Agreed. But that's not what I wrote.thehog said:Not really. If we took the position that "the world is not corrupt" until proven otherwise then they'd be chaos.
Agreed again. So in relation to those listed above what details are there that they're corrupt. Something more than the trite "they work for the UCI" would be helpful and educational.Life teaches that we should ask questions, that we look into the details and raise concerns as to corruption. Our governments tell us to "be suspicious and be aware".
No. It's not. DW is making an assertion. "Lots of well intentioned people being directed by a corrupt few" I'm the one asking the questionsThat is what DW is doing. Asking questions.
Agreed again. But I'm not doing that. Ironically I think DW has me on ignore.Shutting it down or attempting to censor is not constructive.
Agreed again. You'll note that Armstrong started with a clean slate and was assumed by many to be what he said he was. Brave people gathered evidence until they had a Reasoned Decision's worth. Let us be brave and gather evidence.Armstrong is the obvisous example