One more on-point question: What are the historical relationships between 6F fractions and 7F final times at Laurel? I know the answer for CA races, but not Maryland races--though I can certainly find out.

JB,

 My Cousin Matt: 22.50, 46.34, 1:09.79, 1:22.12. Xtra Heat: 22.97, 45.57, 1:10.61, 1:24.76.

First, take a look at the final 1/8 My Cousin Matt ran into this wind.

Second, look at the differences in the times for the second quarter.

Matt was four fifths faster than X Heat at 6F and 13 fifths faster at the wire. Same distance, same wind. Did you look at the 6F fractions when you made the figures for these two races? Do you honestly believe that this track slowed down by seven points in half an hour? Or do you think X Heat ran a solid six furlongs and got tired?

JB: If you use X Heat\'s 6F fraction as her final time, and use the same variant, what figure does she get?

If you use her 6F fraction as her final time, and use the same variant you used for the race before (meaning the My Cousin Matt race), what figure does she get?

My Cousin Matt: 1:09.79, 1:22.12.    
     Xtra Heat: 1:10.61, 1:24.76.

What follows is from a Beyer speed chart. It\'s NOT the best way to do this, but I have no other way for Laurel, a track about which I know very little:

X Heat\'s 6F fraction, if considered a final time, gets a Beyer of 98. Her 7F final time gets a Beyer of 81.

Relationships between 6F FRACTIONS and 7F final times vary from track to track, but not by all that much, and not necessarily in this direction.

If Xtra Heat\'s 6F fraction is converted to 7F, it becomes 123.40

JB: If you make a quit number at your variant, it is off the chart. The losers are also insanely fast.

JB,

At least have the decency to announce that you deleted my reply. \"Kraven\" indeed.

JB wrote:

\"No idea what you are talking about, don\'t care, but will address it if you make it clear and if it is relevant,\"

Sure. You wrote: \"The Two Sides Of The House I Can See Are White\"

You are saying three things: 1: You can see exactly one house. 2: It has two sides. 3: Both sides are white.

Read it this way: \"The two sides of THE HOUSE I CAN SEE are white.\" You destroyed the point of Heinlein\'s story. Or did you assume we would know what you meant?

\"Took down your other post as it was just a string of Soupish wise cracks.\"

I don\'t believe you. You deleted my last six posts, including one in which I thanked bj, and several in which I cashed in an old favor to get Soup to stop bothering you and the other people here. He never bothered me.

Why did you leave this up? From Kraven the Hunter:

 \"And he never will because he pulled that figure out of his ass. Nor did any Ragozin fans challenge my last post.
Better to keep your mouth shut and have everybody think you\'re a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.\"

  while deleting my reply to this idiot?

  You keep claiming you want to have serious debates about TG/Rags methodology and ethics. For the third time (you deleted one), I am offering to give you a serious debate on every aspect of these arguments, from Chilukki\'s debut to split variants, from lying to customers to changing figures months after the fact. Or would you prefer to strut around pretending to be king of the jungle while ducking challenges, deleting serious posts, and leaving up obsequious idiocy from Kraven the Hunter and Silver Charm?

JB wrote: \"The Two Sides Of The House I Can See Are White\"

Please tell me you see the problem with your wording.

bj: Thank you. Best of luck to you, my friend.

Dave, Superwhatever, etc.,

Do you remember our deleted discussion on the SHEETS board? You asked me for a favor. I said OK. Will you please do me a favor now and stop harassing JB? You have made your point. Thank you.

bj wrote: \"Bad idea. Alydar, get some rest.\"

Well, well, well, may wonders like this one never cease. Welcome back, bj. I always said those Canadian peacekeepers don\'t get enough credit. Please do me a favor. Stick around and be prolific. Come December, I would like nothing more than to return an old favor by naming you comeback poster of the year.

JB wrote: \"Knock yourself out. If instead you want to do something productive, get Friedman to explain how they arrived at the Chilukki figure. You (yes, you) are letting him off the hook-- all this stuff is diverting attention from a truly important point.\"

     JB,

 I have an idea, a serious one. Since Friedman doesn\'t want to argue at the moment, let me pretend to be Friedman. I will defend all of Friedman\'s positions, and I will attack all of yours. I will answer every question as best I can. No evasions. None. I will vigorously defend everything from the Russian Revolution to the Chilukki figure, from The Terror to doing sprints and routes at the same variant. This will be mad fun. I will even imitate his writing style. Now I\'m getting excited. You have to let me do this. Please. Please. Please. You and Nicely Nicely spent 21 years in Ragozin\'s office. I have never been east of Denver. This is the perfect opportunity to make all your points against what is certain to be feeble opposition. Everyone will learn from the exchange. What do you say?

JB,

In 15 minutes, I\'m leaving for several hours. Three things:

 Marc used \"characterize\" in a way that is supported by every dictionary I have ever seen. You then told him, in effect, that he was deliberately misunderstanding the word and that he wasn\'t a \"stand-up guy.\" It is time for you to apologize.

You wrote: \"You really want to go there? (and you know I\'m not talking about you).\"

You are going to find that when I am extremely fond of a cause, I am inexhaustible.

Your figure post: I am going to give you a line-by-line response, being careful to compare your words to statements you have made over the past six years--unless you can think of a better idea.

Silver Charm,

Go to Friedman\'s site, identify yourself as Silver Charm (he will know who you are), tell him you are smarter than he is, and tell him you want to debate figure making with him. He has been doing this with much success for a long time. He deserves some respect from you, of all people.

    JB, you are as wrong as one can be.

    Synonym: A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word in the language.

char·ac·ter·ize    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (krk-t-rz)
tr.v. character·ized, character·iz·ing, character·iz·es
To describe the qualities or peculiarities of: characterized the warden as ruthless.
To be a distinctive trait or mark of; distinguish: the rash and high fever that characterize this disease; a region that is characterized by its dikes and canals.

Silver Charm wrote: \"Came Home was given a 4 in his maiden win in July at Hollywood Park.\"

This is false. He broke his maiden in June, won a stakes race in July, and won the Hopeful in September. You are utterly clueless.

Silver Charm wrote: \"Read what I wrote and tell me where I said in his first career start and then in his second career start. I did\'nt, I said in his maiden win and then in his next career start.\"

      If JB is going to ridicule Marc, who was 100% correct on his definitions, and then let this BS from you go by, there is a real problem here. I had questioned Came Home\'s debut number. Read what I wrote. Read what you wrote in reply. Read Came Home\'s past performances. Then keep your mouth shut.