Amusing how you are viewed differently based on your audience

Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
The Sports Illustrated article has obviously had an impact... the college football message board I post on regularly has several threads on it regarding Lance Armstrong's doping.

What I find interesting is that I think I'm viewed here as being somewhat supportive of Armstrong... or at least not as "anti-Armstrong" as some would like.

But there, I'm being called a "hater" who is accusing Armstrong with no proof. I've mentioned his past positive tests when people have claimed he never tested positive, and I'm being told that I obviously have an agenda and that I'm out to get him.

As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
So why DO you love cancer? ;)

I watch other sports but don't interact with their fans. Today I followed Google News to a baseball blog asking about Lance and "steroids". The blogger dissed Novitsky. First comment - what Lance has going for him is he's never tested positive. I left 2 comments covering blood transfusions, water, saline bags, Lithuanian U23 riders, Frei, racketeering, money laundering, etc.

I wouldn't check back there to save my life, but I picture guys spitting chewing tobacco and sunflower seeds at my comments. :D
 
kurtinsc said:
As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.
There's just no reasoning with them, right? It's because most forums are people talking past one another. The other forum is Pharmstrong/UCI believers, this one, not so much.

There's usually a core theme the regulars agree on, then the occasionals who test an opinion to see if they fit the theme. There's always a couple of contrarians that enjoy being the minority, polar opposite view.

It would be nice to see sound reasoning to inform an opinion, but hyperbole works better.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
I think I'm really turning into a conspiracy theorist after reading all the various comments that are out there this morning. I keep seeing the line "there's nothing new in that article ...." Sorry, but if you don't know much of Armstrong's history, then it's ALL new. If you know a lot of the history, there's still a lot that's new. Catlin, Hemassist, the Popo stuff...how people, including Armstrong, can say "meh, nothing new" is beyond me. Really makes me wonder how many of them are just paid shills. One's thing's for sure, they didn't read the article.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Kennf1 said:
Really makes me wonder how many of them are just paid shills. One's thing's for sure, they didn't read the article.
I think there's a fair number of paid shills.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I think there's a fair number of paid shills.
Less then you think.

I've been on this particular college football board for way longer then I've posted here. Over 10 years. My post count is an embarassing 15,000. Most of these guys posting that Lance never doped or that he's the most tested athelete have post counts over 1000... these are hard core college football fans.

This is the typical "non-cycling sports fan who doesn't know many riders aside from Lance" crowd. Not paid supporters... just regular joes.

I think the idea that there's some sort of internet conspiracy to support or protect Lance is foolish. In reality... people are simply loathe to give up a hero. They'll defend them until it becomes impossible to do so anymore.
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
Hater on sports illustrated and fanboy on cyclenews ?

kurtinsc said:
The Sports Illustrated article has obviously had an impact... the college football message board I post on regularly has several threads on it regarding Lance Armstrong's doping.

What I find interesting is that I think I'm viewed here as being somewhat supportive of Armstrong... or at least not as "anti-Armstrong" as some would like.

But there, I'm being called a "hater" who is accusing Armstrong with no proof. I've mentioned his past positive tests when people have claimed he never tested positive, and I'm being told that I obviously have an agenda and that I'm out to get him.

As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.

You are so right , on these forums the minute you say anything positive about Lance you are instantly labled as a FAnboy . It doesnt matter how neutral you try stay to say your point.
It does prove my point on one the quotes to a thread I had written earlier, that there are more people that dont view the situation the way we cyclists do on this forum. Many Many more people . In the end there may still be that silver linning to the dark cloud that hangs over the sport and Lance , just because of shear numbers . :cool:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
kurtinsc said:
less then you think.

I've been on this particular college football board for way longer then i've posted here. Over 10 years. My post count is an embarassing 15,000. Most of these guys posting that lance never doped or that he's the most tested athelete have post counts over 1000... These are hard core college football fans.

This is the typical "non-cycling sports fan who doesn't know many riders aside from lance" crowd. Not paid supporters... Just regular joes.

I think the idea that there's some sort of internet conspiracy to support or protect lance is foolish. In reality... People are simply loathe to give up a hero. They'll defend them until it becomes impossible to do so anymore.
sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec sec number 1....
:d
 
stainlessguy1 said:
You are so right , on these forums the minute you say anything positive about Lance you are instantly labled as a FAnboy . It doesnt matter how neutral you try stay to say your point.
It does prove my point on one the quotes to a thread I had written earlier, that there are more people that dont view the situation the way we cyclists do on this forum. Many Many more people . In the end there may still be that silver linning to the dark cloud that hangs over the sport and Lance , just because of shear numbers . :cool:
A silver lining born of ignorance is not much of a silver lining.
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
A silver lining born of ignorance is not much of a silver lining.
That is true , except that silver is silver and gold is gold and shines and sparkles just like diamonds and plastic surgery is plastic surgery and makes all those that do it feel good . In the end , Hollywood and the press love it .
:cool:
 
kurtinsc said:
The Sports Illustrated article has obviously had an impact... the college football message board I post on regularly has several threads on it regarding Lance Armstrong's doping.

What I find interesting is that I think I'm viewed here as being somewhat supportive of Armstrong... or at least not as "anti-Armstrong" as some would like.

But there, I'm being called a "hater" who is accusing Armstrong with no proof. I've mentioned his past positive tests when people have claimed he never tested positive, and I'm being told that I obviously have an agenda and that I'm out to get him.

As I read the responses, I can't help but laugh at how people view my motives there and here regarding a subject that I'm trying to talk about without unfair bias on both sites. It's interesting how the same sorts of statements can be viewed so differently by two different audiences.

When the hard evidence is presented in detail, when the findings of the investigation become available to the public, and must of all-when the final verdict is reached--the arguments will disappear.
just be patience-it will be over soon ;)
 
hfer07 said:
When the hard evidence is presented in detail, when the findings of the investigation become available to the public, and must of all-when the final verdict is reached--the arguments will disappear.
just be patience-it will be over soon ;)
to be honest i think people will just tune out after a few paragraphs. tl;dr etc etc.

in the USA, this information will only start to gain traction when it's made into a movie, some sort of political thriller starring matt daymon as lance, gene hackman as novitski.

sherryl crow as herself, jaws (james bond) as popo, sam neil as johan and so on and and so on. . .
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Ironic for sure. Today, I was admonished in private for posting something that was "almost" part of the SI article. 7 years ago, I probably would have been given that same warning for saying that Lance Armstrong doped.
 
Jun 18, 2009
374
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Ironic for sure. Today, I was admonished in private for posting something that was "almost" part of the SI article. 7 years ago, I probably would have been given that same warning for saying that Lance Armstrong doped.
I'm not sure what you said/almost said, but I don't think public perception will change fully until the LAF shenanigans gets traction in the 'serious' media. Then the 'but he's doing so much for cancer research' justification will fall away.
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
No really.
Hello Hugh : The stuff you posted under my handle , that i did not quote , you know the total childish typing . Isnt that illegal . I mean using someones name and then stating jibberish .
Are you a child ? Or just a former national enquirer writer ? or maybe just a big kid that only likes it if everyone agrees with you ? So i guess i have to explain what a silver lining is . ( from the saying every dark cloud has its silver lining )
A silver lining isnt born out of ignorance , the circumstance that creates the dark cloud is born out of ignorance or anger or fear or hatred . Maybe all of the above . The silver lining doesnt happen till the dust settles , untill all guns are silent , all lawyers have closed their books . Only then is there a silver lining if there is to be one .

Others have quoted that it will turn out to be a movie . Maybe what i said isnt so far off . They will make a movie of it . The Lance Armstrong Story .
Others seem to think so too . It wont stop till then .
Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood , there is money to be made . :cool:
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
stainlessguy1 said:
Actually, "silver lining" comes from using silver iodide to seed couds in order to increase percipitation.

Kurt Vonnegut's brother actually discovered the process. Part of the plot for "Cat's Cradle" is based on some of his brother's crystallography experiments.

Not sure what in your posts (or my response for that matter) has much relevance though.
 
Dec 30, 2010
391
0
0
kurtinsc said:
Actually, "silver lining" comes from using silver iodide to seed couds in order to increase percipitation.

Kurt Vonnegut's brother actually discovered the process. Part of the plot for "Cat's Cradle" is based on some of his brother's crystallography experiments.

Not sure what in your posts (or my response for that matter) has much relevance though.
That might be true , but i wasnt using the famous saying to seed clouds for more rain ,,,lol. You have to read up a couple of quotes to get the other silly stuff . It doesnt matter but thanks for the info .
:cool:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY