Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

    YOU ARE JUST OUT THERE BUDDY. I HAVE NOT MADE ANY OF THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU'VE CLAIMED I'VE MADE. PERIOD. STOP IT! NOW.

    My original post and all subsequent posts in this thread were straightforward.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

      >YOU ARE JUST OUT THERE BUDDY. I HAVE NOT MADE ANY OF THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU'VE
      >CLAIMED I'VE MADE. PERIOD. STOP IT! NOW.

      My original post and all subsequent
      >posts in this thread were straightforward.

      Actually, I'm "in here"...much closer than you like. Let's review:
      My first post was a response to Garry about altitude-worth of times. You responded with a quick comment about how "everyone" knows the Alamosa mile loop is short. So I returned a clarifying post, agreeing with you that the loop was short, but explaining why. I then told how many of the jerk runners in the eighties--especially some bigger names in the East--had spread that story around conspiracy-style, which is maybe where you heard it. The idea that any runners of your self-absorbed generation could do any wrong set you off to all kinds of good things:

      Assumption #1: Out of all this, you somehow ASSUMED I had anything personally at stake in these comments and was thereby lugging around some imaginary emotional baggage.

      Assumption #2: You ASSUMED that I was talking about YOU trashing Porter, even though I specifically stated it was some GBTC guys and posted a direct disclaimer that I was NOT talking about YOU. Of course, I was talking about YOUR generation of runners, so you have to comment, right?

      Assumption #3: You ASSUME I was somehow slighted by these guys trashing Porter. They never even knew I was there, that I had ever visited Alamosa, or that I even cared. They also never imagined that someone listening to their loud carping would be looking beyond their world-class running credentials and be thinking what jerks they were.

      Assumption #4: I am stalking you. Since YOU jumped on my response to Garry, that makes as much sense as the idea of following someone by walking ahead of them. You asked me to leave you out of it? Fine. Then don't respond to MY posts.

      Assumption #5: Porter is my "hero." Vigil's program might be close to being a subject of my idolization, but nothing I wrote gave any hint of Porter meaning anything positive to me. Another self-serving Malmo assumption, trying to make sense of life the only way he can: us vs. them mentality.

      Assumption #6: That since I make reference to your former status of being a good runner, I am thereby jealous of you. This is typical Malmo: the world revolves around you, you are the center of the universe, and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and talks back to you because they are jealous of you. And then they stalk you, of course, because their lives are meaningless without Malmo in them.

      Ever occur to you that some people simply might be a little sick of a FIFTY-YEAR-OLD (close enough) guy trying to pretend he is still young and by ASSUMING the rebel-without-a-clue attitude of a twenty-year-old????????

      It should, because "Bud," that's really all it is.

      Typical Malmo: shoot off your mouth, make things up, make lots of trouble with garbage personal assumptions, get called on it, then deny ever having said it. See above: you said it!

      Also as you said, the typical situation on any board Malmo "stalks."

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

        Actually, I'm "in
        >here"...much closer than you like. Let's review:
        My first post was a response
        >to Garry about altitude-worth of times. You responded with a quick comment
        >about how "everyone" knows the Alamosa mile loop is short. So I returned a
        >clarifying post, agreeing with you that the loop was short, but explaining why.
        >I then told how many of the jerk runners in the eighties--especially some
        >bigger names in the East--had spread that story around conspiracy-style, which
        >is maybe where you heard it. The idea that any runners of your self-absorbed
        >generation could do any wrong set you off to all kinds of good
        >things:

        WRONG. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS STORY UNTIL NOW.

        Assumption #1: Out of all this, you somehow ASSUMED I had anything
        >personally at stake in these comments and was thereby lugging around some
        >imaginary emotional baggage.

        TRUE. AND I PRESENTED MY REASON WHY. YOU HAVE YET TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE.

        Assumption #2: You ASSUMED that I was talking
        >about YOU trashing Porter, even though I specifically stated it was some GBTC
        >guys and posted a direct disclaimer that I was NOT talking about YOU. Of
        >course, I was talking about YOUR generation of runners, so you have to comment,
        >right?

        WRONG I MADE NO SUCH ASSUMPTION.

        Assumption #3: You ASSUME I was somehow slighted by these guys
        >trashing Porter. They never even knew I was there, that I had ever visited
        >Alamosa, or that I even cared. They also never imagined that someone listening
        >to their loud carping would be looking beyond their world-class running
        >credentials and be thinking what jerks they were.

        CORRECT. IT IS CLEAR IN YOUR POST YOU TOOK OFFENSE. MORE EVIDENCE OF YOUR HOSTILITY TO "THEIR (AND MINE) WORLD CLASS RUNNING CREDENTIALS"

        Assumption #4: I am
        >stalking you. Since YOU jumped on my response to Garry, that makes as much
        >sense as the idea of following someone by walking ahead of them. You asked me
        >to leave you out of it? Fine. Then don't respond to MY posts.

        WRONG. I AM CORRECT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN STALKING ME ON THIS FORUM.

        Assumption #5:
        >Porter is my "hero." Vigil's program might be close to being a subject of my
        >idolization, but nothing I wrote gave any hint of Porter meaning anything
        >positive to me. Another self-serving Malmo assumption, trying to make sense of
        >life the only way he can: us vs. them mentality.

        CORRECT. IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION GIVEN YOUR POST. PORTER WOULD BE A HERO OF MINE TOO. AND AN ABSOLUTELY FALSE DESCRIPTION OF MY MENTALITY. "US VS. THEM" YOU'RE PROJECTING AGAIN PAL.

        Assumption #6: That since I
        >make reference to your former status of being a good runner, I am thereby
        >jealous of you. This is typical Malmo: the world revolves around you, you are
        >the center of the universe, and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong and
        >talks back to you because they are jealous of you. And then they stalk you, of
        >course, because their lives are meaningless without Malmo in them.

        WRONG AGAIN PAL. PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEALOUSY AND ENVY. YOU'VE REPEATED THESE REMARKS MANY TIMES AT THIS FORUM. IN FACT YOUR ENTIRE ASSUMPTION #6 IS EVIDENCE OF THIS ENVY.

        Ever
        >occur to you that some people simply might be a little sick of a FIFTY-YEAR-OLD
        >(close enough) guy trying to pretend he is still young and by ASSUMING the
        >rebel-without-a-clue attitude of a twenty-year-old????????

        AGAIN, MORE GRATUITIOUS HOSTILITY.




        What follows is the chronology of posts.

        ---------------------------------------------- -------
        BRIAN >I asked him about this after watching Par Porter run a sub-4:00 mile
        >on a legit course in Alamosa right before the CC nationals

        MALMO. Everyone one the planet knows that Alamosa mile loop isn't legit!
        --------------------------------------
        BRIAN Interestingly, through the years I have noticed many of the eighties jerks stretching to find fault with the program because they didn't like being pounded by Porter in CC races that were regularly covered by Sports Illustrated back then. [General comment, definitely not a dig at Malmo.] I had the "pleasure" of listening to a group of Greater Boston Track Club folks loudly trashing Porter and how hard he trained (the day's newspaper article) on a shuttle heading to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco to view the nationals course. Porter won that one by about ten seconds over Reebok's mercenary-for-the-race Steve Jones (IMHO, Jones is a great guy, BTW). The GBTC guys were nowhere in sight that day

        MALMO I think you are lugging around a lot of imaginary emotional baggage.

        For the record, I have never said anything negative about Pat Porter or his program. Furthermore, I have never, even for a second, even thought of anything negative. Unless you consider my comments that the only thing to do in Alamosa is watch cowboys and indians fighting at the Purple Pig to be negative. Then I'll throw myself at the mercy of the judge.

        My comment is on the accuracy of the loop, which is short.
        --------------------------------------------------
        BRIAN And *I* backed up your comment about the loop being short and WHY. How does that threaten YOU, Malmo?
        >[General comment, definitely not a dig at >Malmo.] What part of my above disclaimer--consciously added to spare your many-times-shown paranoic tendencies--don't you understand?
        To the best of my knowledge, you were never a memeber of the GBTC--you certainly weren't one of the very well-known guys trashing Porter on the bus that day.
        I'm not even sure if you've ever raced Porter, period.
        So just WHO is carrying the emotional baggage, Mr. Counselor--?
        ------------------------------------------------
        MALMO You
        --------------------------------------------------
        BRIAN Ah! The usual Malmo pissing contest. No facts, no arguement, just Malmo the former good runner saying so. Grow up.
        ---------------------------------------------------
        MALMO Brian you are a truly bizarre person.
        First of all, it was you who spoke of imaginary demons, of those "many 80s jerks" who must have somehow slighted you in the past, and for some odd reason dragging my name into the midst of your "episode." For whatever reason who could only guess? To which I responded merely "I think you are lugging around a lot of imaginary emotional baggage."

        Given your history of stalking me wherever I post on this forum, and always imagining conflict and ire where there is none, it seems to me that would be a logical conclusion.

        Secondly, I added my personal take on Porter/Vigil/Alamosa explicitly for myopic types such as yourself, in a doomed attempt (what else?) at making my thoughts on this matter perfectly clear. I should have known better. You already knew what you wanted to hear.

        Thirdly, you responded to my simple, straight-forward post with again another bizarre response somehow projecting feelings that I'm "threatened" by you, and then some foggy recollection of that terrible day when your hero was being slighted by unnamed GBTC athletes. Strange. I'm all for you working through your repressed childhood traumas, but could you please do me a favor -- next time leave me out of it?

        And finally, what has amounted to your standard capitulation template, the gratuitous, "Ah! The usual Malmo(sic) pissing contest. No facts, no arguement(sic), just Malmo(sic) the former good runner saying so. Grow up."

        That "former good runner" part is really eating at you inside, isn't it? You've said it so often you should imagine me mocking those words the next hundred times you type them. Live with it--I can -- it's not going to change.

        All because the Alamosa one mile loop is short.
        Another day, another bizarre internet stalker. Life is normal
        -----------------------------------------------------
        BRIAN Malmo, learn to read instead of "read into." Big difference. Helps mediate paranoia.
        Again, typical Malmo: anyone who disagrees with you and says so is stalking--even if, as in this case, you were the one first responding to THEM and what they said actually COMPLIMENTS what you said (the loop being short). A shame the world just can't let you run wild with your opinions and assumptions (that I was even friendly with Porter). But I don't mind...you're the one makn a fool of yourself looking for trouble where it doesn't exist until you make it so.
        Like you, I ran my best during the early to mid eighties. Does that make ME an eighties jerk? Only in your paranoic assumption-riddled mind would my comment be calling ALL runners from the eighties jerks.
        BYTW, you seem to be jumping on my every comment, even when I go out of my way to issue a disclaimer for you.
        Are you stalking me?
        --------------------------------------------------

        SO IT COMES DOWN TO THIS: THE COURSE IS SHORT!

        BRIAN >I asked him about this after watching Par Porter run a sub-4:00 mile on a legit course in Alamosa right before the CC nationals

        MALMO. Everyone one the planet knows that Alamosa mile loop isn't legit!

        BRIAN Vigil has never made any bones about the loop being short. Being a curious type, I wondered how far 5-6 seconds would be and later measured it with a wheel...I have forgotten just how far it was, but it was appropriately short of a Mile.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

          I am sure I'm not the only Board regular who has been reading this shit with morbid fascination. It seems to me that the blame for getting the debate to this point can be shared by Brian and Malmo--the exact allocation of blame by percentage is not important.

          May I respectfully suggest, gentleman, that we now end this discussion, call it a draw (or a no-win, which it obviously is). Let the two of you turn to more productive endeavors and let the rest of us not be subjected to more of this vituperation.

          Yes, I know, nobody is forcing anyone to read it. But the subject mentioned in the caption of the thread is one of general interest, and the thread was reasonably productive until you guys kidnapped it.

          No, nobody appointed me God or otherwise gave me the power to order you to cease fire, but I did think the Board would benefit from some adult intervention.

          Peace.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

            WRONG AGAIN PAL. PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEALOUSY AND
            >ENVY.

            This pretty much sums up the amount of sense you are making:
            [WWW.Dictionary.com]

            jeal·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jls)
            adj.
            Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position.

            Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others.
            Inclined to suspect rivalry.
            Having to do with or arising from feelings of

            **envy,**

            [Let's confuse things with semantics, okay>]

            apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts.
            Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.
            Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God.


            >May I respectfully suggest, gentleman, that we now end this discussion, call it a draw (or a no-win, which it obviously is). Let the two of you turn to more productive endeavors and let the rest of us not be subjected to more of this vituperation.

            Might as well. Malmo has lost it completely.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

              >[Let's confuse things with
              >semantics, okay>]

              Brian jeolous/envious is SAT stuff. Too different words. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/envious.html

              >Might as well. Malmo has lost it completely.

              Your Honor, I rest my case.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                >[Let's confuse things with
                >semantics, okay>]

                Brian jeolous/envious is
                >SAT stuff. Too different words.
                >http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/envious.html

                Leave it to Malmo to quote an internet that serves his needs over one based on the American Heritage Dictionary.

                Here's another for you:
                jealous

                adj 1: showing extreme cupidity; painfully desirous of another's advantages; "he was never covetous before he met her"; "jealous of his success and covetous of his possessions"; "envious of their art collection" [syn: covetous, envious] 2: suspicious or unduly suspicious or fearful of being displaced by a rival; "a jealous lover" [syn: green-eyed, overjealous]


                Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

                Notice the synonym?
                Again, let's confuse the issue with semantics. Same old Malmo: when losing the arguement, blur the issue by changing the subject and/or complain about how the game is played.

                The issue is YOU causing trouble by making a personal attack on me about something I went out of my way to make sure I said wasn't about YOU. And then making your usual assumption accusations to try and get out of trouble. I said nothing bad about you, you came back with the "emotional baggage" crap. And, as the man said, the thread went south from there. Just as it always does with Malmo's personal attacks. Look at other threads. I have.


                Tell you what: for the sake of eliminating possible future ocurrences others may have to suffer through, let's cut through the rough once and for all regarding what I think of you and why.
                You might be surprised to know that I used to have quite a bit of resepct for you 25 years ago. Not just because of your obvious talent, but because at a time when WSU, UTEP, etc., were loading up on overage foreigners/Kenyans, American collegians had two choices: give up and aim for best American finisher, or train harder and use this foreigner competition to get better themselves. A relative handful of Americans chose the latter--Virgin (despite his complaining), Salazar, Chapa, Padilla, Marsh, McChesney, among others--and became top Internationalists because of that choice.

                You, Malmo, were among that handful. I had a lot of respect for your doing that.

                But 25 years later, after reading some posts of yours, I went to various message boards and ran a search on you to see what else you'd written. What jumped out was pure attitude. Confrontational, in-your-face, attitude. The kind of stuff you expect from some high school or college kid, but pretty silly from a near 50-year old man. I don't know if you are truly like this in person or if the whole deal is some assumed persona, but it really is annoying and at times disgusting.

                What was especially disturbing was the idea that came through in nearly everything you'd written was that because you were a good runner at one time, no one should DARE challenge you on anything. So you'd make some arrogant, sarcastic, abrasive statement, then seem to confidently stand back while the youngsters on the board back up whatever you say and shout the challenger down simply because "you've walked the walk."

                As these kids get older they'll realize that world-class running credentials do not necessarily guarantee any level of intelligence, but for now they support you (and anyone else who has run fast) because of who you are--or were, as the case may be.

                I think you've gotten a little caught up in that idea. No big deal, you can be whoever or whatever you choose to be--except when it affects ME.

                And I think that "caught up in your own image" idea is a big reason why things end up the way they do when someone like me disagrees with you: they get all kinds of made-up crap thrown at them: stalking, emotional baggage, jealous of your 30-years ago running, etc.

                Perhaps the most frustrating for you is the level of discussion on this board. No one shouts me down for disagreeing with you and taking issue when you attack me personally. So you end up YELLING!!!!!!!!!!!

                That's what I don't like about you. Period. You write some good things, and I would never want you to leave this board. But every so often you start playing "message board royalty", get angry at "lesser beings" impertinence, and out comes the sarcasm and personal put-downs (followed later by denial and attempts to confuse the issue).

                Like forming the opinion certain people are jerks because they are publicly trashing someone who always beats them, I don't think disliking what I dislike about you is in any way a sign of "emotional baggage" or "jealousy/envy."
                Feel free to believe otherwise, but really, that's all there is to it.

                To maintain order on the board, perhaps the best we can do is agree to not comment to each others' posts, since it appears at least one of us has trouble separating ourselves from our emotions when the other is involved...?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                  Three things: 1) you are nuts 2) you are obsessive 3) you still don't know the difference between jealousy and envy.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                    Three negatives, I love it.
                    Every time you mess with me you rip yourself open and show people what putrid stuff is really inside you.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                      Brian,

                      Can you tell me what the hell was the point of that post? Malmo is Malmo and isn't likely to change. Yep he can be irritating but he's also pretty damn smart and has an obvious love and commitment to athletics. As someone else mentioned earlier there is a kind of morbid fascination reading meltdown posts by people such as yourself but it's getting bloody tedious. Let it go for god's sake.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                        Amen!!!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                          >Brian,

                          Can you tell me what the hell was the point of that post? Malmo is
                          >Malmo and isn't likely to change. Yep he can be irritating

                          So your point is "boys will be boys" so I'm not allowed to scratch an "irritating" itch?
                          I'm not trying to change this guy. But the Hell if I'm going to take his name-calling crap without giving him a taste of the same since he obviously can't take what he so freely dishes out.

                          Everybody cowtows to this guy which is WHY he talks such crap all the time. Staying silent gives him your subtle approval. [Do a search on other boards or on this board and count how many topics he kills. THIS thread lost it when he started the personal stuff after my post on why the Alamosa mile is short.] Once Malmo starts down the negative road, the thread is dead anyway, so why not take him to task on his personal trashing?

                          With all respect to you for your opinion on this, if you don't like it, don't read it. YOU'RE not the one the guy is trashing--I am. So kindly don't begrudge me responding to him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                            Congratulations boys (and I mean BOYS), you made letsrun

                            http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read. ... ead=420468

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                              >1980 - Most of the world missing!<

                              Let's see who turned up - Seb Coe, Steve Ovett, Jurgen Straub...

                              If the "rest of the world, (i.e. the USA)" had shown up, what would the final result in the 1500M have been? Let's see...

                              1. Seb Coe
                              2. Jurgen Straub
                              3. Steve Ovett

                              Maybe Ovett would have been second, who knows?...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Olympic 1,500m - disappointment!

                                i have a question here....i am relatively new to the boards and am a huge track fan although i have not been around for too long, i am 24 yrs old.....who is malmo? apparently he was an accomplished runner back in the day?

                                thanks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X