Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Stingray34]

Why don't you address that to the "Top Posters' that you are referring to (because when you make blanket statements it seems that you are not to confident in your position).

There was a valid reason to "not agree" with BPC and question his "facts" - because as usual he was wrong.

And I do the exact same to other posters who make claims that I have never heard before or that I suspect are dubious or made up.

The only people who get upset with it are those who cannot back-up what they claim.

Have you ever asked The Hog or RR to back up their claims? Can you provide examples when you've done this?

Oh wait, I know, you're going to demand me to provide evidence they've ever made any claims.

I'm no LA fan - check my previous posts - but it's clear you defer to higher-status others who post things you'd like to be true.

 

[Neworld]

Guy lost it a long time ago when his hero came down to earth with a bang!

A bot wold have self destructed long time ago repeating that rubbish.

true dat. Sad really, like his fallen chemicoman

NW

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Have you ever asked The Hog or RR to back up their claims? Can you provide examples when you've done this?

Oh wait, I know, you're going to demand me to provide evidence they've ever made any claims.

I'm no LA fan - check my previous posts - but it's clear you defer to higher-status others who post things you'd like to be true.

So you ask a question and then assume the answer.

There's a legal saying "never ask a question if you don't know the answer", which indeed is why I often ask people who make up claims to provide links.

I have asked both RR & TheHog for links when they claim something that I have not read or heard before, one recent example in reply to The Hog is on this forum page:

You said it was Leblanc and you said there was a payment - in fact you said:


I have read Voets book and read all the reports from the Festina trial - it was Brochard and there was no payment.

If you have something on LeBlanc or that a payment was made (for anyone) than show it.

Thanks for letting us know you are not a fan of LA.

 

[JRTinMA]

Have you ever asked The Hog or RR to back up their claims? Can you provide examples when you've done this?

Oh wait, I know, you're going to demand me to provide evidence they've ever made any claims.

I'm no LA fan - check my previous posts - but it's clear you defer to higher-status others who post things you'd like to be true.

The answer is he once challenged the hog and the hog shut him down. Like a good lap dog Dr. M obeyed. Consider him the Fabiani of the of the fellowship of the miserable in the clinic.

 

[Ferminal]

lol! gorgeous course, though

Indeed, sounds like a fun race.

 

[Race Radio]

His entertainment value slid below the drachma value ages ago, but your post brings up another interesting point. If the top posters on this thread appear to jump on any supposed facts posted by someone they do not agree with, would it be appropriate for those same posters to question possibly dubious facts/predictions by someone who appears to hold the same values (of the top posters) regarding the person who is the topic of this thread?

Watch out, if you swing the handbag too much you may hit yourself with it.

So you have problems with the Hog. I suggest if someone posts something you disagree with you respond to that post with questions or facts. If all you do is write blanket insults with little content you look silly

 

[mewmewmew13]

Keep swinging that handbag, girl.

(Props to RR)

If The Hog was not a member, we'd have to invent him. He is that good.

w/r to Hog, maybe he isn't right all the time...or even much of the time..but he DOES get it right sometimes and has good info to contibute along with his style.

If we could all say as much...

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rget-Xterra-world-championship-in-Hawaii.aspx

Is this the news we were waiting for?

Another paid appearance. Gotta pay the lawyers

 

[Benotti69]

Another paid appearance. Gotta pay the lawyers

and claim huge expenses on the ol live$trong account

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The answer is he once challenged the hog and the hog shut him down. Like a good lap dog Dr. M obeyed. Consider him the Fabiani of the of the fellowship of the miserable in the clinic.

That sounds like a different time to the one I quoted - so that would be more than once, thanks for assisting.

I asked TheHog to back up what they said, they didn't and complained about me questioning them, thats where it ended.

 

[Stingray34]

So you ask a question and then assume the answer.

There's a legal saying "never ask a question if you don't know the answer", which indeed is why I often ask people who make up claims to provide links.

I have asked both RR & TheHog for links when they claim something that I have not read or heard before, one recent example in reply to The Hog is on this forum page:


Thanks for letting us know you are not a fan of LA.

You got into a stoush in the LA thread about payments Laurent Brochard may or may not have made. That kind of minutiae is typical.

But what about the claim, in the LA thread, LA is to be perp walked today, tomorrow or last week? Why no demand for confirmation of source? That you may have heard about it beforehand isn't relevent. What about the rest of us? Why don't you go into bat for those of us who haven't heard of it and provide the grounding you're always demanding for such a major claim?

Re: the pitfalls of circular arguments, it struck me that it is also circular to ask questions you already know the answers to as nothing new can be learned. It also seems to me that saying 'making blanket statements indicates that you're insecure about your claims' is itself a blanket statement.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You got into a stoush in the LA thread about payments Laurent Brochard may or may not have made. That kind of minutiae is typical.

You asked for something (and assumed the answer) - I gave just one example - your premise was flawed, deal with it.

But what about the claim, in the LA thread, LA is to be perp walked today, tomorrow or last week? Why no demand for confirmation of source? That you may have heard about it beforehand isn't relevent. What about the rest of us? Why don't you go into bat for those of us who haven't heard of it and provide the grounding you're always demanding for such a major claim?

Because often it is framed as "I heard", therefore asking for confirmation is pointless.

After that it is up to people to decide whether to believe that or not - and when people continually assert something without linking it I disregard what they say.

Re: the pitfalls of circular arguments, it struck me that it is also circular to ask questions you already know the answers to as nothing new can be learned.
It also seems to me that saying 'making blanket statements indicates that you're insecure about your claims' is itself a blanket statement.

It is not a blanket statement when it is in response to a specific poster - which it was.

 

[Stingray34]

You asked for something (and assumed the answer) - I gave just one example - your premise was flawed, deal with it.

But hardly a relevent example. We're talking about why you didn't ask for evidence of a major claim about LA in the LA thread.

Because often it is framed as "I heard", therefore asking for confirmation is pointless.

After that it is up to people to decide whether to believe that or not - and when people continually assert something without linking it I disregard what they say.

The Hog didn't frame his statement as conjecture. He was definitive. He wrote:

There will be some Lance news next week. Monday/Tuesday - maybe over the weekend.

The Hog's information may turn out to be true, I'm not disputing that. The question is, for someone so pedantic and who's always asking for links, evidence, etc., why didn't you demand the same rigour from him that you do from others?

As for disregarding what others say, with the implication you ignore them, you're posting history doesn't support that: you don't let go when someone says something you disagree. You're determined to have the last word. You'll have it here, too, I'm sure.

It is not a blanket statement when it is in response to a specific poster - which it was.

We disagree here, too, then: you were then making a blanket statement about in individual's psychology, that if they aren't specific everytime they make an utterance, they must be 'insecure' about what they're saying. That moves things into the realm of abuse: it's not a comment on their posting style, but on their very personality.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Another paid appearance. Gotta pay the lawyers

Interesting. He will still be in the United States, of course. But, fantasizing for a moment, what if he's arrested tomorrow and released on bail late tomorrow or Wednesday. A private jet to Hawaii could easily be rerouted to a country with no extradition treaty, unless they lift his passport which is likely.

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting. He will still be in the United States, of course.

Yup. Couldn't to Brazil for "Personal Reasons" but was able to go to Hawaii. Flight from Austin to Brazil on the GIV is about the same as to Hawaii.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But hardly a relevent example. We're talking about why you didn't ask for evidence of a major claim about LA in the LA thread.

Of course you aren't.
Heres what you wrote "Have you ever asked The Hog or RR to back up their claims?"".
I have asked both for information on LA and other subjects and have given an example.

You assumed an answer -you were wrong, tough.

The Hog didn't frame his statement as conjecture. He was definitive. He wrote:

The Hog's information may turn out to be true, I'm not disputing that. The question is, for someone so pedantic and who's always asking for links, evidence, etc., why didn't you demand the same rigour from him that you do from others?

I actually don't remember reading that post and have little time for his speculation.

As for disregarding what others say, with the implication you ignore them, you're posting history doesn't support that: you don't let go when someone says something you disagree. You're determined to have the last word. You'll have it here, too, I'm sure.

Usually I only get the last word when someone cannot back up their position and runs out of options - so yes, I expect the last word here too.

We disagree here, too, then: you were then making a blanket statement about in individual's psychology, that if they aren't specific everytime they make an utterance, they must be 'insecure' about what they're saying. That moves things into the realm of abuse: it's not a comment on their posting style, but on their very personality.

I find it quite cowardly when some makes a general statement about all users - if you have a point then you should be able to address the person that made that point, as indeed you and I are doing here.

If you wish to discuss this further then open a new thread in a appropriate forum and I will be happy to discuss it.

 

[Race Radio]

To pretend that any poster is the same as BPC is absurd. He has been banned over 200 times. His babble has been refuted again, and again, and again.

We should not pretend that we should engage with him in the same manner as other posters. He is the herpes of the message board who sole goal is to bring clutter and chaos

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Yup. Couldn't to Brazil for "Personal Reasons" but was able to go to Hawaii. Flight from Austin to Brazil on the GIV is about the same as to Hawaii.

Interestingly, Brazil has had some issues regarding the extradition of several nationals of other countries in the past few years. I can understand why the US might have told Lance not to go to Brazil or he'd be arrested. DoJ doesn't need that hassle.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

This is the Armstrong thread and not the BPC thread. Stay on topic.

Susan

 

[Stingray34]

Of course you aren't.
Heres what you wrote "Have you ever asked The Hog or RR to back up their claims?"".
I have asked both for information on LA and other subjects and have given an example.

You assumed an answer -you were wrong, tough.

Of course I am. I'm talking about your inconsistency, that you make demands of some posters and not others. Concede me one thing: you cannot claim to know my intentions better than I do.

I'll even do some conceding of my own: my rhetorical premise was poorly phrased by being too general. I wonder, have you ever made such a concession to an interlocuter? Would that be too risky? Let me ask you something a little more precise, then: have you had a multi-page tete-e-tete with either of them like you regularly do with others you apparently look down upon?

By focusing on the unimportant part, it allows you to conveniently ignore my point: why not question such a claim about LA in the LA thread? To which you obliquely and belatedly reply:

I actually don't remember reading that post and have little time for his speculation.

Disengenuous. Senator-standard, in fact. You were posting in the hours after The Hog made the claim and responding to posts made within the hour of his. You couldn't miss this post. It's informed clinic speculation for days. You have time for the speculation of others, demanding some veracity for their claims, so why not his? As you say, you're quite confident when it comes to calling people out.

Usually I only get the last word when someone cannot back up their position and runs out of options - so yes, I expect the last word here too.

Hubris isn't a nice trait. Isn't there someone oft-discussed who's condemmned for this?

This brings me to another point: I think we have different ideas on what arguments are here for. It seems like they are just there to be won when it comes to you, viz, 'never ask a question you don't know the answer to.' I like to think neither side is ever completely correct or has full information, that would be too haughty, and new things can be learned by comparing theses.

If you wish to discuss this further then open a new thread in a appropriate forum and I will be happy to discuss it.

I'm not running around following your options, and this is a tactic to kill off the topic you've used before. All along I've been asking why you didn't ask for veracity to an unsupported claim about LA in a LA thread. Belatedly saying 'I don't remember it' doesn't cut it. This seems like the right place for the discussion.

 

[Polish]

Lance is already in Hawaii.
DrumRoll.
A special "Book him Dano" drumroll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABBkJUCHsYk

 

[Neworld]

But hardly a relevent example. We're talking about why you didn't ask for evidence of a major claim about LA in the LA thread.

Here's an idea Stingray, JRTinMA and others...why not wait a day, or heck even a week, to see if this 'major' insider info is true?

Hell I'll give the Hog a month's grace...there are innumberable logistical issues that may interfere with a definitive 'date'. Patience.

If the Hog is incorrect after a month or so, lay into him.

NW

 

[mewmewmew13]

Here's an idea Stingray, JRTinMA and others...why not wait a day, or heck even a week, to see if this 'major' insider info is true?

Hell I'll give the Hog a month's grace...there are innumberable logistical issues that may interfere with a definitive 'date'. Patience.

If the Hog is incorrect after a month or so, lay into him.

NW

I totally agree.
Enough.
Can't you two take your debate practice to pm mode?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course I am. I'm talking about your inconsistency, that you make demands of some posters and not others. Concede me one thing: you cannot claim to know my intentions better than I do.

You made your intentions clear when you asked and then answered your own question - but I will concede that I am as confused about your 'points' as you are.

So, its about 'inconsistency'?

I'll even do some conceding of my own: my rhetorical premise was poorly phrased by being too general. I wonder, have you ever made such a concession to an interlocuter? Would that be too risky? Let me ask you something a little more precise, then: have you had a multi-page tete-e-tete with either of them like you regularly do with others you apparently look down upon?

Thats your fault, not mine - you asked a question I answered and even linked it like you asked and did not expect.

Now its about Lancey -even though I have already said I have requested more from others about LA too.

To the Blue - why did you request a link from me and then not read it when I provided it?

By focusing on the unimportant part, it allows you to conveniently ignore my point: why not question such a claim about LA in the LA thread? To which you obliquely and belatedly reply:

Ah - so this was your point.
My apologies I thought the point was that I don't request the same from RR & theHog.
Or your new point that it is about Lance questions.
Or something about inconsistency.


Now it is because I don't respond to every post that TheHog makes - because well according to you I do that to everyone - but thats actually something you made up so I didn't 'conveniently' ignore it - I just ignored it.

Disengenuous. Senator-standard, in fact. You were posting in the hours after The Hog made the claim and responding to posts made within the hour of his. You couldn't miss this post. It's informed clinic speculation for days. You have time for the speculation of others, demanding some veracity for their claims, so why not his? As you say, you're quite confident when it comes to calling people out.

I didn't say I missed it - I said I don't remember it.
I would assume I scanned it, but unless it has some fact base information then I wouldn't remember it.

Hubris isn't a nice trait. Isn't there someone oft-discussed who's condemmned for this?

This brings me to another point: I think we have different ideas on what arguments are here for. It seems like they are just there to be won when it comes to you, viz, 'never ask a question you don't know the answer to.' I like to think neither side is ever completely correct or has full information, that would be too haughty, and new things can be learned by comparing theses.

You like to think that, do you?
You must have learnt that after you asked and answered me a question.

I'm not running around following your options, and this is a tactic to kill off the topic you've used before. All along I've been asking why you didn't ask for veracity to an unsupported claim about LA in a LA thread. Belatedly saying 'I don't remember it' doesn't cut it. This seems like the right place for the discussion.

When you say "all along" you mean with the exception of the first post n the matter, where you don't mention anything about La, or anything about "in a LA thread" and asked a specific question and named 2 specific members?

I answered it. I even linked it.

This is a thread about Armstrong, not about any stuff that you make up about me. So, if you wish to continue this then do so on another thread.

 

[thehog]

Here's an idea Stingray, JRTinMA and others...why not wait a day, or heck even a week, to see if this 'major' insider info is true?

Hell I'll give the Hog a month's grace...there are innumberable logistical issues that may interfere with a definitive 'date'. Patience.

If the Hog is incorrect after a month or so, lay into him.

NW

Thank-you. Information is scarce. But someone gave someone else a nod and said its neigh. I've also been told Armstrong is co-operating with whomever is running the investigation. He is following their request for the time being before the official process begins.