Bolt will not win the 2012 Olympic 100m

Well, proven once again that Sprintgeezer is wrong about the only thing he knows about track and field.

He's jealous of Bolt.

Come on o.O, give me a break--I was wrong about one specific prediction, but I still stand behind my reasoning.

And to the other poster, would I change who I am in order to BE Usain Bolt? Absolutely not. Would I like to run 9.58? Absolutely. Don't confuse the two.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

but I still stand behind my reasoning.

That's what makes you an idiot!!!

Now somebody needs to stand behind you. That would shut you up.

Was Bolt tested during that month away? Does anyone know definitively?

A month is a nice mini-cycle and would definitely clean up any nagging muscle strains.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Come on o.O, give me a break--I was wrong about one specific prediction, but I still stand behind my reasoning.

And to the other poster, would I change who I am in order to BE Usain Bolt? Absolutely not. Would I like to run 9.58? Absolutely. Don't confuse the two.

Wrong again I see. Impressive. Now, I expect a reply full of bragging.

I on the other hand predicted Bolt as the winner, hail me, Im a genious.

Holy Shit

Yup, that's pretty darn close on everything!

Of course, in that post, chuckie d says nothing about HOW Bolt achieved his Olympic performance.

But yes, that post was pretty great.

Hey chuckie, 2 things:

1) did you bet on this prediction, and

2) what's going to happen in Rieti this year?

Sprintgeezer wrote:Of course, in that post, chuckie d says nothing about HOW Bolt achieved his Olympic performance.

Who the hell cares? Your wrong as far as any logical person is concerned

"You're"

You might want to learn some grammar before you try your hand at written argumentation.

Seriously though, Skyart, do you understand the concept of relevance?

I'm not saying that I'm "correct"--that is up to each individual to decide--but the decision of any particular individual, to have some reasonable merit in this western society in which we live, should be based upon a rational reasoning process, which necessarily involves an understanding of concepts like relevance.

We try to get at the truth in matters such as this. There is no absolute proof, there are only proofs that are more or less convincing. Whether or not that proof rises to the required level is a matter of judgment. I know for a fact that there are individuals who, upon a rational, logical consideration of the argument, are convinced by the reasoning that I have presented, to the degree that they more likely believe that Bolt has doped, than not.

[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

I'm not saying that I'm "correct"--that is up to each individual to decide--

You said Bolt would not win the 100 meters at the 2012 OG in London and he did win it. What is there to decide? You were wrong -- as you inevitably are when you actually make specific predictions.

Wow, lets pull out the grammar card when you perfectly understood what I meant. Great, just great. Just so you know I was taught French growing up, so I could care less if I make some minor English mistakes here and there.

Yes I do, for example, your post in most cases has no relevance due to it being based on pure speculation. Or to be more accurate it has very little relevance.

Those people are what I like to call idiots... Your method of inductive reasoning is terrible at best. There are some logical reasons to believe Bolt is/has been doping, but with you it's just pure speculation

OK, so you really don't understand concepts like relevance.

Wikipedia might be a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

How do survive day to day? I thought I knew the face of stupidity but I haven't met you yet...

What's relevant is that you started a thread saying "Hey world! Look at me! I am going to go against convention and say that Bolt will lose in the Olympic 100."

You didn't do this in a prediction thread.

You didn't say that you think he won't win or that he probably won't win.

You said he will not win.

And you were prepared to gloat.

Now suck it!

Nice read, maybe you should look at it sometime, but in case you don't have the time I picked out a part of it for you

Backing: Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen."

You seem to be greatly lacking this area

Now we're getting somewhere.

Now find out what a warrant is.

SG

I think the only real mistake you made in your analysis is thinking what Bolt said indicated the true situation.

Wow, more small dick stuff.

OK, I didn't start the thread to draw attention to myself. I use a consistent moniker so that different threads can be cross-referenced.

Is it important to you that the title of the thread didn't include the formality of including the word "prediction"? If so, I suggest you re-evaluate what is important to you.

And again, I stand by the reasoning, and the prediction, made on information available at the time. If I knew now only what I knew then, I would make the same prediction.

And I don't gloat, except when Gallagher and his various pseudonyms are involved--and the only reason I do it then is because he/she finds it vexatious.