I propose USMS adopt handicap measurements to more equitably compare performances in Masters Swimming.
1. Married ...... deduct one tenth per 50
2. Nagging spouse.... deduct two tenths per 50
3. Each child under the age of 10..... deduct one tenth per 50
4. Work more than 40 hours a week..... deduct one tenth per 50
5. House and car payment stress.... deduct on tenth per vehicle two tenths per house.
6. Travel more than 1 day a week.... one tenth per 50
Note: item 6 can help negate item 2.
In addition.... those of us with more manageable lifestyles need to adjust their times as well.
7. Training more than 4,000 a workout ...... add one tenth per 50
8. Training more than 4 days a week....... add one tenth per 50
9. Born independently wealthy..... add 3 tenths per 50
John Smith
Former Member
Originally posted by aquageek
...
Also, any person who uses the term "late bloomer" is disqualified unless USMS now recognizes this as a legitimate excuse for slow times.
But can geek use programming in Java as an illusion that he is more than a push-buttons technologist?
Does Tom get a deduction for thinking he's a Moose?
Kindest regards,
Ralph
Hey, I can ask my own questions....
Tom
Gosh, that was a good question though.....
Was not, was too, not...
Now, this:
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Mr. Moose still lives....(Ralph & Tom as well....)
Reading all the time we get to take off for all these things....it reminds me of the VO2MAX Shampoo being so good that IF you put to much on.... you would finish your race before you started....That would be a serious plus here for then we would not have to read the same nonsense over and over and over and over...
Would too, would not....too...not...
Things that never change...tend to remain the same....
is a true broken record.
Not consistency:
over the years, it learned nothing from the medical field that testified here.
In 2005 he copies 2001, word by word, there is no learning, there is no evolution in between.
(including same illiterate grammar in own native language:
the "...IF you put to much on..." should be "...IF you put too much on...", and is not a typo, is a recurring error)
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 went by him.
Without evolution.
In contrast, compare my times in 2001 with this season's.
Then, remember my evolution that I posted from 2001 until now.
People I met at the 2005 Long Course Nationals who trained with him and coached him in Texas, and who read this forum (Bob the architect, Cathy the coach) told me not to hope for any better from him.
Not consistency:
over the years, it learned nothing from the medical field that testified here.
In 2005 he copies 2001, there is no evolution in between.
(including same illiterate grammar in own native language:
the "...IF you put to much on..." should be "...IF you put too much on...", and is not a typo, is a recurring error)
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 went by him.
If it so repetitive, then why even go on here? My gosh, you seem to be so annoyed with the same "illiterates" on here. Just go to a more learned site away from us underlings. I don't know how you tolerate such stupidity.
Ion, by your own earlier statement you recognize that this thread is a joke (or mischief as you put it). Why then, do you keep trying to turn it to your agenda?
(Oh yeah, a joke and mischief are two different things. Mischief can be a joke or prank. The results of mischief, even if unintential and very mild, is harmful or hurtful. The intent of this thread was good natured fun that did not harm or hurt anyone.)
Originally posted by Sam Perry
If it so repetitive, then why even go on here? My gosh, you seem to be so annoyed with the same "illiterates" on here. Just go to a more learned site away from us underlings. I don't know how you tolerate such stupidity.
I found here lefty, Fritz, gull, Phil (i.e.: Phil Arcuni), Jim (i.e.: Jim Clemmons), Rich (i.e.: Richard Abrahams, who was insightful and supportive at the 2005 Long Course Nationals), Gail (i.e.: Gail Roper), Jim Thornton, and you too, which I value.
Originally posted by laineybug
Ion, by your own earlier statement you recognize that this thread is a joke (or mischief as you put it). Why then, do you keep trying to turn it to your agenda?
...
It was gull -a medical doctor that ellison is never learning from- who turned this thread to my agenda.
Playfully, at the high level of my agenda, I went along.
The thread is still a joke, at a higher level.
Originally posted by laineybug
Ion, I'm sorry you didn't see the humor in Gull's post.
I am sorry you don't see that I saw the humor in gull's post.
And went along.
Is "...Playfully..." in my previous post, helpful?
