Skip navigation
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community

264493 Views 1,829 Replies Latest reply: Nov 12, 2008 10:05 AM by michaelmack33 Go to original post 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 ... 122 Previous Next
  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    975. Jan 30, 2008 9:27 AM (in response to NHSenior)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    "....The problem in all this is the numbers of ipod wearers. That raises the frequency of incident and beyond the raw cost of the payout, comes an increase in the human admistration structure that a company needs along with lots more higher paid administrators."

     

    NHSenior - what verifiable source can you cite that provides concrete, objective, measured and statistically significant data to support your statement?

     

    Given the appeal of running and the boom it has seen over the last several years could it not possibly be that the number if incidents is on the rise because, oh heavens no, the number of runners is on the rise?

     

     

    Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.  Until you can provide verifiable sources for your claims all you are doing is spilling the wind from your sails with every post you make.

     

     

  • lahrunner Pro 103 posts since
    Dec 21, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    976. Jan 30, 2008 9:41 AM (in response to NHSenior)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    NHSenior: The problem in all this is the numbers of ipod wearers. That raises the frequency of incident....blah, blah, blah  

     

     

    Hello! NHSenior!!  What incidents?!  That NYT excerpt I posted a few pages back clearly stated that race officials couldn't site specific incidents.   Oh but I'm sure you'll have some arrogant response.

     

     

    And OMG!  Could everyone step away from their computers, take a deep breath and a reality check!  Yes, this is an important issue but is it life altering?  Life threatening?  I don't think so!  I love running and I love music and I love combining them.  Nothing that NHSenior says is ever going to change that!  We can descend in mass on the inboxes of the USATF and RDs and voice our opinions regardless of what General CrabApple believes!  

     

     

    And life without humor is...well, life with NHSenior.   Humor doesn't detract from this argument, it reminds us that we're human, passionate, open minded, intelligent and capable of not taking ourselves so freakin' seriously!   Do I now need to be concerned that laughing will also be banned at races, because it puts you in a euphoric state that creates an unconscious zombie-like stupor causing you to forget about your surroundings?!   

     

     

    This argument is becoming exasperating!  The only reason why I'm sticking it out is I heard that the person who writes the 1,000th post, gets a free iPod!!  Gotta run...the humor police are coming!

     

     

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    977. Jan 30, 2008 9:41 AM (in response to parkerand susan)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    "....runners avoiding your race is going to cost you 100 times that increase..that's real world a priori bargaining ..."

     

    Now you are venturing into the discussion of synthetic vs. analytic a priori truths.  A Synthetic a priori truth must be true without appealing to experience.  Analytic a priori truth (which I believe your statement to be) is different because the predicate (runners not participating) is contained in the subject (loss of revenue) and lends itself to being proven true only after analysis of the impact of a runner's non-participation.

     

     

    NH is making the same mistake both the Empiricists and Rationalists did - NH is conflating all four terms: a priori, a posteriori, synthetic and analytic and assuming (quite incorrectly) that his/her conclusions can be proven analytically AND a priori.

     

     

    Manny says, "Big no, no."

     

     

    From ipods to Kant.  Wow.

     

     

     

     

     

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    978. Jan 30, 2008 9:47 AM (in response to lahrunner)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    lahrunner -

     

    Way to throw cold water on us. I don't feel like stepping away from my 'puter.

     

     

    I can't run (herniated L5/S1 giving my right sciatic nerve fits today) and it's icky outside. 

     

     

    Do you know if the ipod that is being given away is 8 or 16 Gig?

     

     

    Be Well.

     

     

    P.S. - All of the above (except the disc thing and Be Well) said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek)

     

     

     

     

     

  • NHSenior Legend 387 posts since
    Nov 23, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    979. Jan 30, 2008 9:55 AM (in response to RKHII83)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    <<<<< NH is conflating all four terms: a priori, a posteriori, synthetic and analytic

     

     

     

     

     

    It's been said many times that I multi-task quite well.

     

     

  • parkerand susan Legend 363 posts since
    Oct 17, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    980. Jan 30, 2008 9:57 AM (in response to NHSenior)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    Sun rises..Sun sets..NH spouts Balooney  (new word...misspelling intended)

     

     

    If you actually did a tri..( might want to shave the beard first Fidel) you would know they involve running...1 dollar of insurance..transitions in crowded bike areas 1 dollar...swimming in open water...2 dollars of insurance...biking 112 miles...3 dollars...sounds like a great deal to me..I'll pay.. want to control how much I pay now NH.. is that more than you would pay? did you forget or omit in your example that it is not one thing to insurance...where you DISINGENIOUS ......but the only way you can make your point on this Mr Bigot is to say I'm not as smart as you..I'm going to sic RH on you again by gum!... I am way smart enough to know that no matter what is posed here..true or false..you will screw with, bend, twist and out right tell untruths..bad bad immoral NH.. no soup for you!!!

     

     

    and as to my veracity in signing a waiver ...( glad you cleared up that wild and slanderous statement that we agree on anything!) my waivers say I will hold harmless everyone associated with the race... that i am in good health...The RD"S "have the ball" as you so stated..they say I can play with their ball with an ipod...we have an agreement of two parties..it may p-- you off ,,but you are not in control of me or my races and not the third party in my agreements ..no NH below my signature...Sorry..

     

     

    <<<The problem in all this is the numbers of ipod wearers. That raises the frequency of incident and beyond the raw cost of the payout, comes an increase in the human admistration structure that a company needs along with lots more higher paid administrators. Most businesses today are desperately trying to find ways of keeping that from happening. The cost of creating a big pass-through business is not appealing to companies. But then that is stuff you don't care to believe has any effect on your goal.>>>

     

     

    That above remark is the absolute, most non sensical, uninformed load you have yet to offer.. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever...if you allowed an insurance executive to read that he would have you quietly escorted from the building by security...are you off your meds or just think we are clueless.....the problem is the numbers of ipoders..not our problem..your problem!!! if RD's don't want thousands of runners at their races all they have to do is limit the sign up...Duh?

     

     

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    981. Jan 30, 2008 10:03 AM (in response to NHSenior)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    NH -

     

    conflation is the amalgamation of two (or more) different expressions or concepts. In most cases, the combination results in a new expression that makes little sense literally, but clearly expresses an idea because it references well-known idioms.

     

    In your case you neither express youself with congruent or incongruent conflation, therefore the latter half of the definition does not apply to you. Hence the analytic a posteriori truth that you can't and don't multi-task well.

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    982. Jan 30, 2008 10:06 AM (in response to RKHII83)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    Ooooooooooooooooooooo.

     

    I got a gold star with that last post.

  • parkerand susan Legend 363 posts since
    Oct 17, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    983. Jan 30, 2008 10:16 AM (in response to RKHII83)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    Holy S---! RKH....remind me not to run into you in a dark alse of the library..you one bad, packing heat podder...as NH says so often...he shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight..your last dissertation on "Kant we just get along" really illiciated a pithy response from our own Rosanna Rosanna Danna...let me translate...I don't know what he said..but I disagree!!! totally!! never mind...

  • lahrunner Pro 103 posts since
    Dec 21, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    984. Jan 30, 2008 10:17 AM (in response to RKHII83)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    Professor HK, you rock and definitely get the gold star for all your posts!  Bummer about your sciatic nerve.  It is best then to lay low and stay "active" on this marathon discussion.   Only 17 more posts to go before someone wins that iPod!!

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    985. Jan 30, 2008 10:34 AM (in response to lahrunner)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    lahrunner -

     

    Spine is bumming me out. I was planning on doing the Shamrock Half (Virginia Beach) with my wife in March, with a 2:30 goal - PR for her, about 35 minutes off my PR - not that that means anything to anyone but me, my wife and NH cuz we will both have our ipods.  She's a U2, Linkin Park, OAR, Coldplay girl (Eww, what no Dead?!?!?!?!)

     

     

    May just have to suck it up and take off until the Dismal Swamp Stomp Half in April.  I have only done Halfs and shorter, plus a couple of Sprint Tris (Sandman, Breezy Point) but am planning on the OBX Marathon in November - my first.  The idea of finding and hitting my personal wall is intriguing and from a detached analytical standpoint something I want to experience see.  You know, all that mental state and fiber thing.  The only time I came close was during a speed ascent of Green Mountain in Boulder in Dec 06.  5300 feet to 8100 feet.  56 degrees in Boulder at the start, 0 degrees (as in none) at the peak.  Last 3/4 mile up was excruciating - mostly because of the 880 foot increase in altitude.  But oh the buzz once we got to the summit and looked west into the heart of the interior Colorado Rockies.  Descent was a euphoric blur.  Come to think of it - I didn't have an ipod and I was in a stupor.  Should I DQ myself?

     

     

  • NHSenior Legend 387 posts since
    Nov 23, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    986. Jan 30, 2008 10:46 AM (in response to parkerand susan)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    <<<< That raises the frequency of incident

     

     

     

     

     

    I do apologize as I should have added a word to that part of the sentence "That raises the "potential" frequency of incident". I haven't had the time today to proof read like I would like to do.

     

     

    <<<< if you allowed an insurance executive to read that he would have you quietly escorted from the building by security.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I got to see lots of security people in an insurance building. Before I decide to have more fun as a consultant I was a Controller/VP Finance for an insurance company, however I was really an operations type who only used the Finance area to stick my nose in the rest of the business which was much more interesting. As I did in every industry that I worked in.

     

     

    Insurance was only one of many industries that I worked in.

     

     

    Things that are dangerous seldom become safe just because the venue changes. Cell phones and headphone are bad news in crowded situations. Insurance companies don't wait until they are in the deep do do of high frequency of claims to move toward lessening the exposure. The rather insidious part of all this public furor is that if it get high enough on the radar screens of the sleezeball lawyers, they are going to figure out what a target rich environment it is. The lawyers will be very good at proving in court that ipod was safety hazard and that everyone knew it or at a minimum "should have known". That latter being the hard part to avoid.

     

     

    The lawyers won't even have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt either because too many of the jurors will be the "tuck it to the MAN" types which is somewhat Ironic in that those same types will be the ones trying to screw over the RDs as if they are the MAN and get the whole process into court started.. Snakes strike whereever they can bite.

  • sgray Pro 96 posts since
    Aug 8, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    987. Jan 30, 2008 10:45 AM (in response to lahrunner)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    You know what?  I think we all agree that, as adults, we make decisions each and every day.  Some of these decisions may wind up getting us hurt.  Some of them may wind up keeping us from getting hurt.  But the bottom line is, I see a bunch of grown adults that, to this point, seem to have gotten to where they are without calamity.  I am guessing that none of us have had to have a "In your face" person like NH, or the resident "Accident waiting to happen" Mary, guide us through our every day life.  Isn't it apparent that these are just two very lonely people, who need a purpose in life?  On one hand, you have NH.  He will have you believe that he is all that is good in the world.  I believe, and this is not word for word, that one of his statements to Runner Chick was "If you want to break the rules, then it is my job to call you on it."  The problem with this is, you are being bias in your enforcing of the rules.  I am certain that if I went down the list of rules for a marathon, or any other race, that you would have a jail full of violators.  In the end, what does it matter?  Now, Mary will tell you, and it will most likely be about 10 paragraphs long, that she has run over 1000 races, and the only times she has ever been trampled, impeded, or slowed down, was by iPodders.  I am guessing that her next tale will be about how she was running with the bulls in Pamplona, and the only trampling she got was by a runner wearing an iPod.  Guys, aside from the fact that your posts are ridiculously long winded, they are also not very believable.  I am also starting to have a hard time with your credibility.  Anyone who says that they "Lowered themselves" to sign up in a race, thinks way too highly of themselves.  Right NH?  Remember, if you have to tell me how good you are, you probably ain't that good.  Then you have Mary boasting of her 1000+ races.  Mary, we do not care.  It is not the quantity of races you have run, it is the quality of the races you have run.  It appears to me, through your endless babbling that you are really not that good of a runner, seeming to always be in the middle of a pack of recreational runners, and that you are evidently so oblivious to your surroundings that you are constantly being run into, or running into others.  Once again, don't blame peripheral things for the actions of stupid people, blame stupid people for the actions of stupid people.  Mary, before you make your claim of running over 1000 races again, think to yourself..."Self, am I really just bragging about something that I have business bragging about?"  And, I know you believe that your the self appointed, first lady of running, but you really need to stop it with the whole, "you people need to learn to run without your headphones", rant.  Actually, you need to learn to play with others.  When you learn to run a race without bothering other people, come talk to us.

     

     

    Until then, I am going to do my best to be the 1000th poster so that I win that iPod.  Man, I will look so cool running my marathons this fall with that thing.

     

     

  • NHSenior Legend 387 posts since
    Nov 23, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    988. Jan 30, 2008 10:55 AM (in response to sgray)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

    <<<<<Anyone who says that they "Lowered themselves" to sign up in a race, thinks way too highly of themselves.

     

     

     

     

     

    It's only "too highly" if what they do or have done was not as stated or implied.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    <<<< Right NH? Remember, if you have to tell me how good you are, you probably ain't that good

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That thought was originally written by an underachiever who didn't like being reminded that some people can an do excel as a way of life.

     

     

    So you keep thinking that thought and when you run into a rattlesnake, present company included, you delude yourself that the snake's warning is just bluster.

  • RKHII83 Pro 166 posts since
    Oct 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    989. Jan 30, 2008 10:58 AM (in response to sgray)
    Re: The iPod conflict brews in racing

     

    sgray -

     

    Nicely worded post. But I have one issue with your line

     

    "....you are really not that good of a runner, seeming to always be in the middle of a pack of recreational runners...."

     

    I am a self-admitted middle of the pack guy, 46, retired military ( 9 deployments in 24 years, 3 in the sand box where I earned/accumulated my bad back, bad hips among other injuries I won't bore anyone with.)  I began running Halfs 5 years ago and do about 6-7 a year.  My PR is 1:52 and change.  I must admit that your statement chafed me a bit.  If I read your intent wrong, my bad, end of discussion.  But was it your intent to imply, albeit obliquely, that there is something wrong with being a middle of the pack, recreational runner?

     

     

    I run now because I can - just me and my own demons.  Finishing a race is a small victory in itself.  Your other posts are great - and I think I probably took this one wrong, but I had to ask.

     

     

    And for the record, Mary was trampled by a bull that was wearing an ipod.

     

     

    And I am getting the ipod.

     

     

     

     

     

1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 ... 122 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...