Re: Re:
Sweet *** Willie ... not Slick *** Willie. Goes back to allusive dig some months ago. SDW's response to BO's rally cry to boycott Zal's.
"Toxic in a disquieting way." Are we talking ... Sarin .... or maybe ..... Ricin? Fuckin RiceaRoni???
OK ... I'm dropping the Jesus allusion. Team is on the ropes, anyways.aphronesis said:Not the point really. It's not a matter of what they would do as he's not either. He was always toxic in a disquieting way for the casual and he's doing no one any favors. Jesus and Slick had a fan base.Alpe73 said:What would Jesus do? What would Sweet *** Willie say? :geek:aphronesis said:MI has some points. The peloton disliking Froome's situation/position is not the same as direct competitors having antipathy. His larger argument is that Froome (never that likable to being with) in his current tack is taking cycling down further in the lay public consciousness: making it more of a joke. For those who know. Does he have many fans outside the jingoists?Alpe73 said:OK, MI ... let's run with it ... just for the hell of it.
whereas literally dozens of people speaking out in the media—including one rider who claimed that most of the peloton is in fact opposed to what Froome is doing.
So ... my question is ... who gives a ****?
Did Frazier like Ali?
Do the Mets like the Yanks?
Does Papelbom like Harper?
What's your point?
Science ... Social Science ... you're trying all the angles, that's for sure. Very thorough, I must say.
Sweet *** Willie ... not Slick *** Willie. Goes back to allusive dig some months ago. SDW's response to BO's rally cry to boycott Zal's.
"Toxic in a disquieting way." Are we talking ... Sarin .... or maybe ..... Ricin? Fuckin RiceaRoni???