Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

I think the more accurate debate would be Sky is, Sky isn't because they're not, Sky isn't because you have no proof that meets my arbitrary burden of proof.

You may think that. But you'd be wrong.

Just so you know.

 

[Justinr]

However many, many times rather people saying they think Sky may be doping they say I know Sky are doping, that they are certain, that there is no need for proof, they can see it, they are certain.

The Hitch recently posted an over-long and typically bombastic post outlining why he knew Sky was doping and how he felt people that didn't agree were idiots.

Agree. And I think most of that post from Hitch was directed at me after I said "that's your opinion and not fact".

 

[therhodeo]

You may think that. But you'd be wrong.

Just so you know.

You may think that. But you'd be wrong.

Just so you know.

 

[Justinr]

You may think that. But you'd be wrong.

Just so you know.

Touché! MV - he got you there.

 

[Hawkwood]

Touché! MV - he got you there.

You ruined it, the response and same counter response could have gone on forever!

 

[Justinr]

You ruined it, the response and same counter response could have gone on forever!

I'm sure it wont stop them ...

 

[red_flanders]

Perhaps, but mere opinions are meaningless without evidence or argument. They're not worth the keystrokes they are written with.

Moreover, many of these 'opinions' are stated and defended as if proven fact, and the declaration by others that is ia mere opinion is greated, frankly, with rage and sweariness, and bold declarations that these 'opinions' are not opinions, but facts. As you well know.

You can have an opinion, certainly. And have it treated as a mere opinion is properly treated, dismissively.

Or you can claim it's really knowledge or fact, and defend it with evidence, proofs and logic.

But you can't have both.

"Without evidence or argument". Precious little of that going around. But I guess it's fun to say if you seek to diminish opinions contrary to your own.

Opinion drives discussion on forums. That you feel the need to dismiss opinion is no surprise, but it does beg the question "why are you here?" We are here to discuss opinion and of course people state opinion forcefully, that's how people talk.

Denial of evidence doesn't change the fact that there is an abundance of evidence. Continually pounding the drumbeat of "there is no evidence" is willfully obtuse and IMO pointless.

It has been addressed by the mods repeatedly that (obviously) this kind if discussion is not only in bounds but the point of the forum. Continually attacking people for their opinion is IMO. Thread clogging and trolling.

 

[red_flanders]

Yes. absolutely.

Except - NOBODY really claims Sky are clean, or anyone else. What IS claimed is that there as yet no conclusive proof they are dirty. Which is not the same thing at all.

What you seem not to get is that vehemently and aggressively attacking people who are if the opinion that Sky or some members of Sky are dirty is defending Sky whether you claim to be on the fence or not.

That you are trying to uphold some standard of discussion is not really convincing because you only seek to uphold it on Sky threads. Since your defense of standards of proof only applies to one team, rational people conclude that your interest is not so much in standards of discussion but rather in defending Sky.

That you repeatedly say you're in the fence is fine, but it doesn't overcome the obvious pattern of posting which suggests your real concern is defending Sky. Which you claim not to be doing.

Few buy this stance as a true indication of what you're doing.

 

[The Hitch]

. The Hitch recently posted an over-long and typically bombastic post outlining why he knew Sky was doping and how he felt people that didn't agree were idiots..

What I said in that post was that everyone has their own standards of proof. Some people like you claim your standards of proof are superior and try to enforce those on everyone. That everyone has to pretend they are uncertain on the question of whether sky dope because your standards - that they have to fail what even Valverde has never in his life failed - a test, have not been met. I do not subscribe to that thank you very much as do many here.

Sky for me and others removed all doubt a long long time ago. I will not say that I don't know, because I do know. I am as certain of the fact that froome and Wiggins didn't just happen to both magically transform at the same time on the same team through a series of increasingly improbable coincidences, as I am of my own name.

 

[martinvickers]

"Without evidence or argument". Precious little of that going around. But I guess it's fun to say if you seek to diminish opinions contrary to your own.

Opinion drives discussion on forums. That you feel the need to dismiss opinion is no surprise, but it does beg the question "why are you here?" We are here to discuss opinion and of course people state opinion forcefully, that's how people talk.

Denial of evidence doesn't change the fact that there is an abundance of evidence. Continually pounding the drumbeat of "there is no evidence" is willfully obtuse and IMO pointless.

It has been addressed by the mods repeatedly that (obviously) this kind if discussion is not only in bounds but the point of the forum. Continually attacking people for their opinion is IMO. Thread clogging and trolling.

And we all know what we think of your opinion.

Now, if you want to set out and discuss the evidence using reason and logic, all ears - but you are one of the worst offenders for trying to ram your opinion down the throats of others as fact, and belittling others for having the gall to disagree with you, or think you are talking sh!te.

So, frankly, don't come crying when I take you to task on it.

As to why I am here? Because I like challenging bullsh!t. And people like you make sure that it's steady work with good prospects.

 

[red_flanders]

And we all know what we think of your opinion.

Now, if you want to set out and discuss the evidence using reason and logic, all ears - but you are one of the worst offenders for trying to ram your opinion down the throats of others as fact, and belittling others for having the gall to disagree with you, or think you are talking sh!te.

So, frankly, don't come crying when I take you to task on it.

As to why I am here? Because I like challenging bullsh!t. And people like you make sure that it's steady work with good prospects.

"We"?

That you think you speak for others in this matter sums things up nicely. Your agenda has gotten you frothing at the mouth at this point.

 

[martinvickers]

What you seem not to get is that vehemently and aggressively attacking people who are if the opinion that Sky or some members of Sky are dirty is defending Sky whether you claim to be on the fence or not.

What YOU don't seem to get is that YOU don't get to define my motives to suit your own biases. I define my own motives. You don't like that? Sucks to be you.

That you are trying to uphold some standard of discussion is not really convincing because you only seek to uphold it on Sky threads. Since your defense of standards of proof only applies to one team, rational people conclude that your interest is not so much in standards of discussion but rather in defending Sky.

You clearly missed my work on the Dan Martin thread, then, and in relation to Garmin, just for example. I've also 'defended' Quintana and others.

But lets be clear. Most of the Bullsh*t is on this thread, and a number of other Sky related ones. That's simply the reality.

Rational people conclude lots of things. You're not one of them, so stick to what you know.

That you repeatedly say you're in the fence is fine, but it doesn't overcome the obvious pattern of posting which suggests your real concern is defending Sky. Which you claim not to be doing.

Few buy this stance as a true indication of what you're doing.

Not overly interest on what other people buy. I'm not selling. I don't say I'm 'on the fence'. I say that mere opinion is worthless without trying to back it up.

And this continued attack on my motives, rather than addressing the subject is off-topic manplaying, baiting and bannable behaviour. So I suggest you back off.

 

[the sceptic]

So you think we shouldn't have a three way debate, Sky is, Sky isn't, don't know need some proof?

I think everything should be debated. But I dont think the "dont we need some proof" stuff belongs in this thread. It is just something that sky fans like to bring up as a defense mechanism.

The debate in this thread should be about whether one thinks sky are doping or not. Pretty simple.

 

[Benotti69]

Vickers is way out of order with his rants. Constant attacks on posters and abusive postings!!!

 

[martinvickers]

What I said in that post was that everyone has their own standards of proof. Some people like you claim your standards of proof are superior and try to enforce those on everyone. That everyone has to pretend they are uncertain on the question of whether sky dope because your standards - that they have to fail what even Valverde has never in his life failed - a test, have not been met. I do not subscribe to that thank you very much as do many here.

Sky for me and others removed all doubt a long long time ago. I will not say that I don't know, because I do know. I am as certain of the fact that froome and Wiggins didn't just happen to both magically transform at the same time on the same team through a series of increasingly improbable coincidences, as I am of my own name.

No, you don't. Merely stating your opinion, however deeply held, as though it is fact is not only against the rules of the forum, even as 'refined' by Afrank, more to the point it's in reality about as effective as sticking your tongue out and blowing a raspberry.

And your personal certainty is the measure of absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And since you know so much about your own name, why don't you look up your nomme de guerre, specifically Hitchen's razor, for exactly how we have to treat your unevidenced expressions of certainty. There's a good lad.

 

[martinvickers]

Vickers is way out of order with his rants. Constant attacks on posters and abusive postings!!!

Where's the abuse? More to the point, what business is it of yours coming in 'third man'?

 

[the sceptic]

Vickers is way out of order with his rants. Constant attacks on posters and abusive postings!!!

he knows what he is doing, its just too bad the mods dont.

as soon as people start responding to his idiocy, the thread becomes unreadable.

 

[martinvickers]

"We"?

That you think you speak for others in this matter sums things up nicely. Your agenda has gotten you frothing at the mouth at this point.

As man-playing and baiting goes, Red, that's pretty juvenile, even by your standards.

Try again there, pet. I have faith in you.

 

[martinvickers]

he knows what he is doing, its just too bad the mods dont.

as soon as people start responding to his idiocy, the thread becomes unreadable.

Given that you proved above you refuse to actually read, Sceptic, I'm really not sure how your thoughts on readability matter very much.

Oh, and idiocy? From you? High praise from the master.

 

[The Hitch]

What you seem not to get is that vehemently and aggressively attacking people who are if the opinion that Sky or some members of Sky are dirty is defending Sky whether you claim to be on the fence or not.

That you are trying to uphold some standard of discussion is not really convincing because you only seek to uphold it on Sky threads. Since your defense of standards of proof only applies to one team, rational people conclude that your interest is not so much in standards of discussion but rather in defending Sky.
.

You see right through him red.

 

[red_flanders]

You clearly missed my work on the Dan Martin thread, then, and in relation to Garmin, just for example. I've also 'defended' Quintana and others.

But lets be clear. Most of the Bullsh*t is on this thread, and a number of other Sky related ones. That's simply the reality.

Your "work" has been a little more emphatic on the Sky thread.

Sky: 660 posts (and counting)
Dan Martin: 28

But of course the pre-factored excuse that the BS is on the Sky thread. Not that you're on a crusade to shout down everyone who suspects them.

Once again the idea of a preponderance of evidence sails past you.

If you can't see a difference between what you're doing on this thread versus the occasional post RE: Dan Martin or Quintana (I didn't bother looking), maybe it's time to step back and take a deep breath.

You're railing for a standard of proof that no one, not the other participants (95% of the people in the discussion) are interested in, or that the board requires. Or that the discussion warrants.

Keep on railing Martin. Keep on thread-clogging.

 

[martinvickers]

You see right through him red.

Circular backslap.

 

[The Hitch]

No, you don't. Merely stating your opinion, however deeply held, as though it is fact is not only against the rules of the forum, even as 'refined' by Afrank, more to the point it's in reality about as effective as sticking your tongue out and blowing a raspberry.

And your personal certainty is the measure of absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

And since you know so much about your own name, why don't you look up your nomme de guerre, specifically Hitchen's razor, for exactly how we have to treat your unevidenced expressions of certainty. There's a good lad.

As was pointed out the last 2 times you responded to a post of mine (once by digger once by eshnar). Your posts always go personal and always go insults.

And here you go again. Even people who are considered to be on the moderate side of our side, are starting to call you out as byop and hrotha did.

Why? Why do you always go with the insults?

Well me and you both know that if we stood here having a simple on topic discussion on whether it is likely that Wiggins defended dopers while riding clean or whether it is likely sky found out how to lose weight while gaining power clean at the exact same time that drugs emerged that serve exactly that purpose, you wouldn't have much of an argument to make, or would at least have to concede pretty quickly that both of those questions and many others can only be answered with - it is very very very unlikely

So you always divert from the discussion by going personal getting extremely patronizing and offering insults. Turning it into something totally off topic.

 

[therhodeo]

Circular backslap.

You mean a reacharound?

 

[GuyIncognito]

Circular backslap.