May 6
11.5mi, 1:17:13 (6:43/mi): Fancy Dance. Next to the river. Just a stupid variation on LS8 with some rambling around to get to 11.5. Thought about naming it something more simply fancy, but felt "Fancy Dance" might better achieve my objective. Practicing relevant preaching, and intend to continue.
Week: 90mi. Very good week with two good workouts. For those itching to find out, I'm at 1201mi on the year. H is at 1203.2mi. Look out, 30:05.
May 5
PM: 14.5mi, 1:38:00 (6:45/mi): WU, 4xBuddha Loop (aprx 2.1mi), CD. 11:52 (course tour), 11:01, 11:07, 11:04. Felt relatively strong running alone with my breathing through the arb. Great loop. Solid workout.
AM: 5mi, 34:57 (6:59/mi): Helen C Five. Three seconds faster (more attractive) than Hooley.
May 4
PM: 10mi, 1:04:11 (6:25/mi): NMR Extended. W/Hools, Corey & Mike. Roughly 1/3 of the company was atrocious. Another 1/3 was hilarious. And the last 1/3 was 3rd at the LMR the next day. Police have yet to begin the investigation...
AM: 4mi, Shortcut Untimed.
May 3
6mi, 40:42 (6:47/mi): West Side Five + xtra. CSED.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sunday: easy 6 with Betsy. Was hoping it would rain; it did not.
Week: 55 in 6, one workout, no real long run. Another consistent week of running. Body feels pretty tired, and I've tried to take it easy the last few days. Hope to bump back up into the 60's this week, and am planning some pickups on Tuesday or Wednesday to go with New Prague on Saturday.
May 7: MTPO 1:09:40. Essentially the same as yesterday, only half the distance and thankfully none of the blood. Now I should probably get something done. Bedar.
for those of you interested in the truth: not only have I given church about, what, like a 5 week head start, i did not count 3 6mile runs during the emergent p.t. period.
furthermore, whereas my training is highly syllogistic, my records are purely metonymic. the ratio is aprox 1/3.
that's true. it's awfully difficult to compare the 1203.2mi you've recorded to the 1201mi i've recorded. can we simply agree that your training syllogism operates within the paradigm that i am easily subverting?
also, if you're going to use a ratio like that then i think you mean your training is synecdochic.
your training records are synecdochic.
no, that's not at all what I mean.
Good job looking that up on wikipedia, though!!
My useage of "metonymic" is drawn primarily from oral traditional theory (Foley, Ong, Lord & Perry, even Zumthor) in which each text-unit is understood to refer to a meaning system both greater and wholly irreducible to the performance of the text. In this case, meaning bascially means mileage, yes. But, because "whole" (as in 'part stands for a whole') suggests stability and resolution, syndechoche can not really begin to describe the ways in which my mileage is 'greater' than yours. I tried to express this not only with the very careful deployment of "metonymic" but also with the "aprox." Perhaps you missed that.
Finally, despite your sarcasm, it is difficult to compare those numbers. What do they represent? Do they represent the present? Do they represent the fact that I already got in six miles today? Do they represent that the extraordinary quality of those miles make them more proximate to 18?
it was a simple google search, and i steered clear of the wiki result. i instead chose theliterarylink.com, which identifies grad students as part of its intended audience and is so otherwise respected that it is unconcerned with proper comma useage.
i think i speak for most of our audience here at Solidarity when i thank you for explaining your considered use of metonymic. if you had in fact used the word as you describe i'm sure that your meaning would have been immediately clear to all of us. i just have one last question by way of clarification: is it common in oral traditional theory to offer even an approximate ratio when the "whole" has such broad connotative meaning?
while you're answering that you might also consider the amount of information you provide in your training records. i understand, it's impossible to capture the sum of your efforts. but whereas many of the loyal Solidarity contributors offer descriptive context that enables a reader to infer if not calculate the greater sum of their efforts, your readers have little other than your own recent metonymic declaration. it is less than compelling.
you're welcome.
Moving on: your rather veiled objection, there, seems to me a matter of interest. it also provokes questions of readership and use-value. Which is to say: who cares?
Generally speaking the question 'who cares about hooley's training log' can be answered simply: hooley.
Given the excessive narrativization of training recorded on the blog, i think we can assert that the answer to this question: 'who cares about biz, chaypaw's, and church's training logs?' is 'who DOESN'T care about them?!!'
Or as you would have us phrase it: to whom are these things intended to be interesting? With this less-than-rigorous attempt at comparison of yours, you may be attemping to make both logs more interesting to more people. However, at least for my part you'll never succeed. My audience is, and will remain, impossibly specialized.
May 7
AM: 10 (1:07:27) Straight Shot Ext.
Felt pretty good, no real leftover soreness from the long run yesterday, which was nice. Pretty humid, though, and I sweated up a storm. Figuratively.
PM: 5.5 (37:25) A&W Special.
Felt like I hadn't stopped running for a few hours, like I did. Anyway, nothing special. Still humid out, still sweaty.
PM: Spent hours reading hooley's training log, trying to figure out the exact ratio of hooley's training to hooley's records. I'm thinking closer to 1/pi than his suggested 1/3. Of course, it's all speculation since my only source of information was the record itself.
sounds about right.
Just took me a break from el papero to peruse the archives of this here trainaj blay-ohrg thusly to recollect to myself information pertaining to how trainaj was playing out at this point last year with an eye towards factors outside the scope of the distance and time themselves. I found a relatively complete record of weather, outside influences on training, hypotheses, conjecture and whatnot that allowed the intended audience of myself--though not impossibly Specialzed like Hooley and my bike--to obtain a greater amount of information than my poor, stunted, warped little mind could obtain from last year's time for "picnic point" and other such syllogistic and literary gems. Take this as evidence of: lesser intelligence than yon Hulicat for my inability to retain the recollections of as many details as I am interested in without writing them down, lesser interest and devotion to the activity that such details are not permanently burned into my semi(dys)-functional equivalent of a soul requiring me to record them elsewhere, or a narcississm elevated beyond that of monsieur 'cat's that drives me to look back and marvel at what I have done rather than living in the present and never looking back. It could be any of those. Or all of them. Or something else. Maybe we're all just different and have different needs, wants, and desires. But, in the end, what's important is that we all are aware that I just saw a picture on the news of Hools making out with President Bush. Gross. And that shit was on the news, so it had to be true. Bedar.
what just happened?
i concede.
Post a Comment