Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Charles Hatton Reading Room (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Beyer Checks In on Godolphin (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6296)

Dunbar 10-31-2006 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by point given
BTW, this past sunday the NY Times had a new sports magazine included. The name of the magazine is PLAY . ( Bill Parcells is pictured on the cover.) On page 16 is an article, GALLOPING TO GREATNESS . It is the story of Bernardini. Its a sparse article listing what's so good about Bernie with a large photo of him taking up half the page. Just suprised to see it in the NYT.

Yesterday they ran a big article on the sheiks' rise to prominance in American racing. This article opened on page A1 before continuing in the sports section.

--Dunbar

SentToStud 10-31-2006 01:49 PM

So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
So Beyer makes a not so thinly veiled reference to the Maktoums as foolish and vulgar. Foolish? OK, maybe. But how/why is he compelled to refer to them as vulgar?

They can do what they want with their horses.

Sangster/Mangier/OBrien did the same thing in the 70's when they bought everything remotely tied to Northern Dancer. They'd race their horses until they won a classic or other important Group I then retire them to breed.

Sound familiar?

If Gates or Buffett suddenly decided to put a billion dollars into the American breeding industry, they'd be called a lot of things.... Sporting, Foolish, Yep. Stupid. Sure, though quietly I'd guess. Vulgar? Nah, save that, as does Beyer and countless others, for the Arabs.

Shame on Beyer. He should be an effective enough journalist by now to get his point across without referring to the Maktums as vulgar.


May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
May I suggest looking up " vulgar " in the dictionary. One use of the word suggests pretentious or, more aptly, ostentatious. Because you have a limited understanding of the meaning of the word does not give you the right to make your usual accusations.

Believe it or not, everything isn't couched with racism.

Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Again, you must be right, as usual. Should know that by now, you make a point of telling us often enough and everyone else is just (fill in your favorite adjective/pronoun).... Really, not everyone other than yourself is as naive, limited, or (again, fill in as you wish, but of course some mental capacity reference is always fun!!) as you'd like to think.

You profess so much and yet resort to this same trash anytime anyone takes a view any different than any you care to see.

So, perhaps we won't be having any holiday dinners together. I'll get over it.

And, PLEEEEZE, don't bother trotting out your Racing/Pick6/Zito/Beyer/NYRA/Respected Handicapper/Dictionary Expert (new!!) Cirriculum Vitae!! it's not necessary. We all surely know it very well now.

Take it in the spirit offered.


So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Please, I'm not trying anything. Really, now. But, nice try.

The vulgar reference is lousy writing, no matter who's friendly with the guy . By the way, just which of the listed definitions of the word would you think he was going for (of course, that assume you can read his mind as well as mine which, of course, we have no reason to doubt)?

You are trying something. Instead of seeing at least the possibility that you misunderstood his use of the word " vulgar " you just trashed me.

You most certainly are trying something. Don't think you can post what you did and then play the injured party.

You don't like the article, or his writing, fine...but the constant unfounded accusations of racism are tiresome....at best.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
So, your defense of accusing someone of racism because, in this case, you don't know the true meaning of a word is to....what....trash me?

That makes sense and dramatically increases your credibility.

Nice try.

on second thought, F it. The last time we did this, I moved it to PM and, despite you saying you would, you never got back to me. So what's the point?

SentToStud 10-31-2006 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
You are trying something. Instead of seeing at least the possibility that you misunderstood his use of the word " vulgar " you just trashed me.

You most certainly are trying something. Don't think you can post what you did and then play the injured party.

You don't like the article, or his writing, fine...but the constant unfounded accusations of racism are tiresome....at best.

Man, you are some special kind of something. My first post wasn't even a response to anything you wrote. Was it? But I suppose defending your friends vigorously without exception is an admirable quality.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Man, you are some special kind of something. My first post wasn't even a response to anything you wrote. Was it? But I suppose defending your friends vigorously without exception is an admirable quality.


So, people can't respond to posts unless they are specifically directed towards them? Good to know.

As for why I didn't respond further with another PM, I ended up covering everything that seemed necessary, and didn't see that another PM was necessary. Had I known you were waiting for another I most certainly would have sent one. My apologies.

Cajungator26 10-31-2006 02:56 PM

Why does everything have to turn into a racisim deal? I didn't see Beyer as using the term "vulgar" in that kind of manner. :confused:

SentToStud 10-31-2006 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
So, people can't respond to posts unless they are specifically directed towards them? Good to know.

As for why I didn't respond further with another PM, I ended up covering everything that seemed necessary, and didn't see that another PM was necessary. Had I known you were waiting for another I most certainly would have sent one. My apologies.

Well, you took offense to my opinion on his article and characterized it as me trashing on you. So be it.

As for the PM, whatever... I'll do my best to have a decent evening and I hope you'll also enjoy yours. Must go on some how.

If I had Crist's and Beyer's emails handy, I'd shoot them a note. It's on my to do list for tomorrow.

Coach Pants 10-31-2006 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26
Why does everything have to turn into a racisim deal? I didn't see Beyer as using the term "vulgar" in that kind of manner. :confused:

I'm a victim too!!!

*cries*

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Well, you took offense to my opinion on his article and characterized it as me trashing on you. So be it.

As for the PM, whatever... I'll do my best to have a decent evening and I hope you'll also enjoy yours. Must go on some how.

If I had Crist's and Beyer's emails handy, I'd shoot them a note. It's on my to do list for tomorrow.

I merely suggested that because you didn't understand the word " vulgar " in Beyer's usage of it, as did another poster may I add, that you were being unfair in making accusations of racism. It seems I am not the only one who feels that way. You are not the only one to disagree with some of Beyer's comments and the other posts were not criticized for their opinions. In your case it seemed you misinterpreted his verbeage and that was specifically what I was pointing out.

And, furthermore, you did trash ME in a following post. That's a fact. This was your response to my suggestion that you should look up the definition of the word " vulgar ".

I'm sure they are looking forward to your e-mails. I have already shared your thoughts with Beyer if that makes you feel better. I wouldn't want you to think your voice went unheard.

I to hope you enjoy your evening...and all your days and evenings as well.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I merely suggested that because you didn't understand the word " vulgar " in Beyer's usage of it, as did another poster may I add, that you were being unfair in making accusations of racism. It seems I am not the only one who feels that way. You are not the only one to disagree with some of Beyer's comments and the other posts were not criticized for their opinions. In your case it seemed you misinterpreted his verbeage and that was specifically what I was pointing out.

And, furthermore, you did trash ME in a following post. That's a fact. This was your response to my suggestion that you should look up the definition of the word " vulgar ".

I'm sure they are looking forward to your e-mails. I have already shared your thoughts with Beyer if that makes you feel better. I wouldn't want you to think your voice went unheard.

I to hope you enjoy your evening...and all your days and evenings as well.


I feel much better now. I did send Beyer an email at the Wash Post. I'll be certain to share with you that he has responded, when he does.

Still waiting for whch definition of vulgar you thought was appropriate to be used there. Take your time....

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
I feel much better now. I did send Beyer an email at the Wash Post. I'll be certain to share with you that he has responded, when he does.

Still waiting for whch definition of vulgar you thought was approriate to be used there. Take your time....

I gave you the definition in my first response....as did another poster.

I am also curious as to why you believe Beyer should or will respond to your e-mail. Is he, or any writer, under some sort of obligation?

Bold Reasoning 10-31-2006 03:23 PM

I agree with much of what Andrew Beyer is saying, but I think he is stereotyping the United Arab Emirates. I saw a newsmagazine piece on ABC, NBC, or CBS(I cannot remember which) which made Dubai look like a farcry from Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The report spoke about everyone having a free education and healthcare, among other things. It seemed like a benevolent monarchy. I am not suggesting it is like living in a democracy, but it sure seemed a longway from the hellholes of the Middle East. So is Mr. Beyer being totally fair? Does he wish to paint a picture of the Maktoums that is negative, beyond the fact of them controlling our racing industry?:confused:

SentToStud 10-31-2006 03:26 PM

by the way... my email to Andrew Beyer...
 
Mr. Beyer,
I read your article regarding Darley, "Call it Checkbook Horsemanship," with interest. While I found the article interesting, I am disappointed in your use of the word "vulgar" to describe the appearance of the actions of the Maktoums. While I believe there is arguably some merit in providing background on the source of the Maktoum wealth, I, as I expect did many readers, took exception and offense to your choice of words.

Sincerely,
Bruce ********
Plantation, Florida
954-***-****

Cunningham Racing 10-31-2006 03:28 PM

An Andy Beyer post that is negative in nature....thats a new one :rolleyes:

Cajungator26 10-31-2006 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants
I'm a victim too!!!

*cries*

LMFAO!!! :D

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 03:33 PM

Any columnist that is not illiciting strong responses, either or both positive and negative, is not doing his or her job.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I gave you the definition in my first response....as did another poster.

I am also curious as to why you believe Beyer should or will respond to your e-mail. Is he, or any writer, under some sort of obligation?

Of course he is not obligated to either read or respond. Nor would I expect he would.

Don't see your offering as the "use of the word" listed nor is it one of the listed synonyms...

from Dictionary.com:

vul‧gar  /ˈvʌlgər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vuhl-ger] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
6. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
7. lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.
–noun 8. Archaic. the common people.
9. Obsolete. the vernacular.


—Synonyms 1. unrefined, inelegant, low, coarse, ribald. See common. 3. boorish, rude. 6. colloquial.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 03:37 PM

From the American Heritage Dictionary...


Ostentatious in appearance or quality; pretentious.

Example in the disctionary....." a vulgar display of wealth ".


Just to be clearer....


Ostentatious....

Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness




Just to be clear...I assume you realize words can and often do have several meanings.

Cajungator26 10-31-2006 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
From the American Heritage Dictionary...


Ostentatious in appearance or quality; pretentious.

Example in the disctionary....." a vulgar display of wealth ".


Just to be clearer....


Ostentatious....

Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness




Just to be clear...I assume you realize words can and often do have several meanings.

Dammit, this is a VULGAR post! :eek: J/K :D

SentToStud 10-31-2006 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
From the American Heritage Dictionary...


Ostentatious in appearance or quality; pretentious.

Example in the disctionary....." a vulgar display of wealth ".


Just to be clearer....


Ostentatious....

Pretentious display meant to impress others; boastful showiness

Just to be clear...I assume you realize words can and often do have several meanings.


Just how far down the list is this use of the word?

What are those listed above/before it?

Tell you what, go ask the next 10 people you talk to what they think "Vulgar" means." If any of them come up with that, I'll .....

Holding my breath, Phone ringing!!!. "Bruce, it's Mr. Beyer on line 5."

2MinsToPost 10-31-2006 03:53 PM

the question begs to be asked so I will ask it with clarification off the bat - I am not inciting an ongoing "fight" nor suggesting what ones views are based on their posts on here, this is the internet after all. with that said..............

would this be an issue if the family was born in the Good Ole' USA?

Their money is as good as anyone else's, it'll spend at Wendy's and it will buy horses.

Cajungator26 10-31-2006 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost
the question begs to be asked so I will ask it with clarification off the bat - I am not inciting an ongoing "fight" nor suggesting what ones views are based on their posts on here, this is the internet after all. with that said..............

would this be an issue if the family was born in the Good Ole' USA?

Their money is as good as anyone else's, it'll spend at Wendy's and it will buy horses.

If I bought horses in the manner that the Sheik's do, it would be considered a vulgar display just as much... JMO. They are free to do whatever they like and I have nothing against them for it... that's just how it is.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Just how far down the list is this use of the word?

What are those listed above/before it?

Tell you what, go ask the next 10 people you talk to what they think "Vulgar" means." If any of them come up with that, I'll .....

Holding my breath, Phone ringing!!!. "Bruce, it's Mr. Beyer on line 5."


So now your defense is that it isn't the first or second definition of the word that was offered?

A simple " I guess I misunderstood " would have sufficed.

I'm just glad we could clear things up for you. Feel free to check in any time in the future you are unclear as to the meaning of a word or phrase.

SentToStud 10-31-2006 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
So now your defense is that it isn't the first or second definition of the word that was offered?

A simple " I guess I misunderstood " would have sufficed.

I'm just glad we could clear things up for you. Feel free to check in any time in the future you are unclear as to the meaning of a word or phrase.

Well, you apparently feel the need to declare victory. That's not a big surprise. Y

ou choose to refuse to believe that people could be offended by his poor choice of words or, alternatively, you will defend blindly. Noone with anything other than misguided loyalty would read the sentence and paragraph (context, sir) and come up what you've commented. It's also more than a bit disingenuous for you to have parsed out the only portion of the Am Hert definition that you could remotely use to defend the indefensible.

That's ok. As far as what "would have sufficed," I suppose you could have gone through all the definitions of the word listed and said, "I'm sure he didn't mean this. Or this... Or this either. You could have kept going until you could say, 'THIS is what he meant.'" But no.

blackthroatedwind 10-31-2006 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud
Well, you apparently feel the need to declare victory. That's not a big surprise. Y

ou choose to refuse to believe that people could be offended by his poor choice of words or, alternatively, you will defend blindly. Noone with anything other than misguided loyalty would read the sentence and paragraph (context, sir) and come up what you've commented. It's also more than a bit disingenuous for you to have parsed out the only portion of the Am Hert definition that you could remotely use to defend the indefensible.

That's ok. As far as what "would have sufficed," I suppose you could have gone through all the definitions of the word listed and said, "I'm sure he didn't mean this. Or this... Or this either. You could have kept going until you could say, 'THIS is what he meant.'" But no.

Bababooyee offered the exact same definition in his interpretation and response to you, so clearly I am not the only one that sees it that way. Interesting that you have only argued with me and, apparently, pretended his similar disagreements don't exist. Another poster, Cajungator, expressed similar thoughts.

You also should at least entertain the possibility that I am in a position to know what he meant. I may well have asked him.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43 PM.

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