"Virgo Cluster" (gamma_null{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> 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?

For about the same reason that, while trains and planes
are greatly useful, you also don't see all sorts of people
building them on your block.

For most people, they don't need their 100% maximum capacity,
as they need to use their time for other, more important to
them now, reasons. That doesn't change who has the greater
addable capacity, though.

> 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).

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

One, you may not be looking at the guys. Two, so what ?
Since men have, as a group, more capacity in this area,
they are less likely to need more extreme methods of
self training, to stay at a capacity thats sufficient
for their needs.

So, that women may need *more training* to get a bit closer
to the range of the average man, is a sign of inefficiency.

Would you trust a car that needed more shop time, in order
to stay running efficiently ? Hardly.

> However, I realize that the point of this is to appear
> superior by association.

Straw woman penalty. 15 meter loss.

No, the actual point is that men, as a group, and on average,
are more able to do such feats, than women.

Such that even the organisers of the cited race *acknowledged*,
by having to handicap the men to the tune of five minutes.

> 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.

Fallacy. Buicks. Apples. Try again.

Did I post anything about my personal athletic abilities ?
If *you wish to claim that I did*, you could then *easily
cite such comments*, yes ?



> Call me lazy, but I prefer the direct route to achieving
> superiority, namely by action rather than by association.
>
> 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.

Ah, so your stated intent is to *reinforce* women's
*prejudices*.

Interesting... Insane, but interesting...

> (Yeah, I know that I've argued myself into a circle.
> But I figure you're not going to notice.)

Final score: 0%.

( Excessive and narcissistic sig snipped ).

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/14/05 8:57:14 PM ---