Matt Cooke, did he go there?

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Looks like he deleted his tweets because he didn't have to courage to stand by what he was saying.

The funny thing is he had a go at journalists in the past for not questioning riders and saying the things he was tweeting.

And your evidence for this statement is what exactly? or are you expressing your opinion?

I did say "looks like".

But I'm sure it's a funny coincidence though.

Cooke's account in recent times has predominantly be known for going after JV/Danielson/Gaimon/Garmin, UCI, journalists, etc.

Why is he deleting all this?

you sort of seem to applaud (or at least show great understanding for) the libel case against digger, but at the same time you think Cooke should have left his libelous remarks there?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

Looks like he deleted his tweets because he didn't have to courage to stand by what he was saying.

The funny thing is he had a go at journalists in the past for not questioning riders and saying the things he was tweeting.

And your evidence for this statement is what exactly? or are you expressing your opinion?

I did say "looks like".

But I'm sure it's a funny coincidence though.

Cooke's account in recent times has predominantly be known for going after JV/Danielson/Gaimon/Garmin, UCI, journalists, etc.

Why is he deleting all this?

digger just got a libel case against him and you're seriously asking this?

Yet, I'm not the one querying it.

Sigh.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Looks like he deleted his tweets because he didn't have to courage to stand by what he was saying.

The funny thing is he had a go at journalists in the past for not questioning riders and saying the things he was tweeting.

And your evidence for this statement is what exactly? or are you expressing your opinion?

I did say "looks like".

But I'm sure it's a funny coincidence though.

Cooke's account in recent times has predominantly be known for going after JV/Danielson/Gaimon/Garmin, UCI, journalists, etc.

Why is he deleting all this?

digger just got a libel case against him and you're seriously asking this?

Yet, I'm not the one querying it.

Sigh.

i must be missing something.
as i understood, you sort of seemed to applaud (or at least show great understanding for) the libel case against digger, but now you think Cooke is a coward for removing his libelous remarks?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Looks like he deleted his tweets because he didn't have to courage to stand by what he was saying.

The funny thing is he had a go at journalists in the past for not questioning riders and saying the things he was tweeting.

And your evidence for this statement is what exactly? or are you expressing your opinion?

I did say "looks like".

But I'm sure it's a funny coincidence though.

Cooke's account in recent times has predominantly be known for going after JV/Danielson/Gaimon/Garmin, UCI, journalists, etc.

Why is he deleting all this?

digger just got a libel case against him and you're seriously asking this?

Yet, I'm not the one querying it.

Sigh.

You were questioning Matt Cooke's 'courage', yes?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

i must be missing something.
as i understood, you sort of seemed to applaud (or at least show great understanding for) the libel case against digger, but nowyou think Cooke is a coward for removing his libelous remarks?

Yes, if you're courageous to throw it all out there, you should have the backbone to stand by it.

So you think his comments were libelous then?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

You were questioning Matt Cooke's 'courage', yes?

Yes.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You were questioning Matt Cooke's 'courage', yes?

Yes.

Because he deleted his tweets? Which tweets did he delete to make you form this opinion, that he 'lacks courage'?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

You were questioning Matt Cooke's 'courage', yes?

Yes.

Because he deleted his tweets? Which tweets did he delete to make you form this opinion, that he 'lacks courage'?

Didn't I mention that already?

He has actually deleted all those, you know.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

i must be missing something.
as i understood, you sort of seemed to applaud (or at least show great understanding for) the libel case against digger, but nowyou think Cooke is a coward for removing his libelous remarks?

Yes, if you're courageous to throw it all out there, you should have the backbone to stand by it.

So you think his comments were libelous then?

i can imagine if he was threatened with a libel lawsuit by JV that he would think twice and play it safe and remove any anti-JV tweets.

I don't understand your reasoning here.
Those silly libel laws is why L'Equipe couldn't publish allegations against Barca and Madrid.
Walsh/ST had to backtrack allegations against Lance and pay him money.
etc.
If you support those ridiculous libel laws, then at the very least show some understanding for Cooke.
Regardless of the veracity of his tweets (veracity didn't play a role in the above two cases either): if JV threatened him with a libel suit it's only understandable that he removed them.
I don't think he has the money to go to court with JV or anybody else who might be threatening him.

we don't know if this is what happened, but as long as we don't know, there's no reason to call him a coward.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

i must be missing something.
as i understood, you sort of seemed to applaud (or at least show great understanding for) the libel case against digger, but nowyou think Cooke is a coward for removing his libelous remarks?

Yes, if you're courageous to throw it all out there, you should have the backbone to stand by it.

So you think his comments were libelous then?

i can imagine if he was threatened with a libel lawsuit by JV that he would think twice and play it safe and remove any anti-JV tweets.

You're being silly here.
Those silly libel laws is why L'Equipe couldn't publish allegations against Barca and Madrid.
Walsh/ST had to backtrack allegations against Lance and pay him money.
etc.
If you support those ridiculous libel laws, then at the very least show some understanding for Cooke.
Regardless of the veracity of his tweets (veracity didn't play a role in the above two cases either): if JV threatened him with a libel suit it's only understandable that he removed them.
I don't think he has the money to go to court with JV.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

And if you think that some of the stuff we see with Cooke or in here is the equivalent of the brave work that we saw with Walsh, Ballester, Ressiot, and Rouet on Lance, then you're the one being silly.

It's an insult.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

You were questioning Matt Cooke's 'courage', yes?

Yes.

Because he deleted his tweets? Which tweets did he delete to make you form this opinion, that he 'lacks courage'?

Didn't I mention that already?

He has actually deleted all those, you know.

"All"? Every tweet he has ever made, was deleted or only specific tweets about JV/Garmin etc. as you stated?

If being the latter, how does that entail a "lack of courage"? or as a "coward" as you now have defined Matt Cooke.

 

[sniper]

if JV threatened with a lawsuit, JV is the coward.
If Cooke took down his tweets because he doesn't have the money to go to court, i don't see any lack of courage there. I would do the same.
Weighing the pros and cons you easily see the best solution is to take down those tweets.
Of course it would be super courageous if he would leave the tweets and face JV's legal wrath.
But first and foremost it would be stupid and a waste of energy and money, with very little to gain.

 

[sniper]

deleted.

 

[thehog]

Re:

if JV threatened with a lawsuit, JV is the coward.
If Cooke took down his tweets because he doesn't have the money to go to court, i don't see any lack of courage there. I would do the same.
Weighing the pros and cons you easily see the best solution is to take down those tweets.
Of course it would be super courageous if he would leave the tweets and face JV's legal wrath.
But first and foremost it would be stupid and a waste of energy and money, with very little to gain.

There are a lot of “ifs” in this. If Gooner has some form of evidence that Mr. Vaughters had issued a libel notice against Mr. Cooke then he should show that evidence. People delete tweets all the time for one reason or another. Why has Gooner draw a connection between Vaughters and Cooke is anyone’s guess.

If it is the case that Mr. Cooke has a libel notice, then the initial form of “remedy” would be to remove the alleged offending remarks, that is neither ‘cowardly’ or ‘lacks courage’, that is simply responding to a request. That is a very normal course of action.

Not sure the irony is lost on Gooner that by calling someone a “coward’ is fact libel in itself, especially when they are following the appropriate requested course of action.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
If it is the case that Mr. Cooke has a libel notice, then the initial form of “remedy” would be to remove the alleged offending remarks, that is neither ‘cowardly’ or ‘lacks courage’, that is simply responding to a request. That is a very normal course of action.

exactly.
driving 150 miles per hour after finishing a bottle of whiskey is also courageous.
yet, deciding not to drive doesn't equal 'lack of courage' or being a 'coward'.
Rather it equals: clever/responsible decision.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

...
If it is the case that Mr. Cooke has a libel notice, then the initial form of “remedy” would be to remove the alleged offending remarks, that is neither ‘cowardly’ or ‘lacks courage’, that is simply responding to a request. That is a very normal course of action.

exactly.
driving 150 miles per hour after finishing a bottle of whiskey is also courageous.
yet, deciding not to drive doesn't equal 'lack of courage' or being a 'coward'.
Rather it equals: clever/responsible decision.

The other concern is, “if” Gooner does have specific knowledge of action and is now using that legal notice as a tool to “intimidate” then in some respects it diminishes the original alleged action.

 

[sniper]

yeah, inconsistent stuff.

 

[gooner]

Have the two of you read what I posted.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

With particular emphasis on the bolded.

I never once said JV threatened him.

It's the precautionary reaction to what has happened. But then you knew that.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

...
If it is the case that Mr. Cooke has a libel notice, then the initial form of “remedy” would be to remove the alleged offending remarks, that is neither ‘cowardly’ or ‘lacks courage’, that is simply responding to a request. That is a very normal course of action.

exactly.
driving 150 miles per hour after finishing a bottle of whiskey is also courageous.
yet, deciding not to drive doesn't equal 'lack of courage' or being a 'coward'.
Rather it equals: clever/responsible decision.

Thanks for this superb non-sequitur.

 

[thehog]

Have the two of you read what I posted.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

With particular emphasis on the bolded.

I never once said JV threatened him.

It's the precautionary reaction to what has happened. But then you knew that.

Exactly, what has happened? I've not seen anything that would allow public knowledge of "what has happened'. Perhaps you could explain for all of us?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
And if you think that some of the stuff we see with Cooke or in here is the equivalent of the brave work that we saw with Walsh, Ballester, Ressiot, and Rouet on Lance, then you're the one being silly.

did I say or suggest that? of course not.
i just pointed out to you that the libel laws have little or nothing to do with truth.
what cooke is saying might be true, and still he might have zero chance in the face of a libel case.

 

[pastronef]

I can´t find the link, but yesterday or the day before, Twitter put some new strict rules about what you can post or not, with suspensions and profile blocking.

 

[gooner]

Have the two of you read what I posted.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

With particular emphasis on the bolded.

I never once said JV threatened him.

It's the precautionary reaction to what has happened. But then you knew that.

Exactly, what has happened? I've not seen anything that would allow public knowledge of "what has happened'. Perhaps you could explain for all of us?

Umm.. the rumours regarding Digger.

 

[thehog]

Have the two of you read what I posted.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

With particular emphasis on the bolded.

I never once said JV threatened him.

It's the precautionary reaction to what has happened. But then you knew that.

Exactly, what has happened? I've not seen anything that would allow public knowledge of "what has happened'. Perhaps you could explain for all of us?

Umm.. the rumours regarding Digger.

So you’re labeling Matt Cooke a ‘coward’ based on rumors?

Good Lord.

 

[sniper]

Have the two of you read what I posted.

I see it more as precautionary move for now on his part. With what has happened, it has tickled his tummy too much and he deleted the tweets as a result. Coward.

With particular emphasis on the bolded.

I never once said JV threatened him.

It's the precautionary reaction to what has happened. But then you knew that.

Exactly, what has happened? I've not seen anything that would allow public knowledge of "what has happened'. Perhaps you could explain for all of us?

Umm.. the rumours regarding Digger.

So you’re labeling Matt Cooke a ‘coward’ based on rumors?

Good Lord.

guess we should appreciate the irony.