JV may the one who in the end gets his mask pulled off and exclaims, "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Internet kids."JMBeaushrimp said:Wouldn't Caltech be a bit more casual-chic? Bummed clothes, but a sweet ride?
Hey! Maybe a bit more like Freddy from Scooby-Doo? Hangs out with some stoners and a couple of hot chicks (that's right, a couple - not everyone likes the Daphne type), drives around in a wicked van (The Mystery Machine), has a hidden source of endless financial resources, always is coming up with hair-brained plans to 'catch the evil doers', and EVEN WEARS AN ASCOT.
Holy Sh*t! I may have found 'Freddy' personified! Admitedly, you may have to put JV on a weight-gain program (based on his history, it may not be too hard to convince him to jack it up), but apart from that it could be the match that's been nagging at me...
hey, our basketball team just snapped a 310 game losing streak last night - the mojo is back. Caltech Nike licensed athletic apparel is the new lab wear...Elagabalus said:Ascot? No self-respecting "scientist" at Caltech would wear an ascot. It might clash with their Royal Blue sweater vest!
I was going to school in Pasadena when MIT took the highway sign that readmastersracer said:hey, our basketball team just snapped a 310 game losing streak last night - the mojo is back. Caltech Nike licensed athletic apparel is the new lab wear...
and changed it to read:Cal Tech
Pasadena City College
I never laughed so hard in my life.Cal Tech
(Pasadena City College)
Easy man. You may get called out for Trolling. See Post 142 for reference.BotanyBay said:I was going to school in Pasadena when MIT took the highway sign that read
and changed it to read:
I never laughed so hard in my life.
Man, I'd give anything to eat Lunch at Burger Continental right now.
To which I will respond here that:@festinagirl correct, many v intelligent folks. but by being anonymous, you have no responsibility for actions, which hurts implied ethics.
Exactly. It is far harder to build credibility with anonymity. But, it is purely gained as you are only judged by what you say - and not by how much power, money, experience, connections, or influence you have.@festinagirl accountability is very difficult with anonymity. Not impossible, but more hurdles.
It goes back to what was said last week (was it Patty?). The natural response is to question the person who is making the statement without even looking at the details. None of these spinners, JV included, want to deal with the details in public. Someone who is anonymous has more or less neutral credibility (in the wider scheme, regular followers of that alias will be able to judge though). It is a huge concern if someone is telling truths and you have no basis to question them (i.e. their character). like you could if you knew who they were.D-Queued said:JV offered this up about 40m ago on Twitter:
To which I will respond here that:
Being anonymous means that you can only be judged by what you say - not by who you are, and not by what your reputation or background may be.
Consider me, and any other anonymous poster, as a nobody.
If our words hold any truth, or our arguments any merit, then that is all you need to do to 'connect the dots' and judge us.
If we open our mouths and betray ourselves to be fools, we will be far more quickly judged given our anonymity than we would otherwise.
He followed later with this:
Exactly. It is far harder to build credibility with anonymity. But, it is purely gained as you are only judged by what you say - and not by how much power, money, experience, connections, or influence you have.
And good on her!Ferminal said:...
I think FG more or less hit the nail on the head with this one.
We will approve of you or improve you.The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
when i read your post if brought back to me the political spin that politicians love to put on their BS, " third way", "big society" etc....and when i read "the new cycling" it made me think of that.NashbarShorts said:"by being anonymous, you have no responsibility for actions, which hurts implied ethics."
As a poster in The Clinic, I have no 'actions', only statements made. As far as 'implied ethics', FFS what is he talking about? The interest here is not in MY ethics (implied or otherwise), it is on the ethics of JV and the other proprietors of this carnival-reality ride called "the new cycling".
"accountability is very difficult with anonymity. Not impossible, but..." Yawn. Nice attempt at misdirection. How did this suddenly become a discussion on the social morays of The Clinic?
Is this the best the professor has got? This guy couldn't pontificate his way out of a plastic (blood) bag.
Just catching up. Link?BroDeal said:The fog lifts from JV. The man who would have us believe that he supports clean cycling has thrown his lot in with Johan Bruyneel to set up a breakaway cycling league. Now we know why he has been unwilling to tell the truth about U.S. Postal. It would damage his future business partner. Maybe partner in crime would be a better term. We can only imagine the amount of doping that will go on in a league run by Bruyneel.