• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Beware false profits

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
You forgot "chamois sniffer" and "BPC Sock Puppet". Fail.

You didn't.

And yea stray, Joe annoys me because he feigns detachment when he clearly has none.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
You didn't.

And yea stray, Joe annoys me because he feigns detachment when he clearly has none.

"feigns detachment" = does not display an attachment.

As I have stated in previous threads regarding my "attachment", I am a fan of the One True Philosphy as espoused by Jack Webb - just the facts, ma'am. Keep repeating that. At our Church Of Jack prayer wheel meetings it is wondrous to hear 50 voices chanting that phrase in a low monotone. Most monks are jealous of us (even though jealousy is a sin).

Sometimes we break through to the other side.

One last note regarding your annoyance - again, if you responded to a post instead of a poster, you might learn more.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I would have to concur with the remarks of my(un)learned collegues - TFF &straydog - I know little about US law and appreciate all contributors information on the other thread.

But I respectfully request it not to be a personal issue - highlight the post, not the poster.


In fact - maybe we could have QS & 'spectacle' do a mock trial?!!!
We could all be the members - Scribe has to be Hincapie, TFF would be Floyd, BPC is Kristin, etc.... might be more interesting than the real thing.

Kristin! BPC should play Sybil, although that might **** Sally Fields off.
 
Jul 7, 2009
140
3
0
Visit site
Spectacle must have been hungover or sick on at least two occasions...when they taught capitalization (all those i's!!!) and when they taught professionalism. The way I understand it, lawyers are suppose to be professionals all the time. To curse as many times as he did in that post was not the way someone of his stature should act. Besides that, did you see all those "i's"?????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
"feigns detachment" = does not display an attachment.

As I have stated in previous threads regarding my "attachment", I am a fan of the One True Philosphy as espoused by Jack Webb - just the facts, ma'am. Keep repeating that. At our Church Of Jack prayer wheel meetings it is wondrous to hear 50 voices chanting that phrase in a low monotone. Most monks are jealous of us (even though jealousy is a sin).

Sometimes we break through to the other side.

One last note regarding your annoyance - again, if you responded to a post instead of a poster, you might learn more.

feigns detachment = not honest enough to own your real motive for posting. (literally, it means that you give a false impression of detachment, the opposite of which is "has an attachment"...not sure if you don't understand the words or were trying to be funny...either way...) A man is defined by his enemies. I will end this part of the discussion with that.

As for learning anything from you...well, I have found that my teachers have generally found me...and you are not one of them. You just fancy yourself to have a greater importance than you actually hold.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Nah, I want to be Al Pachino in "...And in Justice for All" so I can say "You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! He *told* me so! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the sh!t out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?"

That or stand there and give the Chewbacca Defense. Maybe Lance should hire me. Herman is doing the PR lawyer thing. If he wants to get off, he needs someone who can wow and confuse the jury with complete bullsh!t...and I promise you that you have met few people who can do that better than me.
Hmmmmm..... I hate to point out an obvious difficulty with you giving the Chewbacca Defence....
qpovx1.jpg

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103454/?searchterm=Chef+Aid

Anyway - I think Scribe (&Ninety5rpm), have that role already.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
"feigns detachment" = does not display an attachment.

As I have stated in previous threads regarding my "attachment", I am a fan of the One True Philosphy as espoused by Jack Webb - just the facts, ma'am. Keep repeating that. At our Church Of Jack prayer wheel meetings it is wondrous to hear 50 voices chanting that phrase in a low monotone. Most monks are jealous of us (even though jealousy is a sin).

Sometimes we break through to the other side.

One last note regarding your annoyance - again, if you responded to a post instead of a poster, you might learn more.

And the fact that neither you nor Jack understand the true subjectivity of your statement in regards to the law tells me a lot about you.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
feigns detachment = not honest enough to own your real motive for posting. (literally, it means that you give a false impression of detachment, the opposite of which is "has an attachment"...not sure if you don't understand the words or were trying to be funny...either way...)

Yeah, trying to be funny by pointing out that there a many different types of people in the world, and you and I do not appear to be philosophical kin. I thought you needed the hint.

Thoughtforfood said:
As for learning anything from you...well, I have found that my teachers have generally found me...and you are not one of them.

My comment concerned learning in general. I doubt if I could be an influence.

Thoughtforfood said:
You just fancy yourself to have a greater importance than you actually hold.

Jesooos Kristos, man, it's a frickin internet forum - very little here has importance., and certainly not me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
Yeah, trying to be funny by pointing out that there a many different types of people in the world, and you and I do not appear to be philosophical kin. I thought you needed the hint.

I didn't.

You missed my last edit. So I will ask you this, why is it that you claim no attachment, yet only seem to oppose a specific set of members who espouse a generally congruent set of beliefs? (you don't have to answer, I already know)

Cal_Joe said:
My comment concerned learning in general. I doubt if I could be an influence.

Your comment concerned the fact that you believe that I should regard the substantive points to your posts...I simply don't believe there is any "substantive" in them.

Cal_Joe said:
Jesooos Kristos, man, it's a frickin internet forum - very little here has importance., and certainly not me.

Well, we agree on something...
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
I didn't.

You missed my last edit. So I will ask you this, why is it that you claim no attachment, yet only seem to oppose a specific set of members who espouse a generally congruent set of beliefs? (you don't have to answer, I already know)

Again, this has to do with your focus on posters and not posts. Rephrasing that, an impartial observer could state -

"...seem(s) to oppose a specific type of post that happens to be made by one of a group of members who espouse a generally similar set of beliefs and posting mindset..."

Hey, I'm happy that some people here agree on and love to engage in many speculative topics. I obviously am not one of them. I sometimes post to ask for links/sources/backup. If that ruins the "speculation" party, well, I apologise.


Thoughtforfood said:
Your comment concerned the fact that you believe that I should regard the substantive points to your posts...I simply don't believe there is any "substantive" in them.

I thought brevity was the soul of wit. Sorry

Thoughtforfood said:
Well, we agree on something...

As has happened many times in the past, we appear to have agreed to disagree. OK.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
Hey, I'm happy that some people here agree on and love to engage in many speculative topics. I obviously am not one of them. I sometimes post to ask for links/sources/backup. If that ruins the "speculation" party, well, I apologise.

Yet you only seem to post in reference to those who's speculative content suggests that Armstrong might well be guilty. Sorry if I missed the posts where you address the speculative nature of people who suggest that nothing will happen, or that Landis is lying, or that there is little relevant or possibly incriminating that could come out of all of this. There are plenty of people who espouse just such speculation...yet you ignore them. I thought you had a pike, and were charging the windmill called "speculation?" Guess not...

An man is defined by his enemies...you only seem to have some on on one side of the spectrum.

Keep protesting your innocence...one day even you might believe it.
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Thoughtforfood said:
Yet you only seem to post in reference to ......

Memory pill time for you. We had this dance a month ago or so. Same weird accusations which I thought were a distortion of the facts. You recommended that folks look at my posting history. I seconded the motion. Let them look at that history and make up their own minds.

Again (boy do I get tired of this) - FOCUS ON THE FRICKIN POST AND NOT THE POSTER.

If it helps I can edit this post and bold the capitalized part and maybe use a larger font. Do let me know.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal_Joe said:
Memory pill time for you. We had this dance a month ago or so. Same weird accusations which I thought were a distortion of the facts. You recommended that folks look at my posting history. I seconded the motion. Let them look at that history and make up their own minds.

Again (boy do I get tired of this) - FOCUS ON THE FRICKIN POST AND NOT THE POSTER.

If it helps I can edit this post and bold the capitalized part and maybe use a larger font. Do let me know.

1. Show me where, in all of your history, you have addressed the speculative posts of an Armstrong fan. I mean, you are the one claiming the quest for the Holy Grail of "just the facts"...only it is readily apparent that you only address one set of speculi (not a word)

2. Again (boy do I get tired of this) - I WILL FOCUS ON ANYTHING I DAMN WELL PLEASE.

3. Post it in 92 point font, I still won't give a sh!t what your standard is for MY posts.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
1. Show me where, in all of your history, you have addressed the speculative posts of an Armstrong fan. I mean, you are the one claiming the quest for the Holy Grail of "just the facts"...only it is readily apparent that you only address one set of speculi (not a word)

.

Yes, but speculum is, maybe that is the tool of choice to be able to see Joe's point.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
spectacle said:
hello clinic,

<snip>

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous. <snip>
peace
i got a headache trying to sift through that thread, but you may have a point there.

apart from few bits here and there extracted from the reputable media we don't have that much.

but we do have a clear unmistakable uptrend which hardly supports the notion that the investigation is running out of steam. quite the opposite.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
After spending the last month reading many threads on the CN Forum, for entertainment and not information, it has become obvious that the only egos as large as the one nut wonder are found here.

I do enjoy the banter.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cal_Joe said:
Memory pill time for you. We had this dance a month ago or so. Same weird accusations which I thought were a distortion of the facts. You recommended that folks look at my posting history. I seconded the motion. Let them look at that history and make up their own minds.

Again (boy do I get tired of this) - FOCUS ON THE FRICKIN POST AND NOT THE POSTER.

If it helps I can edit this post and bold the capitalized part and maybe use a larger font. Do let me know.

So, I went back and had a look at your posting history..... but before I make up my mind, I thought it would be pudent to offer you the right to reply.

When you say in the above post - "FOCUS ON THE FRICKIN POST AND NOT THE POSTER" - can you explain your fixation with the poster 'TheHog', who for a time you concentrated on and accused of having sockpuppets, yet never challenged his posts?

You also have a derogatory term for those that do not support Mr. Armstrong, 'the handbag bunch'....
What derogatory term have you for the supporters of Mr. Armstrong - and where was it posted?
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
So, I went back and had a look at your posting history..... but before I make up my mind, I thought it would be pudent to offer you the right to reply.

When you say in the above post - "FOCUS ON THE FRICKIN POST AND NOT THE POSTER" - can you explain your fixation with the poster 'TheHog', who for a time you concentrated on and accused of having sockpuppets, yet never challenged his posts? ?

Well, I have to admit that in my early days in this forum I had an attitude about TheHog, but if you look at my later posts I realized that TheHog was a forum version of the village idiot - most seemed to realize he had some issues and fixations, but he was good for a laugh. After I became aware of his issues, I laid off.

If the info I have gleaned from the forum and some members is correct, one of the many reasons TheHog was banned involved his use of sockpuppets, so I am a bit confused as to why you raise the issue. As far as challenging his posts, if I remember correctly there were two types of posts - "Ooh, I heard a rumor" and "LA wants to fark his Mommy". I will refrain from delving into his infamous 9/5/09 blockbuster headlines.

Dr. Maserati said:
You also have a derogatory term for those that do not support Mr. Armstrong, 'the handbag bunch'.... What derogatory term have you for the supporters of Mr. Armstrong - and where was it posted?

I freely admit that I have gleefully used the "Handbag Ladies" or "Handbag Bunch" term in some of my posts. My thoughts on your comment are multiple -

1) I fear that you are making the same kinds of logic interpretations that TFF has succumbed to, in that using that term is solely limited to "attacking" people who post with an adverse position regarding Mr. Armstrong - my use of that term has more to do with the sociological aspects of the increasingly interesting occurrence of positive feedback loops/self reinforcing communities/groupthink that can be found in many forums these days. I think it is important to realize that the so called "Handbag Bunch" has many other things in common besides a distaste for Mr. Armstrong - I would be hesitant to call out that one distaste as a reason for labeling the ladies as such.

2) "Handbag Ladies" as derogatory? On this forum? By the way, that term was in use here before I ever posted. I must confess though that the mental image I get when I see that term cracks me up - that image is of ten old ladies all dressed in Queen Mum (God rest her soul) type tea party clothes flailing way with their handbags; Monty Python comes to mind.

3) Regarding my apparent lack of use of a derogatory term for the supporters of Mr. Armstrong, it is a rare day when I visit a thread where someone has posted the typical supporter stuff ("never tested positive", "most tested athlete in history") and there are not already scores of posts (within minutes) directing the uneducated to appropriate links and/or trashing them. I tend to read the threads, but since they are the forum version of SSDD and the regulars seem to have things in hand, I cannot fathom a reason to clutter up a thread with the same old me too ****e.

Well, Doc, at least you looked at my posting history and made up your mind based on that rather than TFF's interpretation, even if you may have come to the same conclusion as he did. Can't ask for more than that.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cal_Joe said:
Well, I have to admit that in my early days in this forum I had an attitude about TheHog, but if you look at my later posts I realized that TheHog was a forum version of the village idiot - most seemed to realize he had some issues and fixations, but he was good for a laugh. After I became aware of his issues, I laid off.

If the info I have gleaned from the forum and some members is correct, one of the many reasons TheHog was banned involved his use of sockpuppets, so I am a bit confused as to why you raise the issue. As far as challenging his posts, if I remember correctly there were two types of posts - "Ooh, I heard a rumor" and "LA wants to fark his Mommy". I will refrain from delving into his infamous 9/5/09 blockbuster headlines.



I freely admit that I have gleefully used the "Handbag Ladies" or "Handbag Bunch" term in some of my posts. My thoughts on your comment are multiple -

1) I fear that you are making the same kinds of logic interpretations that TFF has succumbed to, in that using that term is solely limited to "attacking" people who post with an adverse position regarding Mr. Armstrong - my use of that term has more to do with the sociological aspects of the increasingly interesting occurrence of positive feedback loops/self reinforcing communities/groupthink that can be found in many forums these days. I think it is important to realize that the so called "Handbag Bunch" has many other things in common besides a distaste for Mr. Armstrong - I would be hesitant to call out that one distaste as a reason for labeling the ladies as such.

2) "Handbag Ladies" as derogatory? On this forum? By the way, that term was in use here before I ever posted. I must confess though that the mental image I get when I see that term cracks me up - that image is of ten old ladies all dressed in Queen Mum (God rest her soul) type tea party clothes flailing way with their handbags; Monty Python comes to mind.

3) Regarding my apparent lack of use of a derogatory term for the supporters of Mr. Armstrong, it is a rare day when I visit a thread where someone has posted the typical supporter stuff ("never tested positive", "most tested athlete in history") and there are not already scores of posts (within minutes) directing the uneducated to appropriate links and/or trashing them. I tend to read the threads, but since they are the forum version of SSDD and the regulars seem to have things in hand, I cannot fathom a reason to clutter up a thread with the same old me too ****e.

Well, Doc, at least you looked at my posting history and made up your mind based on that rather than TFF's interpretation, even if you may have come to the same conclusion as he did. Can't ask for more than that.

Unfortunately I had to read all that to get:

Answer to 1st question: Yes
Answer to 2nd question: No

So, you are a hypocrite.

Not a banning offense, nor does it impact on anything you post or your view- which you are completely entitled to - but you might want to change your position of being neutral or objective in any post.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,316
2
0
Visit site
spectacle said:
hello clinic,

i wouldn't normally do this, and perhaps it will fall on deaf ears or come off as sour grapes, but i feel nonetheless that I should warn you to take quickstepper's "legal" analysis and advice with a gallon of salt.

it is easy for anyone to claim to be anything online and you certainly have no reason to believe what i say, but it is more than apparent to me that quickstepper knows f!ck all about the law in the US, and seems to only be a very good googler and bulls!tter (who doesn't even understand the application and merits of what he offers to you by way of links etc.).

the moderators rebuked me and deleted where i pointed out glaring mistakes (such as not knowing that fraud is a crime, not knowing how jurisdiction and venue work, pretending that co-conspirator liability would need a treatise to explain, when it is one of the easiest concepts in law etc), and where i called him out as a fraud in the legal thread. i have tried to correct some of his errors but i'm exhausted, he apparently is inexhaustible, and the moderator's application of the rules makes it impossible to point out quickstepper's complete a$$hatery when and where it is occurring.

i am no longer going to read or check the legal thread. based on my own hourly rate, i guesstimate that i have provided, in that thread alone, almost $4500.00US pro bono aid to you all :eek: but i couldn't let some of his truly egregious assertions and claims stand unchallenged.

i also noticed that he seems to have an agenda with how he interprets the known facts (or those as we know them today) in such a way that serves to down play them and cast them as ambiguous, when they are neither de minimus, nor ambiguous.

if i see any questions in any thread other than the legal thread regarding US law, and i think i can help, i'll try to answer them (or not, if you'd prefer).

i am a lawyer. i graduated from law school in 2003. i am admitted to practice NY, DC, and FL. i worked from 2003 -2008 for a boutique firm that worked exclusively for lehman brothers, examining external fraud. from sept. 2009 to april 2010, i was contract counsel on a large, multinational corporate fraud case in the hague (i lived near the museon). much of my work involved applying rico, and that was why i was so quick to pick up on the rico aspects and focus of this case. i don't claim to know everything, but i sure as hell know more about the law than quickstepper :cool:

peace

it is easy to ignore the obvious and sometimes someone has to step up and explain the obvious for all our benefit

nice post, good looking out

word indeed