7 boys run 4:11 at New Jersey MOC

next year's 4x 1 mile or DMR between Windsor and Haddonfield will be amazing

the craziest part about this race is that the top two returnees didn't even run. national indoor 1000 meter record holder robby andrews (ran 2:22 to break webb's record), ran only the 800 - he won the millrose mile indoors. and i believe brett johnson, the meet record holder, is injured or sick. so really you're looking at 10 guys under 4:12 in new jersey. one of the best running states in the nation, and now it will finally get the attention it deserves.

malmo wrote:

Childish posts. All by the same person no doubt.

Intrinsic value is real, inherent. e.g. A 4:00 mile is intrinsically superior to a 4:00 1600.

Extrinsic valuations are derived. They are the results of subjective assessments. A 4:00 mile is extrinsically superior to a 3:59.0 1600.

Well, the ones *after* mine might all be by a single other person...

In any case:

intrinsic–adjective 1. belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.

Malmo, I can see your point here--that, from the results, one doesn't (can't) *know* that this year's winner of the MOC, with the same effort, could have continued the additional nine-plus meters to the mile, and produced a time superior to the mile record. Hell, who knows, he could have dropped dead at 1602m and never even finished.

How about a more extreme example? Is a 4:00 mile, run 60-60-60-60, superior to a 1:58 half, run 59-59? That is, is it a better accomplishment? It surely is, but we don't *know* that the 4:00 guy could have broken 1:58 with a similar effort (because he didn't!).

Similarly, is a 4:00 mile superior to a 10:00 (or 12:00 or 15:00) two-mile? Yes--even though we don't *know* that the 4:00 guy could have finished two miles with a similar quality of effort (because he didn't!).

But the 4:00 is better *in itself* than those other two things are. It's *intrinsically* superior. If you say "only in comparison--only subjectively"--well, hell, it's a free country. You may use the language as you wish.

But you should not be surprised if other native speakers say that you're using the incorrect word ("extrinsic," where they use "intrinsic"). And you should not be surprised that insisting on this nonstandard usage (which you have to because, after all, you *said it*, and it's inconceivable that you would be wrong--or acknowledge an error) means that a lot of native speakers will consider you a doofus.

...on this point, that is. OTOH, I recommend the Summer of Malmo to almost everyone who asks for guidance on summer prep for cross-country season.

Gosh, that would almost imply that a person could be right on some things and wrong on others! Go figure!

malmo wrote:

malmo not so smart wrote:

enlighten me, oh wise one. On both counts please

Childish posts. All by the same person no doubt.

Intrinsic value is real, inherent. e.g. A 4:00 mile is intrinsically superior to a 4:00 1600.

Extrinsic valuations are derived. They are the results of subjective assessments. A 4:00 mile is extrinsically superior to a 3:59.0 1600.

Sic is Latin for "thus written." A denotation that the original text is copied faithfully, warts and all.

But that's not the point of your immature postings, is it?

A few things ....

the only posts I've contributed to this thread are with this user name. It seems there are several people who find you objectionable (I certainly didn't prior to this) - are you that naive to think otherwise? Just take a look at your overwhelmingly condescending manner.

Secondly, what a lot of absolute nonsense you just wrote. "Intrinsically superior" is a figure of speech, your version isn't, however much you try to tie me up in knots (yes, I can read a dictionary and extrapolate meanings too). And there are official conversion rates for 1600m and the full mile, you ARE comparing like for like in this instance. And the whole 'sic' thing is laughable, the worst usage of this 'word' I've ever seen, purely there to satisfy and highlight your smug pretence