Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Digger]

WTF? Basso was banished after a 3 year battle? He returned in fall of 2008. And, I don't recall mass rider protests. Stop making shyt up.

I wrote he was welcomed with open arms after his suspension while never really backtracking on the "intended to dope" BS. Don't blur this situation with "Burhneel this, CONI that".

This as opposed to how detrimental, crazy, and impossible it would be, according to you and digger, for FL to just admit he doped, accept his suspension, and move on. That was impossible, according to you, and would have just been the downfall of cycling yet cycling survived the omerta and FFF shenanigans. I am really having a hard time here believing that I am having this debate along these lines.....digger upthread said hrotha was stupid. If hrotha is the stupid one in this discussion then you two are somewhere in the "bucket of hair" range on the intelligence meter.

With that, unless you two can bring some sanity and reasonable debate to this subject I am gonna move on. Between you two and puzzo upthread saying people should be exhonerated from crimes if they admit to it is just a little too much for me this morning.

Where did we say this?

 

[ChrisE]

ChrisE accusing someone else of trolling. I've seen it all.

Right you seem to have come up with your own little convenient version of what I have been saying. So maybe I will go through the alphabet with you and teach you how to read. Basso was mentioned as an example of hwat Landis should have said. I said Basso did not witness at first hand Lance doping. Whether you are too stupid to admit this or not, being on the same team as Lance and witnessing him doping changes it all. People are saying he should have given a limited confession. If you had bothered to read. This is not possible due to USP, Lance and other reasons. He would never be able to work in cycling again with a limited confession. Pat would insist on him exonerating lance and saying he never doped or witnessed doping with USP. A no comment to this would never have been allowed by the UCI or Lance. Now you can miscontrue what i am saying, if you like, or else you are too dumb to figure it out. Do you honestly think it was tenable to keep giving a no comment answer to this question, when he returned from the suspension.

Hrotha wrote he should have basically admitted his doping that resulted in the 2006 TdF AAF for synthetic testosterone. THIS PARTICULAR AAF. That AAF had nothing to do with LA or USPS. How come you can't get this into your head?

Somehow in your mind you have twisted an admission of guilt to THAT PARTICULAR AAF would be impossible unless he admitted all doping transgressions thru his entire career, implicating all he was involved with. That's crazy, not only because it is not required (I see you haven't found a link to a bylaw in the UCI, WADA, or an ada requiring this) but because of all the legal issues he would be faced with by accusing all of these people at that point in time. Whether LA doped or USPS had a doping system in place has nothing to do with FL getting popped in the 2006 TdF while riding for Phonak. He stopped riding for USPS in 2004. Your LA hate has blinded your ability to use logic.

I brought up the example of Basso, thank you very much, in response to how cycling would have survived FL not admitting all, as you are saying would be required, else cycling would have "doubt" cast upon it. I don't agree.

Now, it is really no simpler than this. You think it was impossible for him to take his lumps and move on, I do not. And with that I really will not respond to this absurdity any longer.

As you know, I am on a short leash and you have taken liberty to insult me etal over the last several pages. I'm OK with that. But it is very much a chore for me to not respond to you in the manner in which you deserve, but would ultimately get me banned.

 

[Digger]

Hrotha wrote he should have basically admitted his doping that resulted in the 2006 TdF AAF for synthetic testosterone. THIS PARTICULAR AAF. That AAF had nothing to do with LA or USPS. How come you can't get this into your head?

Somehow in your mind you have twisted an admission of guilt to THAT PARTICULAR AAF would be impossible unless he admitted all doping transgressions thru his entire career, implicating all he was involved with. That's crazy, not only because it is not required (I see you haven't found a link to a bylaw in the UCI, WADA, or an ada requiring this) but because of all the legal issues he would be faced with by accusing all of these people at that point in time. Whether LA doped or USPS had a doping system in place has nothing to do with FL getting popped in the 2006 TdF while riding for Phonak. He stopped riding for USPS in 2004. Your LA hate has blinded your ability to use logic.

I brought up the example of Basso, thank you very much, in response to how cycling would have survived FL not admitting all, as you are saying would be required, else cycling would have "doubt" cast upon it. I don't agree.

Now, it is really no simpler than this. You think it was impossible for him to take his lumps and move on, I do not. And with that I really will not respond to this absurdity any longer.

As you know, I am on a short leash and you have taken liberty to insult me etal over the last several pages. I'm OK with that. But it is very much a chore for me to not respond to you in the manner in which you deserve, but would ultimately get me banned.

Didn't stop you insulting myself and hog repeatedly above. For example "you two are somewhere in the "bucket of hair" range on the intelligence meter."



Anyway I am not sure if you are able to read. This is insane drivel. You are continuously ignoring everything I say and then replying to things I am not saying at all. Are you schizo?

For the last time, Floyd getting popped had nothing to do with Lance. That is not the issue. The issue is him giving a 'limited confession'. This is not practical with his history. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your problem. It's not about me saying Lance is a doper and liar. It's about every question Landis ever gets asked being about whether he witnessed Lance doping. Then he replies no comment. How tenable is this for everyone? Do you honestly think Pat would allow this continue?
A limited confession was not tenable. Basso moved on, barely. But even he never saw Lance doping. Now seriously how much simpler do i have to make this for you? And you getting banned repeatedly, everything is wrong but you I suppose.

 

[aphronesis]

Didn't stop you insulting myself and hog repeatedly above. For example "you two are somewhere in the "bucket of hair" range on the intelligence meter."



Anyway I am not sure if you are able to read. This is insane drivel. You are continuously ignoring everything I say and then replying to things I am not saying at all. Are you schizo?

For the last time, Floyd getting popped had nothing to do with Lance. That is not the issue. The issue is him giving a 'limited confession'. This is not practical with his history. If you don't want to accept that, then that's your problem. It's not about me saying Lance is a doper and liar. It's about every question Landis ever gets asked being about whether he witnessed Lance doping. Then he replies no comment. How tenable is this for everyone? Do you honestly think Pat would allow this continue?
A limited confession was not tenable. Basso moved on, barely. But even he never saw Lance doping. Now seriously how much simpler do i have to make this for you? And you getting banned repeatedly, everything is wrong but you I suppose.

This thread is turning into everything it doesn't need to be. First of all, Kimmage and Walsh do not constitute a media circus. Nor could it even be said that in 2006, sports illustrated, as a random example would be looking to take that route.

Rather than impute motives to you, how about this, do you suppose that the intense scrutiny you envision falling to Floyd is only possible after seeing the fallout and sea-changes of the past couple of years? Granted, there has been murmuring of LA and his team doping since day one, but in 2006 the bias was angled in a completely different manner. The relevant institutions were not in the same line as they may have been recently.

Yes, Floyd was likely being pressured by LA to just deny, and yes, things were more than chaotic, but a limited admission would not have been impossible to construct if that's the route he had insisted on going.

Do you think it would be completely unfair to say that the insistence of your reconstruction of the outcomes is a bit ahistorical?

Some separation has to be made here between the press onslaught, Lance's influence, Pat's own machinations, team reactions and so on. They can't all be bundled into one monolithic reality.

 

[thehog]

WTF? Basso was banished after a 3 year battle? He returned in fall of 2008. And, I don't recall mass rider protests. Stop making shyt up.

I wrote he was welcomed with open arms after his suspension while never really backtracking on the "intended to dope" BS. Don't blur this situation with "Burhneel this, CONI that".

This as opposed to how detrimental, crazy, and impossible it would be, according to you and digger, for FL to just admit he doped, accept his suspension, and move on. That was impossible, according to you, and would have just been the downfall of cycling yet cycling survived the omerta and FFF shenanigans. I am really having a hard time here believing that I am having this debate along these lines.....digger upthread said hrotha was stupid. If hrotha is the stupid one in this discussion then you two are somewhere in the "bucket of hair" range on the intelligence meter.

With that, unless you two can bring some sanity and reasonable debate to this subject I am gonna move on. Between you two and puzzo upthread saying people should be exhonerated from crimes if they admit to it is just a little too much for me this morning.

And what of Sinkerwitz and Jaske? Even the confession of OC as hrotha keeps referencing meant he had to retire on the word of his confession! What sort of confession is that!

Basso held out as long as he could - its only when his DNA was about to be matched he made the "Brillo" confession.

There were races in France stating they wouldn't let Basso ride. Thats a long way from open arms! Don't you remember that the team managers as a collective group agreed not to hire Puerto riders and that included Basso? In fact that wrote it into an ethical charter! That's when Bruyneel stuck his fingers up at the ACGP meet and to the other DS's and hired him. Open arms LOL!!! You love revising your history. LOL! After all that Basso had to quit Discovery. There was no way back until he made some form of confession.

 

[ChrisE]

And what of Sinkerwitz and Jaske? Even the confession of OC as hrotha keeps referencing meant he had to retire on the word of his confession! What sort of confession is that!

Basso held out as long as he could - its only when his DNA was about to be matched he made the "Brillo" confession......*snip irrelevant whatever*

I will come out of my self-imposed boycott of this particular subject in this particular thread to clear up this one point.

I gave an example to digger of Basso only to say how cycling would weather the doubts (his words) caused by a "limited confession". My only reason for bringing up the Basso example was to refute that. Nothing more, nothing less.

My example was not intended for you to go off on some wild tangent disecting the details of OP and the inner workings of USPS post OP, CONI, other riders, etc. I do not care to debate that, or disect where you are making stuff up which is your norm in this forum. It is irrelevant to my point.

If you wish to say that you don't agree with me, that Basso is not an example of how cycling survived a champion not telling the whole truth when busted, then that is ok. I will think you are crazy but I have seen crazy things before, so no big deal.

 

[Digger]

I will come out of my self-imposed boycott of this particular subject in this particular thread to clear up this one point.

I gave an example to digger of Basso only to say how cycling would weather the doubts (his words) caused by a "limited confession". My only reason for bringing up the Basso example was to refute that. Nothing more, nothing less.

My example was not intended for you to go off on some wild tangent disecting the details of OP and the inner workings of USPS post OP, CONI, other riders, etc. I do not care to debate that, or disect where you are making stuff up which is your norm in this forum. It is irrelevant to my point.

If you wish to say that you don't agree with me, that Basso is not an example of how cycling survived a champion not telling the whole truth when busted, then that is ok. I will think you are crazy but I have seen crazy things before, so no big deal.

And completely and totally out of context, but that's something you clearly specialise in. I said there would be doubts and major repercussions to Landis continuously saying in interviews that he had no comment to make about whether he witnessed Lance dope. No just the media. The UCI would not sit idly by and let these comments be made about their cash cow.

 

[Pazuzu]

This is not what you said in your other post. You said as long as people admit wrongdoing and in FL's case he pays back FFF all should be forgiven.

Now you are meandering into immunity, prosecutorial descretion, pardons, etc. which I have no problem with. Please don't do a switcharoo on me here. You made a blanket statement about how people should not be punished for telling the truth. I don't agree, in absence of the cover you have listed.

In the US the accused is not compelled to tell anything. It is the job of the govt to prove they are guilty, and there are no rewards for helping the govt. if immunity is not given. If you extrapolate what you are saying then Charles Manson should be let out because he has admitted to orchestrating the Tate/Labianca murders.

Also, you only know of "compelling" evidence from anonymous sources, the media, this forum, etc inre to LA. You don't know how compelling that evidence would be when presented to 12 average Joe's who either don't have an ax to grind, find this a waste of time, are starstruck by LA and his cancer work, etc. I am not saying any of that is right, but that is reality in a system that depends on the reasoning skills of people.

My intention wasn't to pull a 'switcharoo' but to point out the range of options available to prosecutors. Simply stated, to go after the guy who's finally telling the truth rather than the one who continues to lie is a farce and does nothing to help clean up the sport. You're correct that we don't know for certain what the GJ in the Armstrong case heard. Thus we're left to rely on leaks and speculation, and assume the worst - that the evidence was compelling but that power and money led to the case being dropped. That's why Armstrong's team should insist that the evidence be forwarded to the USDA investigators and eventually released to the public. There needs to be transparency in the process in order to achieve some closure.

 

[Digger]

Still think if Floyd pleads the fifth it will throw the cat amongst the pigeons for Lance and others. He actually holds an awful lot more power than people give him credit for...and is also an awful lot more intelligent and sane than people give him credit for.

 

[Velodude]

A few things here. People say he should have come clean immediately. Look at the conundrum. Come clean immediately. How was he supposed to do that without bringing Lance into it. It was impossible to do it. Also his other friends at the time would have been implicated. Lance ran and still runs cycling. Fighting the case was the lesser of two evils at the time. This is something that clearly did not come naturally to him. He is fundamentally a very honest person. I also believe he wanted to cycle again. Tell the truth about Lance and himself, it's all over. As evidenced by what has happened.
Floyd Fairness Fund - Fairness....there is no way high up or low down that people can say he was treated fairly, in comparison to other high profile tests. Compare his case to AC for example. AC was swept under the carpet until the Germans found out three months later. USADA or the CAS did not treat him fairly. USADA wanted to give him a deal if he gave up Lance. The CAS was farcical. The lab did not behave without fault. Even David Walsh admits they were 'incredibly sloppy'. The UCI were willing to accept 'donation's for positives if you were Lance but not if you are Floyd. How is this fair?
On top of all this, the vast majority of the large donations were from people with links to USP. They knew the story.
Anyway maybe they should pursue Floyd. They will see he is not the person he is being painted out to be by Lance's PR machine. He is a hihgly intelligent and articulate man. Maybe people should go to NYVelocity to see the emails he wrote himself to the UCI.
His former friends did the exact same as Floyd. No more of less, many of them are still in cycling and were too gutless to speak up in support. How is this fair?

By the way, how much less would Livestrong have generated if they knew that Lance doped himself to the gills all his career?
And be under no illusions, Lance is behind this. Why has Tyler not been sought for the same for example?
Moral of the story - never come clean. Maybe Lance is right after all....

When Floyd's emails hit the fan and opened up Pandora's box Tyler's case would have been out of time.

Tyler set the precedent on how not to raise donations. Floyd's advisers steered the mission of the FFF to not repeat the same errors.

 

[thehog]

Still think if Floyd pleads the fifth it will throw the cat amongst the pigeons for Lance and others. He actually holds an awful lot more power than people give him credit for...and is also an awful lot more intelligent and sane than people give him credit for.

He has the advantage that he doesn't need to lie and very little to lose. Armstrong is still trying to protect his position of non-admission and pretend he still a 7-time Tour champion.

I also agree Floyd is not stupid. He could defend himself. The biggest mistake Floyd ever made was listening to others. Alone he's very powerful and 100% sure he has evidence of the doping none of us are aware of...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Read about this today. Generally agree with Hog here.

I'm just hoping this really is an issue of looking into doping and not leaving any stones unturned, and not something political or corrupt.

 

[Digger]

Read about this today. Generally agree with Hog here.

I'm just hoping this really is an issue of looking into doping and not leaving any stones unturned, and not something political or corrupt.

It's fair to say it's the latter...

 

[MarkvW]

The idea that Floyd had a "carefully orchestrated plan" doesn't make much sense.

Floyd played the denial game as long as he could. He only stopped when he was broken financially and emotionally. Floyd was not a calculating man at that stage.

Floyd unveiled the "come clean" game at about the same time the qui tam was launched. That's obviously no coincidence. The qui tam lawsuit would have taken some time to prepare. The qui tam was Floyd's last chance to tap into Lance's money and rescue himself from the financial crapper.

Before proceeding with the qui tam, Floyd had to decide how he was going to present his past. He had three choices: Come totally clean (admit to the testosterone); continue denying; or equivocate.

Continuing the denial would kill the qui tam. That was no option for Floyd.

Admitting testosterone clearly exposes Floyd to the risk of criminal prosecution for fraud. A fraud conviction would hurt Floyd because the qui tam jurors would be informed that their star witness is a convicted fraudster. That matters to jurors when they have to evaluate the truthfulness of a witness. And when Floyd is making his decision, he doesn't yet know that George and Tyler and others will back up his story. Also, a felony conviction would really stink for the rest of Floyd's life. Admitting testosterone also exposes Floyd to a risk of a civil lawsuit. Floyd's whole point in the qui tam is getting Lance's money. It defeats the purpose if Floyd get's Lance's money only to have to pay a big chunk (or all) of the money back to the people that he defrauded.

Floyd's equivocal denial (in other words, his lie)--"I was doping but I didn't do the dope that they said that I did" can be seen as Floyd's attempt to have his cake (the qui tam) and eat it too (not get convicted of fraud). I'll believe that equivocal denial (lie) when I meet Tyler's Twin.

I think that we can fairly assume that the Feds crawled Floyd every bit as much as the feds crawled Lance. Floyd, unlike Lance, had to be cooperative--otherwise he'd doom his qui tam chances. Also unlike Lance, Floyd didn't have any resources to protect himself from the feds. If, in the course of their developing investigation, the feds found out that Floyd lied about the testosterone (from witnesses, bank receipts, Floyd himself, etc.), the feds would not be happy. That would very much explain an eagerness to prosecute Floyd.

The feds won't charge Floyd unless they have a very strong case that they lay out in their indictment. If Floyd is charged, he'll plead guilty. There won't be any trial. Floyd will plead, act contrite, and will do no time. Fighting, and lying some more, is not in Floyd's best interest.

Merckx Index makes good points about what is a "material" lie when it comes to fraud. If the feds charge Floyd, I suspect that the relationship between the lie and the donations will be clear enough to satisfy an average juror. If they can't provide that clarity, they won't charge.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long, because the feds must be sensitive to the statute of limitations.

 

[Digger]

The idea that Floyd had a "carefully orchestrated plan" doesn't make much sense.

Floyd played the denial game as long as he could. He only stopped when he was broken financially and emotionally. Floyd was not a calculating man at that stage.

Floyd unveiled the "come clean" game at about the same time the qui tam was launched. That's obviously no coincidence. The qui tam lawsuit would have taken some time to prepare. The qui tam was Floyd's last chance to tap into Lance's money and rescue himself from the financial crapper.

Before proceeding with the qui tam, Floyd had to decide how he was going to present his past. He had three choices: Come totally clean (admit to the testosterone); continue denying; or equivocate.

Continuing the denial would kill the qui tam. That was no option for Floyd.

Admitting testosterone clearly exposes Floyd to the risk of criminal prosecution for fraud. A fraud conviction would hurt Floyd because the qui tam jurors would be informed that their star witness is a convicted fraudster. That matters to jurors when they have to evaluate the truthfulness of a witness. And when Floyd is making his decision, he doesn't yet know that George and Tyler and others will back up his story. Also, a felony conviction would really stink for the rest of Floyd's life. Admitting testosterone also exposes Floyd to a risk of a civil lawsuit. Floyd's whole point in the qui tam is getting Lance's money. It defeats the purpose if Floyd get's Lance's money only to have to pay a big chunk (or all) of the money back to the people that he defrauded.

Floyd's equivocal denial (in other words, his lie)--"I was doping but I didn't do the dope that they said that I did" can be seen as Floyd's attempt to have his cake (the qui tam) and eat it too (not get convicted of fraud). I'll believe that equivocal denial (lie) when I meet Tyler's Twin.

I think that we can fairly assume that the Feds crawled Floyd every bit as much as the feds crawled Lance. Floyd, unlike Lance, had to be cooperative--otherwise he'd doom his qui tam chances. Also unlike Lance, Floyd didn't have any resources to protect himself from the feds. If, in the course of their developing investigation, the feds found out that Floyd lied about the testosterone (from witnesses, bank receipts, Floyd himself, etc.), the feds would not be happy. That would very much explain an eagerness to prosecute Floyd.

The feds won't charge Floyd unless they have a very strong case that they lay out in their indictment. If Floyd is charged, he'll plead guilty. There won't be any trial. Floyd will plead, act contrite, and will do no time. Fighting, and lying some more, is not in Floyd's best interest.

Merckx Index makes good points about what is a "material" lie when it comes to fraud. If the feds charge Floyd, I suspect that the relationship between the lie and the donations will be clear enough to satisfy an average juror. If they can't provide that clarity, they won't charge.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long, because the feds must be sensitive to the statute of limitations.

Almost every single bit of that post is rubbish and conjecture.
For example you say if Floyd is charged he will plead guilty, you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to back this statement up. Floyd fighting the case and found guilty will still do no time for a 'fraud' of such a small nature.

Anyway Floyd pleads the fifth, sh** hits the fan. Lance has to go in under oath.

You say he came clean around the same time the civil case was started. Again you have no inside knowledge whatsoever to make such a claim.

I cannot fathom how you think you can make such claims above with such 'authority'. Really, you can't.

 

[Digger]

By the way Mark the whole point of the whistleblower statue is to get criminals to turn on criminals. Having a conviction would not be something the jurors would be allowed to consider. So your point above is redundant.

Also Mark since you are so informed, when would the statute of limitations begin in this case and what would the burden of proof be when arguing the statute of limitations?

 

[mewmewmew13]

He has the advantage that he doesn't need to lie and very little to lose. Armstrong is still trying to protect his position of non-admission and pretend he still a 7-time Tour champion.

I also agree Floyd is not stupid. He could defend himself. The biggest mistake Floyd ever made was listening to others. Alone he's very powerful and 100% sure he has evidence of the doping none of us are aware of...

Digger:
"Still think if Floyd pleads the fifth it will throw the cat amongst the pigeons for Lance and others. He actually holds an awful lot more power than people give him credit for...and is also an awful lot more intelligent and sane than people give him credit for."

This is why I am interested to see what might develop from this episode.

 

[MarkvW]

By the way Mark the whole point of the whistleblower statue is to get criminals to turn on criminals. Having a conviction would not be something the jurors would be allowed to consider. So your point above is redundant.

Also Mark since you are so informed, when would the statute of limitations begin in this case and what the burden of proof would be when arguing the statute of limitations?

Jurors always get to consider "crimes involving dishonesty or false statement" (ER 609). You shouldn't be so insulting when you are so obviously wrong.

I think it's a five year statute of limitations.

 

[Digger]

Jurors always get to consider "crimes involving dishonesty or false statement" (ER 609). You shouldn't be so insulting when you are so obviously wrong. I think it's a five year statute of limitations.

No it's four years. Secondly you gave no indication as to what would start tolling the statute of limitations. It could be argued to be the USADA verdict, the CAS verdict, or the admission.
Also the burden of proof question...it's not reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. What is the burden of proof in arguing Statute of Limitations?

 

[BroDeal]

Almost every single bit of that post is rubbish and conjecture.
For example you say if Floyd is charged he will plead guilty, you have absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to back this statement up. Floyd fighting the case and found guilty will still do no time for a 'fraud' of such a small nature.

Anyway Floyd pleads the fifth, sh** hits the fan. Lance has to go in under oath.

You say he came clean around the same time the civil case was started. Again you have no inside knowledge whatsoever to make such a claim.

I cannot fathom how you think you can make such claims above with such 'authority'. Really, you can't.

The Google law degree went to his head.

FLandis would do best to not plead guilty immediately. He should start the discovery process, arguing that the main funders of the FFF were not deceived because they were already involved in the Armstrong fraud and evidence gathered by the feds will prove this. Use the case, or at least the initial phase, as a way to dig for information.

 

[BroDeal]

The interesting thing about this, if FLandis can get a thorough defense, is that he has maintained that he did not use testosterone and proving that he did would be done in a venue competely different than the kangaroo courts that make up the anti-doping process. He can use the sloppiness of the lab as an excuse for why he fought so hard by saying he fought it because he was not guilty of the specific doping offense he was charged with.

 

[MarkvW]

The Google law degree went to his head.

FLandis would do best to not plead guilty immediately. He should start the discovery process, arguing that the main funders of the FFF were not deceived because they were already involved in the Armstrong fraud and evidence gathered by the feds will prove this. Use the case, or at least the initial phase, as a way to dig for information.

Floyd might want to get the bonus points for accepting responsibility.

 

[MarkvW]

No it's four years. Secondly you gave no indication as to what would start tolling the statute of limitations. It could be argued to be the USADA verdict, the CAS verdict, or the admission.
Also the burden of proof question...it's not reasonable doubt like in a criminal case. What is the burden of proof in arguing Statute of Limitations?

Oh yes! Tolling! Happens all the time in the Clinic.

 

[Digger]

Oh yes! Tolling! Happens all the time in the Clinic.

Still haven't addressed the points raised on SOL. Burden of proof etc.
Nor have you come out and backed up any of your conjecture in your original post about an hour ago on Floyd and what he will and won't do.

 

[MarkvW]

Still haven't addressed the points raised on SOL. Burden of proof etc.
Nor have you come out and backed up any of your conjecture in your original post about an hour ago on Floyd and what he will and won't do.

I don't want to trade insults with you, that's why. You're not about sharing information and thoughts. You're about insults.