"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:4r0bmus53v6tco9ugsm0vhghjhg6hs0jfs at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >The lowest scoring man at the Olympics scores much higher than the
highest
> >scoring woman, in every event, across the board
>> False again, loser. Check discus.
>
You mean of the hundreds of Olympic sports, you actually know of one where
women score higher than men, but you aren't going to give us the reference?
The men's discus weighs between 2.005 and 2.025 kilograms and has a diameter
between 21.8 and 21.1 centimetres. For women, the discus weighs 1.005 to
1.025 kilograms and measures 18-18.2 centimetres in diameter.
Why didn't you mention this? How can you possibly claim or "think", with a
straight face, that women outperform men in discus throw when the men are
throwing something that weighs twice as much?
Only a woman would "think" or claim or "believe" this--or at best, not have
the facts about it.
> >The very strongest women in the world, those who go to the Olympics,
> >snatched only 100 kilograms, but the very weakest man at the Olympics,
some
> >whimp from India, snatched 130 pounds, or 30% more. And you know how
> >scrawny Indians are. The normal men snatched more than 70% more.
>> Whoopie. Weightlifting is going to be limited by your own weight, and
> the smallest man in Olympic competition is almost certainly bigger
> than the biggest woman.
>
CLEARLY you did not understand the chart nor the graph at
http://christianparty.net/cleanjerk.htm or you would not have made this
ludicrous and irrelevant statement. There were many women who weighed more
than some of the men, but NONE of them weightlifted more than the men. The
fatter and uglier the women were, the less weight they could lift. In fact,
from the actual event, it seems that it was ugly rather than fat that
impaired their strength.
The strongest women were the ones who weighed the least. The single
strongest man weighed less than half the men even though some of the
strongest men were the ones who weighed the most [read: strength is a
function of sex more than it's a function of weight].
> >To those of you with such a limited understanding of percentages, this
may
> >sound "equal", but to normal people, this is the difference between life
and
> >death in the military.
>> Yeah, ability to snatch a few hundred pounds will keep you alive a
> long time in the face of a tank!
>> Nincompoop.
>> lojbab
Tanks don't decide battles, soldiers do. With all the cheap and accurate
anti-tank weapons flooding the market which can blow up multi-million dollar
tanks with utter precision, the LAST place you'd want to be in a modern
battle is in a huge, slow moving, easily detected, metal target like a tank.
The Palestinians are about the only people in the world without those
defensive weapons, which is the only reason the big brave jew "soldiers"
ground Christian churches in Jenin and Bethlehem into the dust.
The day the Palestinians get these cheap anti-tank weapons is the last day
you'll see jews doing that again. And the *last* person you'd want to rely
on dragging your sorry as. off the battle field is a "woman" soldier.
Rather than "only" 8 men to make up for the negative productivity of ONE
woman worker in the US labor force, it takes 16 military men to make up for
the screw ups of one woman "soldier", plus a LOT of taxpayers' dollars.
John Knight
