Reposting--Friedman fires smoking gun--shoots foot

[Alydar in California]

    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]

Author: Alydar in California
Date:   02-07-03 15:59

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

Alydar wrote:

\"This is false. He broke his maiden in June, won a stakes race in July, and won the Hopeful in September.\"

You are correct.

Alydar wrote:

\"You are utterly clueless.\"

Don\'t talk about Friedmans 00 Wood numbers this way. He did the best he could..

[Alydar in California]

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.

[Marc At]

\"JB, you are as wrong as one can be.\"

No, he\'s not. He\'s never wrong. You have just had your head handed to you. You are bloodied and beaten. Your argument has been completely destroyed. He has disposed of you. At least that\'s the way he likes to put it.

It seems there are multiple ways of looking at the issue of characterization. I, for one, think that when someone says:

\"Now, what does all this tell us about the two products, and those who use them?\"

someone is clearly characterizing.

If the quote said *some* of the people who use them, it was strike me as less of a characterization (\"identify\" might be a better word there), but there\'s a broadness to \"those who use them,\" that seems to be doing a whole lot of characterizing to me. For what it\'s worth. Since my intentions are clearly so corrupt.

Particularly unusual in this characterization, by the way, is making broad statements about a group of people-- \"those who use them\"-- based on message board postings of a total of a dozen people, if not less...

Regarding the lack of passion of Ragozin partisans *who post on Ragozin\'s website* to demand more comprehensive reviews of Chilukki\'s debut number, or any other numbers: What does this say about those who use Ragozin? Very little, because the sample of people who post on mesage boards is far too small to be indicative of anything...

[TGJB]

Alydar,

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

On the other thing, please-- nearly the same thing is good enough? Identifying something (Marc is a Ragozin player) is the same thing as pigeonholing someone (therefore he is the same as all other Ragozin players, Howard Dennis for example)?

Identify-- John is the warden.
Characterize-- John is ruthless.

Stop already.

[Silver Charm]

Author: Alydar in California
Date:   02-07-03 16:29


\"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.\"



I don\'t think I\'m smarter than Friedman. I think TGJB is. Thats why I pay him to do my figures

I have been quoted as saying he runs the second best speed figure shop. I also said Thorograph is the Tiger Woods of speed figure shops ie-the best in the world.

Good Luck at the track this weekend.

[Alydar in California]

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.

[TGJB]

Marc,

I\'ve been trying to go easy on you, and let you get out of here, but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays. And now you are keeping me from my work, so you\'re getting me pissed.

1-- Notice I did not say any of those things you ascribed to me (destroyed, etc.) to Alydar. See if you can figure out why, since he is obviously disagreeing with me. Could it have something to do with him not shifting ground, re-casting my arguments, etc.?

2-- My question about users of the two products MIGHT have been a characterization IF I HAD ANSWERED IT. I stated what had taken place, and asked those reading to make their OWN characterizations. Get it?

3-- You also OF COURSE, BEING WHO YOU ARE, AND ARGUING THE WAY YOU DO, have re-cast my original statement in order to attack it. That statement was (roughly, from memory), \"I don\'t characterize Ragozin players AS A MATTER OF COURSE\". I said it in the context of why I was characterizing YOUR behavior, as I am in this post. Not ALL Ragozin players behave the way you do, as I believe I already said somewhere below on this board.

4-- Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger, it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when  you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.

[TGJB]

Alydar,

1- You are a loyal friend to Marc.

2- You are a loyal friend to Marc.

3- 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.

[Marc At]

\"but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays.\"

Perhaps you\'re the one who doesn\'t know how your stuff plays?

\"1-- Notice I did not say any of those things you ascribed to me (destroyed, etc.) to Alydar.\"

No, but you rather regularly make these comments to anyone who disagrees with you here who is not a customer of yours.

\"2-- My question about users of the two products MIGHT have been a characterization IF I HAD ANSWERED IT. I stated what had taken place, and asked those reading to make their OWN characterizations. Get it?\"

Finally, an acknowledgement that characterization might indeed be the right word to explain what you did. The ground shifts slightly. Now let\'s come completely clean-- again I find myself quoting your words:

\"\"Now, what does ALL THIS TELL US about the two products, AND THOSE WHO USE THEM?\"

To me, this speaks volumes. Does it \"tell us\" that they (Ragozin customers) are wonderful people? No, clearly, ay reading of the full post or the quote above indicates that \"all this,\" as attributed to the Chilukki dialogue and Ragozin customers not demanding more of Friedman, is a negative as it pertains to Ragozin customers. And accordingly, the question quoted above is clearly making a broad, negative characterization at \"those who use\" Ragozin.

\"3-- You also OF COURSE, BEING WHO YOU ARE, AND ARGUING THE WAY YOU DO, have re-cast my original statement in order to attack it.\"

This is also one of your tactics-- claim that you have been fouled by some sort of recasting. You made a statement about Ragozin customers when you characterized the way you did. You didn\'t (and don\'t) understand that there\'s other ways of handling things than your way-- fine. But trying to pretend it wasn\'t anything other than a broad characterization, when it clearly was, is not something I take well.

\"I don\'t characterize Ragozin players AS A MATTER OF COURSE\".

But then you proceeded to do precisely that. A broad, negativecharacterization.

\"4-- Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger,\"

I have no idea what would become apparent if the sampling was bigger. Your confidence that you can figure out an entire customer base of several thousand people off of those who contribute on a Bboard(s), well, I don\'t share it.


\"it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.\"


There\'s a ton of reasons why people don\'t grill Friedman. #1, and far and away #1, is because he\'s not responsive to it. You then have to decide whether that means his figures are bad or if there are other reasons that are less harmful to one\'s ROI. Every Ragozin player I know who actually cares about this stuff, they choose the latter logic.

I aoplogize for taking up your time with another laughably moronic post.

[TGJB]

Marc, I\'m going to let that post sit up there forever, without a response. Which is your tough luck, except luck has nothing to do with it. One of us (at least) definitely doesn\'t realize how this stuff is playing.

[thomas]

If you don't as you state assume some kind of  fixed relationship between distances the
only other way you could assign any numbers at 4 1/2f races run exclusively by 1st and
second time out 2yo's in the springtime at Churchill  would by reviewing past times  to
establish a  par at that distance and incorporating an average time into your speed chart for CD . I'm on
your side regarding the Chilluki debate  but one of your follow up posts perplexed me.
You stated "But more importantly, PLEASE-- these are 2 year olds, in April. OF
COURSE they\'re going forward, rapidly.........." Absolutely, but this rapid development
also prohits you from establishing any kind of reliable par, no?  And if you're not assuming
a fixed relationship between 4 1/2f and other sprint distance(s) how can you assign any
number to these horses?

[supey]

\"Yeah, that\'s probably it-- if the sampling was bigger, it would become apparent that Ragozin players are as likely to ask hard questions of Friedman as both they and the TG players are of me. So when you, Patent, Plever, Litt, Soup, Jim, et al, are willing to grill me, but not Friedman, no one should draw any conclusions from it.\"



uh.....when did I (or jim, probably) ever \'grill\' you?

\'grill\' is not synonymous w/\'belittle\' or \'ridicule\'.
better keep that dictionary handy.

ps


\"Marc,

I\'ve been trying to go easy on you, and let you get out of here, but you\'re not smart enough to know it, or how your stuff plays. And now you are keeping me from my work, so you\'re getting me pissed.\"



look out, marc........

(sorry to hear about your tough luck)

[Alydar in California]

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?

[supey]

jinx