Race Radio, anti-RR, Polish and Twitter Campaigns

[Hampsten88]

Dave, let's say you are correct and it demonstrates bravery to come to "The Clinic" and condemn people who attack others and ridicule their deeply-held beliefs one way or the other. Let's also say that those who attack ad hominem on either side should not be rewarded with attaboys in "The Clinic" or anywhere.

The point I was trying to make is that if you can't find the substantive in someone's post, Occam's Razor suggests the post is not substantive and not worthy of response. I humbly suggest that discussing the quality of the discussion doesn't bravely help as much as leading by example and civilly posting about the subject matter raised by the thread. The poster thought I was attacking him when all I really want to do is discuss the issues raised by Race Radio and others.

I personally had questions about Livestrong/.org/.com a long time before this thread started. I wonder whether Race Radio would consider agreeing to an arbitrator or auditor to help mediate his questioning of the organization and whether they might consent as well and how something like that could be achieved.

There was plenty in my post that was "substantive," Dave even said as much, but you, apparently choose not to see it because you don't like it.

You don't consider saying someone is "deflecting" and "avoiding a discussion of the real issues" in response to me saying that both sides have extremes that are at fault to be an attack?

You sound like my comments hit too close to home so you are trying to steer everyone away from them. That's just my opinion.

I will be finished with this discussion since it has been made clear to me that the standards under which I am allowed to post differ greatly then the standards under which others are allowed to post.

Feel free to get in last words and insults/attacks as my point has been made and has been substantiated quite well.

 

[frenchfry]

One difference between Lance guys and anti-Lance guys. The anti-Lance guys are mighty sensitive and touchy. The Lance guys are solid and thick skinned.

I think you meant thick-headed

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

do not feed the troll

 

[Digger]

There was plenty in my post that was "substantive," Dave even said as much, but you, apparently choose not to see it because you don't like it.

You don't consider saying someone is "deflecting" and "avoiding a discussion of the real issues" in response to me saying that both sides have extremes that are at fault to be an attack?

You sound like my comments hit too close to home so you are trying to steer everyone away from them. That's just my opinion.

I will be finished with this discussion since it has been made clear to me that the standards under which I am allowed to post differ greatly then the standards under which others are allowed to post.

Feel free to get in last words and insults/attacks as my point has been made and has been substantiated quite well.

"Andy' are you going to provide anything substantive to the topics in the clinic, or are you going to come on here to merely criticise others and say NOTHING else whatsoever about Livestrong or doping or whatever the thread is meant to be about? Even the most flagrant abusers of what you allude to, mention the thread topic and it's subject in its content. You are just here criticising others - and you call us hypocrites......

 

[D-Queued]

do not feed the troll

Had to shine a bit more light on it to see the blink.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

Dave, let's say you are correct and it demonstrates bravery to come to "The Clinic" and condemn people who attack others and ridicule their deeply-held beliefs one way or the other. Let's also say that those who attack ad hominem on either side should not be rewarded with attaboys in "The Clinic" or anywhere.

The point I was trying to make is that if you can't find the substantive in someone's post, Occam's Razor suggests the post is not substantive and not worthy of response. I humbly suggest that discussing the quality of the discussion doesn't bravely help as much as leading by example and civilly posting about the subject matter raised by the thread. The poster thought I was attacking him when all I really want to do is discuss the issues raised by Race Radio and others.

I personally had questions about Livestrong/.org/.com a long time before this thread started. I wonder whether Race Radio would consider agreeing to an arbitrator or auditor to help mediate his questioning of the organization and whether they might consent as well and how something like that could be achieved.

why?

He asked some straight forward questions. If they have a difficulty providing some straight forward answers then something is not right. It is information that should be publicly available in my opinion.

 

[Barrus]

Allright folks, I and others are getting a bit sick of this. So get back to the subject of the thread and lay of each other. This counts for everyone on all sides, we pretty much let this thread go, but you're are skirting ever so closer to the edge, so please be advised and turn back on-topic and of each other

 

[skippythepinhead]

why?

He asked some straight forward questions. If they have a difficulty providing some straight forward answers then something is not right. It is information that should be publicly available in my opinion.

I agree, I suggest it simply to avoid the impression that this is a "Lance-hater" attack. Questions about a charitable organization (even if one air-quotes the charitable part) are different than attacks on the celebrity pitchman at its center. If the IRS has no problem with the organization, then all they really have to do is state that they are meeting all of the requirements of disclosure and there's no reason for them to say anything else.

If what we really want are answers I am simply exploring whether there are other ways to get them.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Allright folks, I and others are getting a bit sick of this. So get back to the subject of the thread and lay of each other.

Who wants pie?

 

[flicker]

Twitter is probably a great way to ask people to come ride their bikes with you and raise money for cancer awareness. To make attacks or question the legitimacy of LIVESTRONG or Armstrong, I think that RR will mostly have negative results.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree, I suggest it simply to avoid the impression that this is a "Lance-hater" attack. Questions about a charitable organization (even if one air-quotes the charitable part) are different than attacks on the celebrity pitchman at its center. If the IRS has no problem with the organization, then all they really have to do is state that they are meeting all of the requirements of disclosure and there's no reason for them to say anything else.

If what we really want are answers I am simply exploring whether there are other ways to get them.

the original questions were asked by RaceRadio personally. He did not do it through the forum, he did it as a 'private person' and contacted them so.

This thread is discussing the attacks made on RaceRadio from fanboys who started trying to intimidate him on twitter even though RR had not made his query public knowledge. If you read the thread this would be clear.

Now if this is the attitude of a charity in which it's founder and spokesman is under federal investigation and how they wish to handle itself then they can hardly expect the public to consider everything is above board and they use their donations in a proper manner in raising 'awareness' but i would imagine everything is under board.

If liveWrong want to let donors and possible donors know they are legitimate 'charity' then they would be providing this information up front.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I agree, I suggest it simply to avoid the impression that this is a "Lance-hater" attack. Questions about a charitable organization (even if one air-quotes the charitable part) are different than attacks on the celebrity pitchman at its center. If the IRS has no problem with the organization, then all they really have to do is state that they are meeting all of the requirements of disclosure and there's no reason for them to say anything else.

If what we really want are answers I am simply exploring whether there are other ways to get them.

But look, you can even express "something", by just asking/sending questions.*

And it is not really hard to find out where these come from. Must be a hater from somewhere in the internet.
Let's have a look, aha, uhumm.......
Why do you not just visit us in Austin, and we will answer your questions....lol

I think it is too complex for some haters to consider these "hard" logics.
They just keep on living in their own built world, while they do exactly the same for month and years now. Aha, uhumm, must be a fanboy or BPC. Let's trash, insult and then ban this guy.
What ? Not BPC or fanboy ? Ah, we don't care. Next one.
Just ONE example.


*here you have a perfect example for that
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=489077&postcount=98

 

[Digger]

But look, you can even express "something", by just asking/sending questions.*

And it is not really hard to find out where these come from. Must be a hater from somewhere in the internet.
Let's have a look, aha, uhumm.......
Why do you not just visit us in Austin, and we will answer your questions....lol

I think it is too complex for some haters to consider these "hard" logics.
They just keep on living in their own built world, while they do exactly the same for month and years now. Aha, uhumm, must be a fanboy or BPC. Let's trash, insult and then ban this guy.
What ? Not BPC or fanboy ? Ah, we don't care. Next one.
Just ONE example.


*here you have a perfect example for that
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=489077&postcount=98

Can you please try and make sense - it would further your viewpoint no end. Just a suggestion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi everyone - long time lurker first time poster.

I was in the Babes and Bikes thread (because I like Bikes) and then decided to join you people here.

I hope no-one labels me a troll (even though I have no intention of discussing the thread topic) just because I call you all hypocrites - well not all hypocrites obviously, just the anti-Lance hypocrites.
As I study psychology I can recognize a hypocrite - and everyone here is, and if you respond to me you are a hypocrite who is in denial - the worst sort of hypocrite.

I am also a moderator on another forum and I am shocked that moderators here would attempt to moderate and keep things on topic.
If any moderator here wishes they can look up my IP dress (but you're not allowed take fotos).

BTW - I have not said if I am for or against Lance (yes, I do think you're stupid) but as a part time Lawyer I should point out that any trial would be a waste of time as these alleged crimes may have been committed in faraway countries like France or Texas. Our legal system is already drained and should only go after real crimes like racketeering, drugs and money laundering.

As a cancer survivor I can say that Lance is an inspiration - which may come as a surprise as I am also a surgeon but I found that most of my patients knew more about fighting cancer than I did.
When I had my own cancer I let my patients treat me and we drew inspiration together by squeezing the neck of an Alberto Contador doll until the cancer went away.

BTW - I am not a Lance fan. In fact I don't like his personality - when I was young and needed money (as I was studying to be an astronaut), I had the misfortune to meet him very regularly and I found him to be a bad tipper.


Finally- as English is only my eighth language, please forgive my not good English.

PS - you guys suck.

 

[Benotti69]

Hi everyone - long time lurker first time poster.

I was in the Babes and Bikes thread (because I like Bikes) and then decided to join you people here.

I hope no-one labels me a troll (even though I have no intention of discussing the thread topic) just because I call you all hypocrites - well not all hypocrites obviously, just the anti-Lance hypocrites.
As I study psychology I can recognize a hypocrite - and everyone here is, and if you respond to me you are a hypocrite who is in denial - the worst sort of hypocrite.

I am also a moderator on another forum and I am shocked that moderators here would attempt to moderate and keep things on topic.
If any moderator here wishes they can look up my IP dress (but you're not allowed take fotos).

BTW - I have not said if I am for or against Lance (yes, I do think you're stupid) but as a part time Lawyer I should point out that any trial would be a waste of time as these alleged crimes may have been committed in faraway countries like France or Texas. Our legal system is already drained and should only go after real crimes like racketeering, drugs and money laundering.

As a cancer survivor I can say that Lance is an inspiration - which may come as a surprise as I am also a surgeon but I found that most of my patients knew more about fighting cancer than I did.
When I had my own cancer I let my patients treat me and we drew inspiration together by squeezing the neck of an Alberto Contador doll until the cancer went away.

BTW - I am not a Lance fan. In fact I don't like his personality - when I was young and needed money (as I was studying to be an astronaut), I had the misfortune to meet him very regularly and I found him to be a bad tipper.


Finally- as English is only my eighth language, please forgive my not good English.

PS - you guys suck.

Great Post Doc. Bullseye

edit where did it go??????

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well that fixed everything.

 

[Benotti69]

Well that fixed everything.

Pity. great post.

 

[skippythepinhead]

the original questions were asked by RaceRadio personally. He did not do it through the forum, he did it as a 'private person' and contacted them so

They're in the forum now, then, aren't they? Do they deserve answers any less because they are public?

This thread is discussing the attacks made on RaceRadio from fanboys who started trying to intimidate him on twitter even though RR had not made his query public knowledge. If you read the thread this would be clear.

I don't really appreciate your sanctimonious tone, but that's beside the point. I've read the thread since before it was a thread. If you've decided you only want to discuss the "attacks" then please don't respond to my post(s). If there no room in this thread to discuss the substance of the inquiry, do you REALLY want me to start ANOTHER thread?

Now if this is the attitude of a charity in which it's founder and spokesman is under federal investigation and how they wish to handle itself then they can hardly expect the public to consider everything is above board and they use their donations in a proper manner in raising 'awareness' but i would imagine everything is under board.

If liveWrong want to let donors and possible donors know they are legitimate 'charity' then they would be providing this information up front.

As an aside, I don't know if "under board" is really the opposite of "above board." I am interested less in the taxonomy of the attacks on Race Radio than in the substance of his (now public) questions. If the charity is not obligated by law (or forced by potential loss of donor money) to answer the questions, then they will not. I was simply discussing ways to get the actual information. It's immaterial how the organization reacts to its fear--unless it is spending donor money on that as well.

 

[Cobblestoned]

So, may I ask why my last hammer on nail post was deleted, while some useless comments still here ?

Was it offtopic ?
Considering this thread(title) - I don't think so

Or was that another one of these posts, that were too much hammer on nail, with an accuracy rate of 99% ?
Yes.

 

[Benotti69]

They're in the forum now, then, aren't they? Do they deserve answers any less because they are public?

No but the clinic isn't expecting any answers from livewrong is it?

I don't really appreciate your sanctimonious tone, but that's beside the point. I've read the thread since before it was a thread. If you've decided you only want to discuss the "attacks" then please don't respond to my post(s). If there no room in this thread to discuss the substance of the inquiry, do you REALLY want me to start ANOTHER thread?

It appears the inquiry is quite simple. RaceRadio asked some simple questions they said come to HQ Livewrong, he said no. Then he was getting attacked in an imtimidating and vicious manner by fanboys. He raised it on here. The substance is obvious.

As an aside, I don't know if "under board" is really the opposite of "above board." I am interested less in the taxonomy of the attacks on Race Radio than in the substance of his (now public) questions. If the charity is not obligated by law (or forced by potential loss of donor money) to answer the questions, then they will not. I was simply discussing ways to get the actual information. It's immaterial how the organization reacts to its fear--unless it is spending donor money on that as well.

It is not whether a charity is obligated by law or not to answer, it is a manner of honesty in their dealings of their publicly received donations. If they have nothing to hide why not answer honestly? if they have something to hide invite the person to HQ and threaten them behind closed doors.

If you believe livewrong are an honest foundation say so. i believe it is a slush fund for wonderboy.

He said he was donating money to the floods in Australia. There is a list online of all the donors who made donations over aus$10,000. he said he would donate aus$50,000. his or livewrong's name is not on the list. why? he never gave any money. Does he not want his name on the list and wishes to remain anonymous well why say it in the first place?

 

[MarkvW]

Why?

No but the clinic isn't expecting any answers from livewrong is it?



It appears the inquiry is quite simple. RaceRadio asked some simple questions they said come to HQ Livewrong, he said no. Then he was getting attacked in an imtimidating and vicious manner by fanboys. He raised it on here. The substance is obvious.



It is not whether a charity is obligated by law or not to answer, it is a manner of honesty in their dealings of their publicly received donations. If they have nothing to hide why not answer honestly? if they have something to hide invite the person to HQ and threaten them behind closed doors.

If you believe livewrong are an honest foundation say so. i believe it is a slush fund for wonderboy.

He said he was donating money to the floods in Australia. There is a list online of all the donors who made donations over aus$10,000. he said he would donate aus$50,000. his or livewrong's name is not on the list. why? he never gave any money. Does he not want his name on the list and wishes to remain anonymous well why say it in the first place?

What does a former bike racer's business activities have to do with doping in bike racing?

It's just hate, right?

 

[Granville57]

What does a former bike racer's business activities have to do with doping in bike racing?

It's just hate, right?

Very cute. "Former bike racer." It almost sounds charming, as if the past is all behind us now and cycling is suddenly all better. "Former." Yes, that all just so long ago. Amazing that any of us can remember it all. Last time I checked, he was still supposed to be actively competing in various events, so it's not like he's left the athletic spotlight just yet.

Oh, and to your other very important point:
What do Lance's business activities have to do with doping in bike racing?
Well, this thread isn't supposed to be about doping, it's about the broader issues of questionable business practices on the part of Livestrong, as put forward by Race Radio.
Right?

 

[Race Radio]

If the IRS has no problem with the organization, then all they really have to do is state that they are meeting all of the requirements of disclosure and there's no reason for them to say anything else.

I would be surprised if Livestrong is not meeting their IRS obligations. Of course many of the contributors to Livestrong woulds like to know if their contributions are going to the fight against cancer or jet fuel and advertising Even a quick review of their numbers raise these obvious questions.

The limited reporting requirements and the ability to camouflage the use of funds is one of the reasons the IRS is actively investigating this sector and working on changing the non-profit reporting.

 

[pmcg76]

Very cute. "Former bike racer." It almost sounds charming, as if the past is all behind us now and cycling is suddenly all better. "Former." Yes, that all just so long ago. Amazing that any of us can remember it all. Last time I checked, he was still supposed to be actively competing in various events, so it's not like he's left the athletic spotlight just yet.

Oh, and to your other very important point:
What do Lance's business activities have to do with doping in bike racing?
Well, this thread isn't supposed to be about doping, it's about the broader issues of questionable business practices on the part of Livestrong, as put forward by Race Radio.
Right?

LiveStrong, the same organisation Armstrong used as his main PR weapon to deflect doping accusations during his cycling career and whose logo is still visible on RadioShack jerseys, I think there is a lot of conncetions between doping and LiveStrong.

 

[Granville57]

LiveStrong, the same organisation Armstrong used as his main PR weapon to deflect doping accusations during his cycling career and whose logo is still visible on RadioShack jerseys, I think there is a lot of conncetions between doping and LiveStrong.

Yup. Which is why it all ties in so nicely and why it is relevant on a cycling forum.