Reading Into It WAY Too Much wrote:
Only someone who is extremely defensive/insecure or someone who already has a negative attitude about the site would get so pissed about such an significant and innocent word slip.
Exactly. So much hate for the Brojos, I don't get it. To compare them to Oprah...wow. Not even close.
Then Go Elsewhere wrote:
For the most part, it seems that everyone in this thread has a problem with the content that the owners of this website choose to put on it.
Then go somewhere else!
The Brojos can write whatever the hell they want on their website. If you don't like what they have to say, get the f*** out! Go somewhere else for your track and field news.
Brojos, I enjoy your website and (for the most part) hearing your opinions about all the news in the world of track and field. Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone has a problem with the content they post on their website??? Just sounds like the term "illegal" descredits the runners from their performances. And if you aren't a track rat like most people posting here are, it makes the run seem less impressive.
Otherwise I think most agree, we love the content they post on this site!
Reading Into It WAY Too Much wrote:
Wow let's all nitpick at one word out of thousands on the main page and get up in arms about it. I don't think that legal and illegal were there to belittle the efforts of the people on the oversized track, but just to point out the difference between the two tracks. Obviously it is harder and more impressive to do it on a 200m track rather than 300m. Maybe oversized would have been a better choice of word, but wow lighten up a bit. Only someone who is extremely defensive/insecure or someone who already has a negative attitude about the site would get so pissed about such an significant and innocent word slip.
word slip? they've done it three or four times already this season.
Can someone clarify this? If they're going to accept an indoor time why would they care if it's on an oversized track? Is there any chance this means on a track more than 400m long? A few such animals exist, don't they?
long sox wrote:
toro wrote:If you run a 1500m in 3:35.00 or better on these tracks you will have earned the 'A' standard for the outdoor IAAF World Championships.
Doesn't sound illegal.
Perhaps that was once the case but doesn't seem to be valid for 2001 WC.
http://www.iaaf.org/wch11/standards/index.htmliaaf wrote:
7. Indoor performances for all field events and for races of 400m and longer, shall be accepted.
8. For the running events of 400m and over, performances achieved on oversized tracks shall not be accepted.
Reading Into It WAY Too Much wrote:
Wow let's all nitpick at one word out of thousands on the main page and get up in arms about it. I don't think that legal and illegal were there to belittle the efforts of the people on the oversized track, but just to point out the difference between the two tracks. Obviously it is harder and more impressive to do it on a 200m track rather than 300m. Maybe oversized would have been a better choice of word, but wow lighten up a bit. Only someone who is extremely defensive/insecure or someone who already has a negative attitude about the site would get so pissed about such an significant and innocent word slip.
For every track-educated person on here know exactly what the BroJos mean when they posted that, there are probably 100 lurkers who are confused by the term "illegal" and could extrapolate the wrong information from it.
It's harmful because it taints the athletes and gives a RIDICULOUSLY strong negative connotation where a different adjective like "unfair" would even sit better with me.
Illegal gives the appearance that the times should not count for anything ever, and the people who ran them cheated.
It's a pretty big fudge.
Websters wrote:
My problem, here, as it usually is with LetsRun's "reporting" and "journalism" is that all three of the men concerned seemed to have wasted much of their parents' money for an Ivy League degree without every learning to spell, write effectively, copy edit, or even look up the definitions of words.
I know dude I nevery learned to spellery at my ivry school either...
...ry
rakanishu wrote:
Websters wrote:My problem, here, as it usually is with LetsRun's "reporting" and "journalism" is that all three of the men concerned seemed to have wasted much of their parents' money for an Ivy League degree without every learning to spell, write effectively, copy edit, or even look up the definitions of words.
I know dude I nevery learned to spellery at my ivry school either...
...ry
of course, "every" is not a misspelling but a typographical error, which are two different things. but nice work. i'm very impressed you managed to find a mistake in something i type over the course of like 3 seconds on a message board without revising whatsoever. Which is allowed on a message board, of course. Not in published journalism, though. But really, good work.
of course, "every" is not a misspelling but a typographical error, which are two different things. but nice work. i'm very impressed you managed to find a mistake in something i type over the course of like 3 seconds on a message board without revising whatsoever. Which is allowed on a message board, of course. Not in published journalism, though. But really, good work.[/quote]
dude, you're a nerd. shut up. thanks.
We're all nerds, friend-o. Or we wouldn't be on LetsRun.