Floyd to be charged with fraud

[Cal_Joe]

I think you guys signed in on the wrong accounts.

If you have an accusation of sock puppets, report it to the mods.

If you can't/won't do that, let everyone here know.

So much for The Vortex - "I can't answer posts - call SOCKPUPPETS."

Weak.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No - he rewrote a tweet without attribution. Doc, why would anyone do that?

What part of "be clear" did you not get?
Did RR claim some insider information from this tweet you can't find?
Yes or no?

You forgot to ask why RR linked the name to his grand conspiracy. A name means nothing unless there are additional facts to back it up. You forgot to ask RR for the facts.

Doc, you appear to be losing it. Please let me know where the LA-Halpern association appeared in the news. I apologise in advance if you can post the links.


You too can be an SSII. What are you waiting for?




No. Just another Doc Vortex question. Next question please.


WTF? Another name? Wow, best Vortex ever. Regarding anything RR says - if he has links that provide facts instead of wish lists, the sources of those links can be evaluated. If not, many here are aware that "RR Fail" and "RR Whiff" have been applied to his predictions re the LA GJ proceedings - based on that embarrassing string of totally wrong SSII, I believe it is prudent to wait for some sort of factual confirmation of his predictions.

I was going to go through each point - but i have no idea what you are on about.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If you have an accusation of sock puppets, report it to the mods.

If you can't/won't do that, let everyone here know.

So much for The Vortex - "I can't answer posts - call SOCKPUPPETS."

Weak.

Perhaps, but it is stronger than your denial.
Psst - Mark is the angry account.

 

[palmerq]

hello everyone, please be nice on non insulting to each and stop with the troll/ multiple account accusations or you will all be in trouble, again :S

 

[Cal_Joe]

What part of "be clear" did you not get?
Did RR claim some insider information from this tweet you can't find?
Yes or no?

I was going to go through each point - but i have no idea what you are on about.

As I said before - RR posts tweets without attribution.

As I said before - I will dig up posts from the appropriate thread and post them here. It will happen. Don't twist your panties so much over the fact that you don't get it in 2 minutes.

I am sorry that you have no idea what the specific points of the referenced post were about. I would strongly suggest that you read that post again and apply some reading comprehension skills. Let me know if you would like me to state the questions again using words with less than two syllables.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Perhaps, but it is stronger than your denial.
Psst - Mark is the angry account.

As per the mods post, report it or put a sock in it.

Weak.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I said before - RR posts tweets without attribution.

So?
That is tweeting without attribution. (even though you have shown no examples)

Has he ever suggested that the info was super secret?

As I said before - I will dig up posts from the appropriate thread and post them here. It will happen. Don't twist your panties so much over the fact that you don't get it in 2 minutes.

I am sorry that you have no idea what the specific points of the referenced post were about. I would strongly suggest that you read that post again and apply some reading comprehension skills. Let me know if you would like me to state the questions again using words with less than two syllables.

Actually, you are the one with your panties in a twist.
It is irrelevant what name handles the (if any) case. You (& Mark) are the ones who are upset about that.
So, if this Halpern guy is not covering the case, then who is? Are you saying pointblank that RR is wrong?

 

[BotanyBay]

 

[patricknd]

I think you guys signed in on the wrong accounts.

can you supply links showing that they did indeed sign in on the wrong accounts?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The goal is to clog the toilet.

It is like the proverbial “BP junk shot”?
About this time last year in the Gulf of Mexico ......"BP just fired the 'junk shot'"
This year on CN ......Marks VW just fired the "clog shot"?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

can you supply links showing that they did indeed sign in on the wrong accounts?

The simple answer is, no, as it was an opinion.

However I can understand that such a concise and frank admission is not in keeping with this thread therefor....

Dear Patricknd,
We are not going to get sucked in to the 'Patricknd vortex' (we would like to attribute part of that not funny name to Markvw) - while indeed we can show a link to the honorable clients opinion this will only come after we have flooded the board with 10 pages of irrelevant nonsense and then make a vague reference to some random post number which has little bearing on the actual question in hand
If you actually go back and check the post and uncover our attempted deceit we will at first deny that it has no relevance and insist that it covers what you asked and that the problem is with you (& your associates) not with us.
When you quote the relevant passage and it does not back up our claims we will then suggest that if you have a problem to take it to the mods - go on, I dare you. If you don't take it to the mods you are weak, if you do take it the mods they cannot be arsed to wade through all the nonsense we have created (much like this post) and a general warning will be issued and ultimately ignored.
So, do you want to pick this up same time tomorrow?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think everyone is getting caught up on semantics but YMMV. This started well before post #487 by RaceRadio. Basically and I am not trying to hammer everyone on their actual reading and comprehension skillz but back a page or so on post #443 RaceRadio dropped a hint at where or what MIGHT BE happening behind the scene with the Floyd Federal investigation.

Where this entire conversation gets out of whack in my opinion ,,,,is where everyone jumps on information as if it is …without a doubt FACTS. There is room for both sides to go back and forth on this provided information. YET and for whatever reason ONE SIDE likes to ask for “DOCUMENTATION” for any questioning the provide information (that had no DOCUMENTATION to back it up in the first place) WHERE THE **** were you when the initial claims were being made? In my opinion the only reason for doing this is to claim FOUL.

Just in case you missed it this is where the CURRENT dispute started.

POST #443“So the Feds signed an immunity deal with Floyd, he tells the everything, then they go after him after Borat drops the case? Hardly

Fanboy, century riding, prosecutor in Fabiani's home town does his hero a favor. It will all backfire, but can't stop now. The cat is out of the bag. Waste of taxpayer money”

POST #461” Agreed. A co-Conspirator at the least

A far more interesting question is what motivates Phil to waste taxpayer funds on such a silly case?”

POST #487 “You only need one Phil Halpern”

 

[andy1234]

And for everyone who thought this thread couldn't get any more irrelevant.....

A dog wearing glasses.....

 

[patricknd]

The simple answer is, no, as it was an opinion.

However I can understand that such a concise and frank admission is not in keeping with this thread therefor....

Dear Patricknd,
We are not going to get sucked in to the 'Patricknd vortex' (we would like to attribute part of that not funny name to Markvw) - while indeed we can show a link to the honorable clients opinion this will only come after we have flooded the board with 10 pages of irrelevant nonsense and then make a vague reference to some random post number which has little bearing on the actual question in hand
If you actually go back and check the post and uncover our attempted deceit we will at first deny that it has no relevance and insist that it covers what you asked and that the problem is with you (& your associates) not with us.
When you quote the relevant passage and it does not back up our claims we will then suggest that if you have a problem to take it to the mods - go on, I dare you. If you don't take it to the mods you are weak, if you do take it the mods they cannot be arsed to wade through all the nonsense we have created (much like this post) and a general warning will be issued and ultimately ignored.
So, do you want to pick this up same time tomorrow?

the patrickndvortex, i like that. same time tomorrow works for me as i have a busy day today

 

[Elagabalus]

I think everyone is getting caught up on semantics but YMMV ...

I think my mileage is about the same as yours. And it was all going so well ... (except, of course, when Cal Joe started prattling on about tweets being slighted)

Everyone, MarkVW is saying that he does not think the story about Floyd on the CN website is credible. End of.

RR, you decided to name this thread "Floyd to be charged with fraud" yet when we click on the link the title on CN is "Could Floyd Landis face fraud charges??". Leaving it open as to whether Floyd is actually being investigated or whether the story is based solely on rumor. You seem to feel this story is true. Why do you feel that way? Can you share with us any more info (insider or not) or perhaps some links?

I think everyone here agrees that the details surrounding this story are "odd", leading to speculation as to why that might be the case. However, is the "oddness" indicative of dark forces lying beneath or is it that CN simply got it wrong?

Carry on.

 

[patricknd]

I think my mileage is about the same as yours. And it was all going so well ... (except, of course, when Cal Joe started prattling on about tweets being slighted)

Everyone, MarkVW is saying that he does not think the story about Floyd on the CN website is credible. End of.

RR, you decided to name this thread "Floyd to be charged with fraud" yet when we click on the link the title on CN is "Could Floyd Landis face fraud charges??". Leaving it open as to whether Floyd is actually being investigated or whether the story is based solely on rumor. You seem to feel this story is true. Why do you feel that way? Can you share with us any more info (insider or not) or perhaps some links?
I think everyone here agrees that the details surrounding this story are "odd", leading to speculation as to why that might be the case. However, is the "oddness" indicative of dark forces lying beneath or is it that CN simply got it wrong?

Carry on.

re: the bolded, it was in a tweet, therefore true

 

[Race Radio]

re: the bolded, it was in a tweet, therefore true

in the end I do Floyd will not be charged with fraud. Something ridiculously absurd but not fraud. Of course they are likely trying to intimidate him right now with threats of fraud charges, 20 years on Alcatraz, but in the end it will be something silly

 

[patricknd]

Floyd will not be charged with fraud. Something ridiculously absurd but not fraud

kidding aside, it's all really asinine. unless it's a back door method to get info from the former investigation into the public eye, which was my first thought when i saw the initial report, (frighteningly enough i had the same thought as the hog) it's a ridiculous waste of time and money. on the other hand it is pretty entertaining, so what the hell.

 

[aphronesis]

in the end I do Floyd will not be charged with fraud. Something ridiculously absurd but not fraud. Of course they are likely trying to intimidate him right now with threats of fraud charges, 20 years on Alcatraz, but in the end it will be something silly

Keeping up the Race Radio reality check: you do know Alcatraz is a museum?

 

[patricknd]

Keeping up the Race Radio reality check: you do know Alcatraz is a museum?

perfect, floyd could be a tour guide. hell, he needs work

 

[ChrisE]

If he used money from the Fools for Floyd fund for things other than as advertised, then he should be indicted for fraud.

 

[patricknd]

If he used money from the Fools for Floyd fund for things other than as advertised, then he should be indicted for fraud.

i don't think buying beer with it would be a problem

 

[thehog]

If he used money from the Fools for Floyd fund for things other than as advertised, then he should be indicted for fraud.

Nice fishing Chris. What reaction are you looking for here?

Oh no Floyd is innocent it's not fraud? or Lance was the same, he stole money too....

You really are a one dimension type of guy.

Poor bait.

You'll have to do much better than this to gain a rise.

When did you became so bad. You're posts actually used to be reasonably good.

Step up.

 

[patricknd]

Nice fishing Chris. What reaction are you looking for here?

Oh no Floyd is innocent it's not fraud? or Lance was the same, he stole money too....

You really are a one dimension type of guy.

Poor bait.

You'll have to do much better than this to gain a rise.

When did you became so bad. You're posts actually used to be reasonably good.

Step up.

Nice to see you're living the conviction fantasy again. I'm glad, you're funnier when you aren't sad.

 

[thehog]

kidding aside, it's all really asinine. unless it's a back door method to get info from the former investigation into the public eye, which was my first thought when i saw the initial report, (frighteningly enough i had the same thought as the hog) it's a ridiculous waste of time and money. on the other hand it is pretty entertaining, so what the hell.

Important to note that the judiciary is separated from the Government. No charges will be brought and this isn't going to trial.

No sophomore 1st year legal eagle government investigator is going to risk his job by having this brought into the public.

Smoke and mirrors.

Generally in such cases the defendant would establish reasons why the charges were brought forward. The Government prosecuters would have to present a convincing argument why person X needs to be prosecuted and how the charges came about - i.e. what investigation took place to uncover the crime (cough cough).

No one is going to be doing this. I mean no one is going to admit the reasons behind it.

Even if there is no link the coincidences are uncanny. No one in government is going to set themselves up for that type of criticism. Certainly not in an election year.

Sure we want kick sand in Floyd's face but you constituancy does't appreciate government meddling in lives of oridnary folk.