Sharing the burden of being the front cyclist helps you preserve your strength for the big push.

Steve Prefontaine liked to break from the pack early and try to win through sheer force of will and the ability to ignore pain.

That’s one way to do it, but I don’t think it’s a superior strategy. Just different.

I do like the initial concept of this post, however. And to be fair, the resulting debate was just like NASCAR- those of us that stuck around got to watch a big wreck…

In fact, I don’t see where you are quibbling with anything in my post. You must have really liked it. Or you must really hate Lauren, to take her nine words and extract an interpretation that gives you an excuse to sound cool by slamming others.

From now on, I will endeavor to anticipate which of your tired cliches and irrelevant asides you will bring to the conversation, and place them in the post accordingly.

If you bothered to check into the Axelrod materials, you’d see true Darwinism at work. It clearly shows that predators who aim to win every encounter at all costs end up losing in the long run.

It’s math, you bonehead. It’s science. It’s vetted, and peer-reviewed, and it is completely germane to the subject at hand. Your attempts to cloud the issue with the catchphrases from Chairwoman Amanda’s Little Black Book notwithstanding.

People who cooperate with each other, freely, tend to elevate themselves as a group. No one is advocating central planning, nor socialism. (Instead of Cluetrain, I quote “Clue”: That is your red herring.)

“Silly goose; this is a blog. To think that you’d have genuine intellectual rigor here is absurd.”

Silly… avatar; are you now admitting there was never any intellectual rigor on Strumpette? It’s a blog too, last time I checked.

Also – last time I checked – you blasted the hell out of people who tried arguing Keen’s “Cult of the Amateur” with you without having read the book. You’ve already admitted that you’re too chicken to read the Axelrod stuff, or that it is irrelevant to the discussion. If and when I do write my Axelrod posts, you will dismiss them without bothering to read the papers.

Because, deep down, you are a hypocrite. The only reason you are coming back is because having the last word gives you a false sense of accomplishment. That way you don’t have to explain to your pals how an erudite intellectual such as yourself got schooled by a former teevee news guy. In Alabama. (Oh, I’ll bet that one stings, doesn’t it?)

No. I have responded to your case as you’ve made it here. No Ike, my job is NOT to do your homework and help make your case.

- “Axelrod clearly shows that predators who aim to win every encounter at all costs end up losing in the long run.”

First time you said that. But that said, keep in mind, it is one math model contrived in the 70s. Context please.

That said, I am not advocating anti-cooperation. I am saying that yours (not necessarily Axelrod’s) is a subjective system and mine is an objectively competitive system. I lean toward Mother Nature; you associate, celebrate and elevate the lame.

- “Are you now admitting there was never any intellectual rigor on Strumpette?”

Absolutely! I’d be the first to admit there’s very little in the way of “intellectual rigor.” It’s a joke meant to parody and make fun of the very things you apparently hold dear. PR in and of itself rarely rises to the level of “intellectual rigor.” Axelrod as a tool to rationalize your friendz “love link” and such is ridiculous.

- “You blasted the hell out of people who tried arguing Keen’s “Cult of the Amateur” with you without having read the book. You’ve already admitted that you’re too chicken to read the Axelrod stuff, or that it is irrelevant to the discussion.”

Your penchant for non sequitur is only exceeded by your thing for trying to put words in my mouth. Your “chicken reference” is chicken shit. Again, not my job to make your case. Also, this post wasn’t about Axelrod, per se. It was a name you happen to drop in the comments.

- “The only reason you are coming back is because having the last word gives you a false sense of accomplishment. That way you don’t have to explain to your pals how an erudite intellectual such as yourself got schooled by a former teevee news guy. In Alabama.”

You’re f-in dreamin’. Like I said on Twitter, “I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass Ike; it’s up your group’s ass.”

You betray intellectual rigor.

Go read up on the Axelrod stuff. It’s fascinating, and has nothing to do with social media. You’ll feel smarter at the end of the day. Except for the part where you realize that I am right.

Me? Commie? Far from it. I’m a free market disciple. And in free markets, what makes people prosper is cooperation. Those who honor contracts and don’t look at each transaction as an opportunity to screw the other guy will win over time, because over time they will have more willing trade partners.

You are looking at the “score” between individuals as though it were the only score that mattered. If this were football, you’d be right. The lowest-scoring team in the league might very well be undefeated.

But life isn’t about winning football games. A strategy that works in single-iterations does not bear fruit in the long haul. Prosperity is about creating value through trade. And at the end of the year, it’s about the point totals you create (dollars, points, things, whatever it is you choose to score.)

I’ve been meaning to write that Axelrod post and about the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Thanks for demonstrating the need for me to enlighten you.

Popularity was never on the table with me, nor has it been. However, exposing hypocrisy is high on my list and in this instance, you wandered onto my playground and made the assertion that I was full of it. In doing so, you exposed your own very weak thinking, indeed.

I haven’t ducked a thing. However, I did shed light on the fact that “drafting” and such in the context of social media is for the weak and promotes the weak. As it celebrates the lame, it sucks the oxygen out of the system for real meaning thinking. Such is the pathology that is People’s Social Media Temple to which you apparently belong.

With regard to “intellectual rigor,” excuse me but okay, you start. Silly goose; this is a blog. To think that you’d have genuine intellectual rigor here is absurd.

With regard to you being a “free market disciple,” well then you are at odds with yourself. Cluetrain is anything but free market. Here: the system is either governed objectively or subjectively. What history has proven is that subjectively-based cooperative systems tend to be corrupt and inefficient. Again, as in your Pea-boa-now-is-gone misfits, the congregation ends up sucking the oxygen out of the room. Regrettably, the Google algorithm is designed to foster that.

With regard to “You are looking at the ‘score’ between individuals as though it were the only score that mattered”… and it’s losers who argue otherwise.

With regard to “Popularity was never on the table with me,” EXCUSE ME… look at your Twitters! Look at you peeps! Who are you trying to kid? C’mon, Ike. For the record, I am not arguing that you have you head up your ass; it’s up your group’s ass.

Lastly, as to wandering onto your playground with the assertion that you are full of it, I stand by that. It is you Ike whose thinking is variously clouded.

Well, at least this exercise will have helped you score a few point with your “friendz.”

Sincerely,

- Amanda

The peas are about supporting a person as they go through something, not about awareness of the disease. I would wager that maybe a few are doing it because everyone else is, but the vast majority do it out of support. Try to lighten up on the cynicism. There is still some compassion left in the world.

Oh, and don’t call her a troll; that just gets us another canned rant.

I like Ike.