

Women are always playing the "superior by association" game.  The news
media helps them.

If one woman achieves something, it's always portrayed as a victory
for ALL women.  Men somehow aren't allowed to get the same moral
support from the accomplishments of other men.  But why shouldn't men
get the same piggybacking privileges that women have?


>Since other people often judge by association, I felt
>that I needed to jump in. Not so much because I wish
>to take up for the women you're arguing with, but
>because I'm afraid that your actions are going to
>add fuel to some women's belief that men are not
>very intelligent and therefore, because I'm a guy,
>judge me as not very intelligent by association.



Well, by the same token, what frightens me is that women are going to
recognize you as an easy self-hating male pushover and judge ME by
association and expect me to be an easy self-hating male pushover as
well.

And I might want to display more self-respect than you do.




------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 4:57:00 AM ---