Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every post of yours just shows that logic isn't your thing. Where is this suspected unfairness to a baboon?

This is not a criticism, people are very different in their intellectual prerequisites . Maybe you should try to have more conversations with baboons? I'm sure you could learn some human bevavior? Just give it a try.

My comment was a test - which you both failed - and for the same reason. You didn't get the point about the limitations imposed by a difference of more than two standard deviations - and by your inability to grasp that you established its existence here. The baboon comment was a red herring. The sting to your lack of intelligence had already been delivered.

I would also reiterate my previous observation that in a thread about Gidey you persist in seeing me as the subject. You have nothing to say about anything else - including Gidey. Quite an obsession.[/quote]

Do read stuff inc previous posts.

Then go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every post of yours just shows that logic isn't your thing. Where is this suspected unfairness to a baboon?

This is not a criticism, people are very different in their intellectual prerequisites . Maybe you should try to have more conversations with baboons? I'm sure you could learn some human bevavior? Just give it a try.

My comment was a test - which you both failed - and for the same reason. You didn't get the point about the limitations imposed by a difference of more than two standard deviations - and by your inability to grasp that you established its existence here. The baboon comment was a red herring. The sting to your lack of intelligence had already been delivered.

I would also reiterate my previous observation that in a thread about Gidey you persist in seeing me as the subject. You have nothing to say about anything else - including Gidey. Quite an obsession.[/quote]

Lies.

Armstronglivs wrote:

z5zg4 wrote:

In your case I was probably being unfair to a baboon.

Every post of yours just shows that logic isn't your thing. Where is this suspected unfairness to a baboon?

This is not a criticism, people are very different in their intellectual prerequisites . Maybe you should try to have more conversations with baboons? I'm sure you could learn some human bevavior? Just give it a try.

My comment was a test - which you both failed - and for the same reason. You didn't get the point about the limitations imposed by a difference of more than two standard deviations - and by your inability to grasp that you established its existence here. The baboon comment was a red herring. The sting to your lack of intelligence had already been delivered.[/quote]

It was not a "test". Liar.

Probably you still havn't got it that your baboon-insult wasn't "unfair" to a baboon at all.

You have not understand, you will not understand and if you will understand (which would be a big surprise), you will not admit to it.

z5zg4 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Every post of yours just shows that logic isn't your thing. Where is this suspected unfairness to a baboon?

This is not a criticism, people are very different in their intellectual prerequisites . Maybe you should try to have more conversations with baboons? I'm sure you could learn some human bevavior? Just give it a try.

My comment was a test - which you both failed - and for the same reason. You didn't get the point about the limitations imposed by a difference of more than two standard deviations - and by your inability to grasp that you established its existence here. The baboon comment was a red herring. The sting to your lack of intelligence had already been delivered.

It was not a "test". Liar.

Probably you still havn't got it that your baboon-insult wasn't "unfair" to a baboon at all.

You have not understand, you will not understand and if you will understand (which would be a big surprise), you will not admit to it.[/quote]

Barking sounds.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The use the the word “ manifest” should not shield readers your lack of intellectual depth. Man with a law qualification finishes an insult with “ baboon”.

You missed the key point about a difference of more than two standard deviations - thereby proving its truth.

What tosh.[/quote]

Further proof.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You missed the key point about a difference of more than two standard deviations - thereby proving its truth.

What tosh.

Further proof.[/quote]

Reaction from the man with legal qualifications.

Armstronglivs wrote:

z5zg4 wrote:

My comment was a test - which you both failed - and for the same reason. You didn't get the point about the limitations imposed by a difference of more than two standard deviations - and by your inability to grasp that you established its existence here. The baboon comment was a red herring. The sting to your lack of intelligence had already been delivered.

It was not a "test". Liar.

Probably you still havn't got it that your baboon-insult wasn't "unfair" to a baboon at all.

You have not understand, you will not understand and if you will understand (which would be a big surprise), you will not admit to it.

Barking sounds.[/quote]

Says the lawyer .

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What tosh.

Further proof.

Reaction from the man with legal qualifications.[/quote]

Well, yes. And what are your qualifications, apart from resembling a lower-order primate?

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It was not a "test". Liar.

Probably you still havn't got it that your baboon-insult wasn't "unfair" to a baboon at all.

You have not understand, you will not understand and if you will understand (which would be a big surprise), you will not admit to it.

Barking sounds.

Says the lawyer .[/quote]

It amuses me that you think that is a jibe.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Further proof.

Reaction from the man with legal qualifications.

Well, yes. And what are your qualifications, apart from resembling a lower-order primate?[/quote]

More insults rather than intellectual discourse from the man who refuses to read the rules.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Barking sounds.

Says the lawyer .

It amuses me that you think that is a jibe.[/quote]

Do read the rules prior to hitting send.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Says the lawyer .

It amuses me that you think that is a jibe.

Do read the rules prior to hitting send.[/quote]

Read them yet?

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Says the lawyer .

It amuses me that you think that is a jibe.

Do read the rules prior to hitting send.[/quote]

I have read the rules long ago. I read them again just to make sure that you are brain- damaged.

After witnessing Jacob Kiplimo's half marathon WR last month, I'm reminded that this women's WR by Gidey makes perfect sense anyway if we assume men have the bottom end of the percentage advantage everyone cites (which is 8-10%)

62:52 - 8% = 57:50

Even if we assume 9%,

-9% = 57:24

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

It amuses me that you think that is a jibe.

Do read the rules prior to hitting send.

I have read the rules long ago. I read them again just to make sure that you are brain- damaged.[/quote]

Why have you never made any reference to them esp when directed to specifics in them scores of times?

Appreciation?? wrote:

After witnessing Jacob Kiplimo's half marathon WR last month, I'm reminded that this women's WR by Gidey makes perfect sense anyway if we assume men have the bottom end of the percentage advantage everyone cites (which is 8-10%)

62:52 - 8% = 57:50

Even if we assume 9%,

-9% = 57:24

Which 8%/9% is that; is that just a crude rule of thumb or one that has a more scientific basis.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do read the rules prior to hitting send.

I have read the rules long ago. I read them again just to make sure that you are brain- damaged.

Why have you never made any reference to them esp when directed to specifics in them scores of times?[/quote]

I would add the previously you stated that you would not bother to read the rules.

Which is the lie then?

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I have read the rules long ago. I read them again just to make sure that you are brain- damaged.

Why have you never made any reference to them esp when directed to specifics in them scores of times?

I would add the previously you stated that you would not bother to read the rules.

Which is the lie then?[/quote]

Anything that you say.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Why have you never made any reference to them esp when directed to specifics in them scores of times?

I would add the previously you stated that you would not bother to read the rules.

Which is the lie then?

Anything that you say.[/quote]

I would rather you said which you had lied about.