Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Richard, I'm pretty sure that malmo is replying to you privately and maybe you can't tell because I think you are on digest. malmo can obviously look after himself but shouldn't private messages be replied to privately? Richard McCann wrote: > At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly > >never a diliberate attempt at distortion. >
Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
I'm in Geoff's corner... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:08:56 -0700, you wrote: >I'm in Malmo's corner... - Original Message - DATE: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:50:40 From: "Geoff Pietsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: > Why don't you guys step outside - outside the list, that is? I assume >there are at least a few people on this list for whom you have some respect >(why else would you paticpate?). Do you really think they will retain >respect for you when you resort to such "persuasive" arguments as "punk" and >"sack of shit?" Please keep it between yourselves. >
Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
I've said this before and I'll say it again - if people want to attack each other please do it off list. It's really tiresome and I suggest that if it goes on the moderator does something about it. Randall Northam On Sunday, Oct 19, 2003, at 23:45 Europe/London, malmo wrote: You've got quite a resume there Dan. You built a website? You should run for student council. You don't need to drag Walt Murphy's name into your little pissing match, we can all vouch that you are a track fan. Sadly, we don't need to look further than your own words to know you are a lying, slanderous sack of shit. No I do not have something to hide, punk. Stop it. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? Ok, let's see if we can settle this once and for all. Those not interested in our little side spat, go ahead and hit delete now. "I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me." Mr. Malley has a very selective memory, apparently. It was actually he who first turned things personal (I won't even include the comment he first made to me a few years back, berating my accomplishments as an athlete), saying I must've eaten too many of the brownies at the state (or was it county?) fair. Not hard to read between those lines. I responded with a snide remark at the end of my reply that he could now go back to his booze. That's the false and slanderous statement referred to above. Is it any more false or slanderous than what he directed at me? Not that I can see. At least what I said has some basis in reality, being that it is his reputation down in Eugene... Malmo's response? Demanding that I name the person who told it to me. That's just silly. I know I don't drink or do drugs, and anyone who knows me will tell you the same. Hurling such insults at me wouldn't phase me, because I know it's not true. In my experience, anyone who gets as defensive as Malmo did to my retort has something to hide, not that I can see any sense in someone who won't answer to their real name being worried about their reputation. If it weren't true, he'd have no reason to care. His calling me out consisted of repeated insults while I stated I had no intention of participating in the debate further. And he's telling *me* to grow up! So, Malmo chose to attack me on the basis of lack of ethics (just as he did Richard) and lack of ability as an athlete. Heck, I'm the first to admit I did nothing special on the track. Does that make me any less qualified to participate in the sport? Malmo quite clearly thinks so, but again, I honestly don't give a rip what he thinks. You have to give respect to get respect. I'm confident in my reputation with anyone who's worked with me, thank you very much, Malmo. There are a handful of area coaches on this list that can, if so inclined, speak to my reputation in the area of meet management, timing, and results. Walt Murphy has been the recipient of timely big meet results I've sent him for his weekly newsletter. Amby Burfoot has requested to meet with me in person. Coaches I've worked with think highly of me, and athletes I coached temporarily decided to quit the team when I quit coaching. I've got an Excellence in Student Leadership award to show for my work with the OSU XC/Track team and a published article on the history of the program. I put together and maintained a team website which is widely considered around the country as one of the best XC/Track sites for any level of college. I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but the point is, anyone who's opinion I value has a very different view of me than does Malmo. So, I ask the esteemed Mr. Malley, what have you given back to the sport other than having run fast 20 years ago? The ball's in your court, punk. Dan --- malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The truth be told Dan Kaplan, I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me. The profanity was not as much as you really deserve. When I meet you in person it will be clear to you what is unaccepatable. Grow up, punk. malmo = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and certainly never a diliberate attempt at distortion. Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you better have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation. On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not work for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you in one case here. How many other times have you done this? With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your hobby, I don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you might want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of intellectual dishonesty. If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like you. One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without factual support qualify as embellishments. I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting you to respect them, if you want. No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. RMc malmo > From: Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2003/10/16 Thu PM 02:20:09 CDT > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: rutto > > Now you're really confused! My only affiliation with Berkeley is that I'm > an alum. I have absolutely no occupational affiliation with UCB or UC > whatsoever. I'm a private consultant in a small firm in which I'm a > partner. And I guess that the only way you can argue with my points is > start disparaging me personally. In my professional experience, that means > that my points have sufficient validity that you can't undermine them with > your own evidence, so you have to try to change the subject, focusing on > the messenger rather than the message. Sorry that you've had to stoop so low. > > RMc > > At 02:01 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I'm starting to see the whole picture here, Richard. Your opinions really > >are colored by your profession and employer. Let's see Cal Berkeley > >regularly discriminates against deserving Asian students, and you see fit > >to libel Chinese runners. It all makes sense now. > > > >malmo Again, I can only point out that you seem to be completely unable to refute the merits of my arguments, and thus you have stooped to name calling as your last resort. I'll leave to others to determine the final outcome of this debate. RMc
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Richard, don't take it personally, Malmo said pretty much the same things to me recently when I had the audacity to call him out from behind his veil of b.s. I'm guessing you've received a few f-bombs and cute little insults in private messages? And I'm sure I'll receive a few more after this one... Sorry to further waste the list airwaves with this, but people who make a habit of talking to others that way should be held accountable. The more who know Malmo's true colors, hopefully the less likely he'll be to show them. Dan --- Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and > certainly > >never a diliberate attempt at distortion. > > Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. I've > also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to admit > them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and you > better > have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous accusation. > > On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not > work > for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY ignore that > information and attack me personally as having a biased viewpoint. It's > pretty clear who's deliberately distorting information. I've caught you > in one case here. How many other times have you done this? > > >With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your > hobby, I > >don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. > > I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using > reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely > be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you > might > want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of > intellectual dishonesty. > > If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the > absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position > that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be > completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived > from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. > > At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment so > > >that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually like > you. > > One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the other > facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations without > factual support qualify as embellishments. > > > >I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's method. > >Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting > you > >to respect them, if you want. > > No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see absolutely > nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about > establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal > credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. > > RMc = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
The truth be told Dan Kaplan, I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me. The profanity was not as much as you really deserve. When I meet you in person it will be clear to you what is unaccepatable. Grow up, punk. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? Richard, don't take it personally, Malmo said pretty much the same things to me recently when I had the audacity to call him out from behind his veil of b.s. I'm guessing you've received a few f-bombs and cute little insults in private messages? And I'm sure I'll receive a few more after this one... Sorry to further waste the list airwaves with this, but people who make a habit of talking to others that way should be held accountable. The more who know Malmo's true colors, hopefully the less likely he'll be to show them. Dan --- Richard McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:46 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I'm sure there has been error in my posts - but very rare - and > certainly > >never a diliberate attempt at distortion. > > Are you trying to claim that I've deliberately distorted my posts. > I've also had a few errors in my posts, and I have the courtesy to > admit them. As to deliberate distortion, I have NEVER done that, and > you better have pretty strong proof before you make such an outrageous > accusation. > > On the other hand, I know that I have told you earlier that I do not > work for UC and that I am a private consultant, yet you PURPOSELY > ignore that information and attack me personally as having a biased > viewpoint. It's pretty clear who's deliberately distorting > information. I've caught you in one case here. How many other times > have you done this? > > >With the lack of intellectual honesty in your opinions about your > hobby, I > >don't see how Californias energy policy will ever improve. > > I'm sorry that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you by using > reasoned, logical argument and empirical proof that you seem to largely > be incapable of comprehending is intellectually dishonest. I think you > might > want to look in the mirror before you look very far for that type of > intellectual dishonesty. > > If you understood the wide range of clients that I work with, and the > absolute necessity for me to have an intellectually consistent position > that can withstand litigation scrutiny, you'd realize that I have to be > completely honest intellectually, and that my positions must be derived > from first principles, rather than jingoistic knee-jerk responses. > > At 02:53 PM 10/16/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Easy, Richard. I'm just pointing out your affinity for embellishment > >so > > >that you might be more aware of it and spare us of it. I actually > >like > you. > > One mistake is embellishment? Certainly no one has questioned the > other facts that I've presented in this thread. Broad generalizations > without factual support qualify as embellishments. > > > >I'm not attacking the messenger, I'm attacking the messenger's > >method. > >Call me selfish for wanting debate to have real boundaries and wanting > you > >to respect them, if you want. > > No, the post clearly attacks me personally as biased. I see > absolutely > nothing that discusses my method. I also don't see any thing about > establishing boundaries. I only see an attempt to undermine my personal > credibility by trying to portray me as racist. It's pretty obvious. > > RMc = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Ok, let's see if we can settle this once and for all. Those not interested in our little side spat, go ahead and hit delete now. "I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me." Mr. Malley has a very selective memory, apparently. It was actually he who first turned things personal (I won't even include the comment he first made to me a few years back, berating my accomplishments as an athlete), saying I must've eaten too many of the brownies at the state (or was it county?) fair. Not hard to read between those lines. I responded with a snide remark at the end of my reply that he could now go back to his booze. That's the false and slanderous statement referred to above. Is it any more false or slanderous than what he directed at me? Not that I can see. At least what I said has some basis in reality, being that it is his reputation down in Eugene... Malmo's response? Demanding that I name the person who told it to me. That's just silly. I know I don't drink or do drugs, and anyone who knows me will tell you the same. Hurling such insults at me wouldn't phase me, because I know it's not true. In my experience, anyone who gets as defensive as Malmo did to my retort has something to hide, not that I can see any sense in someone who won't answer to their real name being worried about their reputation. If it weren't true, he'd have no reason to care. His calling me out consisted of repeated insults while I stated I had no intention of participating in the debate further. And he's telling *me* to grow up! So, Malmo chose to attack me on the basis of lack of ethics (just as he did Richard) and lack of ability as an athlete. Heck, I'm the first to admit I did nothing special on the track. Does that make me any less qualified to participate in the sport? Malmo quite clearly thinks so, but again, I honestly don't give a rip what he thinks. You have to give respect to get respect. I'm confident in my reputation with anyone who's worked with me, thank you very much, Malmo. There are a handful of area coaches on this list that can, if so inclined, speak to my reputation in the area of meet management, timing, and results. Walt Murphy has been the recipient of timely big meet results I've sent him for his weekly newsletter. Amby Burfoot has requested to meet with me in person. Coaches I've worked with think highly of me, and athletes I coached temporarily decided to quit the team when I quit coaching. I've got an Excellence in Student Leadership award to show for my work with the OSU XC/Track team and a published article on the history of the program. I put together and maintained a team website which is widely considered around the country as one of the best XC/Track sites for any level of college. I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but the point is, anyone who's opinion I value has a very different view of me than does Malmo. So, I ask the esteemed Mr. Malley, what have you given back to the sport other than having run fast 20 years ago? The ball's in your court, punk. Dan --- malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The truth be told Dan Kaplan, I called you out for repeatedly making > false and slanderous statements about me. The profanity was not as much > as you really deserve. When I meet you in person it will be clear to you > what is unaccepatable. > > Grow up, punk. > > malmo = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
You've got quite a resume there Dan. You built a website? You should run for student council. You don't need to drag Walt Murphy's name into your little pissing match, we can all vouch that you are a track fan. Sadly, we don't need to look further than your own words to know you are a lying, slanderous sack of shit. No I do not have something to hide, punk. Stop it. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? Ok, let's see if we can settle this once and for all. Those not interested in our little side spat, go ahead and hit delete now. "I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me." Mr. Malley has a very selective memory, apparently. It was actually he who first turned things personal (I won't even include the comment he first made to me a few years back, berating my accomplishments as an athlete), saying I must've eaten too many of the brownies at the state (or was it county?) fair. Not hard to read between those lines. I responded with a snide remark at the end of my reply that he could now go back to his booze. That's the false and slanderous statement referred to above. Is it any more false or slanderous than what he directed at me? Not that I can see. At least what I said has some basis in reality, being that it is his reputation down in Eugene... Malmo's response? Demanding that I name the person who told it to me. That's just silly. I know I don't drink or do drugs, and anyone who knows me will tell you the same. Hurling such insults at me wouldn't phase me, because I know it's not true. In my experience, anyone who gets as defensive as Malmo did to my retort has something to hide, not that I can see any sense in someone who won't answer to their real name being worried about their reputation. If it weren't true, he'd have no reason to care. His calling me out consisted of repeated insults while I stated I had no intention of participating in the debate further. And he's telling *me* to grow up! So, Malmo chose to attack me on the basis of lack of ethics (just as he did Richard) and lack of ability as an athlete. Heck, I'm the first to admit I did nothing special on the track. Does that make me any less qualified to participate in the sport? Malmo quite clearly thinks so, but again, I honestly don't give a rip what he thinks. You have to give respect to get respect. I'm confident in my reputation with anyone who's worked with me, thank you very much, Malmo. There are a handful of area coaches on this list that can, if so inclined, speak to my reputation in the area of meet management, timing, and results. Walt Murphy has been the recipient of timely big meet results I've sent him for his weekly newsletter. Amby Burfoot has requested to meet with me in person. Coaches I've worked with think highly of me, and athletes I coached temporarily decided to quit the team when I quit coaching. I've got an Excellence in Student Leadership award to show for my work with the OSU XC/Track team and a published article on the history of the program. I put together and maintained a team website which is widely considered around the country as one of the best XC/Track sites for any level of college. I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but the point is, anyone who's opinion I value has a very different view of me than does Malmo. So, I ask the esteemed Mr. Malley, what have you given back to the sport other than having run fast 20 years ago? The ball's in your court, punk. Dan --- malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The truth be told Dan Kaplan, I called you out for repeatedly making > false and slanderous statements about me. The profanity was not as > much as you really deserve. When I meet you in person it will be clear > to you what is unaccepatable. > > Grow up, punk. > > malmo = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
Why don't you guys step outside - outside the list, that is? I assume there are at least a few people on this list for whom you have some respect (why else would you paticpate?). Do you really think they will retain respect for you when you resort to such "persuasive" arguments as "punk" and "sack of shit?" Please keep it between yourselves. From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Dan Kaplan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:45:39 -0400 You've got quite a resume there Dan. You built a website? You should run for student council. You don't need to drag Walt Murphy's name into your little pissing match, we can all vouch that you are a track fan. Sadly, we don't need to look further than your own words to know you are a lying, slanderous sack of shit. No I do not have something to hide, punk. Stop it. malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? Ok, let's see if we can settle this once and for all. Those not interested in our little side spat, go ahead and hit delete now. "I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements about me." Mr. Malley has a very selective memory, apparently. It was actually he who first turned things personal (I won't even include the comment he first made to me a few years back, berating my accomplishments as an athlete), saying I must've eaten too many of the brownies at the state (or was it county?) fair. Not hard to read between those lines. I responded with a snide remark at the end of my reply that he could now go back to his booze. That's the false and slanderous statement referred to above. Is it any more false or slanderous than what he directed at me? Not that I can see. At least what I said has some basis in reality, being that it is his reputation down in Eugene... Malmo's response? Demanding that I name the person who told it to me. That's just silly. I know I don't drink or do drugs, and anyone who knows me will tell you the same. Hurling such insults at me wouldn't phase me, because I know it's not true. In my experience, anyone who gets as defensive as Malmo did to my retort has something to hide, not that I can see any sense in someone who won't answer to their real name being worried about their reputation. If it weren't true, he'd have no reason to care. His calling me out consisted of repeated insults while I stated I had no intention of participating in the debate further. And he's telling *me* to grow up! So, Malmo chose to attack me on the basis of lack of ethics (just as he did Richard) and lack of ability as an athlete. Heck, I'm the first to admit I did nothing special on the track. Does that make me any less qualified to participate in the sport? Malmo quite clearly thinks so, but again, I honestly don't give a rip what he thinks. You have to give respect to get respect. I'm confident in my reputation with anyone who's worked with me, thank you very much, Malmo. There are a handful of area coaches on this list that can, if so inclined, speak to my reputation in the area of meet management, timing, and results. Walt Murphy has been the recipient of timely big meet results I've sent him for his weekly newsletter. Amby Burfoot has requested to meet with me in person. Coaches I've worked with think highly of me, and athletes I coached temporarily decided to quit the team when I quit coaching. I've got an Excellence in Student Leadership award to show for my work with the OSU XC/Track team and a published article on the history of the program. I put together and maintained a team website which is widely considered around the country as one of the best XC/Track sites for any level of college. I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but the point is, anyone who's opinion I value has a very different view of me than does Malmo. So, I ask the esteemed Mr. Malley, what have you given back to the sport other than having run fast 20 years ago? The ball's in your court, punk. Dan --- malmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The truth be told Dan Kaplan, I called you out for repeatedly making > false and slanderous statements about me. The profanity was not as > much as you really deserve. When I meet you in person it will be clear > to you what is unaccepatable. > > Grow up, punk. > > malmo = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design & Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F
RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty?
I'm in Malmo's corner... -- - Original Message - DATE: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:50:40 From: "Geoff Pietsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: > Why don't you guys step outside - outside the list, that is? I assume >there are at least a few people on this list for whom you have some respect >(why else would you paticpate?). Do you really think they will retain >respect for you when you resort to such "persuasive" arguments as "punk" and >"sack of shit?" Please keep it between yourselves. > > >>From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "'Dan Kaplan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? >>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:45:39 -0400 >> >>You've got quite a resume there Dan. You built a website? You should run >>for student council. >> >>You don't need to drag Walt Murphy's name into your little pissing >>match, we can all vouch that you are a track fan. Sadly, we don't need >>to look further than your own words to know you are a lying, slanderous >>sack of shit. >> >>No I do not have something to hide, punk. Stop it. >> >>malmo >> >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Kaplan >>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:53 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: who lacks intellectual honesty? >> >> >>Ok, let's see if we can settle this once and for all. Those not >>interested in our little side spat, go ahead and hit delete now. >> >>"I called you out for repeatedly making false and slanderous statements >>about me." >> >>Mr. Malley has a very selective memory, apparently. It was actually he >>who first turned things personal (I won't even include the comment he >>first made to me a few years back, berating my accomplishments as an >>athlete), saying I must've eaten too many of the brownies at the state >>(or was it county?) fair. Not hard to read between those lines. I >>responded with a snide remark at the end of my reply that he could now >>go back to his booze. That's the false and slanderous statement >>referred to above. >>Is it any more false or slanderous than what he directed at me? Not >>that I can see. At least what I said has some basis in reality, being >>that it is his reputation down in Eugene... Malmo's response? >>Demanding that I name the person who told it to me. That's just silly. >>I know I don't drink or do drugs, and anyone who knows me will tell you >>the same. >>Hurling such insults at me wouldn't phase me, because I know it's not >>true. In my experience, anyone who gets as defensive as Malmo did to my >>retort has something to hide, not that I can see any sense in someone >>who won't answer to their real name being worried about their >>reputation. If it weren't true, he'd have no reason to care. >> >>His calling me out consisted of repeated insults while I stated I had no >>intention of participating in the debate further. And he's telling *me* >>to grow up! >> >>So, Malmo chose to attack me on the basis of lack of ethics (just as he >>did Richard) and lack of ability as an athlete. Heck, I'm the first to >>admit I did nothing special on the track. Does that make me any less >>qualified to participate in the sport? Malmo quite clearly thinks so, >>but again, I honestly don't give a rip what he thinks. You have to give >>respect to get respect. I'm confident in my reputation with anyone >>who's worked with me, thank you very much, Malmo. There are a handful >>of area coaches on this list that can, if so inclined, speak to my >>reputation in the area of meet management, timing, and results. Walt >>Murphy has been the recipient of timely big meet results I've sent him >>for his weekly newsletter. Amby Burfoot has requested to meet with me >>in person. >>Coaches I've worked with think highly of me, and athletes I coached >>temporarily decided to quit the team when I quit coaching. I've got an >>Excellence in Student Leadership award to show for my work with the OSU >>XC/Track team and a published article on the history of the program. I >>put together and maintained a team website which is widely con
