Ping: JMW

"David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John, I need to engage you as my counsel in this little IOM matter.

My learned friend, Donovan (wussy runner and scholar 'par excellence'😉 and

I

Quoted message said:

have been engaged in a debate about the definition of 'athlete'. His
position is that a person can be labelled 'athlete' simply by having

trained

Quoted message said:

and participated in an event. There is no requirement as to this

"athlete'

Quoted message said:

s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely
mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

He has produced extensive 'research' and etymological references to

support

Quoted message said:

his 'position'.

My position is that Donovan in essence is stating that it is possible to

be

Quoted message said:

a mediocre athlete in relation to the general population which is an
oxymoron and by any definition is untenable.

So the upshot of this whole thing is that Donovan proceeds to initiate an
IOM nomination.

So I need your learned advice in this matter and to post your opinion
(provided it is in my support of course) Your fee will be met promptly as
usual.

Forgot another point - he also maintains that the there is no prescribed
level or grade to the 'event' that a so called athlete needs to participate
in. In other words it could be a 'fun run' open to anyone who can fill out a
registration form.

Go away you childish loser. You lost, you got your cookies handed to
you on a platter, you were thouroughly trounced, yet you persist. why?
Idiocy? Stupidity? Mental illness? Grow up and move on punk.

David said:

John, I need to engage you as my counsel in this little IOM matter.

Quoted message said:

My position is that Donovan in essence is stating that it is possible to be
a mediocre athlete in relation to the general population which is an
oxymoron and by any definition is untenable.

You are being nominated for the IOM because your method of arguing is to
declare the counter-positoin an "oxymoron". You are, in fact, saying
that it can't be right because you don't believe it. You say "by any
definition is untenable" despite the fact that you have been presented
with two definitions where it is tenable. Yelling louder and calling
people names does not constitute a counter argument.

You would not be getting the IOM award if you were able to come up with
a better argument. It certainly makes sense that you would appeal to
JMW for aid in forming an argument, which might help you learn how to do
it so you don't get reoccurring IOM awards, but it will not help you in
the face of the evidence that you are not currently CAPABLE of coming up
with an argument.

For example, your argument that it isn't possible to be a mediocre
athlete in relation to the general population is flawed for two reasons.
If you use the term "general population" to mean "people randomly
selected from the face of humanity" then it can quickly be shown that
there are vast differences between a person who trains and competes in
a sport at a mid-pack level and an untrained individual who does not
compete. Our language evolved to account for that difference by terming
the person who trains and competes as an athlete. That's how they
differ from the general population.

When I pointed out to you that I would blow away an untrained population
at a contest in my sport you then changed your term "general population"
to be "general population of people who are trained and compete". In
other words, you can only determine who is an athlete when comparing
them to other athletes. This loses the use of words in determining the
differences between people in the general population, but worse, it
creates a logical impossibility: if there is no such thing as a mid-pack
athlete then only the top half of one person who competes would be an
athlete. That isn't possible as one half of a person would not be
consistant with life and athletes are alive at the time of their
competition.

It also isn't possible because a contest exists between more than one
athlete. In any contest with three or more participants someone is
going to be mid-pack. The winner of that contest is declared the
Winner, not the Athlete.

I'm not very good at this, but I'm a helluva lot better than you are.
See, that's the thing: you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
That's why you're getting IOM.

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

John, I need to engage you as my counsel in this little IOM matter.

Quoted message said:

My position is that Donovan in essence is stating that it is possible to

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a mediocre athlete in relation to the general population which is an
oxymoron and by any definition is untenable.

You are being nominated for the IOM because your method of arguing is to
declare the counter-positoin an "oxymoron". You are, in fact, saying
that it can't be right because you don't believe it. You say "by any
definition is untenable" despite the fact that you have been presented
with two definitions where it is tenable. Yelling louder and calling
people names does not constitute a counter argument.

You would not be getting the IOM award if you were able to come up with
a better argument. It certainly makes sense that you would appeal to
JMW for aid in forming an argument, which might help you learn how to do
it so you don't get reoccurring IOM awards, but it will not help you in
the face of the evidence that you are not currently CAPABLE of coming up
with an argument.

For example, your argument that it isn't possible to be a mediocre
athlete in relation to the general population is flawed for two reasons.
If you use the term "general population" to mean "people randomly
selected from the face of humanity" then it can quickly be shown that
there are vast differences between a person who trains and competes in
a sport at a mid-pack level and an untrained individual who does not
compete. Our language evolved to account for that difference by terming
the person who trains and competes as an athlete. That's how they
differ from the general population.

When I pointed out to you that I would blow away an untrained population
at a contest in my sport you then changed your term "general population"
to be "general population of people who are trained and compete". In
other words, you can only determine who is an athlete when comparing
them to other athletes. This loses the use of words in determining the
differences between people in the general population, but worse, it
creates a logical impossibility: if there is no such thing as a mid-pack
athlete then only the top half of one person who competes would be an
athlete. That isn't possible as one half of a person would not be
consistant with life and athletes are alive at the time of their
competition.

It also isn't possible because a contest exists between more than one
athlete. In any contest with three or more participants someone is
going to be mid-pack. The winner of that contest is declared the
Winner, not the Athlete.

I'm not very good at this, but I'm a helluva lot better than you are.
See, that's the thing: you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
That's why you're getting IOM.

Dally

We'll see. (I already pointed out that dictionary definitions are still
subject to interpretation. Your interpretation is different from mine. That
doesn;t make you right. And when I rehash and reiterate, then I get accused
of repeating myself. No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a stupid
genius. You are getting so boring Dally it is breathtaking)

Dally said:

David said:

John, I need to engage you as my counsel in this little IOM matter.

Quoted message said:

My position is that Donovan in essence is stating that it is possible to be
a mediocre athlete in relation to the general population which is an
oxymoron and by any definition is untenable.

You are being nominated for the IOM because your method of arguing is to
declare the counter-positoin an "oxymoron". You are, in fact, saying
that it can't be right because you don't believe it. You say "by any
definition is untenable" despite the fact that you have been presented
with two definitions where it is tenable. Yelling louder and calling
people names does not constitute a counter argument.

You would not be getting the IOM award if you were able to come up with
a better argument. It certainly makes sense that you would appeal to
JMW for aid in forming an argument, which might help you learn how to do
it so you don't get reoccurring IOM awards, but it will not help you in
the face of the evidence that you are not currently CAPABLE of coming up
with an argument.

For example, your argument that it isn't possible to be a mediocre
athlete in relation to the general population is flawed for two reasons.
If you use the term "general population" to mean "people randomly
selected from the face of humanity" then it can quickly be shown that
there are vast differences between a person who trains and competes in
a sport at a mid-pack level and an untrained individual who does not
compete. Our language evolved to account for that difference by terming
the person who trains and competes as an athlete. That's how they
differ from the general population.

When I pointed out to you that I would blow away an untrained population
at a contest in my sport you then changed your term "general population"
to be "general population of people who are trained and compete". In
other words, you can only determine who is an athlete when comparing
them to other athletes. This loses the use of words in determining the
differences between people in the general population, but worse, it
creates a logical impossibility: if there is no such thing as a mid-pack
athlete then only the top half of one person who competes would be an
athlete. That isn't possible as one half of a person would not be
consistant with life and athletes are alive at the time of their
competition.

It also isn't possible because a contest exists between more than one
athlete. In any contest with three or more participants someone is
going to be mid-pack. The winner of that contest is declared the
Winner, not the Athlete.

I'm not very good at this, but I'm a helluva lot better than you are.

Quoted message said:

See, that's the thing: you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
That's why you're getting IOM.

You may well be crowing prematurely, which is always a foolish thing
to do.

There is still a long way to go before any such award can be made,
including the validity of the grounds for nomination, and taking into
account that there is a proposed and seconded counter nomination.

Also, as it is only the 5th August, it is premature to decide so early
that more deserving recipients won't present themselves before the end
of the month.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

David said:

No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a stupid
genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

"Charles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

David said:

John, I need to engage you as my counsel in this little IOM matter.

Quoted message said:

My position is that Donovan in essence is stating that it is possible

to be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a mediocre athlete in relation to the general population which is an
oxymoron and by any definition is untenable.

You are being nominated for the IOM because your method of arguing is to
declare the counter-positoin an "oxymoron". You are, in fact, saying
that it can't be right because you don't believe it. You say "by any
definition is untenable" despite the fact that you have been presented
with two definitions where it is tenable. Yelling louder and calling
people names does not constitute a counter argument.

You would not be getting the IOM award if you were able to come up with
a better argument. It certainly makes sense that you would appeal to
JMW for aid in forming an argument, which might help you learn how to do
it so you don't get reoccurring IOM awards, but it will not help you in
the face of the evidence that you are not currently CAPABLE of coming up
with an argument.

For example, your argument that it isn't possible to be a mediocre
athlete in relation to the general population is flawed for two reasons.
If you use the term "general population" to mean "people randomly
selected from the face of humanity" then it can quickly be shown that
there are vast differences between a person who trains and competes in
a sport at a mid-pack level and an untrained individual who does not
compete. Our language evolved to account for that difference by terming
the person who trains and competes as an athlete. That's how they
differ from the general population.

When I pointed out to you that I would blow away an untrained population
at a contest in my sport you then changed your term "general population"
to be "general population of people who are trained and compete". In
other words, you can only determine who is an athlete when comparing
them to other athletes. This loses the use of words in determining the
differences between people in the general population, but worse, it
creates a logical impossibility: if there is no such thing as a mid-pack
athlete then only the top half of one person who competes would be an
athlete. That isn't possible as one half of a person would not be
consistant with life and athletes are alive at the time of their
competition.

It also isn't possible because a contest exists between more than one
athlete. In any contest with three or more participants someone is
going to be mid-pack. The winner of that contest is declared the
Winner, not the Athlete.

I'm not very good at this, but I'm a helluva lot better than you are.

Quoted message said:

See, that's the thing: you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.
That's why you're getting IOM.

You may well be crowing prematurely, which is always a foolish thing
to do.

There is still a long way to go before any such award can be made,
including the validity of the grounds for nomination, and taking into
account that there is a proposed and seconded counter nomination.

Also, as it is only the 5th August, it is premature to decide so early
that more deserving recipients won't present themselves before the end
of the month.

HAGW!!

TFIF!

I can think of one more deserving recipient - the good professor himself.

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

Dally, after all these posts I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that
you are a loony. You want a second opinion? OK, you;re ugly as well.

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

My uncle George has a heart condition and is around 50 lbs overweight. He
has been in fairly serious training for the past 7 months as he wants to run
in the 'geriatrics' group in the local fun run with his friends. His diet is
clean and he hangs with other geriatrics in his group who also have been in
solid training for a few months. I am going to give that athlete as much
encouragement as possible so that he might finish the race.

David said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

Dally, after all these posts I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that
you are a loony. You want a second opinion? OK, you;re ugly as well.

You disappoint me. I really, really expected you to bring up Nazis.

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

Problem with you Dally is that you need a certain amount of brain power to
understand the concepts involved here. You are sadly lacking.

David said:

My uncle George has a heart condition and is around 50 lbs overweight. He
has been in fairly serious training for the past 7 months as he wants to run
in the 'geriatrics' group in the local fun run with his friends. His diet is
clean and he hangs with other geriatrics in his group who also have been in
solid training for a few months. I am going to give that athlete as much
encouragement as possible so that he might finish the race.

Good for Uncle George. And good for you, too. I'm glad to see you
aren't as big a schtup in real life as you are online.

While you're at it, why not run the race with Uncle George? It'd be
surprisingly good for you to learn what it's like to be an athlete.

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David wrote:

>No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
>a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

>genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

Dally, after all these posts I have come to the unfortunate conclusion

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you are a loony. You want a second opinion? OK, you;re ugly as well.

You disappoint me. I really, really expected you to bring up Nazis.

Dally

Actually I was trying to do that but couldn;t find an appropriate
referecnce. I'll keep looking

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

My uncle George has a heart condition and is around 50 lbs overweight.

He

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has been in fairly serious training for the past 7 months as he wants to

run

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the 'geriatrics' group in the local fun run with his friends. His

diet is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clean and he hangs with other geriatrics in his group who also have been

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solid training for a few months. I am going to give that athlete as

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

encouragement as possible so that he might finish the race.

Good for Uncle George. And good for you, too. I'm glad to see you
aren't as big a schtup in real life as you are online.

While you're at it, why not run the race with Uncle George? It'd be
surprisingly good for you to learn what it's like to be an athlete.

Dally

My athletic ability is beyond question - one day I'll post a photo of myself
in my underwear - (I'd need to have had a couple of drinks of course)

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

My uncle George has a heart condition and is around 50 lbs overweight.

He

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has been in fairly serious training for the past 7 months as he wants to

run

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the 'geriatrics' group in the local fun run with his friends. His

diet is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clean and he hangs with other geriatrics in his group who also have been

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solid training for a few months. I am going to give that athlete as

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

encouragement as possible so that he might finish the race.

Good for Uncle George. And good for you, too. I'm glad to see you
aren't as big a schtup in real life as you are online.

While you're at it, why not run the race with Uncle George? It'd be
surprisingly good for you to learn what it's like to be an athlete.

Dally

My athletic ability is beyond question - one day I'll post a photo of myself
in my underwear - (I'd need to have had a couple of drinks of course)

David said:

You are sadly lacking.

I just wanted to thank you for not attempting to contract "you are".

Dally

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

My uncle George has a heart condition and is around 50 lbs overweight.

He

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has been in fairly serious training for the past 7 months as he wants to

run

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the 'geriatrics' group in the local fun run with his friends. His

diet is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clean and he hangs with other geriatrics in his group who also have been

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

solid training for a few months. I am going to give that athlete as

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

encouragement as possible so that he might finish the race.

Good for Uncle George. And good for you, too. I'm glad to see you
aren't as big a schtup in real life as you are online.

While you're at it, why not run the race with Uncle George? It'd be
surprisingly good for you to learn what it's like to be an athlete.

Dally

By the way, I have researched the etymology of 'schtup' - based in Yiddish
it has long been regarded as a term of endearment. Are you sure you didn't
mean '[censored]' which has a somewhat different connotation?

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David said:

You are sadly lacking.

I just wanted to thank you for not attempting to contract "you are".

Dally

You're certainly right about that!

Dally said:

David said:

"Dally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David wrote:

>No reasonable person would accept your intpretation of
>a dictionary definition that would admit there is such a thing as a

stupid

Quoted message said:

>genius.

That's your argument? A mediocre athlete can't exist because there is
no such thing as a stupid genius?

Whatever you're paying John, it isn't enough.

Dally

Dally, after all these posts I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that
you are a loony. You want a second opinion? OK, you;re ugly as well.

You disappoint me. I really, really expected you to bring up Nazis.

That's the second time you have ventured he N*** word, desperately
hoping I suspect that some kind soul will invoke "Godwin" and spare
you any further humiliation!! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!