The old "I was wrong...so what?" line is great. Unfortunately, it never changes the fact that you were wrong.

I have no interest in further discussing your wrong prediction nor the merits of a B-list handicap horse.

NT

I completely agree with this... was going to post something similar but I figured someone else would!

So that answers the question "Where does NTamm1215 draw the line on misunderstanding very simple discussions?"

Answer: 3 posts.

Do you understand that I was not bragging about the prediction, and was instead defending the merits of the prediction against people who have said it was "stupid",etc.?

I have never said it was correct.

My God, this is madness.

Make that 4.

Ah, the dreaded "too slow delete."

your blog is great

I'm out of black and whites. Have Andy Xerox his and send it to you.

And you think I'm misunderstanding?

Earlier in this thread when you asked Brian which of your predictions he disagreed with you then followed up where you said, "You do realize he came within a half-length of winning a Grade I, right?"

Was that not an attempt to validate your prediction?

NT

Justin,

This is what you posted in that thread you started:

I disagree with this entire post.

And Zanjero came within half a length of winning a Grade I. We'll call that one a tie.

And Bittel Road has yet to appear in a claiming race. Score one for me.

I'll concede that Nobiz Like Shobiz was NOT the best of his generation.

Justin: 1
Andy: 1
Tie: 1
__________________



by saying that people would assume you made the bet prior to Zanjero running second in a Grade I.

You really cant call it a tie when it happened before the bet is made...

You were wrong, and even more wrong when we all found out the horse was a 1/2 length loser in a Grade I BEFORE you made the bet.

So I'm just going to amend it for you.

Justin: 1
Andy: 2

and there is a good chance you will be down 3-0 after Bittle Road races some more.



The funny thing is, I think the Nobiz bet was the best one you made. He may have not been the best in his generation but he was a classy horse and had a very good career (relatively speaking).

Not at all. It was in response to Brian calling my prediction "sheer lunacy."

I cant wait to see him try to explain his post to andy in the Derby re cap thread.

"Calling it a tie because the horse ran 2nd in a grade I before I made the bet was not an attempt to validate my prediction"

Come on.....surely you realize he was joking.

Andy and I both know I was kidding.

Also, the debate about Zanjero began months before I had ever even heard of this website. I made a bet with a fellow blogger on KentuckyDerby.com (whom Andy knows personally) that Zanjero would win a Grade I someday. My comment to Andy was referring to that initial prediction, which came BEFORE the Blue Grass Stakes. My initial post about that bet here was simply me not being afraid to keep score publicly.

I know it's hard for some to believe, but not all that happens happens on DerbyTrail.com.

No. She does not. Humor, nuance, and irony are simply over the heads of 90% of the posters here.

when he brought it up again in this thread....

Oh

I'm going to shut up now.

And posts like this anger an even higher percentage of the posters than even I seem to manage to piss off.

Antitrust is actually one of the nicer people here.

I don't care. The number of people here who constantly not only look for arguments but also misrepresent the words of others in the process is completely astonishing to me.

Then leave.

NT

So what you're saying is you'll be here all week?

Speaking of nuance.

Like the part where NT continues to point out that the fact that Zanjero "almost" won a Grade I does not mean that having bet Zanjero to win a Grade I was any more a good decision than had he never come within 10 lengths of doing so?

Seriously, thank God you're here to ensure we meet that 10% threshold of people who understand things like nuance, right?

And I was actually starting to feel like the excessive amoun of crap you catch was unfair....and you just reminded me why it keeps happening.

Figures.

And here I thought DT.com wasn't Justin's first rodeo.

Do you agree that there is a difference between a losing bet and a dumb bet? All I have said is that the Zanjero prediction/bet was not dumb. Period.

Of course there is.

Having made this bet, you should know as well as anyone, however, that those two categories are not mutually exclusive.

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

OK. So can you see that was I have been doing all along is defending my bet/prediction against those who have mocked it? I'm not saying "I was right" or "Give me credit." I'm saying "It was not a far-fetched proposition, especially since I got 10-1. Therefore, calling it a stupid bet is unfair."

Please just stop.....

I only look for arguments in the politics section buddy.

And I'm happy you think I have no sense of humor!

Are you sure you are the real Justin Dew by the way?

Well, all I've been doing all day is calling it stupid.

And wrong. But I've been mostly focusing on the stupid part.

The fact that your otherwise personal bet is out there for discussion is really swell, so we can all take a moment and say thanks for that and move along, but this whole portion of the conversation started with my calling that bet sheer lunacy.

And since the conversation started, the fact that it was sheer lunacy has failed to change, so I (along with just about everybody else, probably) have little idea what you're going for at this point.

Look. You got personal with me for no reason.

Well, at least we know where we disagree. I feel like taking 10-1 on Zanjero to win a Grade I at some point in his career was not a bad bet. You feel, in spite of the fact that horses like Frost Giant are now Grade I winners and that there are more Grade I races than true Grade I horses, that it was not only a bad bet, but "sheer lunacy."

I respect your opinion. I just can't understand why you have it.

You're just failing to grasp the nuance of it, that's why you don't understand it Justin.

I forgive you for that failing.

How the fucl< did I get personal with you by quoting what you said on another thread and pointing out how wrong you were. I didnt know it was a joke and apparantly 90% of people on here who are not on your level didnt know it was a joke.

Now I'm looking for a fight.

Here's how....

I wish there was a middle finger emoticon.

I'm out.

[quote=GenuineRisk]I don't know if there is, but sometime around Rags' Belmont I read a really interesting article about the physiological advantages of colts vs. fillies. I wish I could remember where I saw it and post the link, but I remember the thrust of the article being that there was no real advantage for colts at short distances (six furlongs and less) and at long ones (past a mile and a quarter) but that the males had an advantage for the middle distances, with the advantage peaking at a mile and a quarter.

I looked for the article, but no luck so far. However, I did find this, ahem, very "interesting" look at Rags' Belmont victory from a Biblical standpoint.

http://www.biblenews1.com/history7/20070609filly.htm

This is better than most explanations that have been trying to explain Mine That Bird's victory.

Is the infamous ROSSTABBERT behind this organization?

I cant wait to see him try to explain his post to andy in the Derby re cap thread.

Good King Solomon will solve it.


Biblical stuff, the final word,
cant wait.

Please mommy make them stop............................. :zz: :wf