ChrisE said:
This is an interesting concept. I ask for a link for proof of "behind the scenes" use of "Comical" prior to rhitaliano and you provide me a link I posted awhile back. Is there some type of diagram you can post to explain this logic because this has lost me? I drink alot, so maybe I should take some tequila shots to get some alignment with you here.
Maybe I should type slower. How about you find something from a source (not me) that this name was used prior to say August 2009.
I think you must still be mad at me for mistyping your hometown as "placenta" on DPF.
It was an honest mistake, I promise.
The simple point, apparently lost in your haze of self-admitted alcohol abuse, was to illustrate that, while you seemed far more interested in pointing out some slight you perceived I had committed against some former member named "Rhitaliano" whom I've never met nor had the pleasure (?) of reading, than addressing the article cited, you yourself seemed perfectly capable of using his "original" term for Carmichael without the slightest hint of a "prop".
I have a little secret to share with you: not everything in this world can be found on the internet, how ever hard you may try argue it. If that were the case, we'd have little need for debate or dialog on these forums. Every post would simply consist of a link to a prior internet article or post.
Behind-the-scenes.
Of course, if that were the the case in our current reality, we'd all be innundated with internet links "proving" Armstrong's doping (which you yourself believe to be true but cannot provide any internet-based evidence), links to every shred of evidence in Operation Puerto (surely there is an uncoded list of names on the internet somewhere), links to Ullrich and all his alleged doping (Schmid and Heinrich worked for a university, there HAS to be some internet evidence there, right?), etc.
Omerta.
Kind of funny how Tiger Woods, the world's most famous, wealthiest, and notorious golfer/sex addict can manage to disappear off the radar for nearly two months with narry a sighting, photo, or comment, even with an army of tabloid "journalists" and paparazzi searching for a million-dollar story. Yet, somehow he just pops up in a rehab center in Mississippi. By your logic, he can't be in Mississippi cause it didn't say so on the internet, right?
Off the radar.
Things happen in this world my friend, every single day, that don't end up on the internet. Why don't you prove to me that:
A. This guy Rhitaliano actually coined the term
B. There ISN'T some use of the term, say before August 2009.
Curiously, when you Google "Chris Comical", even when you add "cyclingnews" to the search string, no mention of any posts prior to this thread come up. No Rhitaliano post, no Chris E post. How do you explain that? Obviously they are there as we can all search on here and see the Rhitaliano use and your subsequent plagiarization (as you obviously DID know he had used it already). Why aren't they in Google? That can't be, can it? Everything is on the internet. But wait, if they're not there, what else might not be there? If something we know to exist on an internet forum doesn't show up on an internet search, then what about stuff that may NOT be on the internet (begging your consideration that such an outlandish thing actually could even exist)?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram