tired of the sexism

[bikinglynda@yahoo.com]

you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
look at yourselves.

LYNDA

[Tom Kunich]

<bikinglynda@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191611120.859920.84240@o80g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.

I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
who have worked hard to promote women's racing. Not to say that there aren't
the loud-mouth drink-worshipping fools here but there are normal people as
well if you discount Kveck and Legate and those guys who won't post with
their names.

The question really is - why would that bother you in the first place? This
group is far more intelligent than 90% of the other groups out there.

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

<bikinglynda@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191611120.859920.84240@o80g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA

How about the phenom Kat Carroll, who recently won the last stage of the
Tour de L'Ardeche? I spoke with her in March at Merco, and she was upbeat,
fun to talk too, and seemed really fit early in the season. She could be the
next great American rider.

http://www.procyclingwomen.com/Kat-Karroll.jpg

[William Asher]

wrote:

> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.

There also have been entire threads about Ulrich's cold sores. So it's not
just women and cold sores. It's more a cold sore thing. Coupled with the
saddle sore award from a few years back, maybe just sores of any kind.
Sort of a "sore like an eagle" inspirational message.

If you want to talk about the relative hotness of male bike racers, nobody
would stop you. There was the photo somebody linked to a while back of the
Polish national team looking, well, pole-ish, if you get my drift. You
could dig that back up and start there.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I don't want to look at everyone
else. Ken's "faces of rbr" made the point that there is a reason none of
us are famous television personalities.

--
Bill Asher

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 5, 2:05 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA

1. Lance is hot. Even Kunich thinks so and has admitted to it here at
least once.

2. Lance got in trouble for wearing makeup, if you'll remember.

3. There is are reasons for "sexism". Here is one illustration:

http://cucinatestarossa.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/red_bike_shorts_1.jpg

--D-y

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

On Oct 5, 2:05 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA

Maybe if women's cycling were compelling in any way, I'd talk about
it.

Probably not though. Most women's sports are boring compared to the
men's version. Tennis is an exception, but I cannot think of any more.

So what if people talk about beauty. Take up that argument with
society as a whole.

[MagillaGorilla]

bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:

> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA
>


Loma Lynda,

Women's tennis has special rules that women must wear skirts. Same with
women's figure skating. Women's gymnastics also has distinct clothing
differences between male and female performers. All of these rules are
designed to showcase female sexuality.

Women's professional soccer, on the other hand - like cycling - violated
this Cardinal rule. They had women wearing the same thing as male
players: baggy shorts, shin pads, baggy shirts. Perhaps this explains
why the women's soccer league imploded and disappeared within a few
years of the infamous Brandy "topless" Chastain goal.

The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women want to be viewed
a-sexually and appraised solely based on athletic performance, they
should race with the men.

Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual disitinctions
between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.

And the reason why you don't talk about Lance's looks is because the men
are the fastest and better players athletically in all pro sports. They
do what they do based on merit. Women, on the other hand, by demanding
a separate league with inferior athletic performance, have brought upon
themselves the sexuality issue simply by way of participating in their
own league that is based solely on their sex.


Professor Magilla

P.S. There really is no "men's league" per se in pro sports. Women are
allowed to race bikes with men..women are allowed to try out for the NFL
or NBA or MLB..they just choose not to (or cannot make the team on
merit). Whereas the women's league actually exclude men.

[lewdvig]

On Oct 5, 1:05 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA

Chill out, is saying that a woman is fast and beautiful a crime? A lot
of women like cycling and Lance because of attractive men.

You, like most Americans, need to lighten up a bit.

[Marian]

On Oct 6, 3:05 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.

Yahbut ... Lance _isn't_ especially hot and some of the other TdF guys
are downright yucky.

And I've got a serious thing for men with muscular legs.

-M

[Fred Fredburger]

bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.

Well, alright...

<follows lynda's advice>

Maybe _I_ should wear more makeup.

[yeahyeah]

On Oct 5, 3:05 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA

I disagree
http://tinyurl.com/2brtfd

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Oct 5, 12:05 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> look at yourselves.
>
> LYNDA



Hey Fat Lynda -


Guess who was the most popular RBR regular ever?

Heather Halvorson. Because she used to post porn links and talk about
sex.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Melinda Shore]

In article <13gd36l7fe9ir2f@corp.supernews.com>,
Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
>who have worked hard to promote women's racing.

More than a few posters natter on about podium girls and
Alison Sydor's looks, too. I figure kids will be kids but
still, ick.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore@panix.com

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

[Bill C]

On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <bikingly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191611120.859920.84240@o80g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> > womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> > well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> > is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> > look at yourselves.
>
> I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
> who have worked hard to promote women's racing. Not to say that there aren't
> the loud-mouth drink-worshipping fools here but there are normal people as
> well if you discount Kveck and Legate and those guys who won't post with
> their names.
>
> The question really is - why would that bother you in the first place? This
> group is far more intelligent than 90% of the other groups out there.

And I think that Marlene started a thread on which of the guys was hot
a while ago. This complaint is BS. Go to a group with large numbers of
women and they'll be talking about which sports star, athlete, or
actor has great skills, but also which has the best ass, or is the
cutest, etc...same as here. A lot of the gay/lesbian boards are the
same way, but IMO even more open about sensuality.
Generally people talk about the sexuality, or attractiveness of those
they are inclined towards. What a shock?
Only a few ignorant jerkoffs have slammed women who compete. The vast
majority here recognise both their athletic skills, and the fact that
a fit body is attractive.
What's the hang-up with discussing that part of it? Do you complain
in female driven groups too?
Bill C

[derFahrer@gmail.com]

> I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
> who have worked hard to promote women's racing.

Absolutely. Take for example the selfless work of Gone Before My Time/
Sierraman and his procyclingwomen website. One would be hard-pressed
to find a more sterling example of stocking.

[Simon Brooke]

in message <13gd36l7fe9ir2f@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

> The question really is - why would that bother you in the first place?
> This group is far more intelligent than 90% of the other groups out
> there.

Ouch.

I really, really hope that this is not true - if it is, then there is no
hope for the human race.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"Melinda Shore" <shore@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fe6525$ork$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <13gd36l7fe9ir2f@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
> >who have worked hard to promote women's racing.
>
> More than a few posters natter on about podium girls and
> Alison Sydor's looks, too. I figure kids will be kids but
> still, ick.
> --
> Melinda Shore

You won't usually get much more then that here, but you might enjoy these
forums below. This forum is mostly about doping scandals, and then, more
doping scandals. This is the (Premiere) cycling-doping usenet newsgroup!
That's a plus if you love to stay on the bleeding edge of doping scandals.
You will hear it here first!

Women pros here are usually admired for their good looks or their
shortcomings, but sometimes you might hit middle ground on some riders
finding common perspectives. The French forum hold a year long contest which
anyone can cast their projections for the riders they think will win the
world cup series. At the end of the year long competion, points are tallied,
and I actually won it this year by two points. I picked winners in 7 out of
9 races, it was fun. The French view women's cycling as specialty events
after the men, and they have a keen audience who are usually pretty solid
fans well informed about women's racing.

But there is a more time consuming serious forum you can interact with at
Chicabike, but it's much too time consuming for me. Many women's teams have
their own forums or blogs, which are loaded with news from inside the
women's pro peleton. Your best bet for up to date steady news and results
come from womenscycling.net in Australia, but Ladiescycling.net not bad, if
you have the patience for their navagation and menus, but on the whole, the
Ausse site has the best race reports, photos and news, although CN does
pretty good sometimes. Velonews is also amazingly very good sometimes at
reporting news inside the women's peleton.

French...
http://cyclisme-feminin.forumpro.fr/

or maybe these..

English...
http://www.cyclingforums.com/f42-women's-cycling.html
http://www.chicabike.be/chicastart.htm

GBMT

[RicodJour]

On Oct 5, 3:59 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> In article <13gd36l7fe9i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
> >who have worked hard to promote women's racing.
>
> More than a few posters natter on about podium girls and
> Alison Sydor's looks, too. I figure kids will be kids but
> still, ick.

Does the natter really matter?
If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
interested) sex will notice.
This is as it should be.

Better to be nattered than neutered.

R

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 5, 12:59 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> In article <13gd36l7fe9i...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >I hate to point this out Lynda but there are more than a few posters here
> >who have worked hard to promote women's racing.
>
> More than a few posters natter on about podium girls and
> Alison Sydor's looks, too. I figure kids will be kids but
> still, ick.

Hey, if this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/1e2aa7fe157c4259/44f542ab97884d0d#44f542ab97884d0d
happened (see Amit's response in post 100 for the relevance)
and still our friendly neighborhood stockers come back for more,
it's going to be difficult to completely reform the place.

RBR is a lot like any local training ride. A lot of the bad
language and locker room towel-snapping is harmless
woofing, a few people actually learn something useful,
and there's a couple of creepy guys over in the corner.

Occasionally blowing up at them is perfectly understandable
(and maybe necessary) but actually changing the hardcases
(the actually sexist ones) is difficult.

Ben

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Oct 5, 3:04 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wrote:

> If you want to talk about the relative hotness of male bike racers, nobody
> would stop you.

That's because in a democracy, you let the information flow free.

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> If you want to talk about the relative hotness of male bike racers, nobody
> would stop you.

And Kunich would be disillusioned if the rest of us didn't participate.

[Melinda Shore]

In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
>interested) sex will notice.
>This is as it should be.

Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
to be taken seriously as athletes.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore@panix.com

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

[chiefhiawatha@gmail.com]

On Oct 5, 6:45 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> In article <1191626210.316742.105...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
>
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
> >interested) sex will notice.
> >This is as it should be.
>
> Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> to be taken seriously as athletes.

Everywhere? RESPECT THE ATHLETES, IN EVERY CORNER OF THE INTERNET.

So start a thread about them. In this very post, you didn't try, you
just complained.

Really though, it will just fall apart, as hardly any men give a darn
about female sports of any kind.

It's great if the women are into it and get something from it. But
just don't expect others to enjoy watching their races, or talking
about their races, as much as they do the men.

Is this a surprise? You're maybe the 10th poster in RBR that I have
seen in the 10 years I've been reading it. What do you expect of a
male-dominated forum. It's laughable that anyone would think we'd talk
about whatever female racer managed to rise above the rest of the
nameless bunch.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On 5 Oct 2007 19:45:40 -0400, shore@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:

>In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
>RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
>>interested) sex will notice.
>>This is as it should be.
>
>Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
>to be taken seriously as athletes.

And... they're really hot.

Gotta admit there's a bit of locker room foolishness, not unexpected in a sports
fan and participant group. Mostly we try to act like a grown-up's locker room
instead of middle school locker room. Mostly we fall somewhere in between.

OTOH, we do, mostly know how hard elite cyclists work how much respect they
deserve. Or not. You'll notice that everyone in here claims more savvy than any
DS and more tactical cunning than any rider, male or female. So in that context,
the women aren't treated worse than any one else.

Then there is the part about many of us making fools of ourselves.

[Simon Brooke]

in message <fe6ib4$9jt$1@panix2.panix.com>, Melinda Shore
('shore@panix.com') wrote:

> In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
> RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
>>interested) sex will notice.
>>This is as it should be.
>
> Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> to be taken seriously as athletes.

True.

Being recognised as being sexually attractive does not mean that you are
not also, and simultaneously, and equally recognised as a serious athlete.
Athletes - of both genders - tend to be in excellent physical shape, and
that's a good step towards being attractive.

I'd agree that the majority of posts on this group - on all topics, not
merely on the matter of pulchritude - are foolish, puerile and devoid of
intelligent thought. Every group has its own culture, its own in jokes,
and the in-joke here seems to be to be as loutish, boorish and unthinking
as possible.

But to carefully avoid noticing people's sexual attractiveness, to
deliberately refrain from commenting on it, is foolish and dishonest, and
is a step on the slippery slope which leads to Taleban-style puritanism,
which does not benefit women one little bit.

Mind you, I'm a dumbass, and I think a lot of the women riders are hot. So
what do I know?

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

[RicodJour]

On Oct 5, 7:45 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> >If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
> >interested) sex will notice.
> >This is as it should be.
>
> Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> to be taken seriously as athletes.

Why do you feel that finding someone attractive and acknowledging
their talent in sports, or whatever, are mutually exclusive? I
consider it a bonus - lagniappe.

R

[Colin Campbell]

Melinda Shore wrote:
> In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
> RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
>> If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
>> interested) sex will notice.
>> This is as it should be.
>
> Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> to be taken seriously as athletes.

When the gals I ride with start whipping up a climb and leaving me in
the dust, I respect their ability. When they stop to let us guys catch
up, I enjoy seeing them, because they are quite pretty, as well as fast.

Respecting female athletic ability and appreciating female beauty aren't
mutually exclusive!

Trying to keep up, or at least not fall so far behind, has led me to
lose weight and work hard on my conditioning, with good results for me.
And the ladies tell me they are impressed with my hard work and
results, too.

So it's a win-win situation.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 5, 7:34 pm, chiefhiawa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Probably not though. Most women's sports are boring compared to the
> men's version. Tennis is an exception, but I cannot think of any more.

Golf.

> So what if people talk about beauty. Take up that argument with
> society as a whole.

The ironic thing here (IMHO) is that women are more acute in their
observations and assessments of physical attractiveness in either
gender.

There's a reason for that, too. No more pictures. --D-y

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Oct 5, 5:51 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 7:34 pm, chiefhiawa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Probably not though. Most women's sports are boring compared to the
> > men's version. Tennis is an exception, but I cannot think of any more.
>
> Golf.
>
> > So what if people talk about beauty. Take up that argument with
> > society as a whole.
>
> The ironic thing here (IMHO) is that women are more acute in their
> observations and assessments of physical attractiveness in either
> gender.


I find that when I get a little too critical, a few drinks help.

[Donald Munro]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> I really, really hope that this is not true - if it is, then there is no
> hope for the human race.

I thought rbr was mostly populated by SchwartzSoft bots.

[Fred Fredburger]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <13gd36l7fe9ir2f@corp.supernews.com>, Tom Kunich
> ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
>> The question really is - why would that bother you in the first place?
>> This group is far more intelligent than 90% of the other groups out
>> there.
>
> Ouch.
>
> I really, really hope that this is not true - if it is, then there is no
> hope for the human race.
>

Yes, it is and no, there isn't.

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:39ujt4-v2h.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <fe6ib4$9jt$1@panix2.panix.com>, Melinda Shore
> ('shore@panix.com') wrote:
>
> > In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
> > RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >>If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
> >>interested) sex will notice.
> >>This is as it should be.
> >
> > Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> > to be taken seriously as athletes.
>
> True.
>
> Being recognised as being sexually attractive does not mean that you are
> not also, and simultaneously, and equally recognised as a serious athlete.
> Athletes - of both genders - tend to be in excellent physical shape, and
> that's a good step towards being attractive.
>
> I'd agree that the majority of posts on this group - on all topics, not
> merely on the matter of pulchritude - are foolish, puerile and devoid of
> intelligent thought. Every group has its own culture, its own in jokes,
> and the in-joke here seems to be to be as loutish, boorish and unthinking
> as possible.
>
> But to carefully avoid noticing people's sexual attractiveness, to
> deliberately refrain from commenting on it, is foolish and dishonest, and
> is a step on the slippery slope which leads to Taleban-style puritanism,
> which does not benefit women one little bit.
>
> Mind you, I'm a dumbass, and I think a lot of the women riders are hot. So
> what do I know?

That's fairly well stated. There is a site that seemed in the beginning to
capture that side of women in cycling, call The Beauty of Cycling. However
it seems to have gone more towards the center lately.

http://members.home.nl/ladiescycling/start.htm

GBMT

[Michael Press]

In article
<39ujt4-v2h.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

> in message <fe6ib4$9jt$1@panix2.panix.com>, Melinda Shore
> ('shore@panix.com') wrote:
>
> > In article <1191626210.316742.105410@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
> > RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:
> >>If you put someone attractive in skin tight spandex the opposite (or
> >>interested) sex will notice.
> >>This is as it should be.
> >
> > Those elite women racers work hard, have talent, and deserve
> > to be taken seriously as athletes.
>
> True.
>
> Being recognised as being sexually attractive does not mean that you are
> not also, and simultaneously, and equally recognised as a serious athlete.
> Athletes - of both genders - tend to be in excellent physical shape, and
> that's a good step towards being attractive.
>
> I'd agree that the majority of posts on this group - on all topics, not
> merely on the matter of pulchritude - are foolish, puerile and devoid of
> intelligent thought. Every group has its own culture, its own in jokes,
> and the in-joke here seems to be to be as loutish, boorish and unthinking
> as possible.
>
> But to carefully avoid noticing people's sexual attractiveness, to
> deliberately refrain from commenting on it, is foolish and dishonest, and
> is a step on the slippery slope which leads to Taleban-style puritanism,
> which does not benefit women one little bit.
>
> Mind you, I'm a dumbass, and I think a lot of the women riders are hot. So
> what do I know?

I do not think that you have apologized enough for the
loutish behavior here. Perhaps if you got down on your
knees, cringed, and begged for an hour you might be
found worthy to take out the trash.

--
Michael Press

[Bob Schwartz]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> I really, really hope that this is not true - if it is, then there is no
>> hope for the human race.
>
> I thought rbr was mostly populated by SchwartzSoft bots.

The ones that clearly need to get out more aren't mine.

Bob Schwartz

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe8cm2$lfs$1@aioe.org...
> bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Women's professional soccer, on the other hand - like cycling - violated
> this Cardinal rule. They had women wearing the same thing as male
> players: baggy shorts, shin pads, baggy shirts. Perhaps this explains
> why the women's soccer league imploded and disappeared within a few
> years of the infamous Brandy "topless" Chastain goal.

I think women in spandex with all the bright colors look great. Silk and
Spandex seems more suited to women then men, (IMO). The tight fit designed
to allow the body to wick away moisture with Coolmax, also highlights their
features as women, which can be a plus or a minus in the sport, but usually
a plus. It cuts both ways. But what I think hurts women the most is the
helmet rule. While necessary of course, it hides their face, as does
sunglasses, and this in part strips their gender on the bike making them
more clone like. Sometimes you can't even tell the difference between men
and women riding together on bikes, not by the top half anyway. But none of
this bothers me, I much rather women be safe and wear helmets, but I usually
ask them to remove their helmet and glasses for a photo. That's a big part
of what reduces their sex appeal on and off the bike, especially in photos.

>
> The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women want to be viewed
> a-sexually and appraised solely based on athletic performance, they
> should race with the men.

Having men and women race together would seem more like a freak show to me,
and of course it's unfair based on the limitations of their sex. The only
sport offhand I can think of where men and women competing together seems
fair is the pairs competition in figure skating. That's because it based on
art and the combined performance, not individual merit. Here strength is the
man's play as he does the lifting and throwing, but speed and stamina are
pretty equal factors in the pairs competition.



Apples and Oranges, but it's true in society that women can be firefighters
if they can pull their weight. Same with Police, and just about any other
job. In Sports it's always been separate, but that's different. In the real
world, men and women work together in white collar jobs to meet the
corporate goal. In sports they are competing against each other specific to
their gender, which applies fairness across the board, and the best man or
woman wins, or their teams. But to throw them both together would produce a
disproportionate amount of men always winning at the top, the women would
become slaves to the men as pack fodder, domos who never get a chance to
shine. But it's far more complicated and unrealistic to throw men and women
into the mix together. You have seem how Tammy Thomas morphed into a male
clone, and I would hate to think women would become even more clone like and
lose their unique sexual appeal getting chewed up in the ranks of men.



Case in point.



I wouldn't want to see women have to compete in the TDF along side the men,
or see them do 21 stages like the men with the same amount of climbing.
That's what the founder of Women's Challenge wanted to do, was to make the
race much harder, add more stages and many thousands of feet of extra
climbing. UCI wouldn't sanction such a race, but for good reason. It simply
too brutal. Killing women is not what I personally want to see in a sport
like cycling. They simply are not cut out to go at it, as long and as hard
and fast as the men.



Nicole Brandli is one of most beautiful, classy women ever to grace a
bicycle. She road the 2003 Grande Boucle. It was the last time that any
stage race was so extremely hard and brutal, and it's not UCI sanctioned,
neither is Toona. There were four big climbs and 17 stages I believe, and
Nicole took second place on the final podium that year. Well, for me
personally, I don't like what I saw. She was inebriated, totally wiped out,
a shell, I couldn't even recognize her. What was a beautiful classy great
rider, one of the best, reduced to something very unbecoming, and not too
healthy I am sure. That's not what I want to see in cycling is women run
into the ground or stoop so low to use drugs like Tammy Thomas to win or
finish a long hard tour, or worse yet, use drugs or EPO to keep up with men
racing together.



For me personally, I think women's races should be hard, but not too hard.
I would rather see a winner on the podium who still looks like a women, and
not some clone or run down freak on steroids. Women should be able to win,
and still retain their sex appeal, which makes them different as a specialty
to the sport. It's ok for men to be run into the ground, it's not revolting,
or for them to have extras amounts of everything in their genes which make
them men, and that's not revolting usually, unless they turn into a gorilla
during the tour. But with women, it's not natural to morph, and even
naturally, women morph during a race and take on male traits, and
afterwards, they morph back into their feminin shell. That's why Leontien
wore nail polish and lipstick during races. She was very conscious that she
didn't want to seem manly when she morphed into this incredible machine
during competition.



I think a lot of women also are very conscious of their sexual appeal during
races, and would rather keep women's racing a specialty. Something where
they can perform and compete against each other, (but not against men) and
hold their sexual appeal while obtaining great physical athletic fitness and
achieving remarkable goals, the competition of the human spirit. But to put
women and men together would strip them of what makes them a unique
specialty in cycling, and of course totally unfair since men have
genetically superior attributes. Also women like to double as models off the
bike especially if they have star power like Rochelle Gilmore, and that does
help them in the real world. For many, it's about market value, not about
short term prize money. Winning the World Cup, major classics and stage
races increases their market value, and their sex appeal can really enhance
their potential to earn big money in the real world. The best examples are
Super Mario for the men, and Leontien for the women. They knew how to market
themselves to their full advantage while winning races. So the idea of women
racing with men is not only unfair, but counter productive to their goals in
the real world, which is usually the World Cup and the Olympic Games. There
is a huge incentive and market value to climb the steps of the UCI point
system.





>
> Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
> their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual disitinctions
> between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
> very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.

But irrelevant to goals women have in life. Most women use sports as a
platform to increase their market value, and racing together with men would
only decrease their market value. Look at all the strides women have made
since the 60's, ERA, women in every area, in the workplace, everywhere. Only
in America, they have better rights then anywhere in the world. Sports is
one of the few areas where women have not be able to dominate, because by
performance, they are genetically less endowed then men. So if women are to
get ahead in cycling per say, it won't be because of speed, strength or
stamina. It will as a specialty, sex appeal, and or course lots of good
press to attract new fans. It's only seems boring because there is no major
money being pumped into the women's side of the sport.



Like Nascar, if some major billionaire like Bill Gates starts pumping
billions of dollars into the sport with new tours, classics, and lot of PR
and sexy cool network commercials, it would sell, and probably sell pretty
well in time. It's a matter of perception too, not just speed, stamina and
endurance. If done right, women's cycling could be every bit as entertaining
and exciting as the mens, if it is produced correctly. It's all an art form
too from cameramen taking photos, gifted video cameramen in the field during
races like the Italians do, they are very good at it, and cool profiles,
interviews and such. With this new generation of what they call Crack TV, it
wouldn't be hard to attract new fans if they really crank it up. That's not
a problem, money is the problem, and lots of it.



Money and money alone is the single biggest factor in giving women's cycling
a huge shot in the arm. Women's cycling isn't taken seriously because it has
never had a chance to be taken seriously on the size and scale I just
mentioned, but if some rich guy like Gates stepped in and did exactly that,
in time it would be taken very seriously. It's also a matter of
conditioning. We have always been conditioned to enjoy men's sports, because
that is where all the money is, and that's what we are used to. True men are
stronger, faster, have more stamina, but those issues melt away in time, if
women can be accepted based on the genes they are given in life. Speed is
only relative, and not a sole factor by any stretch of the imagination when
I watch races. It's about tactics, team play and so many other things, but
my point is about conditioning is that it becomes the world in which you
become accustomed to and enjoy.



Just like the masses who enjoy men's sports, those inside women's cycling
become specialty fans and enjoy women's racing based on their limitations as
well as their advantages, in which of course sex appeal is a big plus for
women's cycling and having them mix it up with men would diminish that part
which nature gave them. But if you are used to watching women's races, it's
not boring, that's your world. It's all a matter of perception, interest, no
matter how big or small a sport might be, but cycling in general is still
pretty small overall compared to Baseball, Football or Basketball, but what
I do like about women's cycling is fairness.



Their is little incentive to cheat or use drugs, and the sport is relatively
clean compared to men's racing. Also the playing field is pretty fair across
the board because no one women has millions of dollars like Lance had to
have Nike, Trek, shave time off races with all their huge innovations, and
also no women has the millions to buy up the best mangers, build the best
team, and recruit the best labs, wind tunnels, etc, etc, ah nasium to
dominate the sport like Lance did. Once you strip away all those advantages,
then women are pretty much equally yoked across the board, and since drug
use is almost nil, it's honorable, admirable, and I admire that they race
for little pay and much hardships all season long. At least that's one of
the big reasons I enjoy it. If their side of the sport ever became
overwhelmed with drug use like the men, I would surely quit following it.


> And the reason why you don't talk about Lance's looks is because the men
> are the fastest and better players athletically in all pro sports. They
> do what they do based on merit. Women, on the other hand, by demanding
> a separate league with inferior athletic performance, have brought upon
> themselves the sexuality issue simply by way of participating in their
> own league that is based solely on their sex.

Well of course, men don't have to worry, since they are the biggest and
strongest. You can argue why women are in sports at all, instead of
homemakers, or relegated to just raise children. In many countries women's
cycling is non existent. But not to worry, I doubt women will ever be a
major threat to men in sports, but that's alright. I don't have a problem
with women being a specialty sport. I don't agree its based solely on their
sex, anymore you can argue men's side is based solely on their sex. It's a
bit more complicated then that, but men wouldn't want women racing with them
in the pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men. It's a
mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The point is
to allow women to race on a fair playing field, and by default, that would
be their own sex, but there is also a community or society within women's
ranks you would have to understand, a certain camradery which women have,
and it's a bit different social enviornment then men. Women have their own
gossip circles within the ranks, and their pals and the way they interact is
different from the men, mixing the two just wouldn't work. They are just too
different, it's more complicated then just playing the sexual card as the
sole basic about why women have their own leagues. Women have their needs as
well, and women wouldn't feel comfortable around too many men when nature
calls.



>
>
> Professor Magilla
>
> P.S. There really is no "men's league" per se in pro sports. Women are
> allowed to race bikes with men..women are allowed to try out for the NFL
> or NBA or MLB..they just choose not to (or cannot make the team on
> merit). Whereas the women's league actually exclude men.

They can and do, many women race with men in smaller races to gain an edge
competing with men to do better in their own women's races, it's nothing
new, I think Sarah Url does that, some do, but not of course in the pro
sanctioned races. But I also know pro women have told me they would rather
not do that, because they become targets getting bumped and chewed up by the
men. Pro women have raced with inexperienced pro men in cat 4 and 5, and
become the target of abuse by aggressive young men who want to show them up
and end up taking them down with their in-experience. That's the trade off,
sitting duck. Women racing with men today would be a disaster for women. I
will always like it separately as a specialty sport.



That's my two cents. Hold the flames, pass the salt.



GBMT

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> I thought rbr was mostly populated by SchwartzSoft bots.

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> The ones that clearly need to get out more aren't mine.

You mean the Kunich bot has a scintillating, if not titillating
social life.

[yeahyeah]

On Oct 7, 3:23 am, Marian <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:05 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > you are all so sexist do you know that? only time you talk about
> > womens cycling its how ugly they are (cold sores) or how hot they are,
> > well maybe it would be better if you talked about the racing!! no one
> > is ever like Lance is hot, or Lance should wear more makeup. Take a
> > look at yourselves.
>
> Yahbut ... Lance _isn't_ especially hot and some of the other TdF guys
> are downright yucky.
>
> And I've got a serious thing for men with muscular legs.
>
> -M

So does Lance.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2001/sep01/trackworlds/MGlance1.shtml

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:53:04 -0700, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com>
wrote:

>
>"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fe8cm2$lfs$1@aioe.org...
>> bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Women's professional soccer, on the other hand - like cycling - violated
>> this Cardinal rule. They had women wearing the same thing as male
>> players: baggy shorts, shin pads, baggy shirts. Perhaps this explains
>> why the women's soccer league imploded and disappeared within a few
>> years of the infamous Brandy "topless" Chastain goal.
>
>I think women in spandex with all the bright colors look great. Silk and
>Spandex seems more suited to women then men, (IMO). The tight fit designed
>to allow the body to wick away moisture with Coolmax, also highlights their
>features as women, which can be a plus or a minus in the sport, but usually
>a plus. It cuts both ways. But what I think hurts women the most is the
>helmet rule. While necessary of course, it hides their face, as does
>sunglasses, and this in part strips their gender on the bike making them
>more clone like. Sometimes you can't even tell the difference between men
>and women riding together on bikes, not by the top half anyway. But none of
>this bothers me, I much rather women be safe and wear helmets, but I usually
>ask them to remove their helmet and glasses for a photo. That's a big part
>of what reduces their sex appeal on and off the bike, especially in photos.
>
>>
>> The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women want to be viewed
>> a-sexually and appraised solely based on athletic performance, they
>> should race with the men.
>
>Having men and women race together would seem more like a freak show to me,
>and of course it's unfair based on the limitations of their sex. The only
>sport offhand I can think of where men and women competing together seems
>fair is the pairs competition in figure skating.

Target shooting. The only Olympic event where men and women compete directly
against one another.

Figure skating is what gave us the minimum age rule in the Olympics. For awhile
the winning formula was to get a guy who's as agile and large as you could find
(think hockey player) and pair him up with a petite but fearless 12 yo. made for
really spectacular moves and a lot of reconstructive surgery.

>Apples and Oranges, but it's true in society that women can be firefighters
>if they can pull their weight. Same with Police, and just about any other
>job.

With the exception of infantry, those are about the two worst possible examples
I've seen in real life of jobs to which women are basically unsuited. Sorry,
this isn't about "fairness" it is about an ability to work as an interchangeable
element of a team.

>In Sports it's always been separate, but that's different. In the real
>world, men and women work together in white collar jobs to meet the
>corporate goal. In sports they are competing against each other specific to
>their gender, which applies fairness across the board, and the best man or
>woman wins, or their teams.

That is a different matter entirely.

> But to throw them both together would produce a
>disproportionate amount of men always winning at the top, the women would
>become slaves to the men as pack fodder, domos who never get a chance to
>shine. But it's far more complicated and unrealistic to throw men and women
>into the mix together. You have seem how Tammy Thomas morphed into a male
>clone, and I would hate to think women would become even more clone like and
>lose their unique sexual appeal getting chewed up in the ranks of men.
>
>
>
>Case in point.
>
>
>
>I wouldn't want to see women have to compete in the TDF along side the men,
>or see them do 21 stages like the men with the same amount of climbing.
>That's what the founder of Women's Challenge wanted to do, was to make the
>race much harder, add more stages and many thousands of feet of extra
>climbing. UCI wouldn't sanction such a race, but for good reason. It simply
>too brutal. Killing women is not what I personally want to see in a sport
>like cycling. They simply are not cut out to go at it, as long and as hard
>and fast as the men.

Applies even more so to jobs where people die because of failures, like fire
fighting or police work. If one cop is capable of physically subduing an unarmed
subject and another cop has only the options of shooting him or letting him
rampage, I consider the latter to be unqualified.

Otherwise I pretty well agree with a lot of your comments. There are some
women's sports that I really do not want to watch. The spectacle of someone
grinding herself into physical ruin is not appealling. Seeing beautiful young
women injure themselves really doesn't have much appeal to healthy men.

Sure, they have a _right_ to damage themselves in most any way they like,
doesn't mean anybody wants to watch.

> Nicole Brandli is one of most beautiful, classy women ever to grace a
>bicycle. She road the 2003 Grande Boucle. It was the last time that any
>stage race was so extremely hard and brutal, and it's not UCI sanctioned,
>neither is Toona. There were four big climbs and 17 stages I believe, and
>Nicole took second place on the final podium that year. Well, for me
>personally, I don't like what I saw. She was inebriated, totally wiped out,
>a shell, I couldn't even recognize her. What was a beautiful classy great
>rider, one of the best, reduced to something very unbecoming, and not too
>healthy I am sure. That's not what I want to see in cycling is women run
>into the ground or stoop so low to use drugs like Tammy Thomas to win or
>finish a long hard tour, or worse yet, use drugs or EPO to keep up with men
>racing together.
>
>
>
> For me personally, I think women's races should be hard, but not too hard.
>I would rather see a winner on the podium who still looks like a women, and
>not some clone or run down freak on steroids. Women should be able to win,
>and still retain their sex appeal, which makes them different as a specialty
>to the sport. It's ok for men to be run into the ground, it's not revolting,
>or for them to have extras amounts of everything in their genes which make
>them men, and that's not revolting usually, unless they turn into a gorilla
>during the tour. But with women, it's not natural to morph, and even
>naturally, women morph during a race and take on male traits, and
>afterwards, they morph back into their feminin shell. That's why Leontien
>wore nail polish and lipstick during races. She was very conscious that she
>didn't want to seem manly when she morphed into this incredible machine
>during competition.
>
>
>
>I think a lot of women also are very conscious of their sexual appeal during
>races, and would rather keep women's racing a specialty. Something where
>they can perform and compete against each other, (but not against men) and
>hold their sexual appeal while obtaining great physical athletic fitness and
>achieving remarkable goals, the competition of the human spirit. But to put
>women and men together would strip them of what makes them a unique
>specialty in cycling, and of course totally unfair since men have
>genetically superior attributes. Also women like to double as models off the
>bike especially if they have star power like Rochelle Gilmore, and that does
>help them in the real world. For many, it's about market value, not about
>short term prize money. Winning the World Cup, major classics and stage
>races increases their market value, and their sex appeal can really enhance
>their potential to earn big money in the real world. The best examples are
>Super Mario for the men, and Leontien for the women. They knew how to market
>themselves to their full advantage while winning races. So the idea of women
>racing with men is not only unfair, but counter productive to their goals in
>the real world, which is usually the World Cup and the Olympic Games. There
>is a huge incentive and market value to climb the steps of the UCI point
>system.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
>> their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual disitinctions
>> between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
>> very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.
>
>But irrelevant to goals women have in life. Most women use sports as a
>platform to increase their market value, and racing together with men would
>only decrease their market value. Look at all the strides women have made
>since the 60's, ERA, women in every area, in the workplace, everywhere. Only
>in America, they have better rights then anywhere in the world. Sports is
>one of the few areas where women have not be able to dominate, because by
>performance, they are genetically less endowed then men. So if women are to
>get ahead in cycling per say, it won't be because of speed, strength or
>stamina. It will as a specialty, sex appeal, and or course lots of good
>press to attract new fans. It's only seems boring because there is no major
>money being pumped into the women's side of the sport.
>
>
>
>Like Nascar, if some major billionaire like Bill Gates starts pumping
>billions of dollars into the sport with new tours, classics, and lot of PR
>and sexy cool network commercials, it would sell, and probably sell pretty
>well in time. It's a matter of perception too, not just speed, stamina and
>endurance. If done right, women's cycling could be every bit as entertaining
> and exciting as the mens, if it is produced correctly. It's all an art form
>too from cameramen taking photos, gifted video cameramen in the field during
>races like the Italians do, they are very good at it, and cool profiles,
>interviews and such. With this new generation of what they call Crack TV, it
>wouldn't be hard to attract new fans if they really crank it up. That's not
>a problem, money is the problem, and lots of it.
>
>
>
>Money and money alone is the single biggest factor in giving women's cycling
>a huge shot in the arm. Women's cycling isn't taken seriously because it has
>never had a chance to be taken seriously on the size and scale I just
>mentioned, but if some rich guy like Gates stepped in and did exactly that,
>in time it would be taken very seriously. It's also a matter of
>conditioning. We have always been conditioned to enjoy men's sports, because
>that is where all the money is, and that's what we are used to. True men are
>stronger, faster, have more stamina, but those issues melt away in time, if
>women can be accepted based on the genes they are given in life. Speed is
>only relative, and not a sole factor by any stretch of the imagination when
>I watch races. It's about tactics, team play and so many other things, but
>my point is about conditioning is that it becomes the world in which you
>become accustomed to and enjoy.
>
>
>
>Just like the masses who enjoy men's sports, those inside women's cycling
>become specialty fans and enjoy women's racing based on their limitations as
>well as their advantages, in which of course sex appeal is a big plus for
>women's cycling and having them mix it up with men would diminish that part
>which nature gave them. But if you are used to watching women's races, it's
>not boring, that's your world. It's all a matter of perception, interest, no
>matter how big or small a sport might be, but cycling in general is still
>pretty small overall compared to Baseball, Football or Basketball, but what
>I do like about women's cycling is fairness.
>
>
>
>Their is little incentive to cheat or use drugs, and the sport is relatively
>clean compared to men's racing. Also the playing field is pretty fair across
>the board because no one women has millions of dollars like Lance had to
>have Nike, Trek, shave time off races with all their huge innovations, and
>also no women has the millions to buy up the best mangers, build the best
>team, and recruit the best labs, wind tunnels, etc, etc, ah nasium to
>dominate the sport like Lance did. Once you strip away all those advantages,
>then women are pretty much equally yoked across the board, and since drug
>use is almost nil, it's honorable, admirable, and I admire that they race
>for little pay and much hardships all season long. At least that's one of
>the big reasons I enjoy it. If their side of the sport ever became
>overwhelmed with drug use like the men, I would surely quit following it.
>
>
>> And the reason why you don't talk about Lance's looks is because the men
>> are the fastest and better players athletically in all pro sports. They
>> do what they do based on merit. Women, on the other hand, by demanding
>> a separate league with inferior athletic performance, have brought upon
>> themselves the sexuality issue simply by way of participating in their
>> own league that is based solely on their sex.
>
>Well of course, men don't have to worry, since they are the biggest and
>strongest. You can argue why women are in sports at all, instead of
>homemakers, or relegated to just raise children. In many countries women's
>cycling is non existent. But not to worry, I doubt women will ever be a
>major threat to men in sports, but that's alright. I don't have a problem
>with women being a specialty sport. I don't agree its based solely on their
>sex, anymore you can argue men's side is based solely on their sex. It's a
>bit more complicated then that, but men wouldn't want women racing with them
>in the pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men. It's a
>mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The point is
>to allow women to race on a fair playing field, and by default, that would
>be their own sex, but there is also a community or society within women's
>ranks you would have to understand, a certain camradery which women have,
>and it's a bit different social enviornment then men. Women have their own
>gossip circles within the ranks, and their pals and the way they interact is
>different from the men, mixing the two just wouldn't work. They are just too
>different, it's more complicated then just playing the sexual card as the
>sole basic about why women have their own leagues. Women have their needs as
>well, and women wouldn't feel comfortable around too many men when nature
>calls.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Professor Magilla
>>
>> P.S. There really is no "men's league" per se in pro sports. Women are
>> allowed to race bikes with men..women are allowed to try out for the NFL
>> or NBA or MLB..they just choose not to (or cannot make the team on
>> merit). Whereas the women's league actually exclude men.
>
>They can and do, many women race with men in smaller races to gain an edge
>competing with men to do better in their own women's races, it's nothing
>new, I think Sarah Url does that, some do, but not of course in the pro
>sanctioned races. But I also know pro women have told me they would rather
>not do that, because they become targets getting bumped and chewed up by the
>men. Pro women have raced with inexperienced pro men in cat 4 and 5, and
>become the target of abuse by aggressive young men who want to show them up
>and end up taking them down with their in-experience. That's the trade off,
>sitting duck. Women racing with men today would be a disaster for women. I
>will always like it separately as a specialty sport.
>
>
>
>That's my two cents. Hold the flames, pass the salt.
>
>
>
>GBMT
>

[Michael Press]

In article <GfadnWw-cNEcyJfanZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@sti.net>,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com> wrote:

> It's a
> bit more complicated then that, but men wouldn't want women racing with them
> in the pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men. It's a
> mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The point is
^^^^

That is `moot' point.

--
Michael Press

You can look it up.
-- Casey Stengel

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> Target shooting. The only Olympic event where men and women compete directly
> against one another.

Horseback riding, all events.


--
E. Dronkert

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Oct 9, 6:11 am, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:53:04 -0700, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"MagillaGorilla" <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:fe8cm2$lfs$1@aioe.org...
> >> bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please acknowledge the ">..." attribs.

> >>The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women
> >>want to be viewed a-sexually and appraised solely
> >>based on athletic performance, they should race with
> >>the men.

Pretty much. Or just say an "open league," which will undoubtably
include men.

> >Having men and women race together ... [would be]
> >unfair based on the limitations of their sex.

It isn't unfair, because nature has no notion of fairness.

> >I wouldn't want to see women have to compete in the TDF along side the men,
> >or see them do 21 stages like the men with the same amount of climbing.

There is nothing stopping a woman from getting a contract and riding a
race including men other than _____. I think the biggest rbr dopes
can fill in the blank. Oh wait, maybe not.

> >That's what the founder of Women's Challenge wanted to do, was to make the
> >race much harder, add more stages and many thousands of feet of extra
> >climbing. UCI wouldn't sanction such a race, but for good reason. It simply
> >too brutal. Killing women is not what I personally want to see in a sport
> >like cycling. They simply are not cut out to go at it, as long and as hard
> >and fast as the men.

I have read many accounts of the Donner Party debacle. The women
survived better than the men. I don't accept the idea that women are
*generally* fragile by nature. All anyone has to do to make a sport
"less brutal" is to go slower. It isn't going to "kill" *anyone*
unless they have some basic medical problem or are doped to the gills
in a risky manner. Nature will step in and enforce a slower pace for
anyone who can't keep up. Um, that is exactly what happens in races.
Someone wins because nature provides limits, aside from the tactical
unfolding of any particular event.

"A race is only as hard as the racers make it." -- BF, 1759

> The spectacle of someone grinding herself into physical ruin is not
> appealling. Seeing beautiful young women injure themselves really doesn't
> have much appeal to healthy men.

It is probably nonsense at the start to say they are "grinding
themselves to ruin."

> >That's not what I want to see in cycling is women run into the ground...

Your only legitimate power there is to not watch (when it comes to
other's actions of participating).

> >For me personally, I think women's races should be hard, but not too hard.

This is so subjective as to be useless, if you are trying to
communicate anything meaningful to someone else.

> >I would rather see a winner on the podium who still looks like a women,...

I would rather not watch dog fighting. So I don't. You can say what
you want. No one is obligated to supply it, nor is there any sensible
rule of fairness that can guarantee you get it.

> >But with women, it's not natural to morph, and even
> >naturally, women morph during a race and take on male traits, and
> >afterwards, they morph back into their feminin shell.

If their bodies can do it, and there is perceived value from the
individual's perspective to go ahead and "make a change," then there
is nothing "unnatural" about. They owe you nothing. You are free to
state what you like.

> >I think a lot of women also are very conscious of their sexual appeal during
> >races,...

I think a lot of men and women are very conscious of their sexual
appeal during almost any imaginable activity.

> >But to put women and men together would strip them of
> >what makes them a unique specialty in cycling, and of
> >course totally unfair since men have genetically superior
> >attributes.

Women (and men) are not owed anything. No one is entitled to a
division of their own. Anyone is free to create a rivalrous and
exclusionary league, and test it on its own merits in a free market.
Anyone is free to ask for what they would like to see in a league.

To state that facts of nature are "unfair" is a proposition that has
no foundation beneath it. Nature has no code of fairness. "Fair" has
typically come to mean: gimme what ya got cuz I doh-wanna pay for it.

Do you tell your lady-friends that you are genetically superior? I
don't. I just take off my shirt. And then...

> >> Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
> >> their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual disitinctions
> >> between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
> >> very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.

That is really the point. Lynda is incoherent. There is an
exclusionary league formed, which admits women and excludes men. That
is sexist by definition. Then Lynda says: "we're sexist, but don't
*you* acknowledge our sex." If anything is "unfair," then there you
have it.

> >But irrelevant to goals women have in life.

I don't care what their goals are. I freely leave it up to them, who
are also free. I don't owe them their fancies. Neither does anyone
else.

> >Only in America, they have better rights
> >than anywhere in the world.

Nonsense. What most people call "rights" these days aren't rights at
all, but powers. Specifically, legislation to _force_ one person to
do something against their will, that benefits someone else. That
"someone else" is the one with the "rights" (powers, in fact), where
the person forced to do something against their will somehow lost
their _actual_ rights.

> >Sports is
> >one of the few areas where women have not be able to dominate, because by
> >performance, they are genetically less endowed then men. So if women are to
> >get ahead in cycling per say, it won't be because of speed, strength or
> >stamina. It will as a specialty, sex appeal, and or course lots of good
> >press to attract new fans. It's only seems boring because there is no major
> >money being pumped into the women's side of the sport.

They aren't owed anything. They aren't owed "getting ahead" or even
some crackpot notion of "fair parity."

If someone can create an exclusionary league that has sufficient
demand on the marketplace to make it worth doing for the suppliers,
then who can argue against that? Let it live or die on its own
merits, as those merits are perceived by the consumers.

> >If done right, women's cycling could be every bit as entertaining
> >and exciting as the mens, if it is produced correctly.

That seems to be the endless claim about products, entertainments, &
sports X, Y, & Z, ad infinitum. If someone can't figure it out how to
do that though, awwww tooooo baadddd!

> >You can argue why women are in sports at all, instead of
> >homemakers, or relegated to just raise children.

I could not make such an argument, because I have no idea what
"women," or a woman, should be doing with her time. I actually have
trouble figuring out what I should be doing, so I hardly have time to
worry about others. Exhibit A: posting to RBR.

> >I don't have a problem
> >with women being a specialty sport.

Nor do I. There is no entitlement.

> >I don't agree its based solely on their
> >sex, anymore you can argue men's side is based solely on their sex.

Imagine that: a women's only league is not based on the sex of the
league members. Good grief. It isn't something that can be argued
because it is definitional.

There is no exclusionary "men's league" in actual fact. But if there
were, then it would be based on sex (sexist), by definition.

> >... but men wouldn't want women racing with them in the
> >pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men.

Were I work, I don't do what I want. I do what the clients want --
what they give me money for.

> >It's a
> >mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The point is
> >to allow women to race on a fair playing field, and by default, that would
> >be their own sex, but there is also a community or society within women's
> >ranks you would have to understand, a certain camradery which women have,
> >and it's a bit different social enviornment then men. Women have their own
> >gossip circles within the ranks, and their pals and the way they interact is
> >different from the men, mixing the two just wouldn't work. They are just too
> >different, it's more complicated then just playing the sexual card as the
> >sole basic about why women have their own leagues. Women have their needs as
> >well, and women wouldn't feel comfortable around too many men when nature
> >calls.

What a bunch of drivel.

[Donald Munro]

Hobbes wrote:
>>. I don't have a problem with women being a specialty sport.

An expensive specialty sport.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 9, 9:26 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
wrote:
> Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> > Target shooting. The only Olympic event where men and women compete directly
> > against one another.
>
> Horseback riding, all events.

Well, the horse can be a boy:

http://tinyurl.com/2pb3vp

--D-y

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
news:1191954094.687805.253210@v3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 9, 6:11 am, Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:53:04 -0700, "GoneBeforeMyTime"
<F...@EuroForums.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >"MagillaGorilla" <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fe8cm2$lfs$1@aioe.org...
> > >> bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Please acknowledge the ">..." attribs.
>
> > >>The bottom line here, Belynda Carlisle, is if women
> > >>want to be viewed a-sexually and appraised solely
> > >>based on athletic performance, they should race with
> > >>the men.
>
> Pretty much. Or just say an "open league," which will undoubtably
> include men.
>
> > >Having men and women race together ... [would be]
> > >unfair based on the limitations of their sex.
>
> It isn't unfair, because nature has no notion of fairness.
>
> > >I wouldn't want to see women have to compete in the TDF along side the
men,
> > >or see them do 21 stages like the men with the same amount of climbing.
>
> There is nothing stopping a woman from getting a contract and riding a
> race including men other than _____. I think the biggest rbr dopes
> can fill in the blank. Oh wait, maybe not.
>
> > >That's what the founder of Women's Challenge wanted to do, was to make
the
> > >race much harder, add more stages and many thousands of feet of extra
> > >climbing. UCI wouldn't sanction such a race, but for good reason. It
simply
> > >too brutal. Killing women is not what I personally want to see in a
sport
> > >like cycling. They simply are not cut out to go at it, as long and as
hard
> > >and fast as the men.
>
> I have read many accounts of the Donner Party debacle. The women
> survived better than the men. I don't accept the idea that women are
> *generally* fragile by nature. All anyone has to do to make a sport
> "less brutal" is to go slower. It isn't going to "kill" *anyone*
> unless they have some basic medical problem or are doped to the gills
> in a risky manner. Nature will step in and enforce a slower pace for
> anyone who can't keep up. Um, that is exactly what happens in races.
> Someone wins because nature provides limits, aside from the tactical
> unfolding of any particular event.
>
> "A race is only as hard as the racers make it." -- BF, 1759
>
> > The spectacle of someone grinding herself into physical ruin is not
> > appealling. Seeing beautiful young women injure themselves really
doesn't
> > have much appeal to healthy men.
>
> It is probably nonsense at the start to say they are "grinding
> themselves to ruin."
>
> > >That's not what I want to see in cycling is women run into the
ground...
>
> Your only legitimate power there is to not watch (when it comes to
> other's actions of participating).
>
> > >For me personally, I think women's races should be hard, but not too
hard.
>
> This is so subjective as to be useless, if you are trying to
> communicate anything meaningful to someone else.
>
> > >I would rather see a winner on the podium who still looks like a
women,...
>
> I would rather not watch dog fighting. So I don't. You can say what
> you want. No one is obligated to supply it, nor is there any sensible
> rule of fairness that can guarantee you get it.
>
> > >But with women, it's not natural to morph, and even
> > >naturally, women morph during a race and take on male traits, and
> > >afterwards, they morph back into their feminin shell.
>
> If their bodies can do it, and there is perceived value from the
> individual's perspective to go ahead and "make a change," then there
> is nothing "unnatural" about. They owe you nothing. You are free to
> state what you like.
>
> > >I think a lot of women also are very conscious of their sexual appeal
during
> > >races,...
>
> I think a lot of men and women are very conscious of their sexual
> appeal during almost any imaginable activity.
>
> > >But to put women and men together would strip them of
> > >what makes them a unique specialty in cycling, and of
> > >course totally unfair since men have genetically superior
> > >attributes.
>
> Women (and men) are not owed anything. No one is entitled to a
> division of their own. Anyone is free to create a rivalrous and
> exclusionary league, and test it on its own merits in a free market.
> Anyone is free to ask for what they would like to see in a league.
>
> To state that facts of nature are "unfair" is a proposition that has
> no foundation beneath it. Nature has no code of fairness. "Fair" has
> typically come to mean: gimme what ya got cuz I doh-wanna pay for it.
>
> Do you tell your lady-friends that you are genetically superior? I
> don't. I just take off my shirt. And then...
>
> > >> Otherwise, by racing in their own separate category (based solely on
> > >> their sex, mind you) you are really nurturing the sexual
disitinctions
> > >> between men and women and then asking us XY chromosomes to ignore the
> > >> very same distinction you are creating by way of a separate league.
>
> That is really the point. Lynda is incoherent. There is an
> exclusionary league formed, which admits women and excludes men. That
> is sexist by definition. Then Lynda says: "we're sexist, but don't
> *you* acknowledge our sex." If anything is "unfair," then there you
> have it.
>
> > >But irrelevant to goals women have in life.
>
> I don't care what their goals are. I freely leave it up to them, who
> are also free. I don't owe them their fancies. Neither does anyone
> else.
>
> > >Only in America, they have better rights
> > >than anywhere in the world.
>
> Nonsense. What most people call "rights" these days aren't rights at
> all, but powers. Specifically, legislation to _force_ one person to
> do something against their will, that benefits someone else. That
> "someone else" is the one with the "rights" (powers, in fact), where
> the person forced to do something against their will somehow lost
> their _actual_ rights.
>
> > >Sports is
> > >one of the few areas where women have not be able to dominate, because
by
> > >performance, they are genetically less endowed then men. So if women
are to
> > >get ahead in cycling per say, it won't be because of speed, strength or
> > >stamina. It will as a specialty, sex appeal, and or course lots of good
> > >press to attract new fans. It's only seems boring because there is no
major
> > >money being pumped into the women's side of the sport.
>
> They aren't owed anything. They aren't owed "getting ahead" or even
> some crackpot notion of "fair parity."
>
> If someone can create an exclusionary league that has sufficient
> demand on the marketplace to make it worth doing for the suppliers,
> then who can argue against that? Let it live or die on its own
> merits, as those merits are perceived by the consumers.
>
> > >If done right, women's cycling could be every bit as entertaining
> > >and exciting as the mens, if it is produced correctly.
>
> That seems to be the endless claim about products, entertainments, &
> sports X, Y, & Z, ad infinitum. If someone can't figure it out how to
> do that though, awwww tooooo baadddd!
>
> > >You can argue why women are in sports at all, instead of
> > >homemakers, or relegated to just raise children.
>
> I could not make such an argument, because I have no idea what
> "women," or a woman, should be doing with her time. I actually have
> trouble figuring out what I should be doing, so I hardly have time to
> worry about others. Exhibit A: posting to RBR.
>
> > >I don't have a problem
> > >with women being a specialty sport.
>
> Nor do I. There is no entitlement.
>
> > >I don't agree its based solely on their
> > >sex, anymore you can argue men's side is based solely on their sex.
>
> Imagine that: a women's only league is not based on the sex of the
> league members. Good grief. It isn't something that can be argued
> because it is definitional.
>
> There is no exclusionary "men's league" in actual fact. But if there
> were, then it would be based on sex (sexist), by definition.
>
> > >... but men wouldn't want women racing with them in the
> > >pro tours, neither would the women want to race with the men.
>
> Were I work, I don't do what I want. I do what the clients want --
> what they give me money for.
>
> > >It's a
> > >mute point, no need, we already know men are faster, stronger. The
point is
> > >to allow women to race on a fair playing field, and by default, that
would
> > >be their own sex, but there is also a community or society within
women's
> > >ranks you would have to understand, a certain camradery which women
have,
> > >and it's a bit different social enviornment then men. Women have their
own
> > >gossip circles within the ranks, and their pals and the way they
interact is
> > >different from the men, mixing the two just wouldn't work. They are
just too
> > >different, it's more complicated then just playing the sexual card as
the
> > >sole basic about why women have their own leagues. Women have their
needs as
> > >well, and women wouldn't feel comfortable around too many men when
nature
> > >calls.
>
> What a bunch of drivel.

Including your, since you feel the need to muck rake over at least three
different people in your hacket job, those are not all my statements dippy.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <1191963050.552049.301380@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 9:26 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> > > Target shooting. The only Olympic event where men and women compete
> > > directly
> > > against one another.
> >
> > Horseback riding, all events.
>
> Well, the horse can be a boy:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pb3vp
>
> --D-y

Wow. For once even I knew better than to follow a link.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Oct 9, 2:30 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:

> > What a bunch of drivel.
>
> Including your, since you feel the need to muck rake over at least three
> different people in your hacket job, those are not all my statements dippy.

LOL. "Please acknowledge the ">..." attribs."

Once I'm done with the hacket job, I'll get to stocking.

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Oct 9, 4:49 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2:30 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>
> > > What a bunch of drivel.
>
> > Including your, since you feel the need to muck rake over at least three
> > different people in your hacket job, those are not all my statements dippy.
>
> LOL. "Please acknowledge the ">..." attribs."
>
> Once I'm done with the hacket job, I'll get to stocking.



Dirtbag -


Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
every year.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On Oct 10, 1:02 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> In article <1191963050.552049.301...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
>
> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:

> > Well, the horse can be a boy:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2pb3vp
>
> > --D-y

(RC replied):
> Wow. For once even I knew better than to follow a link.

Horse BACK riding. E-Q-U-E-S-T-R-I-A-N. Not Exxxquestrian, "Bad Girls
on the Farm" or any of that stuff. Jeeze.

The link is to a YouTube clip of Laura Chapot winning a jumpoff on
Little Big Man. Frankly, it's inspiring. Little Big Man is said to be
only 15.2 hands, and ridden by Ms. Chapot with an English Hackamore
bridle (no bit).

Did the link to the Red Penises picture get me in trouble here? --D-y

[Donald Munro]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
> every year.

Dumbass,
Its about time you stocked heather again. We need her back, if only
for the porn links.

[Michael Press]

In article
<1191996748.173986.144660@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 4:49 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 2:30 pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" <F...@EuroForums.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > What a bunch of drivel.
> >
> > > Including your, since you feel the need to muck rake over at least three
> > > different people in your hacket job, those are not all my statements dippy.
> >
> > LOL. "Please acknowledge the ">..." attribs."
> >
> > Once I'm done with the hacket job, I'll get to stocking.
>
>
>
> Dirtbag -
>
>
> Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
> every year.

Why, when I were a boy we got a lump of coal,
and were glad to have it. With that lump of
coal and two frozen rocks I could make a fire
and melt enough ice off my blanket to have
a drink of water.

--
Michael Press

[h squared]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>>Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
>>every year.
>
>
> Dumbass,
> Its about time you stocked heather again. We need her back, if only
> for the porn links.

ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)

unfortunately, while enjoyable, being the chief assistant rbr
pornographer doesn't pay enough- lots of perks, but no actual $$$, and
i've had to go back to school to learn accounting/bookeeping (community
colleges don't offer degrees in stocking, sniff). so now i only have
time to read rbr during the quarter breaks, and by the time i'm feeling
like i'm catching up a little (goddamn you people talk a lot :) another
class begins and i get behind again...on the other hand, the height of
humor for me now is sitting around the house making jokes about "crebit,
the accounting frog" so maybe it's a good thing that i'm not posting.
(although it's a little scary to theorize that donald hasn't clicked on
a single porno link since the last time i posted one.)

heather

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <ne2dnVxf3Zh32JDanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >
> >>Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
> >>every year.
> >
> >
> > Dumbass,
> > Its about time you stocked heather again. We need her back, if only
> > for the porn links.
>
> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
>
> unfortunately, while enjoyable, being the chief assistant rbr
> pornographer doesn't pay enough- lots of perks, but no actual $$$, and
> i've had to go back to school to learn accounting/bookeeping (community
> colleges don't offer degrees in stocking, sniff). so now i only have
> time to read rbr during the quarter breaks, and by the time i'm feeling
> like i'm catching up a little (goddamn you people talk a lot :) another
> class begins and i get behind again...on the other hand, the height of
> humor for me now is sitting around the house making jokes about "crebit,
> the accounting frog" so maybe it's a good thing that i'm not posting.
> (although it's a little scary to theorize that donald hasn't clicked on
> a single porno link since the last time i posted one.)
>
> heather

He's saving himself for you. So is the device that notifies you that
we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?

Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Donald Munro]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>Please don't leave a lump of coal in my stalking. It ruins Christmas
>>>every year.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Its about time you stocked heather again. We need her back, if only
>> for the porn links.

h squared wrote:
> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
>
> unfortunately, while enjoyable, being the chief assistant rbr
> pornographer doesn't pay enough- lots of perks, but no actual $$$, and
> i've had to go back to school to learn accounting/bookeeping (community
> colleges don't offer degrees in stocking, sniff).

Presumably with an accounting degree you'll be able to make some
of those bare breast coffee shops with well endowed doughnut vendors
into the next Starbucks. And then you'll forget all about us on rbr,
I mean bill gates would never publish porn links on a newsgroup would
he ?

[Donald Munro]

h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:
>> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> He's saving himself for you.

She's the reason Schwartz says I don't get out enough.

> So is the device that notifies you that
> we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?

LANCE had one of those.

> Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2162550/alcohol-problems-accountants-demanding-environment

Note to the chief assistant rbr pornographer: Ryan prefers LIVEDRUNK
related material in his porn links like hot Russian chicks holding
vodka bottles.

[h squared]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> He's saving himself for you. So is the device that notifies you that
> we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?

gah! :)

> Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,

no, nothing that specific, at least so far, although i managed to
interrupt the last class lecture by *smiling* too much. i guess
accountants don't know what to make of happy smiling people? if i ever
go so far as to giggle, my ass will probably be out the door, so no
alcohol for heather!
sober h

[Michael Press]

In article
<470dd422$0$2951$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:
> >> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > He's saving himself for you.
>
> She's the reason Schwartz says I don't get out enough.
>
> > So is the device that notifies you that
> > we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?
>
> LANCE had one of those.
>
> > Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,
> http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2162550/alcohol-problems-accountants-demanding-environment
>
> Note to the chief assistant rbr pornographer: Ryan prefers LIVEDRUNK
> related material in his porn links like hot Russian chicks holding
> vodka bottles.

t is common for partners to have three or four business lunches a week,
all of which are likely to include at least one or two glasses of wine.

Please, stop the insanity.

--
Slab Bulkhead

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <470dd422$0$2951$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:
> >> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > He's saving himself for you.
>
> She's the reason Schwartz says I don't get out enough.
>
> > So is the device that notifies you that
> > we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?
>
> LANCE had one of those.
>
> > Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,
> http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2162550/alcohol-problems
> -accountants-demanding-environment
>
> Note to the chief assistant rbr pornographer: Ryan prefers LIVEDRUNK
> related material in his porn links like hot Russian chicks holding
> vodka bottles.

Booze will get you through times of no women better than women will get
you through times of no booze.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Stu Fleming]

Michael Press wrote:

> I do not think that you have apologized enough for the
> loutish behavior here. Perhaps if you got down on your
> knees, cringed, and begged for an hour you might be
> found worthy to take out the trash.
>

It's a woman's job to get down on her knees.
(*winks* at h)

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <rubrum-6BB28C.11105311102007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article
> <470dd422$0$2951$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:
> > >> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
> >
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > He's saving himself for you.
> >
> > She's the reason Schwartz says I don't get out enough.
> >
> > > So is the device that notifies you that
> > > we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?
> >
> > LANCE had one of those.
> >
> > > Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,
> > http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2162550/alcohol-proble
> > ms-accountants-demanding-environment
> >
> > Note to the chief assistant rbr pornographer: Ryan prefers LIVEDRUNK
> > related material in his porn links like hot Russian chicks holding
> > vodka bottles.
>
> t is common for partners to have three or four business lunches a week,
> all of which are likely to include at least one or two glasses of wine.
>
> Please, stop the insanity.

"Stop"? "Insanity"??

Not sure I follow you,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

[Michael Press]

In article
<rcousine-170865.19280011102007@news.telus.net>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:

> In article <rubrum-6BB28C.11105311102007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <470dd422$0$2951$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > h squared <clevis@c.o.m.c.a.s.t.n.e.t> wrote:
> > > >> ahem. (a little birdie told me about this post..)
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > He's saving himself for you.
> > >
> > > She's the reason Schwartz says I don't get out enough.
> > >
> > > > So is the device that notifies you that
> > > > we're saying your name in vain a stalk ticker?
> > >
> > > LANCE had one of those.
> > >
> > > > Hope there's no alcotest for accounting exams,
> > > http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2162550/alcohol-proble
> > > ms-accountants-demanding-environment
> > >
> > > Note to the chief assistant rbr pornographer: Ryan prefers LIVEDRUNK
> > > related material in his porn links like hot Russian chicks holding
> > > vodka bottles.
> >
> > t is common for partners to have three or four business lunches a week,
> > all of which are likely to include at least one or two glasses of wine.
> >
> > Please, stop the insanity.
>
> "Stop"? "Insanity"??
>
> Not sure I follow you,

The article wringing its hands over heavy drinking by office
workers offers the above statistic. A couple glasses of wine
at lunch three or four times a week? That is not heavy drinking.

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Booze will get you through times of no women better than women will get
> you through times of no booze.

You could be right:
http://www.impotence-guide.com/alcohol-impotence.html

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
> The article wringing its hands over heavy drinking by office
> workers offers the above statistic. A couple glasses of wine
> at lunch three or four times a week? That is not heavy drinking.

You forgot your signature:
Chief LIVEDRUNK Qualification Officer

(The above officer is probably open to bribes involving the best
Belgian beer in exchange for a LIVEDRUNK bracelet).