On 13 Mar 2005 19:08:39 -0800, maceanruig{at}astound.net wrote:

>
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2005 20:36:12 -0800, maceanruig{at}astound.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> >> On 12 Mar 2005 10:36:34 -0800, maceanruig{at}astound.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Beauray Rippy wrote:
>> >> >> Thousands Compete, Shay, Rhines Win 2005 River Run
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Local - WJXT News4Jax.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jacksonville Fla - Mar  12, 2005...More than
9,000 runners, a
>> >field
>> >> >> that includes some of the world's finest runners and seven
>> >Olympians
>> >> >> -- hit the pavement this morning in the 28th
annual Gate River
>Run
>> >> >and
>> >> >> related events.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ryan Shay, 25, of East Jordan, Mich., crossed
the finish line
>at
>> >> >> 43:27, to win the race. Although seeded 16th, he beat last
>year's
>> >> >> runner-up and this year's favorite, Alan Culpepper, 32, of
>> >Lafayette,
>> >> >> Colo., by about six seconds.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "I wanted to keep pushing the pace up
front, and mile by mile,
>> >start
>> >> >> separating people out," Shay said. "I
was hoping it was going
>to
>> >be
>> >> >> just me and Alan and someone else at the top of
the bridge, and
>> >then
>> >> >> let it all go down the hill. It all paid off."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jen Rhines, of Ardmore, Penn., was the first
woman across the
>> >finish
>> >> >> line. But despite the top women getting a five-minute
>"equalizer"
>> >> >head
>> >> >> start, she could not hold on to beat the top men
in the field.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 			****
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With a FIVE MINUTE HEAD START a female Olympian
runner can't
>> >compete
>> >> >> with 'average' men runners. I don't know how BADLY she was
>beaten
>> >but
>> >> >> they didn't even post her time.  
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds like you can't get a date and need to take it out on the
>> >women.
>> >>
>> >> Wow!  That's sure a profound response.  And it sounds like you
>can't
>> >> get a date either and need to take it out on someone else.
>> >
>> >I never claimed to be profound.
>>
>> Good.  That ensures that your mouth isn't writing checks that your
>> intellect can't cash.  If you'd claimed to be profound, you'd have
>> found yourself overdrawn.
>
>Well, I don't think it would take much to look profound compared to
>you but that's another story.


But you see, you don't even look profound compared to ME.  You can't
even jump over THAT low hurdle.


>> >Personally I haven't had a date in
>> >22 years but then that's because I've been married that long so far.
>> >Happily married at that.
>>
>> Why should I believe that?  Or why shouldn't I believe that you
>> haven't had sex since your last date?
>
>Why indeed should I care what you believe? 


Well, you opened the door when you accused someone else of not having
a sex life.  You opened the door to speculation about your own sex
life and you INDICATED that you DID CARE what people believed about
it.



>You leaped to the defense
>of a poster attacking women in a relatively stupid manner. 



And what was so "relatively stupid" about the way in which he was
"attacking women"?


>That doesn't
>make you exactly a paragon of manhood either.


No, as a matter of fact, that DOES make me a paragon of manhood.

That's what makes a man.  That's EXACTLY what makes a man.


>> I was not the target of your original diatribe, by the way.  But you
>> accused him of writing what he wrote out of sexual frustration - even
>> though you don't know anything about him and even though what he
>wrote
>> didn't have anything to do with sexual intercourse.
>
>Aww poor baby. Sorry but I must assume that he's a big boy and can
>defend himself. 


But he might not have found it worth his while.


>You are someone who just can't help leap to someone
>else's defense when someone else makes a comment about his post.
>Pretty pathetic.



You have nothing on me there.  You are someone who was guilty of the
original written assault to begin with.  Pretty pathetic.


>> It's just as easy to believe that you're the one acting out of sexual
>> frustration.
>
>Feel free.


Good.  Now your motives are impugned and nothing that you can say on
any gender topic need be taken seriously.  You're only acting out of
sexual frustration.  Everyone is "free" to think so.


>> >On the other hand, I do get a little annoyed at mindless posts aimed
>> >at women or others by pompous idiots.
>>
>> I have a feeling approaching a strong certainty that you don't get
>the
>> least bit annoyed at mindless posts aimed at men by pompous idiots.
>
>Wrong, as usual.


Really?  

Then let's see you provide links or some other sort of proof where you
verbally assaulted a pompous mindless idiot woman for attacking men --
and in which you did so by impugning her sexuality.


>> >> Don't even bother to argue that point.  That is just as valid an
>> >> assumption about you as it is about anyone against anyone who you
>> >> would argue with while using that non sequitur.
>> >
>> >Why should I argue when your point isn't particularly valid in the
>> >first place?
>>
>> See, this is what I meant when I noted that you were
>> profundity-challenged.
>>
>> You ARE arguing, so why are you wasting time and cyberspace in typing
>> the phrase "Why should I argue?"
>
>It's called light amusement. That's why I do usenet. Are you under the
>impression that your posts are worth taking seriously?


Yes, because you are exercising a lot of time and energy in responding
to them.


>> >> >And do try to read better since the story doesn't say what you
>say.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, as a matter of fact, that IS more or less what it says.
>> >
>> >You need a reading comprehension class as well, I see.
>>
>> His description of what the story said wasn't 100% accurate, but it
>> was close enough to the pin to get a passing grade.
>
>I can tell you don't teach school. Good thing as well since I certainly
>wouldn't want my child going to a teacher as inaccurate as you.


I wouldn't want your child in my classroom, nor would I want your
child lifting its hind leg and watering my lawn.


>> >> None of your gratuitous remarks about anyone's private life change
>> >the
>> >> results on the timer.
>> >
>> >Sounds like it hit you where you live. Too bad.
>>
>> I don't know about that, but if you'd used racial invective, or
>> terrorist threats, or if you'd posted instructions on how to use a
>> home-made atom bomb, you might have gotten the same reaction, but
>that
>> really wouldn't have advanced your argument (whatever your argument
>> is), would it?
>
>Impressively stupid. Challenging the masculinity of someone who attacks
>women rather stupidly by misrepresenting an article which he publishes
>does not equate to racial invective, terrorists threats, or information
>on how to build an atomic bomb. I don't make terrorist threats, I leave
>that to terrorists and would be terrorists. I don't use racist
>invective
>because it is mindless and stupid as well as ignorant. I do know the
>concepts of how to build an atomic bomb but I certainly wouldn't
>publish
>them here or anywhere else and that's the concepts, not the details,
>which
>I don't know or care to know. But none of the above are in the same
>class
>or type of thing as your complaint about my original comments.


No, no.  What you did IS equivalent to racial invective or terrorist
threats.  You did it to get a reaction, not to advance an argument.


>> Getting an emotional reaction is really not a substitute for
>> empiricism, is it?
>
>Yet another silly comment. Think of it as light amusement.
>
>> Men run faster than women, as a general rule. It has nothing to do
>> with anyone's sex life.   You're the one that has a hard time living
>> with the fact that men ordinarily run faster than women.  Too bad.
>
>Sorry idiot. I know men can run faser than women. Castigating women for
>it however is potentially revealing about their sex life.


I can tell you don't teach school.  You are misusing a transitive verb
and you have got a misplaced pronoun, and these create a humorous
ambiguity in that last sentence.



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

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} 3/14/05 4:56:54 AM ---