Running a 5K when you can't

Sarah Jane wrote:
In Dally wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote:
In Dally wrote:

Dally, happy to admire your perky ass as I chug along

It's *beyond* perky. Have you seen it?

http://seleniferous.homestead.com/fi.../whit_butt.jpg

Yum! (Whose hands got to apply that chalk?)

Dally, who does love to see a man who works his legs

Shame on you. You're not being very respectful. So how do you think his
ass would look in an aqua sports bra?

Out of place. But thanks for giving me the mental exercise.

Dally

"JMA" wrote in message
...

"MH" wrote in message
...

"Dally" wrote in message
...
Jacob Andersen wrote:

"David Cohen" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Ignoramus18248" wrote

Also, do you think that rather than misc.fitness.weights, your
question belongs to rec.running?

She's not a freakin' tree-hugging quiche-eating wussy girl! She's a
weightlifter that runs!


DAMN STRAIGHT AARRRRGGG

/Jacob

Jacob, is that you doing a pirate imitation?

Dally, who just saw Pirates of the Caribbean

Damn, I love Johnny Depp.....

Martha

But was his pirate perfomance really worthy of an Oscar nomination?

It most definitely was not. Was it nominated? Sort of entertaining movie,
but it basically sucked.

/Jacob

--
"You think he didn't know the 8 points and how to end a life with a super
quickness?"
- RestInParadise

"Dally" wrote in message
...
Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:

"T" writes:

But I could jog an easy 5 miles before my first 5K, and it was
pretty hard. I went out way too fast - 6 minute first mile - and
dragged my ass over the line about 20 minutes after that. Just
evening out the splits cut almost four minutes off my time.

Huh? You started "way too fast" at 6 minute for the first mile, and
ran the rest at 5 minutes per mile average? What am I missing?

10 minutes.

It took her 20 minutes to go the next 2 miles.

Dally, always good at math

I'd worry if you wern't!
;-)

Mick R.

"Dally" wrote in message
...
That T Woman wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...

Despite it being primarily a weights group, we know **** about endurance
training.

That's funny, I always thought "know **** about" meant you don't know
**** about". Are they really different? SJ, aren't you the resident
grammar geek? What's up with the terms "know ****" and "know **** all":
please educate me!

So the ASD brain trust can **** off.

Did you know that people were downloading your precious ****ing book for
free?


Hey, T, Lyle has a long feud with ASD for reasons that elude
understanding. He particularly hates Barbara Hirsch.

I think it's part of his quest to be his own worst enemy. Let's see,
hundreds of people join together to consider how to diet. You sell diet
books. I know, **** them all off! That's the ticket!


Like Steve Irwin. "Let's learn more about animals by really ****ing them
off!"

Mick R.
Not at all passionate about ****ing animals off. Especially venomous ones.


Dally, who bought UD2.0 off of Amazon like a good fat chick ought to

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:58:15 GMT, "David Cohen"
wrote:


"Donovan Rebbechi" wrote
David Cohen wrote:

So, if something is difficult to obtain/foreign/expensive, it is
morally acceptable to steal it.

It's not correct to call it "stealing". Any argument based on such a
premise
doesn't even deserve consideration.

Then don't consider it.

It is correct to call it copyright infringement.

I am neither a police officer nor a prosecutor. I am not interested
(in this case) with the legal definition of stealing. Copyright
infringement is, morally, theft.

As Quasimodo famously said: "Sanctimony, sanctimony"!!

On 28 Jan 2004 05:14:35 +0100, (Asbjørn Bjørnstad) wrote:

"David Cohen" writes:

"T" wrote
Is reading a library copy stealing?

No. Photocopying the library copy is.

Not where I come from. Well, you may call it stealing, but it's not
illegal. I have the right to make the copy (As long as it is for
personal use and the copy can not be mistaken as an original which
photocopies generally don't.)

Well, we weren't talking about Norwegian law, assuming they *have* a legal
system. US law would certainly forbid copying entire books (otherwise,
for example, who would ever BUY a textbook again?)

But you really should stop thinking about this. Moral ambiguity is so
comfortable, stick with it.

Does the law define your morals?
Am I immoral if I use my right to make a copy?

What is the origin of this "right" you claim?

If I bring the copy to the US? (Are my morals restored when I go back home?)

It doesn't sound like you had any upon leaving Norway in the first place.

If I make the copy in a US library?

You'll get whacked hard on the knuckles with a ruler, one would hope.

If I'm in the US and make a mp3 of my cds to
listen to when I'm in the gym (DMCA forbids this if I'm not wrong)?

You're wrong.

FWIW, I do not condone copying of e-books, which is illegal in Norway
as it is in the US. (You're not allowed to make a machinereadable
copy.) Besides, it's just plain wrong.

Why is copying an ebook "wrong" but copying a hardcopy book is your "right"?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:05:16 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article k.net, David Cohen wrote:


It is correct to call it copyright infringement.

I am neither a police officer nor a prosecutor. I am not interested
(in this case) with the legal definition of stealing. Copyright
infringement is, morally, theft.

It isn't necessarily anything of the sort.

If you're interested in making moral arguments, I suggest you look into the
history of copyright, why we have it, and what good it is supposed to provide.

Saying that it's "morally theft" is absurd, because theft always deprives
someone of property, whereas copyright infringement does not necessarily
deprive anyone of property or livelihood.

So, if I copy your personal information, that's not theft.

So... if I copy your personal financial data and get credit cards issued
in your name and use them to purchase merchandise, it's not "theft"
by your definition, since I'm not depriving you of any property.

Cool.

Cheers,

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:41:24 -0500, Dally wrote:

That T Woman wrote:

Asking the weightlifters about running seems about like asking your dentist
about your vagina. Asking in one of the running groups would make too much
sense?

I went and posted in rec.running. I've gotten absolutely no response.
Versus over 200 in this thread, which includes fashion advice, sore
throat advice, attitude advice ("butch up, bitch"), a fair amount of
name-calling and a debate on the ethics of downloading. Who could ask
for better?

You definitely get more bitch for your buck here Dally!

I think you are holding your own very well. You are determined if
nothing else! ;o)

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:41:24 -0500, Dally wrote:

That T Woman wrote:

Asking the weightlifters about running seems about like asking your dentist
about your vagina. Asking in one of the running groups would make too much
sense?

I went and posted in rec.running. I've gotten absolutely no response.
Versus over 200 in this thread, which includes fashion advice, sore
throat advice, attitude advice ("butch up, bitch"), a fair amount of
name-calling and a debate on the ethics of downloading. Who could ask
for better?

The runners up in rec.running probably think it's self evident
that you should run and deserves no comment.

Lucas Buck writes:

On 28 Jan 2004 05:14:35 +0100, (Asbjørn Bjørnstad) wrote:

"David Cohen" writes:

"T" wrote
Is reading a library copy stealing?

No. Photocopying the library copy is.

Not where I come from. Well, you may call it stealing, but it's not
illegal. I have the right to make the copy (As long as it is for
personal use and the copy can not be mistaken as an original which
photocopies generally don't.)

Well, we weren't talking about Norwegian law, assuming they *have* a legal
system. US law would certainly forbid copying entire books (otherwise,
for example, who would ever BUY a textbook again?)

Get off your high horse. At least we don't send people we don't like
abroad to get tortured and imprisoned for years without trial while
pretending to have the best most fair justice system in the world.

I can buy a nice new book for say US$ 30 or go to the library, bring
the book home (Since I'd have to pay US$ 40 to photocopy it at the
library.) spend 40 minutes copying the pages stapleing them together
or whatnot and end up with basically a bunch of papers stapled
together assuming I have a photocopier at home. Of course I buy books.

I mean, libraries hasn't stopped people from buying books, have they?

But you really should stop thinking about this. Moral ambiguity is so
comfortable, stick with it.

Does the law define your morals?
Am I immoral if I use my right to make a copy?

What is the origin of this "right" you claim?

Right as in specifically allowed by norwegian copyright law. Might be
wrong use of the word, english is not my mother tongue.

If I'm in the US and make a mp3 of my cds to
listen to when I'm in the gym (DMCA forbids this if I'm not wrong)?

You're wrong.

Good. I thought it made it illegal to break encryption (As in copying
those new "non-copyable" cds.)

FWIW, I do not condone copying of e-books, which is illegal in Norway
as it is in the US. (You're not allowed to make a machinereadable
copy.) Besides, it's just plain wrong.

Why is copying an ebook "wrong" but copying a hardcopy book is your "right"?

Remember that I had the impression that Mr. Cohen made some connection
between law and morals and that my use of "right" above was in the law
not the moral sense.

I'm still going to back down from my statement. I've never copied an
entire book or ebook (Except Jules Verne and Oscar Wilde, both in the
public domain.), but just as I would not feel bad about browsing a
book in a bookstore before buying I do not feel bad browsing an e-book
before buying. Unfortunally, this may mean making an illegal copy.

If I found it useful/worth having I would pay for it just as I would
for a paper copy. I have done the same with software, and have
bought more than one copy of some I found particulary worthwhile.
--
-asbjxrn