Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[gooner]

Merckx probably meant Moncoutie.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As you do not appear to actually respond to the substance of my post, I will quote it here so that others can clearly see it.....

As for what was in the article - well it matters little in the motives or editorial spin of an article, hence why the actual quotes are always the most reliable.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The inanity of your comment just proved my point.

I have a legitimate interest in cycling and doping and I tune in to see if just once there might be a reasonable discussion about the two, so for that reason I read the comments. But no instead of commenting about some relevant doping/cycling issue all you can do is attack me for reading or trying to find some interesting slant on the issues.

You are just another one of the nonsensical slugs on this site whose intellectual IQ is about the same as your chronological age.

Not attacking you for reading, I read this stuff all the time, some of it bugs me and I respond. The fact that I think it is stupid to respond by saying "let's close the thing down" makes me a nonsensical slug with an "intellectual IQ" (whatever that might mean, would that be an IIQ?) about the same as my chronological age (which makes it probably 3X yours, on both accounts) exactly how? No I am attacking you for being one of those dorks who think that it helps somehow to sit back and then come out with a stupid post like the one I responded to that adds nothing except to say "this whole place is stupid and I am so superior to it, I think we should just shut it down, I know this even though I am so involved that I have managed to contribute along the lines of 1 post a week for the past 3 1/2 years". Actually if you just shut you down, would anyone notice?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

As you do not appear to actually respond to the substance of my post, I will quote it here so that others can clearly see it.



I beg to differ - I have read the posts. And I have mentioned the links that have been posted by others.

The fact that "Most" here agree with you is a disingenuous and circular argument that does not delve into the heart of the matter.

Playing the "ignore" card is equally disingenuous. If you have the time, please point out exactly what part of my original post indicates ignorance on what topic.

If you revisit some of the thoughtful posts by Mr. Granville57, I do believe that the reliance on the Detroit Free Press article could possibly be misplaced. My experience with the press over several decades in which I have been interviewed and quoted has left me with the following observations:

- The interviewer has no understanding of the subject matter or person he is interviewing, and gets things wrong 50% to 75% of the time. Misquotes may come into play.

- The editor has no understanding of the reporter, subject matter or person that was interviewed, and gets things wrong 50% to 75% of the time.

- The headline writer has no understanding of the editor, reporter, subject matter or person that was interviewed, and gets things wrong 50% to 75% of the time.

The result? In my humble opinion, unless that Detroit Free Press article was accompanied by a non-edited video of the interview, it has to be considered for what it is - a small article in a small paper.

Could the interviewer/reporter, editor, and headline writer have all done their job at a 100% correct rate? Most certainly, they could have. In which case your posts evidencing ultimate faith in that article may have some basis in fact.

The question is, did they? And to hang your hat on that 100% probability is something you should ask yourself. As should others.

You just keep digging your grave and proving my point.

I don't respond to posts that get entirely off the subject of the thread. Your pseudointellectual spin that is specious, deceptive and inane and just needs to be ignored. Your yak yakking is exactly why CN needs to shut down the Clinic. Your comment is another tedious bore.

Post something relevant and germane about "Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post Concussion). It seems all you can do is the usual Clinic BS and attack me and to that I am impervious.

Say something meaningful about the substance of the thread, because otherwise you have no credibility.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Then why do you pretend the facts are not in there?

My position is clear and I have have backed it up multiple times. If you have trouble with it then please provide specifics, not some long rambling post that addresses nothing

Just to clarify.....

I was responding to this post -

And that is because the only other one doing it has been banned 200 times for breaking forum rules by making new accounts. It is not unfair to judge one by the company he keeps.

I was responding to the Post by Mr. Hugh Jannus. At that point, I had not offered an opinion on your interpretation of the "facts" and am very puzzled why you arrived at the conclusion that I am "pretending" your "facts" are not valid. Obviously, your opinion may be valid.

Let's try to keep it on topic here, agreed?

Also, I apologize if my posts are too long for you to read. As with this post, I will try to keep my excessive verbosity in check.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just to clarify.....

I was responding to this post -



I was responding to the Post by Mr. Hugh Jannus. At that point, I had not offered an opinion on your interpretation of the "facts" and am very puzzled why you arrived at the conclusion that I am "pretending" your "facts" are not valid. Obviously, your opinion may be valid.

Let's try to keep it on topic here, agreed?

Also, I apologize if my posts are too long for you to read. As with this post, I will try to keep my excessive verbosity in check.

You will try and keep your what? where?
TMI

 

[Granville57]

It seems all you can do is the usual Clinic BS and attack me and to that I am impervious.

Dude, come down off the ledge.

I hate to break it to you, but he wasn't even responding you.
Seriously. Step back for a moment. You're proving your own point at every turn while destroying any credibility your original argument may have had.

But don't take my word for it.

 

[Race Radio]

Back on topic folks,

Tomorrow, or Tuesday, there should be a ruling on if the panel can hear the SCA case. I think wonderboy is hosed.

How quickly will he settle?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Just to clarify.....

I was responding to this post -



I was responding to the Post by Mr. Hugh Jannus. At that point, I had not offered an opinion on your interpretation of the "facts" and am very puzzled why you arrived at the conclusion that I am "pretending" your "facts" are not valid. Obviously, your opinion may be valid.

Let's try to keep it on topic here, agreed?

Also, I apologize if my posts are too long for you to read. As with this post, I will try to keep my excessive verbosity in check.

If you want people to know which post you are responding to it would help to not only quote the post but then actually respond to something in the post, rather than somehow equating asking for links with calling someone a liar. Just trying to help. You are welcome.

 

[Race Radio]

Also, I apologize if my posts are too long for you to read. As with this post, I will try to keep my excessive verbosity in check.

Thanks, I am a simple man. Bullet points work great

 

[Granville57]

Tomorrow, or Tuesday

You didn't just really say that, did you?

 

[Race Radio]

You didn't just really say that, did you?

Dude, all good news comes on Tuesday

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Not attacking you for reading, I read this stuff all the time, some of it bugs me and I respond. The fact that I think it is stupid to respond by saying "let's close the thing down" makes me a nonsensical slug with an "intellectual IQ" (whatever that might mean, would that be an IIQ?) about the same as my chronological age (which makes it probably 3X yours, on both accounts) exactly how? No I am attacking you for being one of those dorks who think that it helps somehow to sit back and then come out with a stupid post like the one I responded to that adds nothing except to say "this whole place is stupid and I am so superior to it, I think we should just shut it down, I know this even though I am so involved that I have managed to contribute along the lines of 1 post a week for the past 3 1/2 years". Actually if you just shut you down, would anyone notice?

Can you not see or read. Again another tedious, boring and irrelevant post that is simply a personal attack. That is what the Clinic is all about. It has become degenerate, which was the point of my initial post.

I invited you to post something relevant to the thread. That being "Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post Concussion). " But you can't. You are incapable. Your ego won't let go of attacking me. Again you stoop to the personal attack again, which is exactly why the Clinic has become a laughing stock as a place to carry on a reasonable conversation ABOUT THE SUBJEC MATTER.

I don't care if you post 100,000 posts a week if that is what it takes for you to get your self-image or self-admiration fix. It is not how many posts you make but their relevance to the thread and their value to the discussion that it makes.

Your dogmatic and doctrinaire personal attack posts do neither and continue to prove my point. Just shut the Clinic down. It does not further rational discussion about doping and cycling, just posturing by posters like you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Can you not see or read. Again another tedious, boring and irrelevant post that is simply a personal attack. That is what the Clinic is all about. It has become degenerate, which was the point of my initial post.

I invited you to post something relevant to the thread. That being "Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post Concussion). " But you can't. You are incapable. Your ego won't let go of attacking me. Again you stoop to the personal attack again, which is exactly why the Clinic has become a laughing stock as a place to carry on a reasonable conversation ABOUT THE SUBJEC MATTER.

I don't care if you post 100,000 posts a week if that is what it takes for you to get your self-image or self-admiration fix. It is not how many posts you make but their relevance to the thread and their value to the discussion that it makes.

Your dogmatic and doctrinaire personal attack posts do neither and continue to prove my point. Just shut the Clinic down. It does not further rational discussion about doping and cycling, just posturing by posters like you.

The inanity of your comment just proved my point.

I have a legitimate interest in cycling and doping and I tune in to see if just once there might be a reasonable discussion about the two, so for that reason I read the comments. But no instead of commenting about some relevant doping/cycling issue all you can do is attack me for reading or trying to find some interesting slant on the issues.

You are just another one of the nonsensical slugs on this site whose intellectual IQ is about the same as your chronological age.

Sorry if my posts were not as on topic and constuctive as your opening post was, to whit:

The crap going on in the Clinic (BroDeal v RR etc. and all the other self serving , egotist and vain antagonists) makes a mockery of reasonable discourse about doping. CN should seriously consider shutting the Clinic site down because it has become a tedious bore to read the inanity of the commenting.

Either that or hire administrators with cojones. (PS I am currently unemployed)

To the highlighted, color me surprised.

 

[sittingbison]

gentle(wo)men,
calm down a bit please. play the pelota not the man

And take it back on topic.....which happens to be Lance BTW, not race radio, brodeal or any other forum members. Or even BPC

cheers
bison

 

[Cal_Joe]

If you want people to know which post you are responding to it would help to not only quote the post but then actually respond to something in the post.......

Uh, Er, Ummm... I do believe I did. Please reread the thread. It appears that there is a reading comprehension issue on the part of one of us. I will leave it to you to provide the forum with your verdict.

I apologise in advance if this post is too long.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Sorry if my posts were not as on topic and constuctive as your opening post was, to whit:

To the highlighted, color me surprised.

Again Hugh you don't disappoint. Another useless comment. Very boring, tedious and off topic. How deep is that hole getting. I am 66 and retired. That is why I am unemployed.

You on the other hand have as great career as a poster of nonsensical personal attacks. Your ego just won't let go will it. Jab, jab, jab.

Once again post something of substance about "Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post Concussion)." Come on now. You can do it. A big tough bike shop owner like you who knows everything there is about cycling. Come on, I can feel it in your bones. It seems to be taking some coaxing, but you can do it. People from Anus do it all the time.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Uh, Er, Ummm... I do believe I did. Please reread the thread. It appears that there is a reading comprehension issue on the part of one of us. I will leave it to you to provide the forum with your verdict.

I apologise in advance if this post is too long.

I like my credibility.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I like my credibility.

Your post -

And that is because the only other one doing it has been banned 200 times for breaking forum rules by making new accounts. It is not unfair to judge one by the company he keeps.

My post in response -

Sorry, another misperception perpetuated in The Clinic. There are a lot of posts (I do believe that one or more of them may have been posted under this account) that consistently ask Mr. Race Radio to back up his conjectures with facts, links, etc. Many times that additional information does not make it into a thread. Perhaps Mr. Race Radio should contact the forum technical support boffins if some of his musings are not posted.

Lately this place is nothing but spin and taking sides and screw any pretense at objectivity. Regarding the Hincapie spat, there are links to the Detroit Free Press "article", the CN "interpretation" of that article, affidavits, documentaries, etc. I would encourage all to thoroughly read and re-read those and make up their own mind.

I must admit that your affection for your credibility is somewhat puzzling, and could be interpreted by some as misplaced. Not that I would ever characterise your opinion as misplaced.

I apologise in advance if this post is too long.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm reminded of this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=3713156

Now, if I were the cynical type...

FWIW, I was reminded of this story: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/phinney-explains-decision-to-sign-with-bmc-racing-team

including his friendship with Armstrong, who [Taylor] Phinney revealed, had broken off all communication ever since Ochowicz made his first offer.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Again Hugh you don't disappoint. Another useless comment. Very boring, tedious and off topic. How deep is that hole getting. I am 66 and retired. That is why I am unemployed.

You on the other hand have as great career as a poster of nonsensical personal attacks. Your ego just won't let go will it. Jab, jab, jab.

Once again post something of substance about "Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post Concussion)." Come on now. You can do it. A big tough bike shop owner like you who knows everything there is about cycling. Come on, I can feel it in your bones. It seems to be taking some coaxing, but you can do it. People from Anus do it all the time.

I get it that you are an exceptional internet poster, important enough that you think you need to spend a goodly number of your posts letting everyone know that you are not happy with the way the forum is going, and we are all interested to hear it, but so what? What have you added to this discussion other than the breaking news that you don't like the way it is going?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Your post -



My post in response -



I must admit that your affection for your credibility is somewhat puzzling, and could be interpreted by some as misplaced. Not that I would ever characterise your opinion as misplaced.

I apologise in advance if this post is too long.

Well this was the exchange that Hugh was responding to.....

bro time to man up and introduce some honesty into your posts

you're the one calling RR a liar not people

thanks!
Mark L

That is because everyone else calling RR out is not allowed to post.

RR has a very long history of labeling anyone who disagrees with him as a liar. It is his "go to" insult.

Or is that you too are calling RR a liar?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well this was the exchange that Hugh was responding to.....




Or is that you too are calling RR a liar?

Thank you, that was my point, maybe I was too obtuse?

 

[sittingbison]

its only been what....15 minutes? Just enough time for me to edit and/or move a swag of OT and/or insulting posts. So its time to do a thehog:

gentle(wo)men,
calm down a bit please. play the pelota not the man

And take it back on topic.....which happens to be Lance BTW, not race radio, brodeal or any other forum members. Or even BPC

cheers
bison

good post bison

 

[Cal_Joe]

Thank you, that was my point, maybe I was too obtuse?

Obtuse is quite the understatement. I would also add that at this point I have no idea as to who is responding to/denigrating which of my posts, or if they are even my posts that are being responded to.

Please repost your attacks on my personage quoting the proper previous posts. I thank you in advance.

I apologise in advance if this post is too long.