Wesley Frazier 9:57 3200!!?!??

Simple Runner wrote:

thsr wrote:

No, it *prompts* the question.

"Begging the question" means assuming that which is to be proved.

________

From Wikipedia:

Many English speakers use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question", "evades the question", or even "ignores the question", and follow that phrase with the question, for example: "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Apart from philosophical, logical, grammatical and legal contexts, some authorities deem such usage to no longer be mistaken.

Why use the word "beg" in this way at all, when it deliberately creates confusion around its original meaning in the phrase? Do people think they somehow sound more sophisticated when the say "'begs' the question" when they really mean "raises" or "prompts"? And how are they not embarrassed when they learn that using "begs" in this way reveals their lack of understanding of the original, and very useful, meaning of the phrase, and thus their LACK of sophistication? If we lose the precise original meaning of the phrase "begs the question", we lose a very useful tool in identifying specious reasoning, or non-reasoning-- specifically, "explanations" of things that really don't explain anything, but rather, simply assume that which requires explanation.

9:57 is a very good time for a high school girl, whether for 3200m or 3216m.

You had 3 months to make your case. Too lazy to tell officials how offended you are, or are you just pissed that a girl can kick your butt?

Your 12 minute 2 mile is still on the internet, forever and ever.

RIP, Rip van Winkie. We will try to bring back Carter's Little Liver Pills just for you.

i think you mean 3218m

3218.6

Good: let's use conventional ignorance as the standard.

_____________

Monsieur, all grammar books and dictionaries eventually catch up to the living language, not matter how low-brow you think it is or how based in actual ignorance it is. We've intentionally and unintentionally turned many things on their heads and have become quite used to their being upside down.

No modern grammars insist any more on the split infinitive for the simple reason that the hoi polloi, right along with some pretty damn good authors, started splitting the hell out of them.

Simple Runner wrote:

Good: let's use conventional ignorance as the standard.

_____________

Monsieur, all grammar books and dictionaries eventually catch up to the living language, not matter how low-brow you think it is or how based in actual ignorance it is. We've intentionally and unintentionally turned many things on their heads and have become quite used to their being upside down.

No modern grammars insist any more on the split infinitive for the simple reason that the hoi polloi, right along with some pretty damn good authors, started splitting the hell out of them.

Right. You literally will go on forever irregardless of whatever arguments you encounter.

Simple Runner wrote:

Good: let's use conventional ignorance as the standard.

_____________

Monsieur, all grammar books and dictionaries eventually catch up to the living language, not matter how low-brow you think it is or how based in actual ignorance it is. We've intentionally and unintentionally turned many things on their heads and have become quite used to their being upside down.

No modern grammars insist any more on the split infinitive for the simple reason that the hoi polloi, right along with some pretty damn good authors, started splitting the hell out of them.

Again, you miss the point (willfully, because you care more about winning than the truth?), which is that in accepting this new usage, which is actually born out of ignorance of the original meaning of the phrase, we actually LOSE something useful. We already have at least two perfectly good terms to deploy when we want to say someone or something inadvertently "raises" or "provokes" a particular question; what we (still) need is an economical way to say that someone is using spurious logic in assuming the very thing he/she purports to be explaining (e.g. "War can be explained by man's innate tendency for violence, and we know that humans are innately violent because of the widespread prevalence of war.")

Why can't more people (guys on the internet, really) just say "I was wrong, and now have learned something"? Must they always insist on having their noses rubbed in it first (before skulking off to get still more things wrong, under new ostensibly funny and/or cryptic usernames)?

you do realize that mary cain ran 938 indoors, so now I would say this is not as big deal as it may have been before.

you do realize that mary cain ran 938 indoors, so now I would say this is not as big deal as it may have been before.

under 10! wrote:

coach d. wrote:

I concur, or stop at 3000 meters.

Except if the race had been 2 miles and she ran at the same pace she wouldn't have broken 10 minutes.

So, she broke 10 min. for 3200 meters, does it matter. They run a 2 mile at HS nationals, what is the point of 3200m?

you do realize pretty much the entire nation adopted metric distances in track and field , ummm maybe 30 years ago!?

Time stopped for these old farts when their precious mile was supplanted with metrics. They must have savored the jog/run women's mile in Albuquerque.

They are not going to f*ck with 800 meters or less, where runners have to run.

Let's hope Wesley Frazier does not have to deal with Mile Nazis at Duke.

xiolo wrote:

How has this not been mentioned. Sub 10 is a BIG deal!!!

All eyes are on Mary Cain, that's why it hasn't been mentioned.