Beyer Checks In on Godolphin

[blackthroatedwind]

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]

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]

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.

[DEES3]

This ridiculous argument over the meaning of the word "vulgar" reminds me a lot of the situation where a staffer in the Washington D.C.'s mayor's office was publicly ostracized and eventually resigned for using the word "niggardly" to describe a a budget in a public staff meeting. Before getting in an uproar it's pretty helpful to actually know what the word means.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I believe the same thing. Maybe I'm wrong here but I know that over the years, I've warned people about criticizing the way the Sheikhs have been trying to win the Derby. It's been my feeling for years, since watching them dominate the European racing scene, that if they so wanted to dominate American racing the same way, they could. It's been my belief that all of the criticism would lead them to taking an "oh, u don't think we can dominate your game?" kind of attitude and lead them to buying any and everything just to show that they can.

maybe next april he can buy the top 25 in graded earnings....he'll win the derby for sure! wonder if it would feel so good that way?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DEES3

This ridiculous argument over the meaning of the word "vulgar" reminds me a lot of the situation where a staffer in the Washington D.C.'s mayor's office was publicly ostracized and eventually resigned for using the word "niggardly" to describe a a budget in a public staff meeting. Before getting in an uproar it's pretty helpful to actually know what the word means.

a shame...i remember that story, and am reminded of it at times when people mis-hear, or misunderstand someone else. hysteria ensues, when the dust clears everyone wonders what the heck happened....

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

a shame...i remember that story, and am reminded of it at times when people mis-hear, or misunderstand someone else. hysteria ensues, when the dust clears everyone wonders what the heck happened....

Thank god that never happens on the internet.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

Why would I care if you asked him to the point of wondering if you had? Sounds silly. I don't really care about your interpretation of what he said. Why would I? I did send him that email (perhaps you are already aware of that.... (shall I entertain that for a bit?)) and if he replies that's fine; if not, well that's fine too.

It's got to be thrilling to you that Bababoo has mustered up behind you. I'm reminded of an old proverb, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King."

As for not paying enough attention to Baba, et al, ditto. Hope that covers it sufficiently for you. And frankly, the last thing I'd care to do is "egg" anyone on. I expressed my thoughts, you saw reason to respond as you did, etc....

Next time I offend you, I'll make sure to find some obscure use of the offensive term that translates into some term of endearment. That way, you and Baba can segue into recess unencumbered by unhappy thoughts.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by DEES3

This ridiculous argument over the meaning of the word "vulgar" reminds me a lot of the situation where a staffer in the Washington D.C.'s mayor's office was publicly ostracized and eventually resigned for using the word "niggardly" to describe a a budget in a public staff meeting. Before getting in an uproar it's pretty helpful to actually know what the word means.

It upset Marion so much that he turned to hookers and crack.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

It upset Marion so much that he turned to hookers and crack.

b!tch set me up....

[repent]

Originally Posted by sham

Take it to the extreme. What if one day all 20 entrants in the KY Derby are owned by the Sheiks? That's the day I will just turn off the TV.

I dont care who owns them as long as I can bet on them.

i know this,
when handicapping the owner line is one of the last things I look at, and its really just more about curiousity.


Repent

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by repent

I dont care who owns them as long as I can bet on them.

i know this,
when handicapping the owner line is one of the last things I look at, and its really just more about curiousity.


Repent

I actually do pay some attention when it comes to first time starters. I'm not sure it helps a great deal but it feels like with some of the bigger trainers ( say Pletcher for example ) there are definitely owners that feel more likely to pop first out. It's hardly an exact science but I think if you paid a little more attention you might develop a bit of a feel.

[repent]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I actually do pay some attention when it comes to first time starters. I'm not sure it helps a great deal but it feels like with some of the bigger trainers ( say Pletcher for example ) there are definitely owners that feel more likely to pop first out. It's hardly an exact science but I think if you paid a little more attention you might develop a bit of a feel.

ok, fair enough.
i look, its just not something I weigh too heavily unless there is a significant trend I have noticed in trainer/owner combo.
thanks for the advice.


Repent

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by repent

ok, fair enough.
i look, its just not something I weigh too heavily unless there is a significant trend I have noticed in trainer/owner combo.
thanks for the advice.


Repent

I agree. It's impossible, assuming no " information ", to weigh it very heavily. I guess it's sort of a final decision maker.

Back to the Sheikhs purchasing geldings, I've read that one did offer to purchase Lava Man at some point last year for $1.5 Million. That offer has been discussed in the mainstream press, but I am not going to go research it now.

[Hwjb]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I can give you two reasons that Lava Man is missing as to why they don't buy him---if you get my drift. (i.e. the Bob Barker treatment). If it was solely about buying the talent on the track they've have bought up all sorts of horses they didn't. Notice Lawyer Ron, Afleet Alex, and the like didn't go to the sheikhs. They didn't want to try to stand them. I heard they snubbed Smarty Jones because they figured his sire was good enough for them and they didn't need sonny boy.

They want stallions to stand and broodmares to send to those stallions if possible. They're paying for the stallion in advance of his track performance really and if they make several million surely paying $1.4 mil or $5 mil is chump change. I was trying to think of a prominent gelding they've bought...has there been one? I'm honestly drawing a blank. Not one they've gelded later per se but did they even do that with a horse they'd bought as a colt?

Unbelievable lack of knowledge/research from some before making comments merely to damn the Sheikhs.
Sheikh Mo has bought Formal Decree and Stage Gift, both progressive geldings, in the past few days.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Hwjb

Unbelievable lack of knowledge/research from some before making comments merely to damn the Sheikhs.
Sheikh Mo has bought Formal Decree and Stage Gift, both progressive geldings, in the past few days.

It's just good to know the Sheik will buy any horse. I, for one, was concerned for a second.