Re: Very unusual WR for Lenton

"DavidW" wrote:

Steve Curtis wrote:

"DavidW" wrote:

So now a scientific method for
analysis is still to be _developed_?
IOW, as far as you know, it doesn't
exist. Case closed.

Scientific methods are developed for
analyses all the time for a multitude of
studies. Where the hell have you been
living, in the "Dark Ages"? Case still
open.

Irrelevant. The question is whether an
analysis has been developed that would
enable the draft assistance Lenton
received to be measured. It's not enough
that it might_potentially_ be done. _Has_
it been done?

Wrong. The question is whether drafting and the amount of "assistance"
that a swimmer receives from drafting is "well understood." You claim it
isn't without offering any supportive credibility. You certainly don't
"speak" for coaches, competitive swimmers and those who have a much
better understanding about the subject than you. Even Lenton herself had
a reasonably good idea about how much Phelps' bow wave helped during the
swim by the amount of effort she had to put into it.

Just take a moment to make a mental
note of that last sentence.

Just take a moment to make a mental
image of an extended upright middle
finger directed towards you. Where are
your references defending your position
that an analysis is unachievable?

Did I say that it wasn't achievable? I said
that it probably _hasn't_ been achieved.

On what basis do you claim "it probably _hasn't_ been achieved"?

"Learn to read dumbass." Either take
your own advice or explain how "you
could be 1000% out" requires proof. If
you provide _no_ error information you
can't rule out an error of any size.
Therefore you could be 1000% out.

Still waiting for your irrefutable
explanation of how you arrived at
"1000%" to support an argument that
has no viable referenced support.

Apparently you need this drilled into your
skull many, many times before it makes
sense. If you provide _no_ error
information, you cannot rule out an error
of _any_ size. Where have you said that
the error is guaranteed to be below
1000%?

Where's your proof that its guaranteed to be 1000% or above?

I see a post where you demonstrated
that you are too dumb to understand
basic newsgroup etiquette and I
responded with understandable
annoyance. Your point regarding my
"dumbo" comment is...what?

"Basic newsgroup etiquette,"
"understandable annoyance"? Your
sheer stupidity was evident with your
response to a particular post that
included an advisory of "please ignore"
in the subject header.

Why should I pay attention to any
"advisory" from a spammer? You posted
an annoying, off-topic post, and I
responded accordingly. And speaking of
stupidity, why didn't you use alt.test?

So, you presume to speak for everyone by claiming that the post was
"annoying"? Learn to read dumbass, most readers know what "please
ignore" means and most readers know that "test posts" are sent to any
and all usenet groups all the time when there may be server problems.

And, you claim that the manner in
which you responded showed
"understandable annoyance"?
Understandable to whom?

So you're telling me that you can't
understand a reader being annoyed with
an annoying post? You're even dumber
than I thought.

See the above comment regarding presuming to "speak" for everyone. Same
principle applies.

Try and learn what the phrase "please
ignore" means and entails.

Try and learn that your post didn't belong
here, which you obviously didn't know or
you wouldn't have posted it, so you
needed the most basic newsgroup
etiquette explained to you.

Again, See the above comment regarding presuming to "speak" for
everyone. Same principle applies. And, by the way, you think the phrase:
"now *** off" is an adequate explanation of basic newsgroup etiquette?
You're the one who's dumber than anyone thought by not understanding
what "please ignore" entails.

So it's quite clear then: you are
unaware of the existence of a
scientific method by which the quantity
of draft assistance Lenton received
from Phelps can be calculated.

It's quite clear, with a sound scientific
approach used in conjunction with
available race data, that a method
could be developed to reasonably arrive
at an approximation, a point that
continually escapes you and reveals a
stupidity on your part for not
recognizing that others surely know
more about scientific method
development than you.

But it hasn't been done yet? You think
it's unreasonable to suggest that a
certain physical phenomenon is not well
understood if it is not yet understood,
just because it _might_ be possible to do
a lot of work and understand it some
time in the future?

How do you know it hasn't been done yet? Have you talked with Lenton's
coach(es), Phelps' coach(es)? Anyone knowledgable about competitive
swimming?

Still waiting for your proof that
drafting effects "are not well
understood."

Even though you agree that they
aren't?

They're better understood by those who
know the subject far better than you.

So now you say I have to rely on
experts. I can't necessarily develop a
method myself, which you have been
intimating until now? Well, show me the
work that's been done to enable the draft
assistance to Lenton to be calculated.

Get the race data, video, and talk to coaches, and/or other swimmers
(including Phelps and Lenton if you must) who understand drafting
effects much better than you, maybe you'll find a way.

BTW, if you thought no one would
notice that you left out the crucial
reference to quantity in what I said,
think again: "It probably isn't even well
understood _how much_ assistance you
get from swimming in another
swimmer's wake."

BTW, you thought no one would notice
the ambiguity in that phrase. Your
assertion would be quite laughable and
just as ambiguous to those (i.e.
coaches, competitive swimmers, etc.)
who are more knowledgeable than you
about hydrodynamic principles
especially to those familiar with drafting
effects associated with close proximity
swimming.

If you thought it was ambiguous, why
haven't you sought any clarification all
this time?

Why didn't you phrase the original post in a less ambiguous manner in
the first place? Your "not well understood" assertion was challenged and
you've offered nothing to support a credible defense of that stand.

I'll consider your apology when it
arrives in your next post.

Apology for what?

For wasting my extremely precious time.
You've made claims you can't support.

"Extremely precious time"? Seems like you take your sweet time posting a
response in this inane thread. It probably takes you a long enough time
to compose a post that's nothing more than a failed attempt at
face-saving and is really quite laughable.

The support you question was already posted with research references.
Again, learn to read and comprehend. You've offered absolutely nothing
to support your "not well understood" claim and you presume to "speak"
for others more knowledgable in making that claim. Talk about stupidity.

.