Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Jun 16
18:23
Joined:
Date Joined:
28 Aug 07
a quite fantastic ride to keep that horse out of the places
Show More
"That's not the full Fallon drive is it?" says Chapman. Thought that was his way of putting across what he really wanted to go on and say but he then goes on to say "it may have been mitigating circumstances and seen as somewhat educational, there's nothing you can do about it, stick it in your notebook for next time, that's the one you'd want to take home with you."
.... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why our sport is well and truly fooked!
.... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why our sport is well and truly fooked!
That statement right there is exactly what's wrong with it ^
anyone backing anything that ugly little midget is riding needs their heads testing. imo
Jun 2, 2016 -- 12:52PM, scholes121 wrote:
to be fair as jockeys go he aint that little
+1
bump
I for one didn't back anything in the race but I say it how I see it.
If you owned a 2yo debutant would you like it beaten up to get a place?
What exactly is it that we are supposed to have seen here then, because it certainly wasn't a horse that should have won but didn't?
Where in the rules does it state that 2yo debutants are allowed to be nursed home? It's simply accepted/tolerated.
No ones asking for it to be "beaten up" to get a place though are they? The horse opened 9/2 and went off 5/2, safe to say after the opportunity to win had gone, Fallon ensured the horse didn't catch the eye too much.
No ones asking for it to be "beaten up" to get a place though are they? The horse opened 9/2 and went off 5/2, safe to say after the opportunity to win had gone, Fallon ensured the horse didn't catch the eye too much.
4th Mirdif M O'Callaghan 2 9-7 K Fallon
SP 5/2f Chased leaders on outer early, 7th halfway, took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out where not much room and edged left, improved into 4th inside final furlong where hung and kept on under hands and heels, never troubled leaders (Op 9/2)
SP 5/2f Chased leaders on outer early, 7th halfway, took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out where not much room and edged left, improved into 4th inside final furlong where hung and kept on under hands and heels, never troubled leaders (Op 9/2)
4th place beaten 4L or 4th place beaten 1L is still 4th place and it's not as if you get any more prize money for the reduced distance.
Ignoring the fact the Mirdif was buffeted about a bit by other runners during the race, it was unlikely to make the frame anyway and certainly never looked like winning at any stage either. The front 3 have pulled clear of Mirdif and he has pulled clear of the rest of them, in what was effectively a 2YO handicap considering the weight conditions of the race and to be beaten 4L giving away almost a stone to the 3 runners finishing in front of them I don't see as any particular shame anyway.
Ignoring the fact the Mirdif was buffeted about a bit by other runners during the race, it was unlikely to make the frame anyway and certainly never looked like winning at any stage either. The front 3 have pulled clear of Mirdif and he has pulled clear of the rest of them, in what was effectively a 2YO handicap considering the weight conditions of the race and to be beaten 4L giving away almost a stone to the 3 runners finishing in front of them I don't see as any particular shame anyway.
and certainly never looked like winning at any stage either....wrong...did you play the race because this looked to have every chance approaching 2f out
I wouldn't make a comment on a race I had not seen and having every chance and looking like winning aren't actually the same thing. Excelebration looked to have every chance in the Queen Anne until Frankel was let go.
Mirdif as I said above "was buffeted about a bit by other runners during the race" which happened around the same 2f mark you mention above, so yes whilst the horse was travelling well enough, it was on the rail and needing a split to find a gap and still around 3L-4L down on the leader at that 2f pole.
Asking a 2YO horse to make up 3L-4L in the last 2f of a 6f race whilst giving around a stone to other runners, as well as being bumped about a bit and not getting the clearest of runs is a big ask, which is hardly surprising that those 3L-4L from the 2f mark generally remained the same to the winning line, despite Mirdif putting plenty of distance between itself and the 5th and 6th horses considering all 3 were basically alongside each other at the 1f pole.
Mirdif as I said above "was buffeted about a bit by other runners during the race" which happened around the same 2f mark you mention above, so yes whilst the horse was travelling well enough, it was on the rail and needing a split to find a gap and still around 3L-4L down on the leader at that 2f pole.
Asking a 2YO horse to make up 3L-4L in the last 2f of a 6f race whilst giving around a stone to other runners, as well as being bumped about a bit and not getting the clearest of runs is a big ask, which is hardly surprising that those 3L-4L from the 2f mark generally remained the same to the winning line, despite Mirdif putting plenty of distance between itself and the 5th and 6th horses considering all 3 were basically alongside each other at the 1f pole.
I didn't ask if you'd seen the race,and don't start bringing other examples into this,there are hundreds a week...your statement was wrong,it did look like winning and the IR prices show you that...
I asked if you 'played' the race because judging a race on a recording is totally different than playing in real time with real money and getting a good grasp of how the race feels,how it is debated afterwards on national television..
I have numerous horses a day in my organiser,9 times out of 10 I don't watch replays,I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.I do this because looking back at a race it's sometimes doesn't play how it should in relation to my notes and this has been very fruitful for me. Knowing the result and watching it back is not the same.
I asked if you 'played' the race because judging a race on a recording is totally different than playing in real time with real money and getting a good grasp of how the race feels,how it is debated afterwards on national television..
I have numerous horses a day in my organiser,9 times out of 10 I don't watch replays,I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.I do this because looking back at a race it's sometimes doesn't play how it should in relation to my notes and this has been very fruitful for me. Knowing the result and watching it back is not the same.
ima reply to be half a page at least, expect your name in bold tomhunt, how dare you question the wisdom of know all and everything ima, shame on you...!
Not in ima's world, numerous threads show him debating his own agenda in the face of adversity, irrespective of facts and evidence, never been wrong in his life according to him, as ever, he'll insist on having the last word, even when you specifically and politely request him not to reply, he feels compelled to...!
Presumably tomhunt when most people play in a race then they like to actually watch it too, so yes I played in it and watched it live, as well as watched the replay several times too and as for you saying "don't start bringing other examples into this,there are hundreds a week" well then you really shouldn't mind me bring up just one example as an analogy then.
Mirdif to me never at any stage looked like winning and in my view anyway, the only way playing in a race differs from not doing so but watching it in both situations is that people are far more likely to pocket-talk with the former but be far more balanced with the latter.
Taking it to the extremes, several horses have every chance before the race has even started, so is that the same as saying they looked like winning? If half a dozen horses are in contention at the 3f mark, then only 3 are at the 2f mark and only 2 at the 1f mark, does that mean all 6 looked like winning just because all 6 were in a line at the 3f mark?
Mirdif travelled well for much of the race up until about the 2f mark, which in your interpretation of that might count as "looked like winning" but I would have to disagree. It was at that point when still 4L or so down on the leader and with 2 other runners ahead of it that it got bumped about a bit, as shown by the comments below:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression opened 9/2
On another note, so you think watching something live on one viewing it the best way to go? Strange and if that really was the best method then a Stewards Enquiry would take no time to resolve and in fact, why even bother talking to the jockeys about it then?
You have to laugh Cork Langer at people like you telling others they like to have the final word and then expecting somebody not to post purely because someone else tells them not to on a public (key word there) forum. So wouldn't that leave that other person having the final word instead then, despite accusing others of wanting it?
There's only one person who will dictate to me how I post on here.
Mirdif to me never at any stage looked like winning and in my view anyway, the only way playing in a race differs from not doing so but watching it in both situations is that people are far more likely to pocket-talk with the former but be far more balanced with the latter.
Taking it to the extremes, several horses have every chance before the race has even started, so is that the same as saying they looked like winning? If half a dozen horses are in contention at the 3f mark, then only 3 are at the 2f mark and only 2 at the 1f mark, does that mean all 6 looked like winning just because all 6 were in a line at the 3f mark?
Mirdif travelled well for much of the race up until about the 2f mark, which in your interpretation of that might count as "looked like winning" but I would have to disagree. It was at that point when still 4L or so down on the leader and with 2 other runners ahead of it that it got bumped about a bit, as shown by the comments below:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression opened 9/2
On another note, so you think watching something live on one viewing it the best way to go? Strange and if that really was the best method then a Stewards Enquiry would take no time to resolve and in fact, why even bother talking to the jockeys about it then?
You have to laugh Cork Langer at people like you telling others they like to have the final word and then expecting somebody not to post purely because someone else tells them not to on a public (key word there) forum. So wouldn't that leave that other person having the final word instead then, despite accusing others of wanting it?
There's only one person who will dictate to me how I post on here.
I do mind you bringing examples into it because it's not relevant,horses being in contention having every chance and look like winning could also be analogised with examples, you're going off on a tangent.
We are talking 2f out not before the race not at 3f but at 2furlongs out. Stop going off the point again,in your words extremes.
Keep it short.....[i]took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out[/i]...so I presume you thought now I will press LAY,one of a select few who thought it never looked like winning, I have the logs in front of me,this is not a horse that 'never looked like winning"....it went 1.09...make a bundle did you?
Horses from my organiser that come up another day is not when I watch replays,I have 3 monitors and a TV of course I watch replays how else do I make notes?
Strange,no,I have my portal here to back me up,facts ima,facts?
We are talking 2f out not before the race not at 3f but at 2furlongs out. Stop going off the point again,in your words extremes.
Keep it short.....[i]took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out[/i]...so I presume you thought now I will press LAY,one of a select few who thought it never looked like winning, I have the logs in front of me,this is not a horse that 'never looked like winning"....it went 1.09...make a bundle did you?
Horses from my organiser that come up another day is not when I watch replays,I have 3 monitors and a TV of course I watch replays how else do I make notes?
Strange,no,I have my portal here to back me up,facts ima,facts?
ima_mazed66 03 Jun 16 16:01
'There's only one person who will dictate to me how I post on here. '
Kieron?
'There's only one person who will dictate to me how I post on here. '
Kieron?
It's irrelevant tomhunt if you choose to make it so and even then it wasn't really, despite your choice.
You seem to suggest that "every chance" and "looked like winning" are the same thing when they clearly are not, so I gave you the Excelebration analogy as an example of how they are not, which you have now deemed irrelevant. It all depends on what stage of the race anyone is deciding a certain horse has "every chance" and with a third of the race still left in Mirdif's example, that to me doesn't count as ever looking like winning, especially needing a gap with 3 ahead of it and 4L down on the leader at the time.
My "extremes" comment was regarding before a race has started, which was why I then gave a more realistic analogy/example with the 3f, 2f, 1f option so nobody could accuse me of only using extremes, but the bottom line is it doesn't mean a horse necessarily looked like winning by the mere fact that it was once travelling well and/or in contention at some stage during the race.
No I didn't make a bundle because I didn't lay it, at 1.09 or otherwise but what I do know for sure is that if I had known it was at the price when trapped on the rail at the 2f mark, bumped about at that point, then I might have done....And there are arguments in the Mirdif other thread about at exactly what stage it went 1.09 anyway, as you well know considering you posted about it whereas others were saying it was 2.28 at the 2f mark, which under the circumstances seems far more likely.
You also can't really on the one hand tell me your eyes on a single live viewing are your great be all and end all judge and then use the in-running price to support your argument in the next breath because that was never a realistic 1.09 at many stage of the race anyway.
In different posts you have said both of:
tomhunt 03 Jun 16 14:59
...I have numerous horses a day in my organiser,9 times out of 10 I don't watch replays,I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.
and then...
Horses from my organiser that come up another day is not when I watch replays,I have 3 monitors and a TV of course I watch replays how else do I make notes?
So I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to find that slightly unclear but either way, you also said "judging a race on a recording is totally different than playing in real time" and "I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.I do this because looking back at a race it's sometimes doesn't play how it should in relation to my notes" and I tend to disagree with that view considering there will be plenty of times something won't be noticed when watching the race as a whole on a single live viewing and then making notes on it.
You can't have eyes everywhere and have you never noticed a fast finisher before and thought where has that come from? You often gets jockeys slated on here for finishing fast as if it was their fault for leaving it too late when in reality they might have been badly drawn, trapped on the rail or behind other runners or make a jumping error, all of which might not have been initially spotted or in someone's notes made immediately after the race on one live viewing.
As for what you posted up about:
took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out
Well yes, whilst that's true it's also a bit vague and closer order can mean anything. Being 10L down and then being 5L down is closer order too but it's still 5L down, although maybe I'm not allowed to use this as an example or it might be deemed irrelevant?
I also posted up:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression opened 9/2
So maybe you can share your notes on the race with us perhaps? Do they mention the horse was badly drawn considering the way the course turns, or that it was bumped at the start, or what placing it was in approaching the straight, or that it was short of room and impeded or was around 4L down at the 2f mark despite going well?
No, just little ole me Daryl Revok.
Unless I get banned of course lol.....oh and not being a d1ck here but that's not how he spells his name.
You seem to suggest that "every chance" and "looked like winning" are the same thing when they clearly are not, so I gave you the Excelebration analogy as an example of how they are not, which you have now deemed irrelevant. It all depends on what stage of the race anyone is deciding a certain horse has "every chance" and with a third of the race still left in Mirdif's example, that to me doesn't count as ever looking like winning, especially needing a gap with 3 ahead of it and 4L down on the leader at the time.
My "extremes" comment was regarding before a race has started, which was why I then gave a more realistic analogy/example with the 3f, 2f, 1f option so nobody could accuse me of only using extremes, but the bottom line is it doesn't mean a horse necessarily looked like winning by the mere fact that it was once travelling well and/or in contention at some stage during the race.
No I didn't make a bundle because I didn't lay it, at 1.09 or otherwise but what I do know for sure is that if I had known it was at the price when trapped on the rail at the 2f mark, bumped about at that point, then I might have done....And there are arguments in the Mirdif other thread about at exactly what stage it went 1.09 anyway, as you well know considering you posted about it whereas others were saying it was 2.28 at the 2f mark, which under the circumstances seems far more likely.
You also can't really on the one hand tell me your eyes on a single live viewing are your great be all and end all judge and then use the in-running price to support your argument in the next breath because that was never a realistic 1.09 at many stage of the race anyway.
In different posts you have said both of:
tomhunt 03 Jun 16 14:59
...I have numerous horses a day in my organiser,9 times out of 10 I don't watch replays,I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.
and then...
Horses from my organiser that come up another day is not when I watch replays,I have 3 monitors and a TV of course I watch replays how else do I make notes?
So I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to find that slightly unclear but either way, you also said "judging a race on a recording is totally different than playing in real time" and "I rely on my notes that were issued straight after the race.I do this because looking back at a race it's sometimes doesn't play how it should in relation to my notes" and I tend to disagree with that view considering there will be plenty of times something won't be noticed when watching the race as a whole on a single live viewing and then making notes on it.
You can't have eyes everywhere and have you never noticed a fast finisher before and thought where has that come from? You often gets jockeys slated on here for finishing fast as if it was their fault for leaving it too late when in reality they might have been badly drawn, trapped on the rail or behind other runners or make a jumping error, all of which might not have been initially spotted or in someone's notes made immediately after the race on one live viewing.
As for what you posted up about:
took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out
Well yes, whilst that's true it's also a bit vague and closer order can mean anything. Being 10L down and then being 5L down is closer order too but it's still 5L down, although maybe I'm not allowed to use this as an example or it might be deemed irrelevant?
I also posted up:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression opened 9/2
So maybe you can share your notes on the race with us perhaps? Do they mention the horse was badly drawn considering the way the course turns, or that it was bumped at the start, or what placing it was in approaching the straight, or that it was short of room and impeded or was around 4L down at the 2f mark despite going well?
No, just little ole me Daryl Revok.
Unless I get banned of course lol.....oh and not being a d1ck here but that's not how he spells his name.
There was a poster recently called ima an egregious troll, he certainly winds them up.
so in summary just on this race tar....horse never looked like winning,was 4th bumped about on the rail approaching 2f out about 4 lengths to make up and 'never looked like winning',BUT you never laid it,seeing all this you never laid it....you never knew it's price but if you'd known it was 1.09 you 'might have done'....indecision like that means you're no good at IR,or did you not play IR now you just "played' the race.
I have the Betfair logs in front of me,horse went odds on at various stages of that race,yes including the start but why does the price matter because 'it was never winning',just lay it don't you.
I have the Betfair logs in front of me,horse went odds on at various stages of that race,yes including the start but why does the price matter because 'it was never winning',just lay it don't you.
in our office i seen 2.8 inside last 2f when i thought it couldnt win.
I rarely bet in-running which is why why I never layed Mirdif at 1.09 or any other price and "I wish I had" was a figure of speech, but if I actually could somehow lay all horses disputing 4th and 4L down with 2f to go at a price of 1.09 then I'd love to!
Did you back it in-ruuning at 1.09 tomhunt?
Did you back it in-ruuning at 1.09 tomhunt?
I didn't no,I never seen it at that price but was definitely odds on when I went to and thought better of it,couldn't believe it afterwards it went that low but I think the other lads are right as they were watching out the gates.Hundreds of numbers here will have a look maybe Monday!
Genuine question here as I might be misunderstanding something but weren't you suggesting that because it went to 1.09 that that was at odds with my view that it never looked like winning?
roida:
GBP,Mirdif,1.01,1318.6,C,EX,1.09,B ,18:20:48,18:20:48...
a minute or so later it was 1.39 and prices around that,would that have been about 2f out
GBP,Mirdif,1.01,1318.6,C,EX,1.09,B ,18:20:48,18:20:48...
a minute or so later it was 1.39 and prices around that,would that have been about 2f out
Merely an observation ima, comparing your replies to numerous different posters on many threads over a long period of time, if you were not so wrapped up in your own self-importance you would see it for yourself, the evidence is plentiful and enough others have attempted to make you aware of it, nothing to do with dictating to you by anyone, just a word to try and assist you in avoiding making a laughing stock of yourself through obstinence, nothing more.
I'm sure I'll still get by Cork Langer but thanks for your concern. 
It's odd though to be accused of being wrapped up in my own self-importance and a laughing stock merely for holding certain views. Presumably that also applies to yourself too and every other poster on here who also airs their own views, or is that something reserved especially for me when I am just doing the same?
You made the point that I was asked not to post in a thread by someone and yet I didn't comply with that. Well seeing as this is a public forum then I personally wouldn't dream of trying to tell anyone who can or can't post or how they should do so, so that to me sounds like someone wanting to dictate to others if they actually do that themselves.
Have I ever told you not to post in reply to anything I write? Have I ever told you how you should be posting? The answer is no because if I post something up on here then I'm doing so by choice and will willing accept others might not agree and so are free to express that, just as they are to hold any particular views on anything else without me trying to curtail any of that.
The moderators can be a bit trigger happy on here at the best of times, without other posters trying to censor and/or dictate how someone else should post or what views they are entitled to hold.
It's odd though to be accused of being wrapped up in my own self-importance and a laughing stock merely for holding certain views. Presumably that also applies to yourself too and every other poster on here who also airs their own views, or is that something reserved especially for me when I am just doing the same?
You made the point that I was asked not to post in a thread by someone and yet I didn't comply with that. Well seeing as this is a public forum then I personally wouldn't dream of trying to tell anyone who can or can't post or how they should do so, so that to me sounds like someone wanting to dictate to others if they actually do that themselves.
Have I ever told you not to post in reply to anything I write? Have I ever told you how you should be posting? The answer is no because if I post something up on here then I'm doing so by choice and will willing accept others might not agree and so are free to express that, just as they are to hold any particular views on anything else without me trying to curtail any of that.
The moderators can be a bit trigger happy on here at the best of times, without other posters trying to censor and/or dictate how someone else should post or what views they are entitled to hold.
ima,
A bit off topic, but, are you a Crystal Palace supporter ?
A bit off topic, but, are you a Crystal Palace supporter ?
My impression of the race was that Fallon got the horse in line for a run, but found that the extra pace required to get to the leaders was not easily forthcoming so he gave up.
I wouldn't be putting that horse into my notebook until it shows some form.
Fallon did the sensible thing on such a young horse, but absolutely broke the rules of racing.
I wouldn't be putting that horse into my notebook until it shows some form.
Fallon did the sensible thing on such a young horse, but absolutely broke the rules of racing.
holywell, no chance, we Eagles fans are easy going, non-confrontational and loved by all...! ima would more likely be a Lion's fan...!
I recall ima having a contretemps with a Sunderland fan on here who was attending an away game.
My memories going but I thought it was Palace, ima invited him to meet up to discuss their differences.
My memories going but I thought it was Palace, ima invited him to meet up to discuss their differences.
Might have to give my allegiance up if thats the case...!Perish the thought of having anything in common with ima...!
No holywell, not a Palace fan and you are correct about me and the Sunderland fan meeting up for a possible ruck but it was actually him who invited me, although I didn't see his offer until after he was down here, not that I would have taken him up on it regardless.
Quite amusing though that I then get labelled confrontational by Cork Langer and as equally amusing is everything he accuses me off applies just as much to him but his lack of self-awareness prevents him from seeing that. Which it why I can be in a disagreement with him personally, yet somehow I'm the one who is confrontational/wants the last word/loves to argue and whatever other claims he tends to make......And then the irony is he thinks we have nothing in common!
Actually Dr Crippen, Fallon didn't absolutely break the rules of racing as 4th was the best he was ever going to get and he got 4th. Yes it was a 4L or so 4th and he might have been about to make it a 2L or so 4th or any distance 4th, but that's still 4th all the same.
He was disputing 4th, 5th and 6th with 2 other runners where they were all 4L down on the leader at the 2f pole and Fallon's horse has pulled 4L clear at the line from those other 2 runners.
Quite amusing though that I then get labelled confrontational by Cork Langer and as equally amusing is everything he accuses me off applies just as much to him but his lack of self-awareness prevents him from seeing that. Which it why I can be in a disagreement with him personally, yet somehow I'm the one who is confrontational/wants the last word/loves to argue and whatever other claims he tends to make......And then the irony is he thinks we have nothing in common!
Actually Dr Crippen, Fallon didn't absolutely break the rules of racing as 4th was the best he was ever going to get and he got 4th. Yes it was a 4L or so 4th and he might have been about to make it a 2L or so 4th or any distance 4th, but that's still 4th all the same.
He was disputing 4th, 5th and 6th with 2 other runners where they were all 4L down on the leader at the 2f pole and Fallon's horse has pulled 4L clear at the line from those other 2 runners.
Depends how you read things ima, I have suggested/intimated, nothing more, it is you who has chosen to type the word labelled, why, is it for impact...?
You love to post as if everyone is against you all the time and that you are fighting a one man crusade, all the majority of us have tried to make you aware of is the fact that you need to lighten up, surely you realise most of us post because we know that we can get a reaction from you and call it before you even respond, all the hints are there, you just choose to ignore them.
You love to post as if everyone is against you all the time and that you are fighting a one man crusade, all the majority of us have tried to make you aware of is the fact that you need to lighten up, surely you realise most of us post because we know that we can get a reaction from you and call it before you even respond, all the hints are there, you just choose to ignore them.
Yes I completely agree ima_mazed66.
Fourth was the best he was going to get after he'd given up.
Only three runners trying from around one and a half furlongs out.
Fourth was the best he was going to get after he'd given up.
Only three runners trying from around one and a half furlongs out.
You're a puppet basil, you aren't allowed to vote on these issues, its grown up stuff...!
Idiot a bit harsh, blinkered sometimes and stubborn, yes, but not a fool.
Idiot a bit harsh, blinkered sometimes and stubborn, yes, but not a fool.
Exactly 11kv yet I'm supposedly the confrontation one and am offered out purely on the basis of daring to disagree with someone else's views and a stranger over the Internet at that!
Labelled is a figure of speech Cork Langer, either way the implication was there and ironically you would no doubt have added nit-picking or hair-splitting to my apparent list of faults if it had been me quibbling over the use of a certain word.
I post because despite knowing full well some are on the wind up at times, I also suspect they or at least others also genuinely hold those views too even if looking for a reaction. The fact that I might also post looking for a counter-reaction again despite genuinely holding those views, seems to be lost on you with that lack of self-awareness kicking in once again, and seeing as you continually respond suggests a reaction is forthcoming.
So once gain, everything you accuse, label, suggest or imitate (take your pick there) me of doing applies just as equally to you, yet I'm more than happy to admit that I'm opinionated and stubborn, are you?
basilbrush 04 Jun 16 18:52
Ima_idiot.
Maybe, but don't beat yourself up over it though eh?
You do realise right that by saying ima, it puts things in the first person perspective, therefore that means you?
Yes I agree Dr Crippen, he had given up trying to win when it was never going to happen, so as I said above, 4th is still 4th regardless of how far you are beaten in 4th. As I also mentioned, he pulled 4L clear of the 2 other runners previously disputing 4th, so he clearly had not stopped riding to lose 4th place.
If you think that's breaking the rules of racing, then so is easing down on a winner if the winning distance could have been more, or accepting 2nd and being beating 4L when 10L clear of the 3rd when you could have been 2L 2nd by not accepting it and riding to the line.
It's the best possible finishing position they have to ensure, not the smallest margin. Genuinely question here and not asked in a stroppy way but do you feel Fallon could have got any better than 4th in that race?
Anyway, I only really came on to say yes Kieren does it again....In the last at Epsom!
Labelled is a figure of speech Cork Langer, either way the implication was there and ironically you would no doubt have added nit-picking or hair-splitting to my apparent list of faults if it had been me quibbling over the use of a certain word.
I post because despite knowing full well some are on the wind up at times, I also suspect they or at least others also genuinely hold those views too even if looking for a reaction. The fact that I might also post looking for a counter-reaction again despite genuinely holding those views, seems to be lost on you with that lack of self-awareness kicking in once again, and seeing as you continually respond suggests a reaction is forthcoming.
So once gain, everything you accuse, label, suggest or imitate (take your pick there) me of doing applies just as equally to you, yet I'm more than happy to admit that I'm opinionated and stubborn, are you?
basilbrush 04 Jun 16 18:52
Ima_idiot.
Maybe, but don't beat yourself up over it though eh?
You do realise right that by saying ima, it puts things in the first person perspective, therefore that means you?
Yes I agree Dr Crippen, he had given up trying to win when it was never going to happen, so as I said above, 4th is still 4th regardless of how far you are beaten in 4th. As I also mentioned, he pulled 4L clear of the 2 other runners previously disputing 4th, so he clearly had not stopped riding to lose 4th place.
If you think that's breaking the rules of racing, then so is easing down on a winner if the winning distance could have been more, or accepting 2nd and being beating 4L when 10L clear of the 3rd when you could have been 2L 2nd by not accepting it and riding to the line.
It's the best possible finishing position they have to ensure, not the smallest margin. Genuinely question here and not asked in a stroppy way but do you feel Fallon could have got any better than 4th in that race?
Anyway, I only really came on to say yes Kieren does it again....In the last at Epsom!
You are a lost cause ima, the word condescending should be changed to "ima" in your honour, enjoy the constant and continual abuse you have proven you so richly deserve.
Yes I agree Dr Crippen, he had given up trying to win when it was never going to happen,
That's that then.
He didn't visibly attempt to obtain the best possible placing for his horse so he clearly broke the rules of racing.
That's that then.
He didn't visibly attempt to obtain the best possible placing for his horse so he clearly broke the rules of racing.
Cork Langer 04 Jun 16 18:49
.....You love to post as if everyone is against you all the time and that you are fighting a one man crusade, all the majority of us have tried to make you aware of is the fact that you need to lighten up.....
Cork Langer 04 Jun 16 20:40
You are a lost cause ima, the word condescending should be changed to "ima" in your honour, enjoy the constant and continual abuse you have proven you so richly deserve.
You seem to be a little confused in what you are saying from one post to the next.
Dr Crippen 04 Jun 16 21:19
.....He didn't visibly attempt to obtain the best possible placing for his horse so he clearly broke the rules of racing.
But he did, the best possible placing was 4th and he got that.
.....You love to post as if everyone is against you all the time and that you are fighting a one man crusade, all the majority of us have tried to make you aware of is the fact that you need to lighten up.....
Cork Langer 04 Jun 16 20:40
You are a lost cause ima, the word condescending should be changed to "ima" in your honour, enjoy the constant and continual abuse you have proven you so richly deserve.
You seem to be a little confused in what you are saying from one post to the next.
Dr Crippen 04 Jun 16 21:19
.....He didn't visibly attempt to obtain the best possible placing for his horse so he clearly broke the rules of racing.
But he did, the best possible placing was 4th and he got that.
the best possible placing was 4th and he got that.
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Once he saw he had a fight on his hands he opted out.
Fallon seemed to be looking after the horse rather than getting the horse placed in the 123.
I'm afraid you're wrong.
Once he saw he had a fight on his hands he opted out.
Fallon seemed to be looking after the horse rather than getting the horse placed in the 123.
Well put it this way Dr Crippen, I only wish there was some way that I could lay all runners on here that are disputing 4th at the 2f pole when 4L down, as there was not a chance of finishing better than 4th in this race.
Plus if the other 2 runners disputing 4th 2f out have ended up 4L behind Fallon's horse by the winning line, that either means Fallon rode his horse to get away from them or the 2 others jockeys did nothing on theirs.
Plus if the other 2 runners disputing 4th 2f out have ended up 4L behind Fallon's horse by the winning line, that either means Fallon rode his horse to get away from them or the 2 others jockeys did nothing on theirs.
Not at all ima, the confusion is all yours, you are incapable or unwilling to listen or take on board many peoples well intended advice, hence you receive the abuse, crystal clear to all you converse with but yourself, but you obviously thrive on it, so go ahead and "enjoy".
So let me see if I follow here then Cork Langer, the general consensus then seems to be "post the way we say you should and on what we say you should or be prepared for us to give you abuse."
Do you really think I am likely to take any notice of that kind of nonsense?
Do you really think I am likely to take any notice of that kind of nonsense?
Funny that on another thread you accuse someone else of misinterpretation and here you are doing the exact same thing, but it is fine because it is you, I know that you understand exactly what is being suggested, your choice in being obtuse befits the person that you have chosen to "play" on here of late though, shame really, given as I said before, your posts were subjective and an asset to the forum, now they have just become argumentative for the sake of it, sad but true and of course your own choice, am I permitted to say that...?
that either means Fallon rode his horse to get away from them or the 2 others jockeys did nothing on theirs.
Why and how does it, that is absolute nonsense? Surely you would expect the 5/2 fav to pull away from the 40/1 poke regardless. Complete non triers will go past beaten horses/dogs/inferior horses won't they (it still doesn't mean they were trying does it) Or are you suggesting that every horse that is level 2 furlongs out should finish exactly the same distance from what is it upsides to - regardless of abiltiy?
Your arguments are so flawed on many subjects, and as cork says you are just arguing for the sake of it, and has to try and have the last word on EVERYTHING.
Why and how does it, that is absolute nonsense? Surely you would expect the 5/2 fav to pull away from the 40/1 poke regardless. Complete non triers will go past beaten horses/dogs/inferior horses won't they (it still doesn't mean they were trying does it) Or are you suggesting that every horse that is level 2 furlongs out should finish exactly the same distance from what is it upsides to - regardless of abiltiy?
Your arguments are so flawed on many subjects, and as cork says you are just arguing for the sake of it, and has to try and have the last word on EVERYTHING.
I only wish there was some way that I could lay all runners on here that are disputing 4th at the 2f pole when 4L down, as there was not a chance of finishing better than 4th in this race.
Absolutely wrong again
Racing Post comment - took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out.
''Going well 2 f out'' doesn't suggest a beaten horse.
I think it's your ability to Asses whether a horse is going well or the jockey is making an effort that is at question here.
Also those 4 lengths you mention, he was never four lengths behind the eventual third at the 2 furlong pole more like 1 or 1.5 lengths down.
And you've already agreed that Fallon gave up at that point .
Which I'd say is conclusive.
Absolutely wrong again
Racing Post comment - took closer order behind leaders going well 2f out.
''Going well 2 f out'' doesn't suggest a beaten horse.
I think it's your ability to Asses whether a horse is going well or the jockey is making an effort that is at question here.
Also those 4 lengths you mention, he was never four lengths behind the eventual third at the 2 furlong pole more like 1 or 1.5 lengths down.
And you've already agreed that Fallon gave up at that point .
Which I'd say is conclusive.
He'll concede nothing lads, enjoys the replies too much, perhaps it is the the only attention he receives, my guess would be 3 paragraphs, have fun...!
When I have claimed to have been misrepresented on here Cork Langer, I say that based on something being attributed to me that I have never at any stage said. You now suggest I have misrepresented when I have summed up by saying what seems to be the case when basically going by your actual words and I quoted those words prior to my summing up, yet I can't quote you on something unless you have actually said it.
So when you state:
Cork Langer 04 Jun 16 23:37
.....you are incapable or unwilling to listen or take on board many peoples well intended advice, hence you receive the abuse....."
Which I summed up as:
ima_mazed66 Joined: 12 Oct 09
Replies: 9560 05 Jun 16 03:51
So let me see if I follow here then Cork Langer, the general consensus then seems to be "post the way we say you should and on what we say you should or be prepared for us to give you abuse."
Which I think is a fairly accurate summary. Have I not been told not to post in a thread on here before? Have I not been told how I should post in here before? Have you not told me that "hence you receive the abuse" before? Haven't I received abuse on here? If all of those things are so (and they are) then I'm not sure how you can suggest that I am misrepresenting anyone here with my summing up of it all, even though I actually used the phrase seems to be, as opposed to labelling anything as fact.
No offence here either but I don't post looking for yours or anyone else's approval over what I say. I do so because I genuinely believe it to be the case. If anyone agrees with me then that's a bonus and all well and good, if they don't then I'm happy to accept that too, as when it comes to opinions then they are subjective and everyone is entitled to have one. More often than not though, what I tend to post about when in disagreement is often on factual matters anyway.
If you are going to call what I have said complete nonsense Magic__Daps then at least make sure you know what I have said before labelling it as such. I never said either way whether Fallon was trying, (even though I will now and he was) I said he pulled 4½L or so away from the 2 other horses he was disputing 4th with at the 2f pole and that is any indisputable fact. One of those might well have been a 40/1 poke but it was a 40/1 poke with previous racecourse experience and receiving 6lbs from an unraced 2YO. He didn't do that by sitting still either was the point I was making and so was trying, as in putting in the effort to ride the horse to put distance between him and those other 2 horses. If he had stopped riding from 2f out and coasted in, then it is unlikely that he would have put that distance between them or secured 4th place. Even for a better horse to beat a lesser one they often still have to be asked for a effort by the jockey to do so.
As I've already said earlier in the thread Dr Crippen "took closer order" is pretty meaningless without any specifics and 6L down to 5L down counts as took closer order but is still 5L down all the same. I also wish over the years I could have been paid out on every horse I backed going well at the 2f pole but unfortunately that's not the winning line, plus I'm saying that with regards to the times when mine has been in the lead going well at the 2f pole, let alone being in 4th and 4L off the leader.
That last point it crucial too as once again I have been misrepresented (no change there then) as with regards to you saying to me "Also those 4 lengths you mention, he was never four lengths behind the eventual third at the 2 furlong pole more like 1 or 1.5 lengths down" when I at no stage ever did I say he was. What I actually said was, and this is a quote/copy and paste from my own post on 3 June at 14:42, where at least I know I won't be misrepresented this time anyway:
"so yes whilst the horse was travelling well enough, it was on the rail and needing a split to find a gap and still around 3L-4L down on the leader at that 2f pole."
and from the same post:
Asking a 2YO horse to make up 3L-4L in the last 2f of a 6f race whilst giving around a stone to other runners.....which is hardly surprising that those 3L-4L from the 2f mark generally remained the same to the winning line.
So the 3L-4L was in relation to the leader at the 2f pole if anyone was suggesting Fallon's horse could have won and not the other 2 runners ahead of him at the time, considering at the very least it would have had to have made up those 3L-4L and gone by the then leader to have had any chance of winning. So yes I conceded that Fallon gave up trying to win when 4L or so down on the leader at the 2f pole, but I also said 4th was the best he was ever going to get under those circumstances, even if it could maybe have been a reduced margin 4th.
Just to add too, the winner had run twice before prior to winning here and yet was getting 11 lbs from Fallon's horse making its debut. The 2nd had also run twice before and was receiving 13lbs and the 3rd had one run and was receiving 13lbs too. All of the first 3 were given the whip several times whereas admittedly Fallon's wasn't, yet considering the others already had racing experience, as well as Fallon's horse getting knocked about by other runners on debut, which can't have been a pleasant experience for an unraced 2YO, I don't really consider that unreasonable either unless you want that unpleasant experienced to be added to and risk a young horse being soured by getting as many smacks as the first 3 received.
Not sure what you mean by that RothmanMike so wanted to check first but do you mean as in did Fallon turn up to take his booked rides at Listowel? If so I thought his mount was withdrawn in the first but was he not on Approcaillis? I think he was maybe down to ride in the last Flat race on the card too though but was replaced.
So when you state:
Cork Langer 04 Jun 16 23:37
.....you are incapable or unwilling to listen or take on board many peoples well intended advice, hence you receive the abuse....."
Which I summed up as:
ima_mazed66 Joined: 12 Oct 09
Replies: 9560 05 Jun 16 03:51
So let me see if I follow here then Cork Langer, the general consensus then seems to be "post the way we say you should and on what we say you should or be prepared for us to give you abuse."
Which I think is a fairly accurate summary. Have I not been told not to post in a thread on here before? Have I not been told how I should post in here before? Have you not told me that "hence you receive the abuse" before? Haven't I received abuse on here? If all of those things are so (and they are) then I'm not sure how you can suggest that I am misrepresenting anyone here with my summing up of it all, even though I actually used the phrase seems to be, as opposed to labelling anything as fact.
No offence here either but I don't post looking for yours or anyone else's approval over what I say. I do so because I genuinely believe it to be the case. If anyone agrees with me then that's a bonus and all well and good, if they don't then I'm happy to accept that too, as when it comes to opinions then they are subjective and everyone is entitled to have one. More often than not though, what I tend to post about when in disagreement is often on factual matters anyway.
If you are going to call what I have said complete nonsense Magic__Daps then at least make sure you know what I have said before labelling it as such. I never said either way whether Fallon was trying, (even though I will now and he was) I said he pulled 4½L or so away from the 2 other horses he was disputing 4th with at the 2f pole and that is any indisputable fact. One of those might well have been a 40/1 poke but it was a 40/1 poke with previous racecourse experience and receiving 6lbs from an unraced 2YO. He didn't do that by sitting still either was the point I was making and so was trying, as in putting in the effort to ride the horse to put distance between him and those other 2 horses. If he had stopped riding from 2f out and coasted in, then it is unlikely that he would have put that distance between them or secured 4th place. Even for a better horse to beat a lesser one they often still have to be asked for a effort by the jockey to do so.
As I've already said earlier in the thread Dr Crippen "took closer order" is pretty meaningless without any specifics and 6L down to 5L down counts as took closer order but is still 5L down all the same. I also wish over the years I could have been paid out on every horse I backed going well at the 2f pole but unfortunately that's not the winning line, plus I'm saying that with regards to the times when mine has been in the lead going well at the 2f pole, let alone being in 4th and 4L off the leader.
That last point it crucial too as once again I have been misrepresented (no change there then) as with regards to you saying to me "Also those 4 lengths you mention, he was never four lengths behind the eventual third at the 2 furlong pole more like 1 or 1.5 lengths down" when I at no stage ever did I say he was. What I actually said was, and this is a quote/copy and paste from my own post on 3 June at 14:42, where at least I know I won't be misrepresented this time anyway:
"so yes whilst the horse was travelling well enough, it was on the rail and needing a split to find a gap and still around 3L-4L down on the leader at that 2f pole."
and from the same post:
Asking a 2YO horse to make up 3L-4L in the last 2f of a 6f race whilst giving around a stone to other runners.....which is hardly surprising that those 3L-4L from the 2f mark generally remained the same to the winning line.
So the 3L-4L was in relation to the leader at the 2f pole if anyone was suggesting Fallon's horse could have won and not the other 2 runners ahead of him at the time, considering at the very least it would have had to have made up those 3L-4L and gone by the then leader to have had any chance of winning. So yes I conceded that Fallon gave up trying to win when 4L or so down on the leader at the 2f pole, but I also said 4th was the best he was ever going to get under those circumstances, even if it could maybe have been a reduced margin 4th.
Just to add too, the winner had run twice before prior to winning here and yet was getting 11 lbs from Fallon's horse making its debut. The 2nd had also run twice before and was receiving 13lbs and the 3rd had one run and was receiving 13lbs too. All of the first 3 were given the whip several times whereas admittedly Fallon's wasn't, yet considering the others already had racing experience, as well as Fallon's horse getting knocked about by other runners on debut, which can't have been a pleasant experience for an unraced 2YO, I don't really consider that unreasonable either unless you want that unpleasant experienced to be added to and risk a young horse being soured by getting as many smacks as the first 3 received.
Not sure what you mean by that RothmanMike so wanted to check first but do you mean as in did Fallon turn up to take his booked rides at Listowel? If so I thought his mount was withdrawn in the first but was he not on Approcaillis? I think he was maybe down to ride in the last Flat race on the card too though but was replaced.
Just as well there was no spread offered on the reply, my guess of 3 would have left me well out of pocket...!
I see ima_mazed66 is at last on the backfoot.
It only needs now for him to agree that Fallon might well have bettered his fourth position if he had the will to, seeing that the third was only a length or so up at the furlong pole.
How about it ima - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?
By the way Fallon didn't pull clear of those other two horses.
He simply lost less ground than they did as the second and third pulled away from him.
It only needs now for him to agree that Fallon might well have bettered his fourth position if he had the will to, seeing that the third was only a length or so up at the furlong pole.
How about it ima - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?
By the way Fallon didn't pull clear of those other two horses.
He simply lost less ground than they did as the second and third pulled away from him.
Dr.,
ima will have plenty of time during the early hours to construct a leviathan response to all who have posted since his 01:35 post.
ima will have plenty of time during the early hours to construct a leviathan response to all who have posted since his 01:35 post.
Yes holywell.
Although I think he's on a sticky wicket with this one.
Although I think he's on a sticky wicket with this one.
LOL....How am I on the backfoot Dr Crippen when I've consistently said the same thing all along? I'd also love for you to explain how me having to correct your misrepresentations of what I am supposed to have said somehow had you arriving at the conclusion that I'm on the backfoot.
Did I previously say and still am saying that Fallon realised he had no chance or winning when 4L down on the leader (key word there) at the 4f pole? Yes. Was 4th all he was ever likely to get? Yes. Could that 4th have been with a smaller gap if he had chosen to whip his horse and/or been more vigorous? Yes. Did he ever look like winning? Never at any stage of the race.
Fallon rode out his horse to the line (without knocking sh1t out of it line the 3 jockeys ahead of him did to their more experienced runners) which is what enabled him to pull away from the other two runners disputing 4th at the 2f pole, where the horse was short of room, needed a run, impeded and bumped about a bit, as shown below from these comments from ATR and the Sporting Life:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression
So I say that happened, as did the professional racereader used by two different racing websites but we're apparently both wrong and you are right. Plus I've been fairly polite up until now but since you seem to have no problem (incorrectly) telling me I'm wrong, I'll play too and tell you that without doubt you are definitely wrong.
Although let's humour you for the sake of argument and say Fallon maybe could have bettered 4th and got 3rd. Well 3rd isn't winning and since the basis of your argument all along has suggested that he could have won, you seem to only be talking about bettering 4th place instead in your most recent post. That wouldn't be you on the backfoot by any chance now, would it?...How about it Dr Crippen - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?
As for your claim of "By the way Fallon didn't pull clear of those other two horses.
He simply lost less ground than they did as the second and third pulled away from him" well isn't that a bit like someone winning the Lottery and you claiming they didn't have the winning numbers, they just had fewer losing ones than everyone else?
Did I previously say and still am saying that Fallon realised he had no chance or winning when 4L down on the leader (key word there) at the 4f pole? Yes. Was 4th all he was ever likely to get? Yes. Could that 4th have been with a smaller gap if he had chosen to whip his horse and/or been more vigorous? Yes. Did he ever look like winning? Never at any stage of the race.
Fallon rode out his horse to the line (without knocking sh1t out of it line the 3 jockeys ahead of him did to their more experienced runners) which is what enabled him to pull away from the other two runners disputing 4th at the 2f pole, where the horse was short of room, needed a run, impeded and bumped about a bit, as shown below from these comments from ATR and the Sporting Life:
Bumped start, chased leaders, disputed 7th approaching straight, soon not much room, impeded 2f out, 4th over 1f out, no impression
So I say that happened, as did the professional racereader used by two different racing websites but we're apparently both wrong and you are right. Plus I've been fairly polite up until now but since you seem to have no problem (incorrectly) telling me I'm wrong, I'll play too and tell you that without doubt you are definitely wrong.
Although let's humour you for the sake of argument and say Fallon maybe could have bettered 4th and got 3rd. Well 3rd isn't winning and since the basis of your argument all along has suggested that he could have won, you seem to only be talking about bettering 4th place instead in your most recent post. That wouldn't be you on the backfoot by any chance now, would it?...How about it Dr Crippen - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?
As for your claim of "By the way Fallon didn't pull clear of those other two horses.
He simply lost less ground than they did as the second and third pulled away from him" well isn't that a bit like someone winning the Lottery and you claiming they didn't have the winning numbers, they just had fewer losing ones than everyone else?
The above reply was made on behalf of the Condescending Repetitive Argumentative Party.
^^^^^^
Of which you are founder and Chairman, as well as for Lack of Self-Awareness Anonymous too.
Quite ironic really when much of what I said was me quoting back Dr Crippen's comments to him that he addressed to me, such as ".. is at last on the backfoot" and "How about it - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?" yet apparently I'm the condescending one here.
You really couldn't make it up!
Of which you are founder and Chairman, as well as for Lack of Self-Awareness Anonymous too.
Quite ironic really when much of what I said was me quoting back Dr Crippen's comments to him that he addressed to me, such as ".. is at last on the backfoot" and "How about it - are you ready to go the whole hog now and admit you got it completely wrong?" yet apparently I'm the condescending one here.
You really couldn't make it up!
Not difficult Facts, either he loves the attention or he isn't as bright as he tries so hard to make out, now who does that remind us of....?
Because as I have said before Facts, whilst I'm fully aware of part of the reason why some people post what they do will put it all down to fishing for a reaction, I also know that to say that's the only reason they post those views is nonsense too and they or others genuinely hold them regardless.
It also amuses me to see what others like to label with when it often applies far more to them than it ever will to me. Let's just say for the sake or argument, some fictional poster (we'll call him Lork Canger) genuinely was on the wind up and nothing more just to get a reaction. So who seems more like they love the attention there then?
As for me supposedly not being as bright as I try so hard to make out, how exactly have I done that? I just post my views on here and that's it, unless of course that was a Freudian slip and maybe the person saying that does actually think I might be quite bright, who knows eh?
I think the bottom line though is that I tend to have some reasonably well known views on certain subjects and so regardless of what I say, some on here will be inclined to somehow find fault with whatever I have said based on all of that. I suppose it's a bit like if I said I was an Arsenal fan and posters supporting Spurs for example would then choose to take the opposite view regardless. All a bit childish really but what can you do?
That's another one of those analogy thingies too by the way but I personally tend to go more by what's being said rather than who's doing the saying as to whether I agree with it or not.
It also amuses me to see what others like to label with when it often applies far more to them than it ever will to me. Let's just say for the sake or argument, some fictional poster (we'll call him Lork Canger) genuinely was on the wind up and nothing more just to get a reaction. So who seems more like they love the attention there then?
As for me supposedly not being as bright as I try so hard to make out, how exactly have I done that? I just post my views on here and that's it, unless of course that was a Freudian slip and maybe the person saying that does actually think I might be quite bright, who knows eh?
I think the bottom line though is that I tend to have some reasonably well known views on certain subjects and so regardless of what I say, some on here will be inclined to somehow find fault with whatever I have said based on all of that. I suppose it's a bit like if I said I was an Arsenal fan and posters supporting Spurs for example would then choose to take the opposite view regardless. All a bit childish really but what can you do?
That's another one of those analogy thingies too by the way but I personally tend to go more by what's being said rather than who's doing the saying as to whether I agree with it or not.
Provided ample proof for Facts and a dozen others there ima, as you have explained, just can't help yourself. Not very bright it is then, so be careful of that hook, can be very dangerous, I really did think you would call it a day with the C.R.A.P jibe, but not so, should have really slipped Ted or the workrider in for maximum response, an oversight on my part...!
Prey please continue your exchanges with the good Dr, I'll pop over to that JOB thread and pick you up on that other favourite of yours that has no substance that it is the horses not the trainers or jockeys.
Prey please continue your exchanges with the good Dr, I'll pop over to that JOB thread and pick you up on that other favourite of yours that has no substance that it is the horses not the trainers or jockeys.
LOL....who said I can't help myself? As I've already said on here before, nobody else decides how I post on here other than me, although no doubt you will be telling me I'm repeating myself now, want the last word, on the hook by posting again blah blah blah, whilst you are at the same time you are er, repeating yourself, want the last word, on the hook by posting again blah blah blah....That lack of self-awareness really is a killer eh? 
As far as being bright goes, please don't worry about me on that score as I can assure you that I would lose you and find you again and I see that you have misrepresented what I have said regarding horses and jockeys/trainers so as far as it goes for you erm, not very bright it is then. :)
As far as being bright goes, please don't worry about me on that score as I can assure you that I would lose you and find you again and I see that you have misrepresented what I have said regarding horses and jockeys/trainers so as far as it goes for you erm, not very bright it is then. :)
Do stop biting ima, it is more than a little embarrassing now, how many have tried to point it out to you on this thread alone, I have even spelt it out myself, can't really make it any clearer.
Final word on my part, feel free to reply in however many chapters and for as long as you choose to, for someone with so much confidence that you would lose me, you don't appear to have done a very good job to date, now swim away and enjoy life poor fishy you have overdone it on the bait lately and must be feeling bloated.
Final word on my part, feel free to reply in however many chapters and for as long as you choose to, for someone with so much confidence that you would lose me, you don't appear to have done a very good job to date, now swim away and enjoy life poor fishy you have overdone it on the bait lately and must be feeling bloated.
Just block 'ima'...the thread is a much better place without this time-wasting poster - trust me, I have!
And yet you somehow found the time yourself to say so, as opposed to just doing it and moving on.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539