Paul's Law

[ranger]

Rich, You're in A Hole! Stop Digging!

Or do you want another spanking?

You never learn......

If you mean the voice in the posts above, then it's not _me_ who needs the spanking, because it's not my voice.



It's an echo from across the pond, from those who administer the forum.

ranger

[Citroen]

Well, abuse me sideways with a bent screwdriver. It appears that Ranger has learned to use the

Code: Select all

[quote="some poor schmuck"]some quotation here[/quote]

tags on this forum.

Perhaps he can use the same syntax on the UK forum when his time in the penalty box expires on Saturday.

[PaulS]

Rich, You're in A Hole! Stop Digging!

Or do you want another spanking?

You never learn......

If you mean the voice in the posts above, then it's not _me_ who needs the spanking, because it's not my voice.



It's an echo from across the pond, from those who administer the forum.

ranger

That's right, now that you have been placed in the penalty box for a few days you overflow into another place. Well, at least you may have learned a useful skill in attributing quotes accurately. Or you have simply gotten lazy and stopped going to the trouble of actively removing the attributee.

Chatter on as you like, but with credibility shattered don't expect anyone to pay attention to your inane ramblings.

You could try to be a bit less insutling to your superiors, having lost the game decisively, but continue as you see fit, it is illustrative of your declining mental/physical state.

[Nosmo]

Ranger, if you had been paying attention Pauls law states that
"difference in pace = 5 * log_2(D2/D1), if you are training for 2K and your training is balance", where "balanced" is Paul's definition of what your training should be. I.e. if you fall off more slowly then you need to work on Power, if you fall off more quickly you need to work on endurance, ACCORDING TO PAUL TRAINING PHILOSOPHY.

We could call 3* log_2(D2/D1), "Ranger Law", because that would be more or less expected from following your beliefs.

I am much closer to your law, but I make no pretense that my training has been close to optimal for 2K races.

[Micromonkey]

And why aren't you thrown off the forum for not attributing quotes?

Is this another "[f]law" of rowing?

Hardly.

Much deeper issues are involved.

ranger

So so paranoid Ranger

Nothing very deep at all, we just don't like you!

[ranger]

Paul--

Would you please defend your "[f]law" against the evidence I have cited?

What about this evidence?

It appears to me that it refutes your generalization, at least for a (large) population of rowers, of which I am one.

If we don't hear anything otherwise from you on this, I think we can assume that this is right.

For accomplished lightweights, the proper generalization is "double the d, add 3," not "double the d, add 5."

ranger

[ranger]

I am much closer to your law

There you go.

Another case in point.

I am closer to my law, too, as is Rocket Roy, and Mike VB, and Mike C., and Dan Staite, and Eskild E., and...

ranger

[ranger]

Nothing very deep at all, we just don't like you!

No, MM.

You don't like yourself.

Different affair.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

I am much closer to your law

There you go.

Another case in point.

I am closer to my law, too, as is Rocket Roy, and Mike VB, and Mike C., and Dan Staite, and Eskild E., and...

ranger

What evidence is there in your case? Zero. You haven't ranked anything other than the occasional 2k since 2003. Nor by your own admission have you even tried any of the 5k and up pieces you claim to be able to do at "double the d add three." Factually, indisputably, you have no empirical basis for asserting that the relationship at present holds true for you.

Neither do you have any current results from Mike Caviston, or from Dan Staite (who has basically given up erging again for cycling). And unless you speak Danish and somehow are getting spy reports on Ebbesen's training, you have no idea whatsoever whether your conjecture really holds for him or not.

[Micromonkey]

Nothing very deep at all, we just don't like you!

No, MM.

You don't like yourself.

Different affair.

ranger

Not at all, I like myself just fine

I know loads of people that like me just fine.
I don't know anyone who likes you, except yourself.

[ranger]

What evidence is there

I gave the evidence.

There is plenty of information on all of the rowers you cite (Eskild, Mike C., Dan, me, etc.) and what they have been able to do for various distances.

No need for current results on some of these.

Past results are even better, because complete.

There is also complete current evidence for several of those I cite.

You don't respond to this evidence at all.

You don't even mention it.

Paul doesn't reply, either.

Silence.

So, we can assume that there _is_ no response.

When Eskild E. rowed 2K at 1:31, he didn't row 60min at 1:48!

He rowed it at 1:40.

When I rowed 2K at 1:38, I didn't row 60min at 1:54.

I rowed it at 1:48.

Mike VB just pulled over 16K, better than 1:52, for 60min.

He didn't pull 1:57.

That prediction misses the mark by half a mile!

ranger

[Chris Brett]

Is Ranger actually Ricky Gervais? This is superb stuff.

[NavigationHazard]

You cite facts not in evidence, as they don't exist. Results are most conspicuously lacking in your case -- you have ranked none save the odd 2k for the past five years. None. Zip. Zero.

What has Eskil Ebbesen ever ranked for C2 besides 2ks? Kindly show me credible evidence that he topped 18k for 60' in 1998, the year in which he rowed a 6:03.2 (1:30.8 pace, not 1:31). And while you're at it, show me credible evidence of the intervening times he allegedly did in 1998. Heck, I'll settle for a complete run of times across the C2 ranking distances from this year.

Moreover, the plural of anecdote is not "data." Even if you can find the odd example that seems to bear out your conjecture, I have every confidence that I can find many more that don't.

You could always go out and row the range of C2 distances this season and make yourself the poster boy for your cause. True, that would involve actually doing the pieces as well as reporting them according to accepted convention.....

[Nosmo]

I am much closer to your law

There you go.

Another case in point.

ranger

Learn to read Ranger. I said, "I make no pretense of training for the 2K".
I am closer to your law because my PBs came when I was training for a MARATHON. I have not had nearly enought training for a 2K.

IF I train like you do I would follow "rangers law", if I trained like paul does I would follow his.

[PaulS]

Paul--

Would you please defend your "[f]law" against the evidence I have cited?

There is not "flaw", therefore no defense is needed.

What about this evidence?

It appears to me that it refutes your generalization, at least for a (large) population of rowers, of which I am one.

If we don't hear anything otherwise from you on this, I think we can assume that this is right.

For accomplished lightweights, the proper generalization is "double the d, add 3," not "double the d, add 5."

ranger

What about it? It is as meaningless as you are. Pretty simple conclusion as far as that goes.

If we don't hear anything but gibberish from you, I think we can conclude that you have nothing to say but gibberish. But please continue, it is entertaining.