My statement was not confining nor meant to be exhaustive.
So "events requiring strength" are not "strength events"? The English language is not really your strength, is it? Gollum.
Apparently it is you who struggles with nuances of meaning in the English language, oblivious to your endless stream of self-irony.
You accuse me of twisting words when I offer direct quotes, yet are unaware that you constantly rearrange my words to introduce new meanings, some subtly, others not, which you later argue against, as if they were mine to begin with. I have two theories: 1) your mind cannot absorb the complexity, because it only sees cartoons -- sometimes in black and white; 2) you realize that you are unable to match my arguments "toe to toe" on the merits, so you create an effigy which you can burn.
Here are some recent examples:
- I said "events requiring strength" in response to "High Octane's" statistics on women in 100m, and you turned the argument into middle distance and field events, so you could argue with yourself.
- You started this particular topic, with "steroids", and then pretended to correct me with "not simply with steroids but a combination of drugs that included testosterone, hgh and amphetamines", so you could argue with yourself.
- You accuse me of "presuming that steroids only help women in strength events", but I never say "only", once again arguing against something that you created.
In the end, you never really argue against what I say -- you twist and knead out complexity and nuance, and building simpleton cartoon strawmen and then argue against your newly created imaginary foe.
You couldn't have come up with a better self-description. The rest is your usual gobbledygook.