Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prudery
Well then perhaps a corneal transplant is recommended ..
|
For me, or for you? I suggest you need two corneal transplants. One so that you can read what I actually said, and the other to help you learn to watch a race. If you think that's a top 5 or 10 race run in the 50 years you've been watching races, then frankly, you are beyond clueless.
Have you signed up with AARP yet?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prudery
Please ----why haven't you described all the races that trump this one--big lengths, fast, Rachel, Mine That Bird--the tenth at Canterbury ???!!!
|
I'm not sure how to react to that. Maybe "Huh?" or "Where did you learn reading comprehension? Perhaps you should have gone to school instead of learning how to read by being taught how to order off the McDonald's menu"
If you are asking me to name a race that was more impressive than this Classic, how about the Preakness from earlier this year? Oh yeah, I can't use that one since you already mocked that possibility above. How about Arazi, or Inside Information? Or heck, even Phone Chatter winning the BC on busted up knees?
Listen man, I never said her race wasn't at all impressive. What I did say was that the track announcer grossly overreacted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prudery
A fascinating race that some refuse to see ...
Watching races for 50 years, and it is way up there ...
" not a bad one"--don't make me laugh ...
Never have I seen such a good horse continually not believed in ..
She runs virtually the same race regardless of pace or opposition seemingly by design ... And does it easily ....
She is an original that must do numbers on you numbers guys, and less popular with bettors than horse people--wonder why ???
So far you haven't beat her, but won't join either...
And no I am not president of the pretty pony club--made my first bet--winning--at age 10 ...
|
Ugh.