Derby Trail Forums
Page 5 of 7 « First < 34 5 67 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Zenyatta v. Rail Trip?? (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35997)

the_fat_man 05-10-2010 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 645902)
John Shirreffs is a terrific trainer and seemingly a nice guy but he has now provided us with two incredibly stupid statements in the last month regarding where Zenyatta will run.

NT
I don't look to trainers (or jocks or owners) for intellectual stimulation. Shirreffs has this mare 17 for 17. That and showing up in the BC is enough for me. When ANYTHING that has run to this point in time this year does something NOVEL, something Horse of the Year novel, someone wake me up.

blackthroatedwind 05-10-2010 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 645919)
I don't look to trainers (or jocks or owners) for intellectual stimulation. Shirreffs has this mare 17 for 17. That and showing up in the BC is enough for me. When ANYTHING that has run to this point in time this year does something NOVEL, something Horse of the Year novel, someone wake me up.
So, running a 3YO filly in the KY Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward, as part of an eight race campaign, isn't novel.......but running five races, four against cupcakes, with one tough race is novel.

I got so much to learn about this game.

the_fat_man 05-10-2010 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 645920)
So, running a 3YO filly in the KY Oaks, Preakness, Mother Goose, Haskell and Woodward, as part of an eight race campaign, isn't novel.......but running five races, four against cupcakes, with one tough race is novel.

I got so much to learn about this game.
That was last year. Let the aforementioned filly show up this year and we can discuss this again. I'm sure the Z camp will probably reevaluate, should this happen. If they're giving this year's award for last year's performance, then maybe they can also take away last year's award based on this year's performance. Seems only right to me.:rolleyes:

I mean, let's face it, even if Z beats the high Beyer numbering RT, Mike the EUNUCH and his group would still want to see a high Beyer on dirt. So, the argument still remains for the cultists. Z gains NADA by beating RT (at least here, and PA, which is where it really counts :rolleyes:).

Note this year in my post.

blackthroatedwind 05-10-2010 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 645934)
That was last year. Let the aforementioned filly show up this year and we can discuss this again. I'm sure the Z camp will probably reevaluate, should this happen. If they're giving this year's award for last year's performance, then maybe they can also take away last year's award based on this year's performance. Seems only right to me.:rolleyes:

I mean, let's face it, even if Z beats the high Beyer numbering RT, Mike the EUNUCH and his group would still want to see a high Beyer on dirt. So, the argument still remains for the cultists. He gains NADA by beating RT.

Rachel Alexandra has faced tougher horses in 2010 than Zenyatta....and even you know that.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 645882)
It's time to heed the advice of others....and where better to start than SCUDS.


This is a subtle use of a defense mechanism that reduces cognitive dissonance.
By diminishing the stature of the messenger – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. He did it more strongly last night with Fat Man:

""Yes, I was wrong about Rail Trip. Happy? I doubt it....as you are as miserable as they come."

Now, after he did that, he quickly changes the subject:

"Now, that we have gotten past that, try to actually make one post that is related to the actual discussion. Surely you can do this once."

This is a double shift. When forced to admit something he doesn't like, he makes a definite effort to shift attention away from himself.

the_fat_man 05-10-2010 06:26 PM
That wouldn't be the case if RA showed up, like she was supposed to. You run against the field that shows up. Do you also want to assume that little Z handles Z in the morning?

In fact, I'm still wondering why all the other fine fillies in the land don't head out to CALI and take down Z -- she's so SLOW, after all. Or why they didn't bother showing up at OP. It must've been because RA was going to be there.:rolleyes: Last I checked, when you get taken out in an early round, the playoffs are kind of over for you until next year -- i.e. until you show up.

Let me take an additional moment to put SCUDS back on ignore. Clearly, he's not taking his meds and feels the need for unsolicited attention.

Antitrust32 05-10-2010 06:26 PM
SCUDS are u a shrink or something? cause THAT would be scary!! ;)

CSC 05-10-2010 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTamm1215 (Post 645902)
John Shirreffs is a terrific trainer and seemingly a nice guy but he has now provided us with two incredibly stupid statements in the last month regarding where Zenyatta will run.

NT
Unfortunately, this one is dumber.

"All options are open," Asmussen said. Under the heading "Next Start Undecided".

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 645943)
SCUDS are u a shrink or something? cause THAT would be scary!! ;)
Again, attacking the messenger, and changing the subject. Anything necessary to take the attention off the Narcissist. It's as if he has taught the others how to carry his water for him.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_fat_man (Post 645942)
Let me take an additional moment to put SCUDS back on ignore. Clearly, he's not taking his meds and feels the need for unsolicited attention.
Attacking the messenger, and trying to distract. The Narcissist is now being represented by his many enablers.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 645939)
This is a subtle use of a defense mechanism known as cognitive dissonance.
By diminishing the stature of the messenger – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. He did it more strongly last night with Fat Man:

""Yes, I was wrong about Rail Trip. Happy? I doubt it....as you are as miserable as they come."

Now, after he did that, he quickly changes the subject:

"Now, that we have gotten past that, try to actually make one post that is related to the actual discussion. Surely you can do this once."

This is a double shift. When forced to admit something he doesn't like, he makes a definite effort to shift attention away from himself.
Bump necessary to re-focus attention that the enablers strongly tried to displace.

Danzig 05-10-2010 06:57 PM
What I find exceedingly tedious about this entire protracted discussion is that the bc is being used as the only measure of these two horses total worth in '09. Zenyatta gets a pass for an otherwise uninspiring year because she won. Rachel is vilified because altho she had an exceedingly rare campaign for a 3 year old filly, she skipped the bc. Its unbelievable and defies logic. And somehow, were rachel to manage to win the bc this year, I imagine the zenyatta booster club would be less enthused then thhey were last year.

As for hoy this year, neither mare has done anything thus far to warrant being included on the ballot.

Indian Charlie 05-10-2010 06:59 PM
Steve, are you now trying to psycho analyze yourself by quoting your own post?

I know, I know.

I'm sure you have a label for me.

NTamm1215 05-10-2010 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSC (Post 645947)
Unfortunately, this one is dumber.

"All options are open," Asmussen said. Under the heading "Next Start Undecided".
Congrats on making one of the worst attempts at something clever in the history of this board.

NT

Merlinsky 05-10-2010 07:54 PM
My blood sugar is a low so I've gone a little nuts and decided that those of us head over heels for both mares need a nickname. How about "RAZen"s? You know, like the shriveled up fruity snack? Much better than Brangelina. Yeah I'm a dork. You're welcome. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go eat something...I'll leave you with my pre-typed babble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 645961)
What I find exceedingly tedious about this entire protracted discussion is that the bc is being used as the only measure of these two horses total worth in '09. Zenyatta gets a pass for an otherwise uninspiring year because she won. Rachel is vilified because altho she had an exceedingly rare campaign for a 3 year old filly, she skipped the bc. Its unbelievable and defies logic. And somehow, were rachel to manage to win the bc this year, I imagine the zenyatta booster club would be less enthused then thhey were last year.

As for hoy this year, neither mare has done anything thus far to warrant being included on the ballot.
Yeah at the rate they're going, neither one has achieved your typical HOY accomplishments. I know they think Zenyatta is God's gift to horse racing (she kind of is--not my point), but could they just play a tape of her winning races on synethetic in CA against the females, emerging victorious right at the end, and let the horse herself hang out in the pasture? She doesn't even need to be there, we could just hit replay. I got my hopes high from the trip to Oaklawn, I guess. Rachel's lack of pizazz despite putting up decent numbers/races for any other horse doesn't perk things up either. I'm in a funk--c'mon Super Saver. I love Preakness time because you sneeze post-Derby and you're right there at another TC race. Nice and exciting.

Right now, I think they're keeping that record in mind. Again, I don't blame them, it just doesn't do me any favors. Rail Trip's not the highest mountain. I know that remark about weights is probably a loaded comment meant to discourage giving her too much, otherwise they go elsewhere. To get Z in the Vanity, they're gonna give her less than she warrants. Whatever you think about handicap races, if you take a 17 hand undefeated phenom beating up on the same quality of field and it's her own gender, there's no reason to give her less than 130. It's ridiculous.

Danzig 05-10-2010 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 645943)
SCUDS are u a shrink or something? cause THAT would be scary!! ;)
He stayed in a holiday inn express last night.

Danzig 05-10-2010 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlinsky (Post 645981)
My blood sugar is a low so I've gone a little nuts and decided that those of us head over heels for both mares need a nickname. How about "RAZen"s? You know, like the shriveled up fruity snack? Much better than Brangelina. Yeah I'm a dork. You're welcome. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go eat something...I'll leave you with my pre-typed babble.



Yeah at the rate they're going, neither one has achieved your typical HOY accomplishments. I know they think Zenyatta is God's gift to horse racing (she kind of is--not my point), but could they just play a tape of her winning races on synethetic in CA against the females, emerging victorious right at the end, and let the horse herself hang out in the pasture? She doesn't even need to be there, we could just hit replay. I got my hopes high from the trip to Oaklawn, I guess. Rachel's lack of pizazz despite putting up decent numbers/races for any other horse doesn't perk things up either. I'm in a funk--c'mon Super Saver. I love Preakness time because you sneeze post-Derby and you're right there at another TC race. Nice and exciting.

Right now, I think they're keeping that record in mind. Again, I don't blame them, it just doesn't do me any favors. Rail Trip's not the highest mountain. I know that remark about weights is probably a loaded comment meant to discourage giving her too much, otherwise they go elsewhere. To get Z in the Vanity, they're gonna give her less than she warrants. Whatever you think about handicap races, if you take a 17 hand undefeated phenom beating up on the same quality of field and it's her own gender, there's no reason to give her less than 130. It's ridiculous.
I think the record is their goal right now. Can't say I blame them at all for that. As for weights, sure they're going to try their best to keep them low-but by doing that as well as their over all handling, they've got no one to blame but themselves for the lack of respect they feel she is getting. Thing is, I think people respect the horse but not the connections. Many just know that she can do more, that she possibly could really excel-but they just won't test her.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Charlie (Post 645962)
Steve, are you now trying to psycho analyze yourself by quoting your own post?

I know, I know.

I'm sure you have a label for me.
3rd effort to attack the messenger.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 645994)
He stayed in a holiday inn express last night.
4th effort to attack the messenger.

pmacdaddy 05-10-2010 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646026)
4th effort to attack the messenger.
Thanks. Just updated my scorecard.

Coach Pants 05-10-2010 09:06 PM

Danzig 05-10-2010 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646026)
4th effort to attack the messenger.
What psychobabble term do you use to describe thinking everything is about you??

Gaining Ground 05-10-2010 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmacdaddy (Post 646029)
Thanks. Just updated my scorecard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 646031)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 646032)
What psychobabble term do you use to describe thinking everything is about you??
5th, 6th, 7th and mine is the 8th for us following along

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 646032)
What psychobabble term do you use to describe thinking everything is about you??
It's not about me. It's about BTW. The only way you can help him (which is your goal...to come to the aid of a Narcissist you like ) is by attacking the messenger who brought the truth. Nobody has attacked the facts. They've attacked the messenger, and that's how people have chosen to reduce the cognitive dissonance that they are finding unpleasant. Look at #3A. IT'S A BOARD FAVORITE. The popular way to diminish an idea is to try to alter it's importance by attacking the person who brought up the idea. That's what BTW did. He admitted he was wrong, but quickly attacked the messenger(FAT MAN,) and changed the subject. Now, all the enablers of BTW have followed his lead by attacking me (the messenger who pointed out the defense mechanism the Narcissist uses) using the technique BTW used in the 1st place (attacking the messenger.)


http://www.rationalrevelation.com/library/cogdis.html

Coach Pants 05-10-2010 09:28 PM

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 645939)
This is a subtle use of a defense mechanism that reduces cognitive dissonance.
By diminishing the stature of the messenger – the narcissist minimises the impact of the disagreement or criticism on himself. He did it more strongly last night with Fat Man:

""Yes, I was wrong about Rail Trip. Happy? I doubt it....as you are as miserable as they come."

Now, after he did that, he quickly changes the subject:

"Now, that we have gotten past that, try to actually make one post that is related to the actual discussion. Surely you can do this once."

This is a double shift. When forced to admit something he doesn't like, he makes a definite effort to shift attention away from himself.
Bump due to specific efforts made to displace attention away from this (by attacking the messenger.) If you'll stop the efforts to distract attention away from the subject, then no bumps.

Coach Pants 05-10-2010 09:32 PM

Gaining Ground 05-10-2010 09:32 PM
isnt the subject zenyatta v rail trip?

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaining Ground (Post 646047)
isnt the subject zenyatta v rail trip?
Yet another way to lessen information you don't like......BTW said he was wrong about Rail Trip, but (because he's a narcissist) had to try to alter the importance of that by attacking FAT MAN. I didn't bring Narcissism in. He displayed it 3 times:

1) Writes "Happy?" after admitting he's wrong...........(Narcissistic Technique.)

2) I was wrong, but you're as miserable as it gets........ (Narcissistic Technique.)

3) Changes subject...........(Narcissistic Technique.)

Gaining Ground 05-10-2010 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646051)
Yet another way to lessen information you don't like......BTW said he was wrong about Rail Trip, but (because he's a narcissist) had to try to alter the importance of that by attacking FAT MAN. I didn't bring Narcissism in. He displayed it 3 times:

1) Happy?..........(Narcissistic Technique.)

2) I was wrong, but you're as miserable as it gets........ (Narcissistic Technique.)

3) Changes subject...........(Narcissistic Technique.)
i have no dog in whatever fight you are trying to have. just trying to get the thread back to what the subject is and its not who is or isnt a narcissist. the subject is zenyatta and rail trip.

Coach Pants 05-10-2010 09:58 PM

Danzig 05-10-2010 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaining Ground (Post 646047)
isnt the subject zenyatta v rail trip?
scuds vs the world is way more interesting right now.

smuthg 05-10-2010 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 645935)
Rachel Alexandra has faced tougher horses in 2010 than Zenyatta....and even you know that.
Maybe... But those horses and their connections had a choice 1) take a shot at Rachel or 2) take a shot at Z.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaining Ground (Post 646052)
i have no dog in whatever fight you are trying to have. just trying to get the thread back to what the subject is and its not who is or isnt a narcissist. the subject is zenyatta and rail trip.
IF THEY STOP ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, THEN IT'D BE BACK ON WHAT YOU WANT. LOL...Nothing new going on. I just reset it. They keep attacking the messenger in order to try to lessen the importance of something they don't like being talked about. This is what people do when a Narcissist is exposed with facts. They attack the messenger.

SCUDSBROTHER 05-10-2010 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 646056)
scuds vs the world is way more interesting right now.
Another attack on the messenger. Painting messenger as paranoid etc. Still no attack on the facts brought up.

Gaining Ground 05-10-2010 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646059)
IF THEY STOP ATTACKING THE MESSENGER, THEN IT'D BE BACK ON WHAT YOU WANT. LOL...Nothing new going on. I just reset it. They keep attacking the messenger in order to try to lessen the importance of something they don't like being talked about. This is what people do when a Narcissist is exposed with facts. They attack the messenger.
:wf

stonegossard 05-10-2010 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646060)
Another attack on the messenger.
Scuds I am on your side of this argument. You seem like a good enough dude.

gales0678 05-10-2010 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646060)
Another attack on the messenger. Painting messenger as paranoid etc. Still no attack on the facts brought up.
facts are the facts scuds , i know the deal you feel , if i claim foul when nyra doesn't give a refund over a horse held in the starting gate, it becomes a debate on my assocaition with a former board member instead of a cold hard look at the facts ....ie now instead of looking at the message , the messenger goes on trial , great country isn't it scuds

stonegossard 05-10-2010 10:31 PM
Scuds I was joking. I waited patiently for you to post, but you are probably too busy finishing up building your last lamp built out of human body parts. I wanted the tenth attacker on scuds to be special. You let me down Dahmer.

CSC 05-10-2010 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 646051)
Yet another way to lessen information you don't like......BTW said he was wrong about Rail Trip, but (because he's a narcissist) had to try to alter the importance of that by attacking FAT MAN. I didn't bring Narcissism in. He displayed it 3 times:

1) Writes "Happy?" after admitting he's wrong...........(Narcissistic Technique.)

2) I was wrong, but you're as miserable as it gets........ (Narcissistic Technique.)

3) Changes subject...........(Narcissistic Technique.)
Interesting $hit...Who knew...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.
Page 5 of 7 « First < 34 5 67 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.