Women on top

[Cunt]

I get to eat this delicious bowl of yogurt either way.

You won't get skinny eating that. Go to the mirror now and flagellate yourself for being fat!

No thanks. For self-flagellation, I whack the bottoms of my feet with a planet, one at a time.

[Sean Hayden]

including one time with a hokey diagram.

We've all been there. I wanted so badly to show the stupidity of the OP with a cartoon, but I was too lazy.

[Cunt]

Yes, rather than provide examples, something interested you enough to plod along, type some words, and think about googling a cartoon.

Sure glad you stopped by and contributed.

[Joe]

BTW, I read up on dressage and you're completely right. Women own that sport.

If you go a bit further, you will see that it doesn't seem as clear as the swimming one. With so many more young women in the sport than men, it seems it could skew the numbers.

And when you add more horse skills (like in steeplechase) it seems the women are no longer able to compete across the gender divide.

Yeah, it's definitely skewed today, but looking at the history of the sport, the numbers may be the result of female success rather than the cause. Looking at Olympic results over the years, it looks like women began winning more medals and scoring higher when the gender mix became roughly equal. Did that push the men out of dressage into the other events? It's difficult to say, but like powerlifters, I think the disproportionate numbers are part of the dominance. After all, it was a man's sport for centuries.

That men dominate the other equestrian events seems similar to the swimming example, in that it's another niche, where something about being female gives them an edge. I'll be interested to see what your family member in dressage thinks.

[pErvinalia]

including one time with a hokey diagram.

We've all been there. I wanted so badly to show the stupidity of the OP with a cartoon, but I was too lazy.

yeah, that's about the sum of it. I love diagrams, as I view problems as diagrams in my head. But I'm too fucking lazy to create them to help in a debate. I'm also artistically challenged, so my diagrams always look shit.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, rather than provide examples, something interested you enough to plod along, type some words, and think about googling a cartoon.

Sure glad you stopped by and contributed.

I thought he helped address your curiosity. Why are you still rubbishing people for not providing enough examples?

[Cunt]

So I forgot who provided the example.

How shit is that...

Must be because I'm distracted by some fucking clown.

[pErvinalia]

Oh right. It's my fault the premise of your thread is total bullshit.

[devogue]

Oh right. It's my fault the premise of your thread is total bullshit.

How do you know I wasn't the clown who distracted him?

[pErvinalia]

[pErvinalia]

including one time with a hokey diagram.

We've all been there. I wanted so badly to show the stupidity of the OP with a cartoon, but I was too lazy.

yeah, that's about the sum of it. I love diagrams, as I view problems as diagrams in my head. But I'm too fucking lazy to create them to help in a debate. I'm also artistically challenged, so my diagrams always look shit.

Actually, this is apposite:

29684110_1771367569620529_3614096325640102002_n.jpg (34.13 KiB) Viewed 913 times

(notice how I used the word "apposite", so I could pretend I still have some of the old magic...? )

[pErvinalia]

Now that i've woken up properly I'm going to address this:

Also, I was quite clear in my post where I wrote -

You quoted the first part of the sentence, without noting the exception, and then declared that your misrepresentation of my argument was "absolute bullshit." You then explain your basis for that, saying that I demonstrably complain about people being uncivil and mean. Personal attacks, namecalling and insulting people are uncivil and mean. That's what I've complained about, and that's what is against the rules.

So you are going to equivocate and equate "uncivil and mean" with breaking the rules. Wow. I didn't think even you'd be that brash. You do realise there's a bunch of quotes up there showing this to be a lie?

So, I have been quite clear that when I note that your personal attacks, namecalling and insults are against the rules, I certainly acknowledge that they are ALSO uncivil and mean. They are. However, it's you that have attempted to miscast my argument into something suggesting that I'm crying like a snowflake about people being "mean" to me, when in reality, as is abundantly clear, I have been pointing out that you and some others are violating the rules when you personally attack others, rather than address their arguments, and that is not merely a tone or manner of replying to an argument.

Nup, that's actually you shifting the goal posts. You never equated them before now, when you find that even you can't wiggle out of the clear demonstrable evidence that you have a problem with people posting in a mean and uncivil fashion (despite lying a while ago by saying that you didn't have a problem with it).

This is absurd beyond belief. You are unable, apparently, to understand how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. Fuck off, man, you're not this stupid, and your half-baked attempt to manufacture some controversy here is ridiculous.

You are unable, apparently, to understand what the word "equate" means. Equate means the same. Thumbs and fingers aren't the same. Apparently your posts are as stupid as they look. And given you seem to understand the difference between thumbs and fingers, it's even more staggering that you can't understand the difference between "mean but not against the rules" and "mean and also against the rules". You'll of course claim that you do understand the difference, and you undoubtedly do. The problem for you is that you claim that by omitting reference to the latter when I am referring to the former, that I am quote mining. Given you should, and undoubtedly do, have no trouble distinguishing between the two (like you apparently can distinguish between thumbs and fingers), then your accusation of quote mining makes absolutely no sense. And even given all this, which is exceedingly obvious, you still won't admit you are wrong, as you are totally incapable of doing such a thing. You'll keep equivocating and digging to avoid admitting you were wrong. The same as you will do in the case where you claimed that you haven't called any members "mean" despite me showing unequivocal evidence of you calling another member mean, and even went as far as to say I was lying despite the evidence being right in front of your nose. The same as where you said you never tone policed (and we can keep it to this thread just to satisfy your disingenuous goalpost shift) any one by calling their posts uncivil in the absence of a rule breach, when you unequivocally did, and still refused to admit you were wrong even though the evidence was presented right in front of your nose. You're not even a broken record. You are a smashed up, ground to a powder, then melted, record.

[Cunt]

The tenacity you are showing to this thread is remarkable. You must have a very deep interest in the subject indeed.

What is that ratio? Or do you ignore questions you find uncomfortable?

[pErvinalia]

Ironic given you've been asked multiple times by multiple people to explain why this stuff is important to you, and as of yet haven't produced a single coherent answer. It's quite laughable, really, watching a troll complain about being trolled, particularly when he won't coherently address his own thread.

[rainbow]

Or do you ignore questions you find uncomfortable?

It is like dog shit.

One should not ignore it less it fouls one's footwear, yet to engage it in conversation might be considered to be somewhat eccentric.