The Fastest Age

Originally posted by SWinkleblech Whats a disappointsments. Now i'll have noones to teach me my natives languages. No worriesies, we can always go play hobbitsies, and leavesies Smeagel to his precious preoccupationsies.

Originally posted by Ion Beza I think that you are confused here: I never wrote 'Bondi' in this forum. A search in this forum would prove me right. Um, Ion, Bert was talking about himself, not you. Oooopsies! Go re-read his post, slooooowly and carefully this time.

I give up- apparently Ion, who is neither a native English speaker, nor academically qualified in the field of English, cannot do what I ask him and give me a VALID dictionary entry for the word (because it's not a word). To the person who states that it shows up in an Internet search: Whilst I do appreciate that, it still doesn't verify the word's authenticity or validity in the language. Having said that, doesn't Ion state that he works in the IT field? Maybe he developed the sites ;). Anyway, Ion, do NOT tell me which form of English to use in my native country, nor question my ability to speak the language. When you have earned higher degrees in the field from leading British universities, like London or Oxford, as I have, let me know. To everyone else: How does this 'Ignore' button thing work? Can I just block one person? :D

Originally posted by Ion Beza You promised to use the 'Ignore' button on my posts. You broke your promise here. Not much of a strong will in you? I have a very strong will and I have used my ignore button for you. Unfortunately, I don't always sign on when I'm surfing this site. If I don't sign on, the "IGNORE" feature does not work! I will definitely sign on each time from now on. Good-bye all knowing and powerful Ion. We quiver in your magnificent prescence :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Phil Arcuni It is not, just as the root of calculus is not related to the root of calculate (remember that? that thread went on for a long time!) The nice me says that it is not your knowledge and use of english that is stupid, but your insistence that you are never wrong,. . . ... In that thread someone confused calculations with algebra, and me I confused calculations with calculus. My confusion is from a foreigner. The other person's confusion is lack of fundamental education. Aside semantics of 'calculations' and 'calculus', anyone in U.S. should be able to calculate international meters to Imperial yards conversions like I showed in that thread. As for you saying that I insist that I am never wrong, I repeat -and count them how many times I wrote this- that: .) knowledge wise one is proven wrong with data not with sentiments, and .) language wise for a foreigner to speak foreign languages with errors that's OK but for people to butcher their native language that's a shame; me I am fluent in my native language more than people that I correct here are fluent in their native language. I remember that you sent me an e-mail almost three years ago stating that you are trained in physics in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and that you know the linguistic difference between 'calculus' and 'calculations'; I followed up on your e-mail by publicly recognizing my linguistic confusion between 'calculations' and 'calculus' and that my method to calculate distance conversions remains an elementary thing to learn. So I prove wrong your thinking that I insist that I am never wrong.

So all the self-righteous here who blunder in their native language and blame the foreigner, are wrong. Wow... I send you virtual flowers for helping me out with the stuck up.

To Ion's many skills we can add the ability to change history. Yes Ion, you did not insist that adding and subtracting was "simple calculus," and yes, you did not claim in several posts that everyone else was wrong, and yes, you did not claim that Biondi changed his name from Bondi, and yes, you do not try to point out the mote in everyone else's eyes so that we won't see the log in your own (note - biblical allusion inside of sarcasm.) Yes, it is the case that splitting up the unword ;) 'copeout' into 'cope' and 'out' will pass your spell checker, but that would be dumb, because the combination 'cope out' (two words that are difficult to imagine together) does not mean what you meant, which was 'copout.' Perhaps you think that 'cop' (also seen in the phrase 'cop a plea') is related to 'cope?' It is not, just as the root of calculus is not related to the root of calculate (remember that? that thread went on for a long time!) The nice me says that it is not your knowledge and use of english that is stupid, but your insistence that you are never wrong, despite solid evidence to the contrary. The mean me is *repressed* by the actions of Jim the god of thread decorum. But we know what Freud had to say about secret little obsessions that are repressed . . .

Originally posted by Ion Beza For your miscomprehensions, ramble away. That one, I will tackle: Originally posted by Ion Beza knowledge wise one is proven wrong with data not with sentiments the key in swimming is VO2Max as in swimming cardiovascular This is the source of the frustration with arguing with Ion. He is expressing a sentiment ("the key in swimming is VO2Max"). I have yet to see data to support this point. Any studies or arguments that aerobic conditioning is *a* factor are irrelevant, as are studies about when you develop VO2Max (teen years or otherwise). Ion has to show that it trumps all other factors. Yet, he still uses that as the cornerstone of many of his other arguments (late-bloomer or otherwise).

Originally posted by Ion Beza Like I pointed out in the thread on VO2Max that was deleted, the data doesn't exist, it's my theory based on empirical observation. So in other words, you shouldn't be insulting other people when they express a personal opinion that does not agree with yours. You shouldn't be building a chain of reasoning based on an axiom that many people don't support, and calling it "data". That is what is pissing people off, Ion. When you state that this is your experience, fine. When you state a misunderstanding between calculus and calculations, great. (Misunderstanding understood, and corrected.) But when you state how great you are, because of late-blooming V02Max, and then berate people who have a different perception, that is hardly critical thinking. Originally posted by Ion Beza Similarly, a swimmer cannot anchor much -and later on pull the body over that anchor- without catching something solid. The water doesn't give the swimmer a hard enough, stable grip. I bet this can bring me replies that are poetic 'explanations', pseudo-science, therefore 'technique'. See, in my experience, I can get a good anchor on the water. I find "VO2Max is the key" to be pseudo-science. Should I start insulting you, telling you how simple-minded you are? :D (Have you done any crew? Once the boat is up to speed, the oars do more "anchoring" than moving water backwards.)

Ion: The truth is seeping out slowly from you. You finally now state this is your theory alone. Yet, you are not a doctor, not a coach, etc. You have been doling out this pseudo medical garbage for over years now on this forum. Now, we see it for what it really is, a figment of your imagination. Next, to support your claim you quote gull80. Re-read the posts, Ion. He has only agreed that it is theoretically possible. This does not support your claim that it is the only major factor in swimming success. Many things in life are theoretically possible. This does not make them likely to occur. What kind of doctor is proposing autopsies on muscles to prove you correct? You press constantly on this forum for names. Give us a doctor's name, Ion, who supports peforming autopsies to prove this V02Max theory of yours. The house of cards is crumbling, Beza. Rather than your far flung nonsense, why can't you just swim hard, train hard and enjoy the sport? I do believe you are exposing your unqualifications.