Ping: JMW

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[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
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
and participated in an event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete'
s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely
mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

I've already answered these questions. I'm sick of this discussion. Aren't
you ? If you haven't had your fill of it already, I suggest that you could
get that and more by reading the thread on google.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[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 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 and participated in an
event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete' s" proficiency
or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely mobile
person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a
person, "oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and
walked an 18 minute per mile pace?

I've already answered these questions. I'm sick of this discussion.
Aren't you ? If you haven't had your fill of it already, I suggest
that you could get that and more by reading the thread on google.

Cheers,

Note the complete absence of my participation on the topic.
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

His
position is that a person can be labelled 'athlete' simply by having trained
and participated in an event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete'
s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely
mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth?

Well, no. First of all, David's logic leap when he said "therefore" is
inaccurate. A grossly overweight and barely mobile person would NOT be
trained and competing in athletic events. Be careful about his segues,
they don't usually make sense. I believe he was attempting to conflate
my current state of being slightly overweight and finishing mid-pack in
a triathlon as "grossly overweight and barely mobile."

Quoted message said:

I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

Can you think of people who have substantially trained and participated
in sports to the extent that it's a major piece of their day-to-day
activities that you would NOT describe as an athlete?

Quoted message said:

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power?

Yes. But it also loses its descriptive power when you fail to apply it
to mid-pack triathletes.

Quoted message said:

If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Because it distinguishes between those who train and compete versus
those who don't. There are a whole host of attributes that are
associated with people who train and compete. It's a facts and
circumstances situation: some people might have agility and strength,
some might have endurance and strength, some might have precision/skill
and agility... the characteristics of an individual sport will differ.
But athletes will distinguish themselves in that they focus around their
sport to the extent that they train and compete in it. Non-athletes
will not.

Quoted message said:

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

If the person is walking at an 18 minute ile pace then it's fairly clear
that they did not train for the run nor are they particularly competing.

No one ever argued that showing up once was enough.

Dally

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

His
position is that a person can be labelled 'athlete' simply by having trained
and participated in an event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete'
s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely
mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth?

Well, no. First of all, David's logic leap when he said "therefore" is
inaccurate. A grossly overweight and barely mobile person would NOT be
trained and competing in athletic events. Be careful about his segues,
they don't usually make sense. I believe he was attempting to conflate
my current state of being slightly overweight and finishing mid-pack in
a triathlon as "grossly overweight and barely mobile."

Quoted message said:

I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

Can you think of people who have substantially trained and participated
in sports to the extent that it's a major piece of their day-to-day
activities that you would NOT describe as an athlete?

Quoted message said:

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power?

Yes. But it also loses its descriptive power when you fail to apply it
to mid-pack triathletes.

Quoted message said:

If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Because it distinguishes between those who train and compete versus
those who don't. There are a whole host of attributes that are
associated with people who train and compete. It's a facts and
circumstances situation: some people might have agility and strength,
some might have endurance and strength, some might have precision/skill
and agility... the characteristics of an individual sport will differ.
But athletes will distinguish themselves in that they focus around their
sport to the extent that they train and compete in it. Non-athletes
will not.

Quoted message said:

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

If the person is walking at an 18 minute ile pace then it's fairly clear
that they did not train for the run nor are they particularly competing.

No one ever argued that showing up once was enough.

Dally

On 2005-08-06, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Why even bother ? It's clear that Mikey either

(a) hasn't read the thread
(b) is trolling
(c) is really thick.

Probably (a), possibly (b). I doubt (c), but it's there for completeness.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-06, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Why even bother ? It's clear that Mikey either

(a) hasn't read the thread
(b) is trolling
(c) is really thick.

Probably (a), possibly (b). I doubt (c), but it's there for completeness.

Why bother? For nostolgia's sake. Time was when people would slap
everyone around for bad logic and/or misinformation.

I've been waxing nostolgic today. Someone said something about an
"old-timer" and I remembered it. I google back ten years in this group.
Actually, I got here in '94 but I followed an ancient usenet tradition
that young'uns wouldn't recall... I lurked for a while before I posted.
Big sigh. Those were the days.

Dally

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-06, Dally <[email hidden]> wrote:
[snip]

Why even bother ? It's clear that Mikey either

(a) hasn't read the thread
(b) is trolling
(c) is really thick.

Probably (a), possibly (b). I doubt (c), but it's there for completeness.

Why bother? For nostolgia's sake. Time was when people would slap
everyone around for bad logic and/or misinformation.

I've been waxing nostolgic today. Someone said something about an
"old-timer" and I remembered it. I google back ten years in this group.
Actually, I got here in '94 but I followed an ancient usenet tradition
that young'uns wouldn't recall... I lurked for a while before I posted.
Big sigh. Those were the days.

Dally

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:21:14 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
<[email hidden]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> 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 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 and participated in an
> event. There is no requirement as to this "athlete' s" proficiency
> or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and barely mobile
> person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a
person, "oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and
walked an 18 minute per mile pace?

I've already answered these questions. I'm sick of this discussion.
Aren't you ? If you haven't had your fill of it already, I suggest
that you could get that and more by reading the thread on google.

Cheers,

Note the complete absence of my participation on the topic.

I only made minimal comments myself but they were, as always, the
correct ones:-)

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

Quoted message said:

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

His
position is that a person can be labelled 'athlete' simply by having

trained

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"athlete'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and

barely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth?

Well, no. First of all, David's logic leap when he said "therefore" is
inaccurate. A grossly overweight and barely mobile person would NOT be
trained and competing in athletic events. Be careful about his segues,
they don't usually make sense. I believe he was attempting to conflate
my current state of being slightly overweight and finishing mid-pack in
a triathlon as "grossly overweight and barely mobile."

Quoted message said:

I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

Can you think of people who have substantially trained and participated
in sports to the extent that it's a major piece of their day-to-day
activities that you would NOT describe as an athlete?

Quoted message said:

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power?

Yes. But it also loses its descriptive power when you fail to apply it
to mid-pack triathletes.

Quoted message said:

If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Because it distinguishes between those who train and compete versus
those who don't. There are a whole host of attributes that are
associated with people who train and compete. It's a facts and
circumstances situation: some people might have agility and strength,
some might have endurance and strength, some might have precision/skill
and agility... the characteristics of an individual sport will differ.
But athletes will distinguish themselves in that they focus around their
sport to the extent that they train and compete in it. Non-athletes
will not.

Quoted message said:

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

If the person is walking at an 18 minute ile pace then it's fairly clear
that they did not train for the run nor are they particularly competing.

No one ever argued that showing up once was enough.

This is exactly where your asinine argument crumbles. You can't have it both
ways - the core of this argument is whether you can label someone 'athlete'
without any reference to achievement. In other words as you say a back or
mid pack person who trains, eats right, and enters events (open events) is
an athlete. My point is that to be an athlete you must belong in circle of
high achievers. Now you are also back pedalling by saying "can you think of
people who have substantially trained, participated in sports etc etc who
you would not describe as an athlete?" - that is totally beside the point as
to whether or now any such person comes to mind. Either you include
'achievement' within the definition or you don't. You can't have it both
ways.

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[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:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

"athlete'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

This is the core of the issue - Donovan has not addressed it. The dictionary
definition implies a certain level of achievement. He just now sidesteps
the issue by referring you to his bogus argument in the thread and claims he
is tired of repeating himself

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:58:51 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the core of the issue - Donovan has not addressed it. The dictionary
definition implies a certain level of achievement. He just now sidesteps
the issue by referring you to his bogus argument in the thread and claims he
is tired of repeating himself

So David, how was it riding the short bus to school?

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

John Hanson said:

I believe she posted once that she and the rest of her family slept
with a bunch of lesbians.

Your mom and sisters?

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:06:36 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dally said:

David wrote:

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

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!

Charles, I thought the N** word was '[censored]'. Are you saying that Dally is
black as well? so a Jewish black lady? Preposterous! Next you'll be saying
she is a lesbian.
Dally - *please* get into your underwear and post another photo right away
to clear this up for us!

I believe she posted once that she and the rest of her family slept
with a bunch of lesbians.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:54:34 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"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)

Here's mine from a couple/three years ago:
http://www.northernlinks.com/yohan/ItsWindy.jpg

This was the day we arrived. It cleared up and was beautiful the rest
of the trip.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:16:21 -0400, The Bill Rodgers <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

John Hanson said:

I believe she posted once that she and the rest of her family slept
with a bunch of lesbians.

Your mom and sisters?

Is that the best you can do? God, you really are pathetic. You
really don't even realize just how lame you are, do you?

I'm sure that if you google "painless suicide" you'll find a
comfortable way to put yourself out of your misery. You might also
try the term, "dying with dignity" to help you assuage your mental
anguish.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:15:51 -0400, The Bill Rodgers <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:58:51 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the core of the issue - Donovan has not addressed it. The dictionary
definition implies a certain level of achievement. He just now sidesteps
the issue by referring you to his bogus argument in the thread and claims he
is tired of repeating himself

So David, how was it riding the short bus to school?

Why don't you tell us your experience with the short bus. Perhaps it
will help us understand your mental torment. Was it a physical
disability that forced you to ride that bus? Or, did you have those
"episodes" that kicked you off of the normal buses? What was it that
caused your self loathing that makes you strike out on Usenet? I hope
you find your blue pill.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:15:51 -0400, The Bill Rodgers <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:58:51 GMT, "David" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

This is the core of the issue - Donovan has not addressed it. The dictionary
definition implies a certain level of achievement. He just now sidesteps
the issue by referring you to his bogus argument in the thread and claims he
is tired of repeating himself

So David, how was it riding the short bus to school?

Why don't you tell us your experience with the short bus. Perhaps it
will help us understand your mental torment. Was it a physical
disability that forced you to ride that bus? Or, did you have those
"episodes" that kicked you off of the normal buses? What was it that
caused your self loathing that makes you strike out on Usenet? I hope
you find your blue pill.

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

Quoted message said:

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[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:

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"athlete'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and

barely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

I've already answered these questions. I'm sick of this discussion. Aren't
you ? If you haven't had your fill of it already, I suggest that you could
get that and more by reading the thread on google.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

You need to grow some balls Donovan. You haven't addressed the issue - by
your interpretation a grossly overweight geriatric with a heart condition
who can barely finish a race can qualify as an athlete by having trained
for a period of time and entered an event or two. You are full of [censored]
Donovan - an academic goon

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

Quoted message said:

Joe Humble said:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:50:08 GMT, "David" <[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:

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"athlete'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

s" proficiency or achievements. Therefore a grossly overweight and

barely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mobile person in theory can be labelled 'athlete'.

Doesn't that translate into essentially every adult human being on
earth? I can't think of anyone I know who has not at least minimally
trained for and participated in some event.

If a word's meaning devolves to a description of almost everyone then
doesn't it lost any descriptive power? If we started to talk about
who is fat and the description eventually boiled down to almost
everyone then what is the use of the word?

Who here would truly feel they are being honest if they told a person,
"oh I'm an athlete" because they signed up for a fun run and walked an
18 minute per mile pace?

I've already answered these questions. I'm sick of this discussion. Aren't
you ? If you haven't had your fill of it already, I suggest that you could
get that and more by reading the thread on google.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

You need to grow some balls Donovan. You haven't addressed the issue - by
your interpretation a grossly overweight geriatric with a heart condition
who can barely finish a race can qualify as an athlete by having trained
for a period of time and entered an event or two. You are full of [censored]
Donovan - an academic goon

John Hanson said:

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:16:21 -0400, The Bill Rodgers <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

John Hanson said:

I believe she posted once that she and the rest of her family slept
with a bunch of lesbians.

Your mom and sisters?

Is that the best you can do? God, you really are pathetic. You
really don't even realize just how lame you are, do you?

I'm sure that if you google "painless suicide" you'll find a
comfortable way to put yourself out of your misery. You might also
try the term, "dying with dignity" to help you assuage your mental
anguish.

You really *should* ignore *this* troll, John. He hates it when
nobody pays attention to him, and he starts to do the type of
desperate things that will get his account jerked. As long as he can
get a response from engaging in petty annoyances, he feels pretty safe
and will continue what he's doing.