Re: RC: Re: Fw: RC: endurance prospect, etc.

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/7/00 7:25:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, CMKSAGEHIL writes:

<< Hardly.  I just prefer "winning" in a different context.  And if pacing my 
horse and coming in second instead of expending all he has to offer that day 
to win means that I can come back in two weeks instead of four, and beat that 
winner of one race in the overall point standings at the end of the year, 
then I'm gonna do it.>

And the last time you won overall point standings for the year was??? Do you 
just talk the talk or have you walked the walk?

  >My "race" is over the long haul, Tom--some of us have wider horizons than 
"right now." >

The Golden Girl of Patronization displaying her wares again. You paint such a 
heroic picture of yourself, in post after post, that some may soon suggest 
cannonization. The Ideal Vet, the Ideal Conditioner, the Ideal Nutritionist, 
the Ideal Competitor, the Ideal Trainer--all rolled up into one angelic 
poster child for Morality in Endurance Riding. Makes me automatically 
question the veracity of all of it as simple posturing.  

> It's a different sport, and your failure to comprehend it >

My dear intellectual giant, I have no difficulty whatsoever comprehending 
your simplistic views, illogical and incorrect as they may be.  

>does not make it "holier than thou" or "emoting" or any of the other icky 
labels you care to invent.>

Gee, and I was about to award you with Miss Emote of 1999. I still think you 
deserve Miss Holier Than Thou, though--at least you have my vote.

>  I thought putting words in other people's mouths as you do was a rather 
Clintonesque sort of ploy anyway...>

Lying and posturing as the purest of the pure are the favorite Clintonesque 
ploys. Closely followed by clumbsy and transparent scatological side-steps 
when caught. Catch me at any of these and I'll eat my shoes. 

One of my favorite pastimes is putting the lie to hypocrisy when I encounter 
it. Especially when it takes the form of self-righteous indignation and 
moral/intellectual superiority. If I'm not mistaken, these are your favorite 
retreats when cornered on factual/logical matters. Those and outraged 
denial--the fourth Clintonesque ploy. 

The sole weapon necessary in these cases is simple clarity of thought--wins 
every time. Semantics is the very worst defense. Transparent obfuscation. The 
fifth Clintonesque ploy. 

To win is to win.

ti