sc42 wrote:
Funny the way lots of minds work. You do a google search that confirms that JS was correct to say 'she hasn't beat me in years', and then post a message implying the opposite, under the name 'checkin facts'.
Most of us would do a LOT worse right after just missing a goal we'd committed to 100% for several years.
normally i take the lack of reading comprehension/lack of writing ability here for granted, but im in a positive mood today. so let me point out a few things:
1) you did well to reproduce the username faithfully. but then forgot, or added to, the meaning of the phrase? "fact checking" implies nothing more or less than "fact checking." only someone on the defensive would jump to the conclusion that the "fact checking" was done with some kind of malicious intent.
2) there was no "implication" in the post that jenny got anything wrong. anywhere. the beginning of that last sentence says it all in beginning with the word "still." substitute "despite that," or something similar, if you like. reductively, the post says something like "it appears rowbury hasnt beaten simpson since 2013. despite that, [i think] its funny the way the minds of these people work." to really hammer it home, let me put it even another way: "im intrigued by the use of that kind of language, based on the history we've all seen." i recognize tone isn't typically so intriguing to most. you included, if your strange read of my post was any indication.
3) on the other hand, to be perfectly precise, the folks so far suggesting "years" was accurate are probably wrong. at the very most, it was not quite 22 months between rowbury victories. and as i indicated previously, the search wasn't exhaustive. and neither does a whole lot of cross or indoor, so we're talking not quite two seasons of real competition. i don't know that we'd all generally agree plural usage is acceptable when we're talking about a quantity of one and some fraction. particularly when the usage is intended to emphasize numerosity or magnitude. if youre at a bar and apologize for not recalling something previously said because it was "beers ago" or "shots ago," you probably don't get off the hook when youre talking about like, a beer and part of another. unless you're a real weenie.
4) i dont say any of this to suggest it was inappropriate for simpson to say something to convey she hadnt been viewing rowbury as a real rival recently. simpsons clearly been better.
5) ive often thought its this lack of facility with tone that gets a lot of these athletes the reputations they may or may not deserve. rowbury and simpson are both probably very good people. as are most people. but theyre both a lot less likeable than a lot of other very successful runners. im not sure leer was a reasonable example. i mean, id much rather be leer than simpson, regardless the success discrepancy. but, for example, id also much rather be lagat or huddle, to name a few folks better at tone who have had more success. so its not clear to me that "sc42 is spot on" as was suggested by some other poster. seems more like making excuses for dbaggery that arent particularly convincing.