thehog wrote:pmcg76 wrote:Man, you guys are real suckers if you cannot see through snipers BS by now.
Lets present a few actual facts, sniper was being banned for trolling from the time they joined this forum. During one of those bans, sniper created a sockpuppet account and was permabanned.
Months later, for some reason sniper was allowed to return, the only poster ever allowed to return from a permaban in forum history afaik. Apparently sniper played his usual Manuel from Barcelona, 'I know nothing' claiming he didn't know about sockpuppetry and that it was a bannable offence . The mods fell for it. Yes, seriously.
So now most of the time, what sniper posts is misrepresentation, distortion and innumerable falsehoods presented as facts. Everytime someone corrects sniper on his many falsehoods, sniper plays along acting like they are taking on board these corrections and pretending to be interested, only to always default to then presenting the same falsehoods that have been already debunked. There is no actual genuine attempt at listening of other posters or engaging in actual debate, it is all for show to stay the right side of the mods and appear like they are being civil. It really is a transparent form of trolling, subtle, but transparent.
It reminds me of posters like Polish or Flicker who managed to stay the right side of the mods for a long time, only sniper is in favour of the prevailing opinions in the Clinic. You can bet, if sniper was presenting the same level of distortion and falsehoods against the majority opinion, they would have been banished from the forum ages ago.
Do people really think sniper believes half of what he himself posts. Not a chance.
Greg LeMond. Could you be anymore feeble? You bearly participate in any threads but in minutia detail can recite the posting history of one member?
Perhaps gives us your views on mighty Sir Dave Brailsford? Because from where I'm standing it turns out Sniper has been correct about what he's posted on that front. You, not so much. In fact all your pro-Sky posts like really stupid in light of what we know now.
Being a bit surprised at your post and the old Sky-bot define you use, I thought I'ld have a look at pcmg76's posting history. Now he hardly sets the boards alight with an average of 1.18 posts per day so it wasn't that much work to go back app. 2 years in his posting history. Ii didn't come up with a single pro-Sky post. He mostly posts in other than Sky threads and the ones I could find making a mention of Sky or Froome are below (yes, all three of them).
Now I know we live in the age of fake news and alternative facts, but this is taking it pretty far. Since you claim pcmg76 regularly pots or posted pro-Sky, I think the forum rules state that it is up to you to substantiate that claim and when failing to do so subsequently retract that claim.