Gebrselassie's hutch

I'll be in line for the adidas poster of Geb crossing the line in Berlin!!

no wrote:i don't think geb sells shoes and few would recognize the members of his hutch.

I don't think anyone is going to buy a shoe just because they see a logo on a stranger in a magazine, either. The trillion dollar industry of brand advertising must be mistaken.

Janies crying wrote:

Nitwit, a hutch is what you keep rabbits in.

uh huh wrote:

Of all the thick headed, illiterate imbeciles that post here, you've managed to distinguish yourself as possibly the biggest.

There is nothing better than being called a "nitwit" or an "imbecile" by a pair of morons.

A) I was obviously joking with my "starsky" comment (that was just being silly)

B) I then referenced "small animal", ie, rabbit, so obviously I know what the word means. (but sure, didn't quite get malmo's attempted witticism or joke, because it really didn't make sense)

So let's review here: Malmo called Geb's group of rabbits a "hutch", THE CAGE one keeps rabbits in. So the pacemakes(ie, rabbits) were the cage(hutch), and GEB was the rabbit??? That makes sense?? I guess he might as well have called them "Geb's grass", because that's what rabbits eat? Ok, sure.

Here's what Malmo probably should have said (because all of the following words refer to a GROUP of rabbits, which is exactly what those runners he listed were. Since you two are obviously quite slow, I will repeat that: The pacemakers were a GROUP of rabbits.....not CAGE for rabbits)-

"Geb's...

husk

wrack (for young rabbits),

nest (also for young rabbits),

kindle (also for youn rabbits)

warren,

trip,

trace,

colony,

fluffle (canada)

down, or..

drove "

Hutch is nowhere on that list.

Who's illiterate?? Exactly.

(and yes, that was an entirely over-analytical, anal-retentive post by me, but know who should appreciate my exactitude with regards to words and their meaning more than anyone? Malmo himself. C'mon malmo, be a man and admit your word-play was not entirely accurate, and didn't really make sense. Oh wait, though you appreciate the correct usage of words, you are loathe to ever admit a mistake. Methinks you are in a quandry now. )

i will also admit that, despite being a wordsmith myself, i must be a nitwit and a thick-headed, illiterate imbecile, too, because i didn't really get what malmo was trying to do with his thread title. after thinking about it for a bit, it made some sense but it was pretty strained, in my opinion. it's always amusing, of course, to see what causes controversy on this board.

Deleted in 4-3-2....

As will this one be.

Sir Lance a Lot, get a f***ing life, loser.

chuck d wrote:

i will also admit that, despite being a wordsmith myself, i must be a nitwit and a thick-headed, illiterate imbecile, too, because i didn't really get what malmo was trying to do with his thread title. after thinking about it for a bit, it made some sense but it was pretty strained, in my opinion. it's always amusing, of course, to see what causes controversy on this board.

Thanks chuck d, you are level-headed, reasonable guy, so I will always take your support. And guess what? Of course I would have made no further comment on something so trivial if I hadn't been called out by the peanut gallery as an "illiterate, imbecile, nitwit," despite not having written anything illogical.

So, if you were surrounded by a number of rabbits in very close quarters, might you not be in a "hutch"?

It makes perfect sence to call the thread a hutch because when you open it you see the rabbits listed inside.

Francis Bacon wrote:

So, if you were surrounded by a number of rabbits in very close quarters, might you not be in a "hutch"?

Yes. But you might also be in a stew.

Since you are asking..

Francis Bacon wrote:

So, if you were surrounded by a number of rabbits in very close quarters, might you not be in a "hutch"?

I guess you could, but were they acting as a "cage" ? And if they were acting as the cage that keeps rabbits, wouldn't that mean Geb was a rabbit too ? I still say it doesn't really make sense, and the group of words I listed would have been a better choice for his word-play.

Slow and Steady wrote:

It makes perfect sence to call the thread a hutch because when you open it you see the rabbits listed inside.

Call the "thread" a hutch ? You mean title this thread "Geb's hutch" ? When you open up what ? Oh, wait, I sort of see your point: Malmo was calling his POST a "hutch", and not the runners themselves ??? Oh.... if so, I can understand that. But it was unclear, because it seemed like he was calling the group of runners themselves "Geb's hutch," not his thread. The title of the thread is usually what it is about, not what it IS itself. If that is what he meant, it makes some sense, but it is a strange way of making his joke.

Letsrun idiocy on display in spades.

Here, I'll make it easy for you, I'm editing the title of the thread to, "Look who's in Haile's hutch." The alliteration sounds much better to me.

Just in case the knuckleheads here think that I'm saying there was a cage with wire mesh corralling the rabbits throughout the race, there wasn't. The hutch is a metaphor. Is doesn't exist. You can check the tape at WCSN if you don't believe. Heck, the rabbits weren't even rabbits, they were humans. You see, children, "rabbits" is a metaphor, as well.

malmo wrote:

5 km: 14:44 (-4s)

10 km: 29:28 (14:44) (-8s)

15 km: 44:15 (14:47) (-9s)

20 km: 59:10 (14:55) (-3s)

25 km: 1:14:05 (14:55) (+4s)

30 km: 1:28:58 (14:53) (+9s) Rop and Wondimu retire

35 km: 1:43:38 (14:40) (even)

40 km: 1:58:08 (14:30) (-17)

The amazing thing about this is that the holy grail among MOST competitive runners is breaking 14:30 for 5k or 30:00 for 10k, and, yet, here is someone doing it every 10k and dropping a 14:30 for his last 5k. Unbelievable.

Thanks to everyone on this thread for giving Sir Lance a lot a forum for releasing his pent up anger toward Malmo.

malmo wrote:

Letsrun idiocy on display in spades.

Here, I'll make it easy for you, I'm editing the title of the thread to, "Look who's in Haile's hutch." The alliteration sounds much better to me.

Just in case the knuckleheads here think that I'm saying there was a cage with wire mesh corralling the rabbits throughout the race, there wasn't. The hutch is a metaphor. Is doesn't exist. You can check the tape at WCSN if you don't believe. Heck, the rabbits weren't even rabbits, they were humans. You see, children, "rabbits" is a metaphor, as well.

Everyone, ignore this statement.

Now, continue the argument, please.

sleeper wrote:

It's pretty impressive that they were able to get someone of Rop's caliber to be a rabbit. Well done by those 5.

Rop, if I'm not mistaken, is running NYC in a month, he was probably doing this as a tune-up instead of a half-marathon.

Here's a question...

How fast would Shorter, Rodgers, Salazar, Clayton, Lopez, et al have run with 5 or 6 rabbits? These guys just showed up and race each other. If they happened to run a fast time then bonus points!

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Here's a question...

How fast would Shorter, Rodgers, Salazar, Clayton, Lopez, et al have run with 5 or 6 rabbits? These guys just showed up and race each other. If they happened to run a fast time then bonus points!

Alan

I'll take that one step further Alan, how fast do you think they would have run if they had a hutch, or if they were in the hutch, or if their rabbits were in the hutch, or if the rabbits were the hutch? I'd say VERY, VERY fast indeed.

I think if Haile raced Salazar in Boston in the heat, he'd have a world cross country type performance. But he's still a phenomenal runner.

Ahh, but they were live rabbits, so it couldn't be a stew.

If you picture the streets of Berlin with a Start Line and a Finish Line, and a street curb and spectators on each side of the route, thus forming an enclosure, you have a long, narrow "hutch". Of course, if the rabbits weren't so brave, they might have been chickens, and could have formed a "clutch". Regardless, Geb had the magic "touch".