Re: Very unusual WR for Lenton

On Jun 6, 5:24 pm, iamh2o...@webtv.net (Steve Curtis) wrote:
> "David W" wrote:
> >(Steve Curtis) wrote:
> >>"David W" wrote:
> >>>Steve Curtis) wrote:
> >>>>Get your facts straight, first it was
> >>>>never claimed in this entire thread
> >>>>that all "complexities" (i.e.
> >>>>intangibles) would be completely
> >>>>known. That's the reason for
> >>>>introducing a margin of error in an
> >>>>approximation as suggested
> >>>>previously. Second, it was never
> >>>>claimed that video alone would yield
> >>>>a solution. As explained to you ad
> >>>>nauseum, other "tools" (i.e. software
> >>>>programs, recorded times, known
> >>>>information about drafting, etc.) in
> >>>>conjunction with the latest technology
> >>>>for video analysis can be used to
> >>>>achieve reasonable results.
> >>>Obviously, the "figuring out" would be
> >>>done with whatever tools exist to
> >>>analyse the video. Sorry, I should
> >>>have realized that you wouldn't be
> >>>able to "figure out" that from my post.
> >>Learn to be less vague and ambiguous
> >>and your posts might be interpreted as
> >>you intended.
> >So, I was suggesting that you figure it
> >out by simply viewing the video and
> >doing it in your head? Keep working on
> >your comprehension.
>
> No, you suggested a strawman argument attributed to me that video
> analysis alone would suffice. Keep working on reality.

Analysis requires tools, so they are a given, at least to anyone except you.

> >>>>We're not talking about "gnat's ass"
> >>>>accuracy here, but rather a
> >>>>reasonable estimated approximation.
> >>>And I'm saying it's BS that you can
> >>>even produce a reasonable estimation
> >>>unless drafting studies of _pool races_
> >>>have already been done, _and_ have
> >>>been shown to produce reasonably
> >>>predictable effects regardless of the
> >>>size, shape, swimming style and
> >>>speed of the swimmer, or have
> >>>well-behaved correlations to those
> >>>factors. You have produced no
> >>>evidence that the draft effect by the
> >>>fastest swimmer in human history at
> >>>Lenton's positions in an adjacent lane
> >>>in a pool behind a lane rope is well
> >>>understood.
> >>And what you're saying here is pure
> >>unsubstantiated crap.
> >Uh, it's not me that has to do the
> >substantiation.
>
> Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because I said so" style of
> argumentation doesn't cut it without anything to back it up and only
> serves to be a futile attempt at face-saving.

You are the one who has claimed that a reasonable approximation of the draft
benefit to Lenton is possible with existing knowledge and tools, but you have
produced nothing except one study that you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
pool racing, and assertions about video analysis. After all these posts your
substance score on the subject at hand still sits at zero.

> >>Again, get your "facts" straight.
> >>Reference links have already been
> >>provided to show some drafting
> >>research along with a reasonable
> >>approach for estimating.
> >Rubbish. What is the effect of the lane
> >rope? What is the effect of the
> >turbulence of a six-beat kick versus that
> >of a slower kick? You are assuming that
> >drafting in one situation can be applied
> >to another. How do you know it can be
> >without actually measuring the draft in a
> >pool race to verify it?
>
> I'm not assuming anything. The links for some of the applicable
> information were already presented to you. Measurements were researched
> and recorded. If you want to include intangible factors such as lane
> line wave suppression characteristics, and/or kicking styles, then throw
> in a "fudge" factor like reducing percentages by a half.

So your solution is simply to throw in arbitrary factors that have no scientific
basis.

> Like I said all
> along, the possibility exists for a reasonable approximation,

Another assertion. Produce evidence.

> not
> "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how do you know what type of kicking
> style either Phelps or Lenton used?

Exactly. That's one of the many factors you can't account for, and at last you
are conceding that point.

> >>It's up to you or anyone else interested
> >>in the Phelps/Lenton race specifically to
> >>apply the known principles in order to
> >>determine a reasonable approximation
> >>for that case.
> >>You've never heard of a scientific
> >>method of approach for analysis? Are
> >>you living in a cave without 21st century
> >>reality (with the exception of course,
> >>that you have internet access)?
> >Generalized BS.
>
> Only to you, common sense and practicality to anyone with a modicum of
> intelligence.

And what would an intelligent person make of an empty, meaningless statement
like "apply the known principles"?

> >>>>In races where times are recorded in
> >>>>one-hundredths of a second, drafting
> >>>>effects for swimmers in close
> >>>>proximity are anything but negligible.
> >>>Links?
> >>See above paragraph.
> >>Counter links?
> >So you assume something to be true
> >unless someone can prove it's false?
>
> I assume something to be true when backed up with credible
> substantiation

Which you continue to fail to produce.

> and even more so when no credible counter substantiation
> is offered to prove the contrary.

None needed. Do you need to disprove that purple monkeys created the universe
with counter evidence before anyone produces an iota of supporting evidence?
That's still where we are at on Lenton and drafting.

> >That's not the way science normally
> >works. The ball is in your court.
>
> Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was already served to you previously
> in the form of links.

I'm afraid not. Those links did not reveal the assistance Lenton received from
drafting.

> It's been your turn for some time now to return
> the "ball" with any supportive credible substantiation.

Still waiting for the serve here.

"David*W" wrote:

>(Steve Curtis) wrote:

>>No, you suggested a strawman
>>argument attributed to me that video
>>analysis alone would suffice. Keep
>>working on reality.

>Analysis requires tools, so they are a
>given, at least to anyone except you.

Where in the entire thread was there a suggestion that "tools" for
analysis don't exist?

>>Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because
>>I said so" style of argumentation doesn't
>>cut it without anything to back it up and
>>only serves to be a futile attempt at
>>face-saving.

>You are the one who has claimed that a
>reasonable approximation of the draft
>benefit to Lenton is possible with existing
>knowledge and tools, but you have
>produced nothing except one study that
>you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
>pool racing, and assertions about video
>analysis. After all these posts your
>substance score on the subject at hand
>still sits at zero.

And your irrefutable reason for believing that a "reasonable"
approximation is unattainable is what, and why?

>>I'm not assuming anything. The links for
>>some of the applicable information
>>were already presented to you.
>>Measurements were researched and
>>recorded. If you want to include
>>intangible factors such as lane line
>>wave suppression characteristics,
>>and/or kicking styles, then throw in a
>>"fudge" factor like reducing percentages
>>by a half.

>So your solution is simply to throw in
>arbitrary factors that have no scientific
>basis.

I've said all along that a reasonable solution would be an approximation
at best, based on known research, race data, including video, and time
records. Learn to read, dumbass.

>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how
>>do you know what type of kicking style
>>either Phelps or Lenton used?

>Exactly. That's one of the many factors
>you can't account for, and at last you are
>conceding that point.

Not conceding anything, the race video reveals the kicking styles of
both swimmers.

>>Only to you, common sense and
>>practicality to anyone with a modicum
>>of intelligence.

>And what would an intelligent person
>make of an empty, meaningless
>statement like "apply the known
>principles"?

Unlike you, an intelligent person would not find that statement to be
empty and meaningless.

>>>I assume something to be true when
>>>backed up with credible substantiation

>>Which you continue to fail to produce,
>>and even more so when no credible
>>counter substantiation is offered to
>>prove the contrary.

>None needed. Do you need to disprove
>that purple monkeys created the
>universe with counter evidence before
>anyone produces an iota of supporting
>evidence? That's still where we are at on
>Lenton and drafting.

Are there any "tools" and/or documented research available for analysis
to prove that purple monkeys created the universe? It's your reading
comprehension skills that are called into question here.

>>>>>That's not the way science normally
>>>>>works. The ball is in your court.

>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was
>>>>already served to you previously in
>>>>the form of links.

>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>reveal the assistance Lenton received
>>>from drafting.

>>It's been your turn for some time now to
>>return the "ball" with any supportive
>>credible substantiation.

>Still waiting for the serve here.

The "serve" was already made early on in the thread after your "not well
understood" claim about drafting effects.

"Steve Curtis" <iamh2oman@webtv.net> wrote
>"David W" wrote:
>
>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:
>
>>>Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so because
>>>I said so" style of argumentation doesn't
>>>cut it without anything to back it up and
>>>only serves to be a futile attempt at
>>>face-saving.
>
>>You are the one who has claimed that a
>>reasonable approximation of the draft
>>benefit to Lenton is possible with existing
>>knowledge and tools, but you have
>>produced nothing except one study that
>>you cannot demonstrate is applicable to
>>pool racing, and assertions about video
>>analysis. After all these posts your
>>substance score on the subject at hand
>>still sits at zero.
>
>And your irrefutable reason for believing that a "reasonable"
>approximation is unattainable is what, and why?

It is not up to me to prove a negative. You are claiming that it's possible.
Prove it.

>>>I'm not assuming anything. The links for
>>>some of the applicable information
>>>were already presented to you.
>>>Measurements were researched and
>>>recorded. If you want to include
>>>intangible factors such as lane line
>>>wave suppression characteristics,
>>>and/or kicking styles, then throw in a
>>>"fudge" factor like reducing percentages
>>>by a half.
>
>>So your solution is simply to throw in
>>arbitrary factors that have no scientific
>>basis.
>
>I've said all along that a reasonable solution would be an approximation
>at best, based on known research, race data, including video, and time
>records. Learn to read, dumbass.

But you include arbitrary fudge factors without a shred of evidence as to how
accurately they would represent reality. If you calculate an approximation you
must also calculate a confidence level or margin of error, otherwise you could
be 1000% out and the whole thing becomes meaningless. You are desperately
grasping for a way to retrieve a lost cause.

>>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides, how
>>>do you know what type of kicking style
>>>either Phelps or Lenton used?
>
>>Exactly. That's one of the many factors
>>you can't account for, and at last you are
>>conceding that point.
>
>Not conceding anything, the race video reveals the kicking styles of
>both swimmers.

A video of swimmers kicking is one thing. Modeling the currents generated and
their contribution to draft is quite another.

>>>>I assume something to be true when
>>>>backed up with credible substantiation
>
>>>Which you continue to fail to produce,
>>>and even more so when no credible
>>>counter substantiation is offered to
>>>prove the contrary.
>
>>None needed. Do you need to disprove
>>that purple monkeys created the
>>universe with counter evidence before
>>anyone produces an iota of supporting
>>evidence? That's still where we are at on
>>Lenton and drafting.
>
>Are there any "tools" and/or documented research available for analysis
>to prove that purple monkeys created the universe? It's your reading
>comprehension skills that are called into question here.

So far, nor is there any evidence of tools or documented research available for
analysis of the draft assistance Lenton received from Phelps in their race.
Note: Your assertions are not evidence.

>>>>>>That's not the way science normally
>>>>>>works. The ball is in your court.
>
>>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball" was
>>>>>already served to you previously in
>>>>>the form of links.
>
>>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>>reveal the assistance Lenton received
>>>>from drafting.
>
>>>It's been your turn for some time now to
>>>return the "ball" with any supportive
>>>credible substantiation.
>
>>Still waiting for the serve here.
>
>The "serve" was already made early on in the thread after your "not well
>understood" claim about drafting effects.

Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the net. Try again.

"DavidW" wrote:

>"Steve Curtis" wrote

>>"David W" wrote:

>>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:

>>>>Uh, yeah you do. Your "it is so
>>>>because I said so" style of
>>>>argumentation doesn't cut it without
>>>>anything to back it up and only
>>>>serves to be a futile attempt at
>>>>face-saving.

>>>You are the one who has claimed that
>>>a reasonable approximation of the
>>>draft benefit to Lenton is possible with
>>>existing knowledge and tools, but you
>>>have produced nothing except one
>>>study that you cannot demonstrate is
>>>applicable to pool racing, and
>>>assertions about video analysis. After
>>>all these posts your substance score
>>>on the subject at hand still sits at zero.

>>And your irrefutable reason for
>>believing that a "reasonable"
>>approximation is unattainable is what,
>>and why?

>It is not up to me to prove a negative.
>You are claiming that it's possible. Prove
>it.

In other words, you can't back up your so-called assertions regarding
the impossibility of determining drafting effects with any credible
evidence to support your "argument." You continue to blow smoke out of
your ass trying to save face. I've offered references and suggestions
for places to start. You've offered nothing but BS.

>>>>I'm not assuming anything. The links
>>>>for some of the applicable
>>>>information were already presented
>>>>to you. Measurements were
>>>>researched and recorded. If you want
>>>>to include intangible factors such as
>>>>lane line wave suppression
>>>>characteristics, and/or kicking styles,
>>>>then throw in a "fudge" factor like
>>>>reducing percentages by a half.

>>>So your solution is simply to throw in
>>>arbitrary factors that have no scientific
>>>basis.

>>I've said all along that a reasonable
>>solution would be an approximation at
>>best, based on known research, race
>>data, including video, and time records.
>>Learn to read, dumbass.

>But you include arbitrary fudge factors
>without a shred of evidence as to how
>accurately they would represent reality.
>If you calculate an approximation you
>must also calculate a confidence level or
>margin of error, otherwise you could be
>1000% out and the whole thing becomes
>meaningless. You are desperately
>grasping for a way to retrieve a lost
>cause.

I never claimed that "gnat's ass" accuracy was attainable. Try and learn
what "approximation" means. As for "1000% out," prove it with
substantitive evidence. Your "it is so, because I said so" style of
argumentation that you so desperately cling to, still doesn't cut it.

>>>>not "gnat's ass" accuracy. Besides,
>>>>how do you know what type of
>>>>kicking style either Phelps or Lenton
>>>>used?

>>>Exactly. That's one of the many
>>>factors you can't account for, and at
>>>last you are conceding that point.

>>Not conceding anything, the race video
>>reveals the kicking styles of both
>>swimmers.

>A video of swimmers kicking is one
>thing. Modeling the currents generated
>and their contribution to draft is quite
>another.

That's where other "tools" come into play in addition to the video for
an approximate determination as explained to you ad nauseum.

<DavidW's rambling snipped>

>So far, nor is there any evidence of tools
>or documented research available for
>analysis of the draft assistance Lenton
>received from Phelps in their race. Note:
>Your assertions are not evidence.

Go back and re-read the posts suggesting certain, but not limited to,
"tools" and research available for a reasonable approximation of
drafting effects dumbass.

>>>>>>>That's not the way science
>>>>>>>normally works. The ball is in
>>>>>>>your court.

>>>>>>Sorry to disappoint, but the "ball"
>>>>>>was already served to you
>>>>>>previously in the form of links.

>>>>>I'm afraid not. Those links did not
>>>>>reveal the assistance Lenton
>>>>>received from drafting.

>>>>It's been your turn for some time now
>>>>to return the "ball" with any
>>>>supportive credible substantiation.

>>>Still waiting for the serve here.

>>The "serve" was already made early on
>>in the thread after your "not well
>>understood" claim about drafting
>>effects.

>Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the
>net. Try again.

Sorry Bucko, but you were served an "ace" a long while ago after your
"not well understood" claim about drafting. There's enough "understood"
about it to reasonably approximate the effects for the Lenton/Phelps
race or any race for that matter with the appropriate tools.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>> "Steve Curtis" wrote
>>> "David W" wrote:
>>>> (Steve Curtis) wrote:
>>
>> It is not up to me to prove a negative.
>> You are claiming that it's possible. Prove
>> it.
>
> In other words, you can't back up your so-called assertions regarding
> the impossibility of determining drafting effects with any credible
> evidence to support your "argument."

What sort of evidence would satisfy you? Perhaps a scientific paper that such
quantification of draft assistance in a pool is _not_ possible with current
technology? I don't have any evidence that a clothes peg cannot be turned into a
live caterpillar with current technology. Does that mean that I should not
discount the possibility?

> You continue to blow smoke out of
> your ass trying to save face. I've offered references and suggestions
> for places to start. You've offered nothing but BS.

You've presented not a scrap of evidence that it's possible.

>> But you include arbitrary fudge factors
>> without a shred of evidence as to how
>> accurately they would represent reality.
>> If you calculate an approximation you
>> must also calculate a confidence level or
>> margin of error, otherwise you could be
>> 1000% out and the whole thing becomes
>> meaningless. You are desperately
>> grasping for a way to retrieve a lost
>> cause.
>
> I never claimed that "gnat's ass" accuracy was attainable. Try and
> learn what "approximation" means. As for "1000% out," prove it with
> substantitive evidence.

You would need error information to prove that figure, or any other. That's
exactly my point. Who lets these dumbos get on Usenet?

> Your "it is so, because I said so" style of
> argumentation that you so desperately cling to, still doesn't cut it.


>> A video of swimmers kicking is one
>> thing. Modeling the currents generated
>> and their contribution to draft is quite
>> another.
>
> That's where other "tools" come into play in addition to the video for
> an approximate determination as explained to you ad nauseum.

Your "it is so because I said so" style of argumentation that you so desperately
cling to still doesn't cut it. What tools? Produce some actual evidence.

>> So far, nor is there any evidence of tools
>> or documented research available for
>> analysis of the draft assistance Lenton
>> received from Phelps in their race. Note:
>> Your assertions are not evidence.
>
> Go back and re-read the posts suggesting certain, but not limited to,
> "tools" and research available for a reasonable approximation of
> drafting effects dumbass.

Again, your assertions are not evidence. You've made the claims about these
"tools". Now back them up.

>>> The "serve" was already made early on
>>> in the thread after your "not well
>>> understood" claim about drafting
>>> effects.
>
>> Oh dear - a fault into the bottom of the
>> net. Try again.
>
> Sorry Bucko, but you were served an "ace" a long while ago after your
> "not well understood" claim about drafting. There's enough
> "understood" about it to reasonably approximate the effects for the
> Lenton/Phelps race or any race for that matter with the appropriate
> tools.

Not on the basis of anything you've come up with in 42 posts so far in this
thread.

BTW, that's a double fault.

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>"Steve Curtis" wrote

>>>>"David W" wrote:

>>>>>(Steve Curtis) wrote:

>>>It is not up to me to prove a negative.
>>>You are claiming that it's possible.
>>>Prove it.

>>In other words, you can't back up your
>>so-called assertions regarding the
>>impossibility of determining drafting
>>effects with any credible evidence to
>>support your "argument."

>What sort of evidence would satisfy you?
>Perhaps a scientific paper that such
>quantification of draft assistance in a
>pool is _not_ possible with current
>technology? I don't have any evidence
>that a clothes peg cannot be turned into
>a live caterpillar with current technology.
>Does that mean that I should not
>discount the possibility?

So you completely dismiss the possibility of developing a scientific
method for analysis? You really have your head up your ass if you
believe that.

>>You continue to blow smoke out of your
>>ass trying to save face. I've offered
>>references and suggestions for places
>>to start. You've offered nothing but BS.

>You've presented not a scrap of evidence
>that it's possible.

Again, your reading skills have been called into question. Suggested
references have already been posted as places to start for an analysis.
Learn to read dumbass.

>>>But you include arbitrary fudge factors
>>>without a shred of evidence as to how
>>>accurately they would represent
>>>reality. If you calculate an
>>>approximation you must also calculate
>>>a confidence level or margin of error,
>>>otherwise you could be 1000% out and
>>>the whole thing becomes
>>>meaningless. You are desperately
>>>grasping for a way to retrieve a lost
>>>cause.

>>I never claimed that "gnat's ass"
>>accuracy was attainable. Try and learn
>>what "approximation" means. As for
>>"1000% out," prove it with substantitive
>>evidence.

>You would need error information to
>prove that figure, or any other. That's
>exactly my point. Who lets these dumbos
>get on Usenet?

Still waiting for your proof of "1000% out." As for your "dumbo"
comment, this coming from one who makes the following comment from
another thread in this NG:

[url]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source[/url]

>Your "it is so because I said so" style of
>argumentation that you so desperately
>cling to still doesn't cut it. What tools?
>Produce some actual evidence.

Re-read the references that were offered earlier in the thread moron and
educate yourself about the development of a scientific method for
analysis.

>>There's enough "understood" about it to
>>reasonably approximate the effects for
>>the Lenton/Phelps race or any race for
>>that matter with the appropriate tools.

>Not on the basis of anything you've come
>up with in 42 posts so far in this thread.

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

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>> What sort of evidence would satisfy you?
>> Perhaps a scientific paper that such
>> quantification of draft assistance in a
>> pool is _not_ possible with current
>> technology? I don't have any evidence
>> that a clothes peg cannot be turned into
>> a live caterpillar with current technology.
>> Does that mean that I should not
>> discount the possibility?
>
> So you completely dismiss the possibility of developing a scientific
> method for analysis? You really have your head up your ass if you
> believe that.

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

>> You've presented not a scrap of evidence
>> that it's possible.
>
> Again, your reading skills have been called into question. Suggested
> references have already been posted as places to start for an
> analysis. Learn to read dumbass.

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

>>> I never claimed that "gnat's ass"
>>> accuracy was attainable. Try and learn
>>> what "approximation" means. As for
>>> "1000% out," prove it with substantitive
>>> evidence.
>
>> You would need error information to
>> prove that figure, or any other. That's
>> exactly my point. Who lets these dumbos
>> get on Usenet?
>
> Still waiting for your proof of "1000% out."

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

> As for your "dumbo"
> comment, this coming from one who makes the following comment from
> another thread in this NG:
>
> [url]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source[/url]

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

>> Your "it is so because I said so" style of
>> argumentation that you so desperately
>> cling to still doesn't cut it. What tools?
>> Produce some actual evidence.
>
> Re-read the references that were offered earlier in the thread moron
> and educate yourself about the development of a scientific method for
> analysis.

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

>>> There's enough "understood" about it to
>>> reasonably approximate the effects for
>>> the Lenton/Phelps race or any race for
>>> that matter with the appropriate tools.
>
>> Not on the basis of anything you've come
>> up with in 42 posts so far in this thread.
>
> Still waiting for your proof that drafting effects "are not well
> understood."

Even though you agree that they aren't?

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

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

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

>>>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>>What sort of evidence would satisfy
>>>you? Perhaps a scientific paper that
>>>such quantification of draft assistance
>>>in a pool is _not_ possible with current
>>>technology? I don't have any evidence
>>>that a clothes peg cannot be turned
>>>into a live caterpillar with current
>>>technology. Does that mean that I
>>>should not discount the possibility?

>>So you completely dismiss the
>>possibility of developing a scientific
>>method for analysis? You really have
>>your head up your ass if you believe
>>that.

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

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

>>>You've presented not a scrap of
>>>evidence that it's possible.

>>Again, your reading skills have been
>>called into question. Suggested
>>references have already been posted as
>>places to start for an analysis. Learn to
>>read dumbass.

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

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

>>>>I never claimed that "gnat's ass"
>>>>accuracy was attainable. Try and
>>>>learn what "approximation" means.
>>>>As for "1000% out," prove it with
>>>>substantitive evidence.

>>>You would need error information to
>>>prove that figure, or any other. That's
>>>exactly my point. Who lets these
>>>dumbos get on Usenet?

>>Still waiting for your proof of "1000%
>>out."

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

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

>>As for your "dumbo" comment, this
>>coming from one who makes the
>>following comment from another thread
>>in this NG:

>>[url]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source[/url]

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

"Basic newsgroup etiquette," "understandable annoyance"? Your sheer
stupidity was evident with your response to a particular post that
included an advisory of "please ignore" in the subject header. And, you
claim that the manner in which you responded showed "understandable
annoyance"? Understandable to whom? Try and learn what the phrase
"please ignore" means and entails.

>>>Your "it is so because I said so" style
>>>of argumentation that you so
>>>desperately cling to still doesn't cut it.
>>>What tools? Produce some actual
>>>evidence.

>>Re-read the references that were
>>offered earlier in the thread moron and
>>educate yourself about the development
>>of a scientific method for analysis.

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

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

>>>>There's enough "understood" about it
>>>>to reasonably approximate the
>>>>effects for the Lenton/Phelps race or
>>>>any race for that matter with the
>>>>appropriate tools.

>>>Not on the basis of anything you've
>>>come up with in 42 posts so far in this
>>>thread.

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

>Even though you agree that they aren't?

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

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

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

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

Apology for what? If anything, you owe an apology for supporting a so
called "argument" of impossibility of determination throughout this
entire thread without offering anything credible to back up your "it is
so, because I said so" assertions.

Steve Curtis wrote:
> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>> "DavidW" wrote:
>
>>>> Steve Curtis wrote:
>
>>>> What sort of evidence would satisfy
>>>> you? Perhaps a scientific paper that
>>>> such quantification of draft assistance
>>>> in a pool is _not_ possible with current
>>>> technology? I don't have any evidence
>>>> that a clothes peg cannot be turned
>>>> into a live caterpillar with current
>>>> technology. Does that mean that I
>>>> should not discount the possibility?
>
>>> So you completely dismiss the
>>> possibility of developing a scientific
>>> method for analysis? You really have
>>> your head up your ass if you believe
>>> that.
>
>> So now a scientific method for analysis
>> is still to be _developed_? IOW, as far
>> as you know, it doesn't exist. Case
>> closed.
>
> Scientific methods are developed for analyses all the time for a
> multitude of studies. Where the hell have you been living, in the
> "Dark Ages"? Case still open.

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

>
>>>> You've presented not a scrap of
>>>> evidence that it's possible.
>
>>> Again, your reading skills have been
>>> called into question. Suggested
>>> references have already been posted as
>>> places to start for an analysis. Learn to
>>> read dumbass.
>
>> Just take a moment to make a mental
>> note of that last sentence.
>
> Just take a moment to make a mental image of an extended upright
> middle finger directed towards you. Where are your references
> defending your position that an analysis is unachievable?

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

>>>>> I never claimed that "gnat's ass"
>>>>> accuracy was attainable. Try and
>>>>> learn what "approximation" means.
>>>>> As for "1000% out," prove it with
>>>>> substantitive evidence.
>
>>>> You would need error information to
>>>> prove that figure, or any other. That's
>>>> exactly my point. Who lets these
>>>> dumbos get on Usenet?
>
>>> Still waiting for your proof of "1000%
>>> out."
>
>> "Learn to read dumbass." Either take
>> your own advice or explain how "you
>> could be 1000% out" requires proof. If
>> you provide _no_ error information you
>> can't rule out an error of any size.
>> Therefore you could be 1000% out.
>
> Still waiting for your irrefutable explanation of how you arrived at
> "1000%" to support an argument that has no viable referenced support.

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

>>> As for your "dumbo" comment, this
>>> coming from one who makes the
>>> following comment from another thread
>>> in this NG:
>
>>> [url]http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.swimming/msg/4239dcd88ca638bd?dmode=source[/url]
>
>> I see a post where you demonstrated
>> that you are too dumb to understand
>> basic newsgroup etiquette and I
>> responded with understandable
>> annoyance. Your point regarding my
>> "dumbo" comment is...what?
>
> "Basic newsgroup etiquette," "understandable annoyance"? Your sheer
> stupidity was evident with your response to a particular post that
> included an advisory of "please ignore" in the subject header.

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

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

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

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

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

>>>> Your "it is so because I said so" style
>>>> of argumentation that you so
>>>> desperately cling to still doesn't cut it.
>>>> What tools? Produce some actual
>>>> evidence.
>
>>> Re-read the references that were
>>> offered earlier in the thread moron and
>>> educate yourself about the development
>>> of a scientific method for analysis.
>
>> So it's quite clear then: you are unaware
>> of the existence of a scientific method by
>> which the quantity of draft assistance
>> Lenton received from Phelps can be
>> calculated.
>
> It's quite clear, with a sound scientific approach used in conjunction
> with available race data, that a method could be developed to
> reasonably arrive at an approximation, a point that continually
> escapes you and reveals a stupidity on your part for not recognizing
> that others surely know more about scientific method development than
> you.

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

>>>>> There's enough "understood" about it
>>>>> to reasonably approximate the
>>>>> effects for the Lenton/Phelps race or
>>>>> any race for that matter with the
>>>>> appropriate tools.
>
>>>> Not on the basis of anything you've
>>>> come up with in 42 posts so far in this
>>>> thread.
>
>>> Still waiting for your proof that drafting
>>> effects "are not well understood."
>
>> Even though you agree that they aren't?
>
> They're better understood by those who know the subject far better
> than you.

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

>> BTW, if you thought no one would notice
>> that you left out the crucial reference to
>> quantity in what I said, think again: "It
>> probably isn't even well understood _how
>> much_ assistance you get from
>> swimming in another swimmer's wake."
>
> BTW, you thought no one would notice the ambiguity in that phrase.
> Your assertion would be quite laughable and just as ambiguous to
> those (i.e. coaches, competitive swimmers, etc.) who are more
> knowledgeable than you about hydrodynamic principles especially to
> those familiar with drafting effects associated with close proximity
> swimming.

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

>> I'll consider your apology when it arrives
>> in your next post.
>
> Apology for what?

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

"DavidW" wrote:

>Steve Curtis wrote:

>>"DavidW" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>Even though you agree that they
>>>aren't?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>Apology for what?

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

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

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