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.


>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?

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.

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



>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.


>> 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?"


>> >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.


>> 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?

Getting an emotional reaction is really not a substitute for
empiricism, is it?

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.



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

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} 3/13/05 12:57:20 AM ---