mikey in va wrote:
Out of respect for her family and friends who visit LRC, I'm going to ask you to stop posting on this thread now. Your points, while valid, come at a time that shows an great amount of insensitivity. Take your soapbox to another thread on another day. Let us grieve for her without you grandstanding.
I will stop posting when and if I feel like it. Nothing I've said is insensitive at all, so I reject that.
Flagpole wrote:
I will stop posting when and if I feel like it. Nothing I've said is insensitive at all, so I reject that.
Odious cretin
genuine random a hole wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Again, this is an example of Flagpole the fool.
Please understand this comes from somebody that usually agrees with you.
1) There is no right or wrong about smoking. It is a personal choice. Right? JUST BECAUSE IT IS A PERSONAL CHOICE DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NOT WRONG! People make personal choices all the time that are wrong. I say this is one of them.
2) People will do with statistics what they will, and USUALLY they will decide that they will fall into the camp that doesn't become harmed no matter the stats. Also, stats are never in agreement. Is 20 runners being killed by cars in the US in 2009 enough to sway you? Depends on how many runners you actually believe are running on heavily traveled roads. I don't see it very often actually. Do you believe the stat that 122,000 runners, walkers, and bikers are stuck by cars each year? If so, is that enough to convince you to not do those activities where cars are? It's enough for me. Oh yeah, of course not all who are hit by cars are killed. Serious injuries aren't anything to worry about I guess.
3) You are doing nothing different from what I am doing (except that I'm a better writer). You don't believe running on the roads is risky, and I do. I have written MORE about it in this thread than you because some have asked me questions here, and because I am passionate about the topic. You are NOT passionate about the topic.
4) It's a sad day when a runner loses his or her life by being hit by a car. It becomes a SADDER day if people don't wake up to the danger and make some changes in their lives.
Smoking is not "wrong". I agree it is a poor choice, but that is all it is. Again, this is another activity that has risks and people make their choices. You and I share the same opinion on smoking. I admit it is my opinion, you believe it is an absolute.
OK then, so statistics can't be used to assess risk? Tell that to an actuary.
Agree, we are both arguing a point. You do it with inferior logic and writing skills. You do have more passion about this topic. Who cares? If anything your passion just clouds you ability to think logically.
It is a sad day when people forgo activities they enjoy because of fear of remote possibilities of a negative outcome.
I am going skiing in 2 weeks. It is a risky sport I enjoy. I understand the risks, and take reasonable safety precautions but understand that there is a possibility of a bad injury or even death. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis done on a personal level. My enjoyment (benefit) from skiing (and running on some roads) exceeds the danger (costs).
Just a personal decision.[/quote]
1) If you have children, do you tell them not to smoke? If so, why? Should you not care about other people as you do your own family members?
2) I did not say statistics can't be used to assess risk. I said that people will read into the statistics whatever they want them to mean. What if I told you there was a 1% chance you would die on a particular airplane? Would you take the ride? I wouldn't.
3) My writing skills are superior.
4) You don't have to FEAR something to decide not to do it. I don't fear a daily big bowl of ice cream, but I choose not to eat one.
5) To ski, you HAVE to go down a snow-covered hill. To run, you do NOT have to run on roads with traffic.
6) Even if we want to boil this down to a cost/benefit analysis (which is fine with me), then it is my contention that too many runners are not appropriately weighing the cost. Head in sand, think it won't happen to them, they don't know anyone personally who has been hit by a car while running, etc. If we go with risky behavior based on having direct personal experience with it, then I actually do not know a single person who has died from lung cancer as a result of smoking, but I know one person who died from lung cancer even though he was never a smoker nor did he have any other risks for it. Does this free me up to start smoking?
Basically, I am wishing that runners would stop doing this dangerous activity. You said you usually agree with me. Brother, you should agree with me on this one too. Because it is the right stance.
If there is only one person posting under the name Flagpole:
Congratulations. You have officially lost the LR support of one (of the few?)who typically sides with you.
Yeah, Flagpole, I think people meant this thread to be the online equivalent of eulogizers at a funeral. If somebody committed suicide, you wouldn't start talking about the importance of mental health at their funeral despite the fact that it is, indeed, important. You obviously care about the safety of your fellow runners and it's a conversation worth having...just not at the funeral. I remember you created another thread on the topic of running in roads; it would be more appropriate if you mentioned Meg's story in that thread rather than that story in this one.
Flagpole wrote:
1) If you have children, do you tell them not to smoke? If so, why? Should you not care about other people as you do your own family members?
Yes, because it exceeds my acceptable measure of danger and they are minors. I hope to impart that upon my children. I might suggest to a close friend they should quit smoking. I understand it is their choice. I care more about my family members (most anyway) than I do others. I admit that. Do you? Tell that to your wife and daughter and let me know how that goes.
2) I did not say statistics can't be used to assess risk. I said that people will read into the statistics whatever they want them to mean. What if I told you there was a 1% chance you would die on a particular airplane? Would you take the ride? I wouldn't.
So statistics CAN be used to assess risk. People who use them poorly do so at their own risk. Most won't even use stats, they will just estimate the risks. It is very unlikely I would board the plane. (In certain circumstances I might take the chance.) Running on roads has a much lower risk than that plane ride, again, the whole continuum of risk thing.
3) My writing skills are superior.
No. Also I am a better keyboard player.
4) You don't have to FEAR something to decide not to do it. I don't fear a daily big bowl of ice cream, but I choose not to eat one.
Agreed. Again, your own personal cost/benefit. I won't tell you eating a daily big bowl of ice cream is WRONG. To do so would make me a pompous twit.
5) To ski, you HAVE to go down a snow-covered hill. To run, you do NOT have to run on roads with traffic.
You don't have to ski or run. Neither are essential activities.
6) Even if we want to boil this down to a cost/benefit analysis (which is fine with me), then it is my contention that too many runners are not appropriately weighing the cost. Head in sand, think it won't happen to them, they don't know anyone personally who has been hit by a car while running, etc.
The overwhelming majority of those "head in sand, won't happen to me" people will be CORRECT. It WON"T happen to them.
Basically, I am wishing that runners would stop doing this dangerous activity. You said you usually agree with me. Brother, you should agree with me on this one too. Because it is the right stance.
Yes, we get it. YOU don't think people should run on the roads. That is YOUR stance. It is not the "right" stance. You stated it is "suicide" Either you need to admit that statement was hyperbole to back up your point or it is worst method of suicide ever conceived. In fact, the life extending benefits would far outweigh the chance of death.
Good old Flagpole. The quintessential adult male.
Flagpole wrote:
I will stop posting when and if I feel like it. Nothing I've said is insensitive at all, so I reject that.
Oh, and Flagpole... if you TRULY, TRULY care about runners not running on roads, and you feel it's your duty to call this out in any venue, then PLEASE go here and spread your gospel.
https://www.facebook.com/events/489458451159627/
MANY of these runners will be undoubtedly running on the roads. This is your chance to save a life!!
You know, I used to enjoy your posts. But you are truly the biggest douche I've ever encountered. Do us a favor and stop posting.
Flagpole wrote:
mikey in va wrote:Out of respect for her family and friends who visit LRC, I'm going to ask you to stop posting on this thread now. Your points, while valid, come at a time that shows an great amount of insensitivity. Take your soapbox to another thread on another day. Let us grieve for her without you grandstanding.
I will stop posting when and if I feel like it. Nothing I've said is insensitive at all, so I reject that.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Clayton Murphy is giving some great insight into his training.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
70% of WNBA players are black - only 3 have sneaker deals - All are white