profile on lingren was 7 minutes long....

First of all, the word is "judgment" and if you can't fathom what you're saying then shut your goddamn yap. What you're saying is that because you got to meet and shake hands with someone who did nothing more than run fast a long time ago and heard him spout off something that sounded good to you then you're willing to overlook something horrible he's done over the years and continues to do, something that your imaginary bearded guy in the sky would doubtlessly condemn, then you're weak indeed. Didn't you ever hear that you should be careful of the company you keep? The fact that you're so easily taken in by such a pathetic person tells all of us that, in keeping with the mythology you ascribe to, you'd be quick to jump on the Antichrist's bandwagon. For someone who's so quick to piously invoke the word Christ, you're really morally and mentally easily led around by your nose like a puppy dog.

Congrats, you're not only stupid, you're a liar, too.

Clearly you missed my points. Considering how you write, I am not surprised by this.

Thanks for the entertainment.. wrote:

Even though Sir Lance-alot tried to save face...

What did I write to demonstrate that I was "trying to save face" ??

Thanks for the entertainment.. wrote:

I don't think that you can after comparing Gerry Lindgren to George Bush and the deaths of "1000's and 1000's". ...

Maybe tonight when you sit at your round table you can draw a parallel between Bode Miller and Hitler.

Did I really compare Lindgren to Bush? No, I did not. And since you apparently think comparing Lindgren to Bush is like comparing Bode Miller to Hitler, I guess YOU are comparing Bush to Hitler? Hey, I don't like Bush, but it appears that YOU are the one guilty of hyperbolic comparisons/analogies, not I !

I, in fact, said that "obviously" my examples(of Bush, or a child rapist) were examples of crimes much "WORSE" than anything that Lindgren to did his kids. I guess you missed that part. And I did this (brought up worse crimes) on purpose. BECAUSE......the argument that QuCassidy was really making was NOT whether or not Lindgren's sins were particularly bad, but whether one can judge another's sins...AT ALL. Understand?? Too subtle of a difference for your jester mind? And in fact, since Mr Cassidy was indeed making that point that we should NEVER judge another human......than in fact your bringing up of Hitler is useful. Since, according to Cassidy and some others, one should never judge another person, should we all shut our mouths about Hitler and say: "you know, that Hitler, he was a great leader and speaker. And maybe we should concentrate on those strenghts of his, instead of bringing up those trying-to-take-over-the-world and genocide things he did. Until you walk in another man's shoe's, don't judge...." Hey, it CASSIDY's argument, NOT MINE, an YOU bought up Hitler, NOT ME. But since we've gone down that road, what do you, Mr Entertainment, think of that argument, that under no circumstances should we judge another? Do you agree? If you do not.....then I guess Gerry Lindgren, along with every other human on this plaent, is fair game for criticism. And then becomes a matter of DEGREE of sin and DEGREE of mitigating circumstances when judging someone. Some think Gerry's sins are not very large, and very excusable due to his apparent child traumas and apparent mental instability. So be it..... Others think that Gerry took the easy way out and escaped responsibility and ran like a coward, to continue the cycle of pain that is involved in "growing up Lindgren."

Lastly, there is the question(which I briefly touched upon), that QCassidy also rests his case on in defending Gerry, which is: when someone is a genius at something (like Gerry at running) and an inspiration to millions, then we should forget about his sins. Others want to judge such geniuses no differently than anyone else they might have heard of who had done the same to his family. Others want to judge him all the MORE harshly due to his hero standing (yes, people like to find faults in heroes). And I admit that this can be a complicated matter. For instance, look at Kurt Cobain. I loved his music, and he brought joy to millions. But he was an extremely troubled guy, who was hooked on heroin and eventually blew his head off even though he had a young child who clearly needed him. Do I excuse his actions? No. But it does it lessen my appreciation of his music. No. But if someone bashed Kurt Cobain the PERSON....for leaving his family alone, and for being a drug addict, I would say: 'sure, maybe we will never know what it would be like to be in KURT'S SHOES.....but all the same, go ahead and bash, because he made the wrong coward's decision to die. He could have/should have struggled on. Kurt Cobain the perons was indeed a failure. Kurt Cobain the musician was a genius and inspiration, and maybe without first part of him(failed person), there could have been the other part(genius artist).

And so the same applies to Gerry Lindgren: he was a running genius and inspiration to millions, but he failed at the MORE IMPORTANT tests in life. But one can still love and idolize his running, it certainly deserves that. And maybe, as the same with Kurt, Gerry could not have been the runner he was without the mindset that simultaneously drove him to be the person he was. Who knows.....

qucassidy wrote:

THIS POSTING IS ABOUT GERRY LINDGREN'S FEAT THAT YOU ARE NOT WORTHY TO SUCK ON..

OK, you suck on Lindgren's feet then, qcassidy!

But hey, why stop there, Jesus boy?

Leaving aside the issue of GL's leaving his family, is anyone else uncomfortable with holding him up as any kind of example to youngsters as a *runner*? His success in the 60's seemed to be in large part due to (though perhaps partly in spite of) a seriously imbalanced personal program of training compulsion, to which his body somehow held up, at least through his prep years. His was the ultimate "success at all costs" approach, and appears in hindsight to be in large part due to his mental/family instability.

I'm all for the concept of young people focusing on a goal and working hard for it, as part of an overall balance in their lives, but to hold up his level of compulsion and self-abuse as an example to young people (through the book and these High School Invites) seems to be very misguided. Instead I think that his life story bears out the true costs of pushing one's self too hard too early in life, at the cost of all other development as a human being.

Actually, I totally agree with you on your points. For all his talent and hard work, Gerry peaked too young, burned out, and never won any Olympic medals. The same happened with Salazar. Two runners capable of being gold medalists if they only knew a tad of patience and restraint. They wanted it TOO badly and loved pushing themselves TOO much.

Its strange though..how so many of great runners ..back in the day :) did run to get away from family problems. You see Haile Geb. story. "My Dad beat us sometime 3 times a day" Gerry, seemed intent on NOT suggesting to young runners heavy miles etc. Somewhat to the dismay of some coaches. He discussed tactics mostly. "When taking lead do something with it, I would sprint as hard as I could, long as I could". Our young boy, USATF top in country, doesn't know about any family stuff of Gerry, but did know Gerry's record running. At Rhode island, at 600 meters he was 4th, not good. Finally caught the guys and opened somehow 40 meters. Quickly, and then he looked dead. :( However, comma, the second place guy was now looking over his shoulder...race over. Our kid won, said "I tryed what Gerry L. said...I was dead, but I knew they quit." Rest of you people I think I need to pick up my missionary stuff and come visit you all, give you my pitch, and get you all back into the FOLD :) Just kidding.

Yes, you're illiterate.

I take that as a compliment coming from you! At least you slam all of us and leave Gerry alone. Take your medications and take a nap, you have school homework tonight. :)

u dumas wrote:

qucassidy wrote:

I don't worship ANYONE except for the Lord Jesus Christ.

This right here is all we really need to know regarding how intelligent and independent-minded you are. You couldn't form a logical critical thought if your nads depended on it.

Mr "u dumas":

I'm curious, why do you equate worshipping Jesus with stupidity? Just putting this out there: it would not hurt you to have some respect for others. If you do not agree with what they believe--and I am not taking up for Qcassiday here--then there is no harm in merely refraining from comment.

Hey-

A World record is a World Record.

I don't know how you got my email but my little guy had access to this. You send threats and terrorizing communication to my home! I know it is you. You little, ......sneaky mental! Do your parents know you are off your meds! This is way out, I got to give you credit! Amazing.

Jesus Christ Almighty. Your hero worshiping makes me physically ill. How dare anyone form a negative opinion regarding the great Gerry Lindgren because he was a great f’ing runner, right? Let’s just forget about his malicious abandonment of his children and outright denial of their EXISTANCE because nobody else is worthy to “SUCK ON HIS FEAT”. Answer me this “Qucassidy”; how about Gerry’s father? Doesn’t he deserve some sympathy? I’m sure that he had a terrible childhood and is just perpetuating the cycle. Oh, that’s right. He’s not a great f*ing runner.

Nevermind.

HA HA.....GOOD POINTS!! Where is the sympathy for Gerry's Dad? He too couldn't help being a bad Dad, just like Gerry.

Gerry's misunderstood daddy wrote:

Jesus Christ Almighty. Your hero worshiping makes me physically ill. How dare anyone form a negative opinion regarding the great Gerry Lindgren because he was a great f’ing runner, right? Let’s just forget about his malicious abandonment of his children and outright denial of their EXISTANCE because nobody else is worthy to “SUCK ON HIS FEAT”. Answer me this “Qucassidy”; how about Gerry’s father? Doesn’t he deserve some sympathy? I’m sure that he had a terrible childhood and is just perpetuating the cycle. Oh, that’s right. He’s not a great f*ing runner.

Nevermind.

You equated the two, I was only pointing out the obvious fact that the poster to whom I was responding is a mindless follower.

Gerry Lindgren: great runner, bad father....or both?

YOU DECIDE!!!!

Well, well, well .... Sir Lance-alot. First off all, alot is comprised of two words "a" and "lot". Let us not condemn the writing of others if we can not spell our own name correctly!

I made no references to judging one's "sins" in any of my posts. Labeling the action or actions of one as a "sin" or "sins" would imply judgment. FYI, the definition of "sin" follows:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law,

especially when deliberate.

2. Theology.

A. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

B. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from

such disobedience.

3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or

utterly wrong.

Now that you have studied the term "sin", it would probably be beneficial for you to store it in your own personal lexicon. In the future when you immediately label one's actions as a sin you might understand that you have already judged them. Thus, labeling any man's action or actions as a sin or sins implies judgment. My post referred solely to judgment of one's actions. There was no mention of "sin".

I have a question for you:

The word is out in a town that there is a male pedophile threatening young children at gunpoint and forcing them into his van. A policeman, after a long day of following leads on this alleged criminal (which days later turns out to be a prank call by a seven year old) arrives outside a school to pick up his son. The off duty policeman sees his son with a strange man and thinks that his son is being threatened. The father sees his son wrestling with an older man in front of school by a van. From the father's/off duty policeman’s perspective, the estranged man is holding a gun and looks to be jostling the boy towards the van. In the heat of the moment the father pulls out his gun and shoots the man dead. It turns out that the man is the school's substitute gym teacher as well as a father of three young daughters. His girlfriend/the daughter's mother, passed away from a terminal illness 6 months ago................ My question to you is, who is at fault? Since you seem quick to label one's actions as "sins", is anyone to blame? Did the policeman "sin", he did kill another man which in turn broke one of the Ten Commandments. Should he be blammed considering his occupation and the day that he was exposed to? Was the father of the three daughters a "sinner" for having children out of wedlock? Did you already have these decisions made because you let your pre judgment of others cloud your ability to neutrally comprehend? That is just food for thought.

Here is a mild suggestion Lance-alot. Read, study and comprehend E-Prime.

p.s. I like how you attempted to manipulate my question and infer that I was drawing a relation between Hitler and and George Bush. Your reasoning would imply that I was drawing a correlation between Bode Miller Gerry Lindgren. I can appreciate your bland attempt at humor. I seriously wanted to know if you could draw some parallel between Hitler and Bode Miller.