Re: men in women's bicycle races

Am 14.05.2025 um 14:08 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Wed, 14 May 2025 13:10:16 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
 

Am 14.05.2025 um 12:47 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Tue, 13 May 2025 14:18:42 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It
allows him to hide from discussing the current
administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
>
>

Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any
of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
>
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier
group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
>
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from
sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure
in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
>
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft-
carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
>
One never runs out of examples.

>
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive
administration? I'd think that even the appointment of,
say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality
would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect
the competence of the world's largest military.
>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to
pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant
qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible
government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or
thousands of competent workers? That's administrative
incompetence - one example among many.
>

>
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades
governments (not only US Federal government!)  in every
administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent
failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well
before key exemplars were born!

>
First, it takes a large administration to run a large
institution, and a very large administration to run a large
country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large
administation you'll be able to find examples of anything -
competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we
have one of everything" one of your talking points?
>
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The
unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his
buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one
legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone
competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an
astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list
more, but I think the current administration is on its way
toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
>
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought
processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
>
>

The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a
skimpy budget and a slim staff.
>
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did-we-rule-the-empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
>
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
>
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission
creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
>
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.

>
Krugowski's snipping is his cowardly method of avoiding issues he
can't deal with.

>
Can you please stop repeating the same accusations?  Independent on
whether they are true or false, they are extremely boring.

 Most accusations on Usenet are boring, including Krygowski's a few
lines up, especially the one about "Mr. Timid Tricyclist." I don't
think mine are any more boring than his.

Correct.  The most boring aspect is turning a (semi-) meaningful discussion into boring personal attacks.  Please look in the above quotes who first wrote a posting containing only personal attacks and not forwarding the discussion.