General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: IOM nomination

Dally · 2005-08-04T23:09:56+00:00

It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award. It is my pleasure to second the nomination. I'd like to expand on one aspect of the nomination. The nominee said at one point: No, I have explained in detail that you are arguing against an obvious oxymoron. When you claim that a mediocre person compared to the general population in theory can be called an athlete, it is like saying that you can have a stupid genius. That is patently wrong. Your position is untenable as the core of your argument is that, as an athlete, you can be mediocre in your athletic performance when compared to the general population. I'm ready and willing to take on that assertion. Go to any Wal*mart and face me off against the first 100 people that walk through the door on a half mile swim, 15 mile bike race and a 5k run. In order, with no rest. Bring it on. He then backtracked and explained that he didn't mean to compare me to a GENERAL population, just a population of athletes: In your case your mediocrity would be based on the general population in the sense that if you take 100 people in your age group and train them for 7 months then how would you do by comparison. He seemed blissfully ignorant that he was arguing that general untrained populations differ substantially from trained populations of athletes. The other piece I'd add to his IOM nomination is his insistance that a mediocre athlete can't exist in the face of my incontrovertable evidence of my existance as a.) mediocre and b.) an athlete. In David's defense, after many many blatherings, he did recognize me as an athlete. But that ought not to detract from his nomination as he held onto his wrong-ness well after having it pointed out to him in thorough detail, which I believe to be the very essence of an IOM. Dally

Started by Dally · 4 August 2005 · Last activity 5 August 2005 · 6 posts · 242 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRe: IOM nominationDally · 4 Aug 2005 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6David · 5 Aug 2005

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 4 August 2005
Last activity: 5 August 2005
Original author: Dally
Posts: 6
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 242
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Dally
Archived post

4 August 2005, 23:09 UTC #1

Donovan Rebbechi said:
It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award.
It is my pleasure to second the nomination.
I'd like to expand on one aspect of the nomination. The nominee said at
one point:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No, I have explained in detail that you are arguing against an obvious
oxymoron. When you claim that a mediocre person compared to the general
population in theory can be called an athlete, it is like saying that you
can have a stupid genius. That is patently wrong.
At another time he said:
Quoted message said:
Your position is untenable as the core of your argument is that, as an
athlete, you can be mediocre in your athletic performance when
compared to the general population.
I was intrigued by this thought and said:
I'm ready and willing to take on that assertion. Go to any Wal*mart
and face me off against the first 100 people that walk through the
door on a half mile swim, 15 mile bike race and a 5k run. In order,
with no rest.
Bring it on.
He then backtracked and explained that he didn't mean to compare me to a
GENERAL population, just a population of athletes:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In your case your mediocrity would be based on the general population
in the sense that if you take 100 people in your age group and train
them for 7 months then how would you do by comparison.
He seemed blissfully ignorant that he was arguing that general untrained
populations differ substantially from trained populations of athletes.
The other piece I'd add to his IOM nomination is his insistance that a
mediocre athlete can't exist in the face of my incontrovertable evidence
of my existance as a.) mediocre and b.) an athlete.
In David's defense, after many many blatherings, he did recognize me as
an athlete. But that ought not to detract from his nomination as he
held onto his wrong-ness well after having it pointed out to him in
thorough detail, which I believe to be the very essence of an IOM.
Dally

Report
Charles
Archived post

4 August 2005, 23:19 UTC #2

Dally said:
Donovan Rebbechi said:
It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award.
It is my pleasure to second the nomination.
I'd like to expand on one aspect of the nomination. The nominee said at
one point:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No, I have explained in detail that you are arguing against an obvious
oxymoron. When you claim that a mediocre person compared to the general
population in theory can be called an athlete, it is like saying that you
can have a stupid genius. That is patently wrong.
At another time he said:
Quoted message said:
Your position is untenable as the core of your argument is that, as an
athlete, you can be mediocre in your athletic performance when
compared to the general population.
I was intrigued by this thought and said:
I'm ready and willing to take on that assertion. Go to any Wal*mart
and face me off against the first 100 people that walk through the
door on a half mile swim, 15 mile bike race and a 5k run. In order,
with no rest.
Bring it on.
He then backtracked and explained that he didn't mean to compare me to a
GENERAL population, just a population of athletes:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In your case your mediocrity would be based on the general population
in the sense that if you take 100 people in your age group and train
them for 7 months then how would you do by comparison.
He seemed blissfully ignorant that he was arguing that general untrained
populations differ substantially from trained populations of athletes.
The other piece I'd add to his IOM nomination is his insistance that a
mediocre athlete can't exist in the face of my incontrovertable evidence
of my existance as a.) mediocre and b.) an athlete.
In David's defense, after many many blatherings, he did recognize me as
an athlete. But that ought not to detract from his nomination as he
held onto his wrong-ness well after having it pointed out to him in
thorough detail, which I believe to be the very essence of an IOM.
You will need to read the rules for a nomination for the award of IOM.
David was involved in a personal dispute with you and was quite within
his rights to dispute your unsubstantiated claim that you are a
"triathlete", due to the ability level of competition in which you
participated.
In this he was supported by a number of other people.
Your support of Donovan's nomination is all to do with spite, and
nothing to do with the validity of this spurious nomination.
The procedure is of course purely academic as the nomination has been
vetoed in accordance with the rules of the competition.

Report
Richard dopey [censored] Hedd
Archived post

5 August 2005, 00:04 UTC #3

In article <[email hidden]>,
Charles <[email hidden]> writes:
[snip]
Quoted message said:

David was involved in a personal dispute with you and was quite within
his rights to dispute your unsubstantiated claim that you are a
"triathlete", due to the ability level of competition in which you
participated.
As I understand it: That point of contention is neither at issue,
wrt to the nomination, nor part of the argument in favour of said
nomination.
Quoted message said:

In this he was supported by a number of other people.

[snip]
A "number of?" How many of you are there, Charles?
--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email hidden] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

Report
Art S
Archived post

5 August 2005, 04:55 UTC #4

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Donovan Rebbechi said:
It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award.
It is my pleasure to second the nomination.
I've already noted Lee's second.
I'm now mulling over whether Charles can veto it.
If, of course, someone other than Donovan and Lee renominate David
and second, the question becomes academic.
Art

Report
Charles
Archived post

5 August 2005, 08:15 UTC #5

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:55:30 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Donovan Rebbechi said:
It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award.
It is my pleasure to second the nomination.
I've already noted Lee's second.
I'm now mulling over whether Charles can veto it.
If, of course, someone other than Donovan and Lee renominate David
and second, the question becomes academic.
I nominate Donovan as IOM for his persistence in arguing on a topic
which was entirely subjective, when it was clear that there could be
no positive outcome.

Report
David
Archived post

5 August 2005, 09:18 UTC #6

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:55:30 GMT, "Art S" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> It is my pleasure to nominate David for the prestigious IOM award.
It is my pleasure to second the nomination.
I've already noted Lee's second.
I'm now mulling over whether Charles can veto it.
If, of course, someone other than Donovan and Lee renominate David
and second, the question becomes academic.
I nominate Donovan as IOM for his persistence in arguing on a topic
which was entirely subjective, when it was clear that there could be
no positive outcome.
I herewith formally second this nomination. Let this be recorded

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread