Direct questions.

[Dr. Maserati]

A few posters have a habit of using the scattergun effect of saying "you people' or "all you guys in The Clinic' etc when they debate or discuss an issue.

With almost 20,000 posters here there is obviously a broad range of views on many different subjects and issues so such broad claims are obviously incorrect.

My view is that if someone makes a claim that they should be able to back that up - however this seems to cause offence and the subsequent back and forth often gets away from the subject of the thread.

So I am opening a thread here where broad comments or statements that are off-topic can be discussed.

I think it will also help clean up some threads by moving personal discussions about posters to a dedicated thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

From the "Official "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" Thread"

Its really not that simple, my target since you ask is the clinic specifically. Not everybody in the clinic but most of them. Some posters have been incredibly consistent, TFF comes to mind and then there are the ones I will revel in their agony if he walks. Its the hypocrites I would pay to have a webcam on the moment the decision is announced.

The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic. The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor. The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time. The hypocrisy goes on and on. Quite honestly I have never understood the personal agenda of some of the posters, this simply does not happen in other sports. There are no web sites decrying the antics of Clemens, A-Rod, Ramirez or Bonds in the same manner. In fact, if Clemens could still put one over the plate high and tight at 97mph he would be welcomed back to boston like a hero. Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic. So I find it interesting so much hate is aimed at one fraud, the sporting world is full of them. Its largely ignored and still encouraged in some sports. When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me. He was a fraud, I agree, but the whole sport was a fraud from the day the first oxygen vector drug was injected right up to today. I love racing my bike and I love the grass roots part of cycling but I understand the pros are a side show at best.

You asked!

Since you are in the mood for answering questions - can you actually state who these people are? You are making a lot of very broad claims, if they are true why not name these posters.

"The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic." - Who?
"The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor." - Who?
"The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time." - Who and some examples?
"Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic." - Who said that?
"When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me." - Have you ever simply asked these unnamed posters what their motivation is?

 

[JRTinMA]

A few posters have a habit of using the scattergun effect of saying "you people' or "all you guys in The Clinic' etc when they debate or discuss an issue.

With almost 20,000 posters here there is obviously a broad range of views on many different subjects and issues so such broad claims are obviously incorrect.

My view is that if someone makes a claim that they should be able to back that up - however this seems to cause offence and the subsequent back and forth often gets away from the subject of the thread.

So I am opening a thread here where broad comments or statements that are off-topic can be discussed.

I think it will also help clean up some threads by moving personal discussions about posters to a dedicated thread.

Classis use of misinformation, this is used by "all you guys in the clinic". The fact is there are nearly 20,000 registered members, a fraction of that would be considered active. I also find it odd that "you people" decry the mantra of address the post not the poster and then ask for names.

 

[JRTinMA]

And I answered you...

Since you are in the mood for answering questions - can you actually state who these people are? You are making a lot of very broad claims, if they are true why not name these posters.

"The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic." - Who?
"The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor." - Who?
"The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time." - Who and some examples?
"Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic." - Who said that?
"When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me." - Have you ever simply asked these unnamed posters what their motivation is?

Sorry doc, I appreciate your interest in my post, I can't debate you on all your questions. You have unlimited time on your hands and your only goal is to derail threads. If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Classis use of misinformation, this is used by "all you guys in the clinic". The fact is there are nearly 20,000 registered members, a fraction of that would be considered active. I also find it odd that "you people" decry the mantra of address the post not the poster and then ask for names.

The reason is YOU made claims - so that is why I address you, the individual poster. It would be inappropriate to address points that you claim to anyone else.

Irrespective of how many members are here (which is factually correct) the point is that there are many different views here.

Also, I am addressing your post and what it claims - I have made no comment about you personally, which you have not done to me.

So, can you address the claims that you made?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And I answered you...

Sorry doc, I appreciate your interest in my post, I can't debate you on all your questions. You have unlimited time on your hands and your only goal is to derail threads. If you can narrow this down to one or two major points of concern for you I will attempt to engage you, at least up to the point you engage in ad hominem.

I didn't go off topic, someone asked you a question and you answered it - i merely asked you to back up your claim (which would have settled the issue) and I opened this thread to address that so as not to disturb the other thread.

Well you appear to have "unlimited time" too - as I asked the original question over an hour ago and you have posted several times since - if your claims are true then you should be able to answer them very quickly.

I asked before where had I engaged in 'ad hominen' - you answered that you weren't accusing me 'in the strictest sense' ..... yet you repeat this claim there will be a point that I will 'engage' this?
Can you back this claim up or just withdraw it?

 

[JRTinMA]

I didn't go off topic, someone asked you a question and you answered it - i merely asked you to back up your claim (which would have settled the issue) and I opened this thread to address that so as not to disturb the other thread.

Well you appear to have "unlimited time" too - as I asked the original question over an hour ago and you have posted several times since - if your claims are true then you should be able to answer them very quickly.

I asked before where had I engaged in 'ad hominen' - you answered that you weren't accusing me 'in the strictest sense' ..... yet you repeat this claim there will be a point that I will 'engage' this?
Can you back this claim up or just withdraw it?

I have given you an opportunity to engage my post and you don't like the rules. This is based on my history with you and your posting behavior. I left it open to address additional points if you stayed on topic. You don't like the rules I have established, rules are required with certain people in order for things to be constructive. Your choice doc.

I never made a claim of your use of ad hominem, but your insistence that I did is a classic example of you driving a discussion down the wormhole. I said it would be a stop point in any discussion we have, again a rule stated up front to avoid a misunderstanding.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am quoting your post from the other thread.

My claims stand and are factual. I know you struggle sometimes so let me help. I made no claim of your use of ad hominem, I said I would debate you up to that point. See that is a stop point on debating you not a claim you have used it in the past, its quite simple, keep up doc.

Again - I have only asked you to back up what you claimed earlier.
But you have not answered that and raised more questions.

"My claims stand and are factual." - Can you post some of these facts?
"I know you struggle sometimes so let me help." - I asked a genuine question, what would help is if you answered it.
"I made no claim of your use of ad hominem, I said I would debate you up to that point." - if I don't engage in 'ad hominens' how would we ever reach that 'point'? Either back up your claim or withdraw it please.
"I know you struggle sometimes so let me help." and "...its quite simple, keep up doc." - you accuse me of 'ad hominens' and then engage in personal comments that have nothing to do with my posts or your claims - I have not attacked you or mentioned you personally, please treat me with the same respect.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have given you an opportunity to engage my post and you don't like the rules. This is based on my history with you and your posting behavior. I left it open to address additional points if you stayed on topic. You don't like the rules I have established, rules are required with certain people in order for things to be constructive. Your choice doc.

I never made a claim of your use of ad hominem, but your insistence that I did is a classic example of you driving a discussion down the wormhole. I said it would be a stop point in any discussion we have, again a rule stated up front to avoid a misunderstanding.

Actually I have given you an opportunity to address your earlier claims - what you have done is attempted to put in rules to avoid answering them.

So again - these are the points you made, it should be easy to back them up or withdraw.

"The ones who call LA a bully and then display the exact same behavior in the clinic." - Who?
"The ones who hero worship FL for coming clean but ignore him when he states LA was a great competitor." - Who?
"The ones who bemoan the lies and PR of the Armstrong camp but use misinformation in the campaign all the time." - Who and some examples?
"Yes LA doped but to say he won seven tours on doping alone is idiotic." - Who said that?
"When I come on here I often wonder what the motive is and thats what makes the experience interesting for me." - Have you ever simply asked these unnamed posters what their motivation is?

 

[JRTinMA]

I am quoting your post from the other thread.



Again - I have only asked you to back up what you claimed earlier.
But you have not answered that and raised more questions.

"My claims stand and are factual." - Can you post some of these facts?
"I know you struggle sometimes so let me help." - I asked a genuine question, what would help is if you answered it.
"I made no claim of your use of ad hominem, I said I would debate you up to that point." - if I don't engage in 'ad hominens' how would we ever reach that 'point'? Either back up your claim or withdraw it please.
"I know you struggle sometimes so let me help." and "...its quite simple, keep up doc." - you accuse me of 'ad hominens' and then engage in personal comments that have nothing to do with my posts or your claims - I have not attacked you or mentioned you personally, please treat me with the same respect.

Fair enough, I apologize for insinuating you could not keep up.

 

[JPM London]

However funny it is to see you two bickering (not that funny really) this is better suited for a series pm's.

Please continue in private now - and it seems it wouldn't take you too long to fill up each other's inboxes.

Thank you...