I wanted lunch, and it was reasonable to expect that I could get something at the meet without having to wait over an hour for it.
I wasn't the only community race participant in that situation. Many people in the line were in running gear. In fact, the people right before me in line were running the 2K, which was scheduled to start almost an hour earlier than my race. While waiting in that horrendous line, they were trying to decide if it was better to just run the race famished or keep waiting in line and not have enough time to digest their food before the race because the line was taking so long.
Thank you for agreeing that six food trucks would have been better than two.
“Famished.” Please stop with the histrionics.
This was, first, your fault. It was within your control. You could’ve brought food from home to ensure you’d have a “light lunch,” but you didn’t. You could’ve brought a banana, a plain bagel and one of those single serving cups of peanut butter from your hotel’s breakfast, but you didn’t do that either. If your performance in the race mattered to you, you would’ve done one of those things instead of leaving it to chance. If your performance wasn’t important to you, then it doesn’t matter if you were hungry or not for the race. You made a mistake; own it and learn from it.
No, the many people waiting in line didn't make a mistake by thinking we could get food in a reasonable amount of time at the meet. I've been to many professional sporting events in the last 30 years, and I've never encountered a food line like that.
The organizers made the mistake by only securing two food trucks for 10,000 people.
The "chance" that anyone attending a professional sporting event should have to wait over an hour in line to get food should be 0.
Why do insist on starting threads like this wejo? This is poison. I know you two want to believe that the lrc message board is what runners talk about on their daily runs, but never in my life have any of the teams I've been associated with did anyone talk about sheet like this. High school? NOPE. College? NOPE. Or as a Professional? NOPE. What causes you to think that way?
Poison?
1)you never went on a run and talked about sporting events or even track races and who did well, who did poorly?
2)that’s what sports fans do. Perhaps you don’t like the word “loser”? It’s a figure of speech. Someone have a better idea on how to phrase this?
3)just did a google search as a sanity check “winners and losers weekend” and see tons of results from major publications discussing the winners and losers from the weekend in the nfl and college basketball
1) No. We never disparaged any of the teams we competed against who did poorly. We never called D2 or D3 the "baby Nationals either. But then again all of the teams I ran on were highly competitive. Princeton and Yale? We would have never called your teams losers. We would have given you the same respect that everyone else deserved. It's called sportsmanship, wejo. 2) So you're citing the bad behavior of drunken sports fans to support bad behavior? Loser isn't a figure of speech' 3) So your google search revealed that there are other drunken sports fans who think like you? Is it so difficult to simply give accolades to the winners and leave the bile out of it?
You've created an atmosphere here where after every competition the trolls scour the results to disparage the "losers". I already know who the losers are, and they are not the ones who actually made it to the arena.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
—Theodore Roosevelt Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
This was, first, your fault. It was within your control. You could’ve brought food from home to ensure you’d have a “light lunch,” but you didn’t. You could’ve brought a banana, a plain bagel and one of those single serving cups of peanut butter from your hotel’s breakfast, but you didn’t do that either. If your performance in the race mattered to you, you would’ve done one of those things instead of leaving it to chance. If your performance wasn’t important to you, then it doesn’t matter if you were hungry or not for the race. You made a mistake; own it and learn from it.
No, the many people waiting in line didn't make a mistake by thinking we could get food in a reasonable amount of time at the meet. I've been to many professional sporting events in the last 30 years, and I've never encountered a food line like that.
The organizers made the mistake by only securing two food trucks for 10,000 people.
The "chance" that anyone attending a professional sporting event should have to wait over an hour in line to get food should be 0.
We're living in an age where people caterwaul over the lack of food at an effing cross country meet? Unbelievable!
With that said, if you're going to have food, then you should have maths. That's a no-brainer.
1) No. We never disparaged any of the teams we competed against who did poorly. We never called D2 or D3 the "baby Nationals either. But then again all of the teams I ran on were highly competitive. Princeton and Yale? We would have never called your teams losers. We would have given you the same respect that everyone else deserved. It's called sportsmanship, wejo. 2) So you're citing the bad behavior of drunken sports fans to support bad behavior? Loser isn't a figure of speech' 3) So your google search revealed that there are other drunken sports fans who think like you? Is it so difficult to simply give accolades to the winners and leave the bile out of it?
You've created an atmosphere here where after every competition the trolls scour the results to disparage the "losers". I already know who the losers are, and they are not the ones who actually made it to the arena.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
—Theodore Roosevelt Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
No sir. Wejo does not create a disparaging environment here.
Why dont you go take a look in the mirror just before youre wrinkled ugliness breaks the glass.
You are correct that losers didnt show up, which includes you. The only loser here is YOU.
Christ, man. I have a ton of respect for your knowledge and past accomplishments but you need to let this one go.
"Who were the winners and losers of [political/sports/cultural event X]" is one of the most common journalistic framings of the modern era. Just this morning I received multiple notifications from mainstream publications talking about winners and losers from last night's Golden Globes.
The message boards have a lot to offer and a lot that can be improved. But this is a really weird hill to die on in that effort. I would back away and live to fight another day.
"One Battle After Another" and "Hamnet" took home the top prizes, while "Adolescence" earned four wins. Timothee Chalamet, Rose Byrne and Jean Smart also won.
This place is a microcosm (sadly) of current American society, perhaps the world. A duality of left/right, good/evil, winner/loser, myside/ your side, good/bad. No wonder the independents in this country are so frustrated. It is like the middle ground no longer exists. I happen to share Malmo's issue as to why the "loser" side even needs to be addressed - to whose benefit? As with the old saw, if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all.
Heck I even see this extended to coaches in this country. Based on this site you would think that every single one is bad. Even to Ben Thomas (Hocker good, but Teare bad -so the bad side is emphasized), let alone people like Mike Smith, Brosnan, even Eyestone or Taylor, Henes etc. Is is just a modern perspective to constantly pick out the bad (loser) in every situation? No wonder this country is so divided. The extremes rule the day (just as they do on this site), where those who type "loudest" or most often - some posting hundreds (or more) times per day (unless they are bots) - think they "win" (own the Libs or whatever). Just as our POTUS posts on TS inordinately often - is that where truth now lies? Scream down the opposing perspective, you win by posting more often?
1) No. We never disparaged any of the teams we competed against who did poorly. We never called D2 or D3 the "baby Nationals either. But then again all of the teams I ran on were highly competitive. Princeton and Yale? We would have never called your teams losers. We would have given you the same respect that everyone else deserved. It's called sportsmanship, wejo. 2) So you're citing the bad behavior of drunken sports fans to support bad behavior? Loser isn't a figure of speech' 3) So your google search revealed that there are other drunken sports fans who think like you? Is it so difficult to simply give accolades to the winners and leave the bile out of it?
You've created an atmosphere here where after every competition the trolls scour the results to disparage the "losers". I already know who the losers are, and they are not the ones who actually made it to the arena.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
—Theodore Roosevelt Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
No sir. Wejo does not create a disparaging environment here.
Why dont you go take a look in the mirror just before youre wrinkled ugliness breaks the glass.
You are correct that losers didnt show up, which includes you. The only loser here is YOU.
1. Maybe good and bad is better than winners and losers.
2. Disparaging athletes who may or may not have had a bad day is useless.
None of us really know what the individuals were going through or how they felt that day. We all have bad days.
The atmosphere her is encouraged because the moderators refuse to delete some useless/harmful posts.
We should come here with a love for the sport and discuss it intelligently that way.
