Harry--
I won't go through a detailed examination of our posts.
Let me summarize, if I could: I was shocked by JT's actions; I felt for her and actually posted that people should stop harshing on her; by observing JT's subsequent actions, I decided that she probably wasn't a vulnerable individual, just a moron/idiot/fool/etc.; I labelled her, within the limits of the events surrounding the incident, a POS and a 'tard.
You took personal offense at my last action. You expressed moral outrage and indignation for what you perceive to have been unjust to both JT and perhaps other populations, and which you have therefore labelled inappropriate.
Let me say, first, that your judgment of my speech is made from your particular moral perspective, for which I have little to no regard. I don't care one bit if you are personally offended, and it doesn't bother me that you are.
What bothers me is that you seem to honestly believe that your arbitrary moral limits have some sort of an absolute foundation. I assure you, they most certainly do not, even if you believe that they derive from adherence to the tenets of a sacred text.
We look at events around us, combine them with our knowledge and experience, and make judgments about things. I have expressly limited my judgment of JT's character to track-related events during and following the trials episode. Do I know her personally? No. Do I need to in order to express an opinion so qualified? No.
Take a look at coach d's assessment of JT, which is that she is a "spoiled brat", based on track-related events during and following the trials episode. Does he know her personally? No. Does he need to in order to express an opinion so qualified? No.
Whether she is black or white, man or woman, rich or poor, privileged/underprivileged, theist/atheist, whatever, is irrelevant to any such qualified opinion.
I think she's a dolt, as she seems to have a resistance to understanding the reality of the situation. She asked the USATF officials, a week later, to explain WHY it was a dead heat when Jennings said that he would call her the winner 100 times out of 100. They declined to offer reasoning at that time, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody of nominal intelligence: Jennings' judgment was not dispositive of the issue, as it was he himself who protested his own decision; even Jennings didn't trust his own judgment sufficiently to unequivocally make the call.
Tarmoh doesn't evidence any understanding whatsoever of this basic fact, which makes her, as far as this sole aspect of her life goes, in my opinion, a dolt. I have used the word 'tard, because as a colloquialism, as you demand to have the term used, it most certainly does not refer only specifically to an individual who is significantly mentally challenged, it refers to "dolts", "morons", or "idiots". Regarding this issue, she is a 'tard, IMO.
All of JT's subsequent acts have been predicated upon that basic inability to understand. She was hurt, confused, disoriented, and frustrated at what she perceived to have been an injustice--but her perception is what is at fault. It is my opinion that she is either unable to understand the logic of the situation, or she is somehow not permitting herself to understand the logic of the situation. With the information that has come to light subsequent to that meeting, including the opportunity for a run-off, and JT's reactions thereto, I conclude that it is the latter--she is in denial of the reality of the situation. There is no way, in my judgment, that a person of normal intelligence could not understand the explanation of the call, with all the information that has come to light, not only about the event itself, but about USATF decision-making processes.
Does she knowingly, or unknowingly, deny the easily-understood reality? I don't know--if it is unknowing, then she is a 'tard but not necessarily a POS; if it is knowing, she is not necessarily a 'tard, but then most certainly a POS (or in coach d's parlance, a spoiled brat).
(Oh, and Harry, you might as well stop trying to frame the limits of the conversation according to literal meanings and definitions--not only would it be inconsistent with your expressed preference for the colloquial, but it's laughably pompous and desperate.)
Being a spoiled brat or a POS is, in my world, unequivocal evidence of a lower level of emotional development--that is, a retarded emotional development, relative to the norm. If I choose to label her a 'tard on this basis, in order for you to disagree substantively, you must argue that she does NOT exhibit a lower level of emotional development, and provide supporting evidence. Sitting on your moral high-horse and decrying my use of a particular label gets you nowhere.
For instance, OK, I will revise POS to "spoiled brat". Does that make you feel better? If so, why? Because of what YOU take "POS" to mean, rather than how I have specifically used it? The arrogance you display is in the elevation of your personal desires to a position of pre-eminence, in the face of directly contradictory evidence, hence judge, jury, and executioner, and ignoring evidence.
You must understand, as a matter of observable reality, that it is I who is the lexicographer of my own post, NOT YOU.
You seem like a thoughtful guy, which I respect. I also respect the fact that you were offended by my post, although I'm disappointed that the moral basis of your offense appears to conform very well with a canned "appropriate" morality, that is currently politically convenient in your society.
Fair enough, that type of conformist morality will allow you to achieve certain things within that society, but it will never allow you to look at that society from without in order to effect meaningful change thereupon. The trajectory is yours, I suspect from the depth of your comment that although you currently exhibit a fairly strident moral righteousness, that as you go through life and experience more things, cultures, and peoples, you will go through different phases of morality. Who knows how it will specifically pan out, but it is difficult to imagine that there will not be a time in your life where you will not be as doctrinaire with respect to your current morality as you currently are.
Harry, I'm nowhere near pushing the envelope. Come on, man, calling somebody out for calling somebody a 'tard and a POS? Seriously? There are more important things in life to worry about, things that are infinitely more severe. I suggest you direct your prodigious energies elsewhere, to a more profitable moral enterprise. Consider, for instance, the roots of your morality, from where your morality derives, and then consider the threats to those foundations--they are much more important in the long run than transitory, trifling offenses like this one, which may seem very important to you at this moment, but which, when put into perspective, is really very trivial.
There are serious moral fights to be had for anybody who has a relatively well-defined set of morals; for instance, if you are a fundamentalist Christian, you might want to take up the pro-life fight; or if you fancy yourself a Marxist, you might want to take up the redistributionist fight; and so on.
Taking a comment and, by ignoring parts of it and changing parts of it, re-framing it in a form to which you then take offense is beneath you, and you know it. And, if you remain offended by the comment, even after giving it fair treatment, ask yourself first why, and second, why I should care.
I'm interested in this last part--considering everything I have said, do you remain offended? If so, precisely WHY?
And finally, please explain why I should care enough about your being offended to either change the comment or make a retraction.