Landis to Rock

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
There you go Dim. The mental machinations of the average, wrapped in the flag, fanboy.

They talk of cheating liars, but it's OK for cheating liars to lie about the cheating.
Cheating liars who continue to cheat and lie are great and worthy of fanship.

Ex-cheats who try to tell the truth are rats, but are probably ratting untruthfully, because they used to be cheating liars.
Cheating liars who change are rats and worthy of hate.

Go figure.
Nailed it.

By the way some of these douches talk about rats you would think they were in the mafia. What normal, well adjusted member of society even uses the term "rat"? The problem cycling has with omerta is as much the fault of this kind of thinking by the fans as it is the actions of the pros. Thinking like this encourages the sport to continue with the "bad apples" approach to doping instead of dealing with the situation honestly because there are people dumb enough to not only believe the lies but to promote the lies.
 
Mellow Velo said:
They talk of cheating liars, but it's OK for cheating liars to lie about the cheating. Cheating liars who continue to cheat and lie are great and worthy of fanship.

Ex-cheats who try to tell the truth are rats, but are probably ratting untruthfully, because they used to be cheating liars. Cheating liars who change are rats and worthy of hate..
Excellent post!
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
There you go Dim. The mental machinations of the average, wrapped in the flag, fanboy.

They talk of cheating liars, but it's OK for cheating liars to lie about the cheating.
Cheating liars who continue to cheat and lie are great and worthy of fanship.

Ex-cheats who try to tell the truth are rats, but are probably ratting untruthfully, because they used to be cheating liars.
Cheating liars who change are rats and worthy of hate.

Go figure.
Viva la Omerta!
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
BroDeal said:
Nailed it.

By the way some of these douches talk about rats you would think they were in the mafia. What normal, well adjusted member of society even uses the term "rat"? The problem cycling has with omerta is as much the fault of this kind of thinking by the fans as it is the actions of the pros. Thinking like this encourages the sport to continue with the "bad apples" approach to doping instead of dealing with the situation honestly because there are people dumb enough to not only believe the lies but to promote the lies.
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of, whether it's TFF, MV, Dim or not so dim: Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind. Don't you feel the least bit sweaty or clammy about this? Are you really that afraid of outsiders that you have to resort to a collective whack-a-mole-strategy, using the heaviest guns in your arsenal, the cheapest of all invectives?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hektoren said:
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of, whether it's TFF, MV, Dim or not so dim: Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind. Don't you feel the least bit sweaty or clammy about this? Are you really that afraid of outsiders that you have to resort to a collective whack-a-mole-strategy, using the heaviest guns in your arsenal, the cheapest of all invectives?
Personally i was not siding with anyone. I was merely defending a particular forum poster who over the last ten days been lambasted by a whole host of people, mainly new, or previously quiet members (all of which strikes me as a might suspicious).

The fact that several regular posters have had the same thoughts as me, does not make us a collective, or having a whack a mole strategy, purely means that we feel similarly on the particular subject. If you knew anything of the forum you would know its rare to see me and TFF arguing on the same side, (even rarer to see me and BroDeal on the same side) although i have a new found level of respect for the guy (TFF, sorry bro, no offence ;)). Some of the criticism he has taken (the worst piece was thankfully deleted) was more unfounded than what Joe has faced.

If people are going to walk in and start ripping into a long standing and well respected member of the community what the hell do they expect people to do.

nb. ive never called anyone a douche, i did question peoples intelligence, and you will find the Rat comment was made by someone outside of the "clique". And nobody called anybody the mafia. The mafia comment was made in relation to the Rat comment which again, was made by one of the agressors towards Joe, not one of his defenders. I think you are a trifle confused.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
hektoren said:
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of, whether it's TFF, MV, Dim or not so dim: Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind. Don't you feel the least bit sweaty or clammy about this? Are you really that afraid of outsiders that you have to resort to a collective whack-a-mole-strategy, using the heaviest guns in your arsenal, the cheapest of all invectives?
Welcome to cycling news forum. You'll find there is an a core little mob here who launch assault after assault on anyone who dares disagree with them, Ridiculing of the heretics intelligence, and personally abusing them is the norm. If you can be bothered hanging arounde for more than a few days you'll soon learn who they are, you've already dealt with a couple here, but i wouldn't put dim in that category - he doesn't consider his opinion unquestionable fact -unlike those others.
 
progressor said:
Welcome to cycling news forum. You'll find there is an a core little mob here who launch assault after assault on anyone who dares disagree with them, Ridiculing of the heretics intelligence, and personally abusing them is the norm. If you can be bothered hanging arounde for more than a few days you'll soon learn who they are, you've already dealt with a couple here, but i wouldn't put dim in that category - he doesn't consider his opinion unquestionable fact -unlike those others.
Ah, the poor cries of the persecuted majority. :rolleyes:
 
Jul 7, 2009
583
0
0
This is quite odd. I just don't see the point. I like to read the posts on here as many are quite informative and illuminating.It's okay to agree, and it's also okay to disagree. The petty personal attacks are juvenile.
I'll stop here. I am certain there is no shortage of rants. I don't post much, I mostly like to read up on others views.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
hektoren said:
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of, whether it's TFF, MV, Dim or not so dim: Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind. Don't you feel the least bit sweaty or clammy about this? Are you really that afraid of outsiders that you have to resort to a collective whack-a-mole-strategy, using the heaviest guns in your arsenal, the cheapest of all invectives?
You have nailed it.
Check in on some of the other threads.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
dimspace said:
Personally i was not siding with anyone. I was merely defending a particular forum poster who over the last ten days been lambasted by a whole host of people, mainly new, or previously quiet members (all of which strikes me as a might suspicious).

The fact that several regular posters have had the same thoughts as me, does not make us a collective, or having a whack a mole strategy, purely means that we feel similarly on the particular subject. If you knew anything of the forum you would know its rare to see me and TFF arguing on the same side, (even rarer to see me and BroDeal on the same side) although i have a new found level of respect for the guy (TFF, sorry bro, no offence ;)). Some of the criticism he has taken (the worst piece was thankfully deleted) was more unfounded than what Joe has faced.

If people are going to walk in and start ripping into a long standing and well respected member of the community what the hell do they expect people to do.

nb. ive never called anyone a douche, i did question peoples intelligence, and you will find the Rat comment was made by someone outside of the "clique". And nobody called anybody the mafia. The mafia comment was made in relation to the Rat comment which again, was made by one of the agressors towards Joe, not one of his defenders. I think you are a trifle confused.
You know perfectly well what he's talking about.

That you'd respond as though he was talking about you alone is disingenuous.
 
progressor said:
Welcome to cycling news forum. You'll find there is an a core little mob here who launch assault after assault on anyone who dares disagree with them, Ridiculing of the heretics intelligence, and personally abusing them is the norm. If you can be bothered hanging arounde for more than a few days you'll soon learn who they are, you've already dealt with a couple here, but i wouldn't put dim in that category - he doesn't consider his opinion unquestionable fact -unlike those others.
Didn't you make the same post last week, the week before, and three months ago?
 
hektoren said:
Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind.
mitchman said:
I'd like to see Landis light it up with Rock Racing.........

and on the sub-topic....I don't like rat's so I don't think I'd like JP if I knew him.

Seems to me that only the "less than stella constellation" group, read the thread posts comprehensively.
Meanwhile, the whistle blower haters, have to resort to exporting insults from their own clique, so they can be use to attack the former group.
I suppose, if your position is one of defending liars and cheats, attributing quotes to the other side is quite acceptable.

I don't suppose there's any chance of getting this thread back on topic?
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
Seems to me that only the "less than stella constellation" group, read the thread posts comprehensively.
Meanwhile, the whistle blower haters, have to resort to exporting insults from their own clique, so they can be use to attack the former group.
I suppose, if your position is one of defending liars and cheats, attributing quotes to the other side is quite acceptable.

I don't suppose there's any chance of getting this thread back on topic?
Sure we can get this thread back on track, I just get provoked when I'm getting painted into a group picture, as if I'm part of a larger conspiracy to malign JP. I'm not, and I don't "side", so paint me out of that picture, please. I'm quite content doing my own thinking, thank you.
 
Aug 25, 2009
397
0
0
Ferminal said:
Didn't you make the same post last week, the week before, and three months ago?
No. Similar points, new post. But you knew that.

Would you prefer it if i said how much I hate Armstrong, or desperately predict he'll not finish anywhere near the top 5 of the tour? Cos that would be totally refreshing and new wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
progressor said:
No. Similar points, new post. But you knew that.

Would you prefer it if i said how much I hate Armstrong, or desperately predict he'll not finish anywhere near the top 5 of the tour? Cos that would be totally refreshing and new wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
No, we'd prefer it if you just went away.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hektoren said:
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of, whether it's TFF, MV, Dim or not so dim: Slapping each others' backs verbally, denigrating dissenting voices, calling them "douches", "rats", "the mafia", "IQ's of 37 (or even lower)", "failed scientists" or whatnot, may, for all I know, be a great way to build internal cohesiveness and really bond through the worn-out keyboards you happily hammer away on, but viewed from outside, your close-knit little community appears to be a less than stellar constellation of self-conscious kids with a big ax to grind. Don't you feel the least bit sweaty or clammy about this? Are you really that afraid of outsiders that you have to resort to a collective whack-a-mole-strategy, using the heaviest guns in your arsenal, the cheapest of all invectives?
I am not sure if you saw my last reply to your post, but I was anything but confrontational or antagonistic. Though I can see from this post that you obviously missed some of the content in the thread. The "rat" and "mafia" references were to people who agree with your assessment of Joe.

As Dim said, there is no back slapping club here. Some of us agree on some things, and disagree on others. In fact, if you had posted here long enough, you would see that we have all had disagreements with each other at points. Yes, I am one of the biggest offenders in the invective category. Its called trolling. Some people hate trolls. I find mixing in troll comments to be kind of fun. At the same time, I also have posted substantive opinions, and content on a range of issues here.

My initial response to you was based on the fact that Joe has taken quite a few verbal shots recently, and I feel the need to respond to those attacks. This is a forum, and it always surprises me when people act like anything that happens here is anything new to interweb forums. I would also suggest that if you don't like having your opinion challenged (especially when it was one that personally attacked an individual- which is what you did), then don't post opinions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dimspace said:
Personally i was not siding with anyone. I was merely defending a particular forum poster who over the last ten days been lambasted by a whole host of people, mainly new, or previously quiet members (all of which strikes me as a might suspicious).

The fact that several regular posters have had the same thoughts as me, does not make us a collective, or having a whack a mole strategy, purely means that we feel similarly on the particular subject. If you knew anything of the forum you would know its rare to see me and TFF arguing on the same side, (even rarer to see me and BroDeal on the same side) although i have a new found level of respect for the guy (TFF, sorry bro, no offence ;)). Some of the criticism he has taken (the worst piece was thankfully deleted) was more unfounded than what Joe has faced.

If people are going to walk in and start ripping into a long standing and well respected member of the community what the hell do they expect people to do.

nb. ive never called anyone a douche, i did question peoples intelligence, and you will find the Rat comment was made by someone outside of the "clique". And nobody called anybody the mafia. The mafia comment was made in relation to the Rat comment which again, was made by one of the agressors towards Joe, not one of his defenders. I think you are a trifle confused.
Did I miss someone flaming me? Who? What? When" Where?

I mean, I did get a death threat from jackhammer11 that one time, but I took that as a compliment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Carboncrank said:
You know perfectly well what he's talking about.

That you'd respond as though he was talking about you alone is disingenuous.
Am i in a position to speak for everyone else.. NO! And I have no idea what disingenious means.


People come on, they refer to a forum member as a cheat, a fraud, one who shouldnt make any money from his blog blah blah blah, but when what they say is proved inconsistent they whine about it and develop inferiority complexes. And say basically "im not wrong, youre all ganging up on me"

And besdes the post i was replying to was hogwash, some of the quotes in it where by tff or myself, some where by the instigator of the gripes against joe. The OP had got his people seriously muddled.

Im bored with this now.
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,602
0
0
dimspace said:
I have no idea what disingenious means
neither does CC, but the Demand Media guide he has says to use long words occasionally to 'distance yourself from appearing as an internet troll'...
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
dimspace said:
And I have no idea what disingenious means.
Main entry: disingenious

Function: adjective
Date: 2010

1. Exaggerated or superior ability to lie.
2. Lies that are so brazen it is astounding that anyone would attempt to use them.

Usage: The rider told a disingenious lie about not doping.

Etymology: Disingenious was created from a combination of genius and disingenuous to describe the fantastical lies of Lance Armstrong and his supporters. No existing word was though to be sufficient to describe a blatant falsehoods, so a new word was needed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BroDeal said:
Main entry: disingenious

Function: adjective
Date: 2010

1. Exaggerated or superior ability to lie.
2. Lies that are so brazen it is astounding that anyone would attempt to use them.
So why was i brazenly lying..

I wasnt pretending that the comment was only aimed at me, but i wasnt in a position to reply on behalf of the clique without a formal meeting.

I dont know wether or not to be thrilled to be put in a club with brodeal and tff.. i never imagined we would one day be considered colluders or allies.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
dimspace said:
So why was i brazenly lying..

I wasnt pretending that the comment was only aimed at me, but i wasnt in a position to reply on behalf of the clique without a formal meeting.

I dont know wether or not to be thrilled to be put in a club with brodeal and tff.. i never imagined we would one day be considered colluders or allies.
The usual suspects don't really follow this forum. Most only pop in occasionally to make a troll comment or two. Others, like Carboncrank, are not too bright and cannot seem to keep their facts or the posters straight. Their purpose is not to engage is real conversation. It is only to bait and disrupt, so they do not find keeping track of which poster is which as that important.
 
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
BroDeal said:
Main entry: disingenious

Function: adjective
Date: 2010

1. Exaggerated or superior ability to lie.
2. Lies that are so brazen it is astounding that anyone would attempt to use them.
.
dimspace said:
So why was i brazenly lying..

I wasnt pretending that the comment was only aimed at me, but i wasnt in a position to reply on behalf of the clique without a formal meeting.

I dont know wether or not to be thrilled to be put in a club with brodeal and tff.. i never imagined we would one day be considered colluders or allies.
you actually think that's the definition... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by hektoren
I'm not really writing this to you alone, but rather to the whole clan you're obviously part of,
dimspace said:
nb. ive never called anyone a douche, i did question peoples intelligence, and you will find the Rat comment was made by someone outside of the "clique". I think you are a trifle confused.
dis⋅in⋅gen⋅u⋅ous  [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs]
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

That's what it sounded like to me. It's my opinion.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Carboncrank said:
dis⋅in⋅gen⋅u⋅ous  [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs]
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
That is the definition of the wrong word. We were talking about "disingenious".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY