Gomez To Announce His Mount

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

Let's see. I asked you to define value, and you proceeded to tell me where the value was in the Dunkirk/POTN debate.

I'll ask again.

What is your definition of value?

We are debating Dunkirk vs POTN and where there will be value. Crazy how I sticked to the topic huh.

My definiton of value ? Hopefully you can follow along. I look at risk vs reward and which scenario has a better return based on the risk I am taking. That scenario with better return vs risk offers the value. In determining "value" the return is the most important thing.

Capiche?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

We are debating Dunkirk vs POTN and where there will be value. Crazy how I sticked to the topic huh.

My definiton of value ? Hopefully you can follow along. I look at risk vs reward and which scenario has a better return based on the risk I am taking. That scenario with better return vs risk offers the value.

Capiche?

This is why you are a moron. You still have no idea what the discussion is about. Here's the sequence of events:

1. You said POTN had beaten horrendous horses.
2. I pointed out that this was a ridiculous statement.
3. You rescinded your original statement.
4. Feeling defeated, you tried to turn the discussion to value.
5. I asked you to define value.
6. Instead of defining value, you told me where you felt the value was, then claimed victory.
7. I reminded you to define value.
8. You changed the topic and then claimed to be the one sticking to the topic.

I actually agree somewhat with your definition of value. But since I like POTN more than Dunkirk and I suspect they will be similar odds, I think POTN offers better value.

I think it's pretty clear here that you are at a higher level intellectually than I am. It's probably in my best interest to quit now, and retreat into hiding.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

This is why you are a moron. You still have no idea what the discussion is about. Here's the sequence of events:

1. You said POTN had beaten horrendous horses.
2. I pointed out that this was a ridiculous statement.
3. You rescinded your original statement.
4. Feeling defeated, you tried to turn the discussion to value.
5. I asked you to define value.
6. Instead of defining value, you told me where you felt the value was, then claimed victory.
7. I reminded you to define value.
8. You changed the topic and then claimed to be the one sticking to the topic.

I actually agree somewhat with your definition of value. But since I like POTN more than Dunkirk and I suspect they will be similar odds, I think POTN offers better value.

I think it's pretty clear here that you are at a higher level intellectually than I am. It's probably in my best interest to quit now, and retreat into hiding.

His last two races he did beat horrendous horses. I guess I should have been more specific. I have never felt defeated. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Points 3-8 in your little list are absolutely not true. You really are an idiot Justin. Typical you. When you are wrong you just try and turn things around. I answered every thing you threw at me. I am sorry if you couldn't follow along.

Dunkirk and POTN will not be similar odds. I think you are nuts.

As far as intelligence, I am far from a genius, but when having a conversation on here with you I feel like one. This is a repeat of our little spat last year. You take things I say and try and turn them around, fail, and then give up.


This is classic Justindew.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

His last two races he did beat horrendous horses. I guess I should have been more specific. I have never felt defeated. Not sure where you are getting that from.

Points 3-8 in your little list are absolutely not true. You really are an idiot Justin. Typical you. When you are wrong you just try and turn things around. I answered every thing you threw at me. I am sorry if you couldn't follow along.

Dunkirk and POTN will not be similar odds. I think you are nuts.

As far as intelligence, I am far from a genius, but when having a conversation on here with you I feel like one. This is a repeat of our little spat last year. You take things I say and try and turn them around, fail, and then give up.


This is classic Justindew.

The fact that you rescinded your original comment, the retroactive claim of sarcasm, and your mischaracterization of the topic of this debate are where I'm getting it from.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

The fact that you rescinded your original comment, the retroactive claim of sarcasm, and your mischaracterization of the topic of this debate are where I'm getting it from.

Never rescinded it. When I made the comment I was referring to his last 2 races. I cleared it up. Big difference between that and rescinding something. Again, must I spell everything out for you?

If you didn't catch on to the Pletcher comment being sarcastic then you really are beyond stupid. Anyone on this board who has been following racing knows that his record in the derby sucks. Sorry if this was over your head.

Stay down for the count like you did last time Justin.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Never rescinded it. When I made the comment I was referring to his last 2 races. I cleared it up. Big difference between that and rescinding something. Again, must I spell everything out for you?

If you didn't catch on to the Pletcher comment being sarcastic then you really are beyond stupid. Anyone on this board who has been following racing knows that his record in the derby sucks. Sorry if this was over your head.

Stay down for the count like you did last time Justin.

So I assume you aren't disagreeing that you mischaracterized the topic of this debate, since you failed to make even a feeble attempt to respond to that accusation.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by justindew

So I assume you aren't disagreeing that you mischaracterized the topic of this debate, since you failed to make even a feeble attempt to respond to that accusation.

You are a trip man. Coming from the king of changing the topic/ducking questions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the topic of the debate is which horse was chosen by Gomez. I claimed that I feel that Dunkirk is a much better choice because I believe he is a better horse. I explained my reasons in detail, which you couldn't follow. We then went into "value" which again I explained, but this time I think you caught on after I had to word things to you like a child.

This is a repeat of last years economy discussion. Everytime you were wrong you changed topics. I then answered them.

In all honesty you are really not a bright guy.