Because it deserves it's own thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 24, 2009
206
0
0
Publicus said:
Newsflash: 99.9% of all actions taken by all humans during their lifetimes are ego-based.

At least 90% of all athletes making comebacks after being retired have given some type of "noble" rationalization as their reason. Even if the athletes believe themselves at the time, most adults over the age of 15 or so understand it's a BS reason. They understand that competitive athletes sometimes have trouble giving up the sport, especially when they realize they still have the talent to compete at a top level.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Publicus said:
That was a great article, and presumably written by a fellow Texan. After reading one of the respones, though I am now painfully aware of where the term “fanboy” comes from and do have to admit it is often justified, as evidenced by this response:
“One thing y know:
-You must born one more time, to have the right to speak , like you speak, about Lance Armstrong.
Shut your mouth!
Armstrong is the best!”


But then someone hits the nail on the head with this letter:

"Bravo. Thank you for this article.

We've been flabbergasted that journalists have avoided making many of the points you've made about Armstrong at the Tour, and we commend you for making them.

As a family of cancer survivors, we've been quite distressed at the lack of attention by Armstrong to the theme of cancer during his comeback. The disconnect between his words and his actions has been striking.

We conclude that Armstrong has returned to competition for egotistical reasons, namely to do battle with Contador in an attempt to preserve his legacy as the greatest Tour champion in history.

Just one thing:

Contador has not engaged in a public spat with Armstrong, and does not use Twitter. His critical statements about Armstrong were not delivered childishly, but were made at an open press conference, attended by international journalists, and about which the public had been notified 24 hours in advance. He made his comments publicly on that day, and has not renewed them.

It is Armstrong who has chosen to make public statements concerning his feelings about Contador via Twitter, and remain beyond the reach of professional journalists”
 
Jul 13, 2009
144
0
0
Deagol said:
That was a great article, and presumably written by a fellow Texan. After reading one of the respones, though I am now painfully aware of where the term “fanboy” comes from and do have to admit it is often justified, as evidenced by this response:
“One thing y know:
-You must born one more time, to have the right to speak , like you speak, about Lance Armstrong.
Shut your mouth!
Armstrong is the best!”


But then someone hits the nail on the head with this letter:

"Bravo. Thank you for this article.

We've been flabbergasted that journalists have avoided making many of the points you've made about Armstrong at the Tour, and we commend you for making them.

As a family of cancer survivors, we've been quite distressed at the lack of attention by Armstrong to the theme of cancer during his comeback. The disconnect between his words and his actions has been striking.

We conclude that Armstrong has returned to competition for egotistical reasons, namely to do battle with Contador in an attempt to preserve his legacy as the greatest Tour champion in history.

Just one thing:

Contador has not engaged in a public spat with Armstrong, and does not use Twitter. His critical statements about Armstrong were not delivered childishly, but were made at an open press conference, attended by international journalists, and about which the public had been notified 24 hours in advance. He made his comments publicly on that day, and has not renewed them.

It is Armstrong who has chosen to make public statements concerning his feelings about Contador via Twitter, and remain beyond the reach of professional journalists”
Which CN forum member wrote the last letter?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Azdak6 said:
Newsflash: 99.9% of all actions taken by all humans during their lifetimes are ego-based.

At least 90% of all athletes making comebacks after being retired have given some type of "noble" rationalization as their reason. Even if the athletes believe themselves at the time, most adults over the age of 15 or so understand it's a BS reason.
We obviously have a lot of members under 15 here. :)

phsychlist said:
Which CN forum member wrote the last letter?
I have some suspicions about which one wrote the first.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
BroDeal said:
I have some suspicions about which one wrote the first.
I was thinking the same thing.

It's actualy a bit scary if you read into it (albeit a bit tough since the guy does not know how to construct a simple sentence). I take it as having to be a "born again" to have the right to speak. And we all know what that means ......
 
Azdak6 said:
Newsflash: 99.9% of all actions taken by all humans during their lifetimes are ego-based.

At least 90% of all athletes making comebacks after being retired have given some type of "noble" rationalization as their reason. Even if the athletes believe themselves at the time, most adults over the age of 15 or so understand it's a BS reason. They understand that competitive athletes sometimes have trouble giving up the sport, especially when they realize they still have the talent to compete at a top level.
So it's everyone else's fault for believing Lance in the first place? I should just assume he is full of crap, is that it? Or would that in fact make me a Lance-Hater?
 
May 13, 2009
653
0
0
LOL, one only needs to look at the author to get the gist behind the article. This is the same person who BLASTED the Duke Lacrosse Team through out that entire crock of sh!t, then defended her writings as stories about the "culture" and not the "criminals"(clever backtracking though). She also wrote a book on A-rod that totally bombed. You can chalk this one up as another journalist trying to get their name in the spotlight.
That resume is starting to look real impressive.:rolleyes:
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
frizzlefry said:
LOL, one only needs to look at the author to get the gist behind the article. This is the same person who BLASTED the Duke Lacrosse Team through out that entire crock of sh!t, and then defended her writings as stories about the "culture" and not the "criminals"(clever backtracking though). She also wrote a book on A-rod that totally bombed. You can chalk this one up as another journalist trying to get their name in the spotlight.
That resume is starting to look real impressive.:rolleyes:
Blame the messenger...
 
frizzlefry said:
LOL, one only needs to look at the author to get the gist behind the article. This is the same person who BLASTED the Duke Lacrosse Team through out that entire crock of sh!t, then defended her writings as stories about the "culture" and not the "criminals"(clever backtracking though). She also wrote a book on A-rod that totally bombed. You can chalk this one up as another journalist trying to get their name in the spotlight.
That resume is starting to look real impressive.:rolleyes:
No wonder she's so popular with the haters here.
 
Aug 8, 2009
7
0
0
Cynicism is an atrophy of the soul.

Eva Maria said:
Man, HGH is not good for the head.
One of the favorite sports of the celebrity media or those who follow them is to build up athletic heros to a super human level only to find that they are human and flawed. When this happens they inevitably find much joy in ripping them from the same pedestal they put them on in the first place. It provides much fodder for People Magazine or for those disgusting celebrity TV shows in the US like Inside Edition and the like.

There are a great many on this forum who take great joy in ripping Lance Armstrong. Apparently it makes them feel cool or "in the know" to degrade a person in his position. Let me say that I find this type of cynicism not only reprehensible but false. It is worse than the blind hero worship they rail against.

As a person living with cancer, I wear a yellow band on my wrist. I also know that Lance Armstrong is a flawed human being who sometimes says and does stupid things. The divorce, the hanging around with celebrities, the twitter digs, all of these point to a guy that lacks humility.

Perhaps he did use PEDs either before or during his 7 Tour wins. I don't know for sure and neither does anyone here on this forum. It is evident that almost all of his chief competitors (Basso, Pantani, Ulrich) have been proven to have used.

Every three months I go to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. On the wall in the part of the hospital that I go to is a sign that says, "Lance Armstrong Adult Survivorship Clinic." All those yellow bands and jerseys and charity rides paid for the clinic that treats my cancer. For me that is enough. And it should be for all of you as well. When you hear Lance talk about this disease (search on You Tube for the interview he did with Charlie Rose), you understand the depth of knowledge that he has and the passion he carries for those who are living with, dying from or surviving this disease.

He doesn't have to do this. There are many celebrities and other athletes who have had cancer and do small charity events or appearances. Lance could do that. But he understands that that is not enough. He knows this is an international fight that will need the interventions of many governments as well as NGOs to find a cure. I believe it will happen. And when the book is written on how cancer was cured, Lance Armstrong will have played a major part.

And so he exposes himself to these cynics like those here on this forum who like to make themselves feel more important by denigrating others who are in the pubic eye.

Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jim Gosger said:
One of the favorite sports of the celebrity media or those who follow them is to build up athletic heros to a super human level only to find that they are human and flawed. When this happens they inevitably find much joy in ripping them from the same pedestal they put them on in the first place. It provides much fodder for People Magazine or for those disgusting celebrity TV shows in the US like Inside Edition and the like.

There are a great many on this forum who take great joy in ripping Lance Armstrong. Apparently it makes them feel cool or "in the know" to degrade a person in his position. Let me say that I find this type of cynicism not only reprehensible but false. It is worse than the blind hero worship they rail against.

As a person living with cancer, I wear a yellow band on my wrist. I also know that Lance Armstrong is a flawed human being who sometimes says and does stupid things. The divorce, the hanging around with celebrities, the twitter digs, all of these point to a guy that lacks humility.

Perhaps he did use PEDs either before or during his 7 Tour wins. I don't know for sure and neither does anyone here on this forum. It is evident that almost all of his chief competitors (Basso, Pantani, Ulrich) have been proven to have used.

Every three months I go to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. On the wall in the part of the hospital that I go to is a sign that says, "Lance Armstrong Adult Survivorship Clinic." All those yellow bands and jerseys and charity rides paid for the clinic that treats my cancer. For me that is enough. And it should be for all of you as well. When you hear Lance talk about this disease (search on You Tube for the interview he did with Charlie Rose), you understand the depth of knowledge that he has and the passion he carries for those who are living with, dying from or surviving this disease.

He doesn't have to do this. There are many celebrities and other athletes who have had cancer and do small charity events or appearances. Lance could do that. But he understands that that is not enough. He knows this is an international fight that will need the interventions of many governments as well as NGOs to find a cure. I believe it will happen. And when the book is written on how cancer was cured, Lance Armstrong will have played a major part.

And so he exposes himself to these cynics like those here on this forum who like to make themselves feel more important by denigrating others who are in the pubic eye.

Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone.
So we have a problem because he is a lying doper? Funny, I didn't see all that many twitters about cancer this year. I did see a Nike commercial that used cancer to justify his actions, that I saw. He is the type of person who uses cancer to make himself feel like a good person. Altruism is not part of the equation. While I think he may feel kinship with people suffering from cancer, he helps for self centered reasons, and that is glaringly obvious in his actions.

But yea, I have a problem because I call a spade a spade.
 
Aug 8, 2009
7
0
0
In fact it is the cynics who are self-delusional. They aren't calling a spade a spade. They, like you, emphasize the negative to the exclusion of anything else and apply their own motivations to others as a means of denigrating their work. It's worse (and more false) than the hero worship you hate.
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
0
0
frizzlefry said:
LOL, one only needs to look at the author to get the gist behind the article. This is the same person who BLASTED the Duke Lacrosse Team through out that entire crock of sh!t, then defended her writings as stories about the "culture" and not the "criminals"(clever backtracking though). She also wrote a book on A-rod that totally bombed. You can chalk this one up as another journalist trying to get their name in the spotlight.
That resume is starting to look real impressive.:rolleyes:
I bet she hates America too. Silly journalist.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Jim Gosger said:
One of the favorite sports of the celebrity media or those who follow them is to build up athletic heros to a super human level only to find that they are human and flawed. When this happens they inevitably find much joy in ripping them from the same pedestal they put them on in the first place. It provides much fodder for People Magazine or for those disgusting celebrity TV shows in the US like Inside Edition and the like.

There are a great many on this forum who take great joy in ripping Lance Armstrong. Apparently it makes them feel cool or "in the know" to degrade a person in his position. Let me say that I find this type of cynicism not only reprehensible but false. It is worse than the blind hero worship they rail against.

As a person living with cancer, I wear a yellow band on my wrist. I also know that Lance Armstrong is a flawed human being who sometimes says and does stupid things. The divorce, the hanging around with celebrities, the twitter digs, all of these point to a guy that lacks humility.

Perhaps he did use PEDs either before or during his 7 Tour wins. I don't know for sure and neither does anyone here on this forum. It is evident that almost all of his chief competitors (Basso, Pantani, Ulrich) have been proven to have used.

Every three months I go to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. On the wall in the part of the hospital that I go to is a sign that says, "Lance Armstrong Adult Survivorship Clinic." All those yellow bands and jerseys and charity rides paid for the clinic that treats my cancer. For me that is enough. And it should be for all of you as well. When you hear Lance talk about this disease (search on You Tube for the interview he did with Charlie Rose), you understand the depth of knowledge that he has and the passion he carries for those who are living with, dying from or surviving this disease.

He doesn't have to do this. There are many celebrities and other athletes who have had cancer and do small charity events or appearances. Lance could do that. But he understands that that is not enough. He knows this is an international fight that will need the interventions of many governments as well as NGOs to find a cure. I believe it will happen. And when the book is written on how cancer was cured, Lance Armstrong will have played a major part.

And so he exposes himself to these cynics like those here on this forum who like to make themselves feel more important by denigrating others who are in the pubic eye.

Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone.
Jim, I hope you do well through your cancer treatment and beat your cancer. I agree with much of what you say. However, one exception is that LAF contributes minimal dollars to cancer research, and it is through cancer research that a cure will be found for cancer. LAF is primarily aimed at cancer advocacy, hence your survivorship clinic, but this has nothing to do with finding a cure. Don't get me wrong - I think the role LAF has in treating cancer is very important, but just trying to put things in perspective. Other members of the forum who are also cancer patients and beaten their disease have the opposite view to yours and will object to being told that Lance's cancer work should be sufficient for them to laud Lance at all, let alone to the exception of all of his other flaws. Their views are equally as valid because they are based on their own personal experiences with the disease and what Lance and LAF represented to them.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Jim Gosger said:
In fact it is the cynics who are self-delusional. They aren't calling a spade a spade. They, like you, emphasize the negative to the exclusion of anything else and apply their own motivations to others as a means of denigrating their work. It's worse (and more false) than the hero worship you hate.
Funny, I don't recall ever doping to win a race and then lying to people with cancer about it, so I don't really see how I can be applying my own motivations to Armstrong. If you want people to stop denigrating Armstrong for being a scumbag then get him to start telling the truth.

I don't hate people who worship Armstrong. I feel bad that they have been taken in by the lies of someone with no conscience. I have nothing but contempt for Armstrong because he is a con man who cynically uses cancer to make money for himself and to stroke his own ego.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You want to support cancer patients, donate here:

http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page.adp?item_id=8477

http://www.mycampsunshine.com/

http://www.bcrfcure.org/

http://www.cancerresearch.org/

http://www.preventcancer.org/

http://ww5.komen.org/


However, cancer gets lots of donations, there are other diseases that are just as deadly and aren't as sexy to support because everyone wants their picture taken with a little kid on chemo, Diseases such as cystic fibrosis and kidney disease just don't have that POP that cancer does. Here is a list of places to send your $1 instead of buying a silly yellow rubber band.

http://www.kidneyfund.org/

http://www.apdaparkinson.org/userND/index.asp

http://www.cff.org/home/

http://www.diabetesaction.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

http://www.hemophilia.org/NHFWeb/MainPgs/MainNHF.aspx?menuid=0&contentid=1

http://www.rarediseases.org/

Also note that all of the organizations listed are rated far better charities than is the LAF.

Yellow rubber bands are cute, but the are much more beneficial things you can do with your money.
 
May 13, 2009
653
0
0
richwagmn said:
I bet she hates America too. Silly journalist.
I dont know about America, but she certainly had an axe to grind with LA for a while now. This quote below pretty much puts this thread into perspective. If you guys want to keep on believing what sh!t journalists write, thats your right, I will just continue laughing at it. Game! Set! Match!:p She's a fraud and has been exposed.

Roberts started off with snottiness: "The ubiquitous 'Innocent' wristbands of the yellow 'LiveStrong' variety have become a wardrobe accessory akin to a watch for some Duke lacrosse supporters."(Keep in mind she wrote this in 2007)

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070326114135.aspx
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jim Gosger said:
In fact it is the cynics who are self-delusional. They aren't calling a spade a spade. They, like you, emphasize the negative to the exclusion of anything else and apply their own motivations to others as a means of denigrating their work. It's worse (and more false) than the hero worship you hate.
No, I actually support organizations that use their money wisely. I don't support an organization or a man just because he had cancer.

I don't "hate," I merely tell the truth about Mr Armstrong. What you see as negative is merely a recount of reality. Sorry you buy into the hype and blame others because your hero is a fraud. Sucks for you.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Jim Gosger said:
One of the favorite sports of the celebrity media or those who follow them is to build up athletic heros to a super human level only to find that they are human and flawed. When this happens they inevitably find much joy in ripping them from the same pedestal they put them on in the first place. It provides much fodder for People Magazine or for those disgusting celebrity TV shows in the US like Inside Edition and the like.

There are a great many on this forum who take great joy in ripping Lance Armstrong. Apparently it makes them feel cool or "in the know" to degrade a person in his position. Let me say that I find this type of cynicism not only reprehensible but false. It is worse than the blind hero worship they rail against.

As a person living with cancer, I wear a yellow band on my wrist. I also know that Lance Armstrong is a flawed human being who sometimes says and does stupid things. The divorce, the hanging around with celebrities, the twitter digs, all of these point to a guy that lacks humility.

Perhaps he did use PEDs either before or during his 7 Tour wins. I don't know for sure and neither does anyone here on this forum. It is evident that almost all of his chief competitors (Basso, Pantani, Ulrich) have been proven to have used.

Every three months I go to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. On the wall in the part of the hospital that I go to is a sign that says, "Lance Armstrong Adult Survivorship Clinic." All those yellow bands and jerseys and charity rides paid for the clinic that treats my cancer. For me that is enough. And it should be for all of you as well. When you hear Lance talk about this disease (search on You Tube for the interview he did with Charlie Rose), you understand the depth of knowledge that he has and the passion he carries for those who are living with, dying from or surviving this disease.

He doesn't have to do this. There are many celebrities and other athletes who have had cancer and do small charity events or appearances. Lance could do that. But he understands that that is not enough. He knows this is an international fight that will need the interventions of many governments as well as NGOs to find a cure. I believe it will happen. And when the book is written on how cancer was cured, Lance Armstrong will have played a major part.

And so he exposes himself to these cynics like those here on this forum who like to make themselves feel more important by denigrating others who are in the pubic eye.

Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone.
Good luck in your path and good on you for checking in to lend your thoughts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS