Lance Who?

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I'm starting to wonder if there's some sort of international troll union. A sort of UTI, if you will...
Whoa easy there! I can't help who piggy backs off my posts :)
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
python said:
ok, i got it - you're just another 'firm-fence -sitter' we've been thru who essentially equate the lack of the obsessive saddle sniffing to not being an apologist.

how far are willing to take the insulting of the several poster's common perception ?
Whatever helps you sleep....
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
andy1234 said:
Whoa easy there! I can't help who piggy backs off my posts :)
Maybe you should think about it. Imagine the 'dues fees' you could accrue!

Healthcare and benefits for all trolls! Some nicely placed political connections, a bit of lobbying... H*ll you guys could end up running the world!

And all that's required is that you check your brain at the door. Larger empires have started this way...
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Nice strawman - I never said you 'praised' Armstrong, I am pointing out that you are the one with the Lance fixation, unlike those you are trying to portray.

You did try to convince me otherwise - but your posting history lets you down.
You will always end the argument around here because your prepared to spend 1001 posts analysing and reanalysing the content of everything that goes on around here. Of course it helps that you always have several buddies to help you out.
It doesn't make you right, it just makes you persistent.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
You will always end the argument around here because your prepared to spend 1001 posts analysing and reanalysing the content of everything that goes on around here. Of course it helps that you always have several buddies to help you out.
It doesn't make you right, it just makes you persistent.
As I don't know the names of anyone here I don't have any buddies, but nice try.

Your posting history is what makes me right - I spend no time analyzing your posts, as they pretty much say the same thing.

You revealed your true intentions in your opening posts, so when you try and feign apathy it is easy to disprove, you just didn't expect someone to check you out.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
andy1234 said:
You will always end the argument around here because your prepared to spend 1001 posts analysing and reanalysing the content of everything that goes on around here. Of course it helps that you always have several buddies to help you out.
It doesn't make you right, it just makes you persistent.
here's where you failed ...checking the posting facts and habit/records when it comes to accusing people as opposed to the people accusing you.

i never had designated anyone you implied as friends (nor have I ever been asked for a friendship) by the people you accused of being dr.mass's 'buddies'. in fact, i never exchanged a single pm with these people nor have i ever been part of or, willing to be one, of the multiple social groups.

you're just being in need of some straw b/c you have no other argument.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
python said:
here's where you failed ...checking the posting facts and habit/records when it comes to accusing people as opposed to the people accusing you.

i never had designated anyone you implied as friends (nor have I ever been asked for a friendship) by the people you accused of being dr.mass's 'buddies'. in fact, i never exchanged a single pm with these people nor have i ever been part of or, willing to be one, of the multiple social groups.

you're just being in need of some straw b/c you have no other argument.
I was talking to Dr M, He has many friends. Im sorry your'e not one of them.

The discussion is over. Move on.
Continue trying to confirm your own misconceptions elsewhere.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,845
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
As I don't know the names of anyone here I don't have any buddies, but nice try.

Your posting history is what makes me right - I spend no time analyzing your posts, as they pretty much say the same thing.

You revealed your true intentions in your opening posts, so when you try and feign apathy it is easy to disprove, you just didn't expect someone to check you out.
My intention is to have a few relatively meaningless conversations about doping, then move on.
Something you seem unable to grasp.
It interests me. It doesn't drive me to 4000 posts on the matter.

To repeat, your assumptions are wrong.
I'd suggest you save yourself a long winded response, but what else are you going do with your time?
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
My intention is to have a few relatively meaningless conversations about doping, then move on.
Something you seem unable to grasp.
It interests me. It doesn't drive me to 4000 posts on the matter.

To repeat, your assumptions are wrong.
I'd suggest you save yourself a long winded response, but what else are you going do with your time?
Thanks, but as it makes little sense like most of your suggestions, I will choose to ignore it .

You have now moved on from 'telling' me my assumptions are wrong to plain old 'ad hominens' which confirms what I already suspected.

I would normally spend my time rebutting your well laid out position - but as you don't have one it easy to highlight the inaccuracies in your points.
A quick example would be if you changed the word 'doping' to 'Lance Armstrong', in your opening paragraph then it would be an accurate statement.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY