QuickStepper said:
I don't really care what you call me, but "shrill"?
Shrill: being sharply insistent on being heard; "strident demands"; "shrill criticism", strident imperative - requiring attention or action; e.g., "as nuclear weapons proliferate, preventing war becomes imperative".
Do you not read what you write about others?
Yes, I do.
QuickStepper said:
It also seems that no matter what I have posted, you've jumped on it and accused me of trying to foment some sort of nefarious intent. I will admit I've not been around this board very long, and thus don't have the history of someone who has posted as much as you, but you do seem rather quick to condemn anyone who even injects a hint of a slightly different or more detached and less passionate view of this current investigation, whatever it may really be about. I simply maintain that no one outside of those on the inside of the investigation really and truly know what's being investigated or what the scope of the investigation is. Guessing and speculating are fun and provide a great diversion, but no one here can say with any real certainty who is going to be indicted or for what crimes an indictment will issue. I'm not criticizing the guessing game itself as it seems to be providing everyone with endless entertainment and diversion, but when someone comes here and expresses a view which is even slightly on a different tangent than what appears to be the party line, why is it necessary to call them an "Armstrong fan"?
I call it like I see it. Apparently, you don't like that. I specifically used the words "Armstrong fan" for a reason. I didn't use a demeaning terms such as "fanboy" or "chamois sniffer" because I was trying to be civil.
QuickStepper said:
You can try to imply all kinds of hidden meanings (e.g., "feigned detachment" "agenda", etc.), but really, who has the agenda here?
Apparently, you didn't read my post (it wasn't that long). I freely admit that I have an agenda...in fact, we all do. Some just can't seem to recognize their own, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore the patently obvious.
QuickStepper said:
Please re-read your own messages.
Ibid
QuickStepper said:
It seems to me that there is a strong contingent, perhaps a majority of regulars who have already indicted, tried and convicted not only Armstrong, but several others. Me, I don't know. I'm willing to listen and learn from all of you, but evidently you all have your minds made up (about a lot of things).
This isn't my first rodeo with this information. I have followed cycling closely since 1992 and was a casual fan before that. You are correct, my mind is made up on these things. He is a doping cheat and has harmed others in an effort to cover that, as well as using sick people as a shield. You will not change my opinion.
QuickStepper said:
Look, if someone commits a crime and there is evidence, let an indictment issue and let that person stand trial and if they are guilty, let the full measure of the law come down on them. And if there's not sufficient evidence for an indictment, or if the person is acquitted, then so be it.
OJ was guilty, but by standards that are there to protect the innocent, he was found not guilty because the jury felt that burden of proof was not met. Most people who believe in these protections also understand that guilty people will go unpunished sometimes in an effort to ensure that innocent ones are not found guilty. (hey, even that is obviously imperfect, but you cannot blame a girl for trying) So, as someone who has a vocation in the field, don't preach to me in an idealistic manner. You and I both know better. Regardless of whether or not he is found guilty of anything, he is a doping cheat who has harmed others and used sick people to shield himself.
QuickStepper said:
That's my only agenda, seeing the process work. That and perhaps trying to inject just a bit of realism based on some years of experience about what actually takes place in the federal criminal justice system for those unfamiliar with it (see the legal thread). If you are already familiar with the process or believe you know all you need to know, or feel you can't learn anything new or just think I'm full of it (as Spectacle clearly does), then just put me on your "ignore" list.
Good day.
You obviously know the law. I have no problem with that, and have much to learn. I am pretty sure I wouldn't pass the Bar at this point, so thanks for confirming what I already know.
Are you full of it? Not totally. Is it plain which side of this you are proceeding from? Yes it is. You can continue to deny it all you want, but some of the things you have written say otherwise. Sorry, but that is how I see it.
Cheers.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram