I think he is remaining incredibly calm in the face of the tag team baiting going onWallace and Gromit said:Martin - please calm down. Thanks.
I think he is remaining incredibly calm in the face of the tag team baiting going onWallace and Gromit said:Martin - please calm down. Thanks.
Youve never had any problems defining other peoples motives on this forum before. You did it to me just a week ago.martinvickers said: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.
But when someone else does it to you, suddenly it's wrong?martinvickers said:When you put together decent evidence, you're an excellent poster. but when the bile clouds the judgement - as it seems to do with Wiggins from time to time - I have to challenge that, you know?
Where Hitch has put forward 'evidence', we've discussed it thoroughly - only recently another couple of rounds on the infamous Wiggins-Landis interview.Netserk said:"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
What you seem to miss is that the assertion that Sky riders are doping is supported by evidence.
You however seem not to understand it, or unwilling to, and reading proof instead of evidence.
Since when is 'bile' a motive, Hitch? You do know what a 'motive' is, don't you?The Hitch said:Youve never had any problems defining other peoples motives on this forum before. You did it to me just a week ago.
But when someone else does it to you, suddenly it's wrong?
Reading about Peters lately, I'm not so sure he has had much of an influence on the road as in comparison to the track. He spoke today about his role at Liverpool and that Brailsford wants him to follow suit to go full-time working with Sky.andy1234 said:Steve Peters is currently one of the most influential men in sport.
Of course he could have just have filled his pockets with the contents of Sky's medicine cabinet, and jumped on the train to Liverpool.
Doping may well be a reason for some riders success at Sky, but Peters' influence is way more than marginal.......
So you don't get it? Hitch's certainty *was* supported by evidence.martinvickers said:Where Hitch has put forward 'evidence', we've discussed it thoroughly - only recently another couple of rounds on the infamous Wiggins-Landis interview.
But when he states, simpliciter, that he is 'certain' and that's the end of it, Hitchens' razor applies with a vengence.
Not that he'll thank me for saying it, but Hitch is a very useful contributor, often thoughtful, who, IMO sometimes lets his bile get in the way of discussion, and far too often lets his dislike of other posters, me included, do it.
Sceptic on the other hand never brings forward anything useful. It's just troll 24/7, but without the redeeming Hog humour.
Where you come between those extremes is up to you.
I've said it before, some posters have a get out of jail card. Furiously denied by mods, but the proof's in the pudding.andy1234 said:I think he is remaining incredibly calm in the face of the tag team baiting going on![]()
Like yourselfmartinvickers said:I've said it before, some posters have a get out of jail card. Furiously denied by mods, but the proof's in the pudding.
No, it really wasn't. It was simply expressed simpliciter, as a declaration of faith.Netserk said:So you don't get it? Hitch's certainty *was* supported by evidence.
No it wasn't. Just because you turn a blind eye, doesn't make things go away.martinvickers said:No, it really wasn't. It was simply expressed simpliciter, as a declaration of faith.
Netserk, you've got yourself in trouble before. Please, don't do it again. I'm entitled to defend myself from trolling, baiting and personal attacks, which is frankly all that you and Sceptic have done the last few pages, and I will continue to do so.Netserk said:Like yourself
If hog had derailed a thread a 10th as much as you do, he'd be banned without a warning.
Or Saint Vickers will punish memartinvickers said:Netserk, you've got yourself in trouble before. Please, don't do it again. I'm entitled to defend myself from trolling, baiting and personal attacks, which is frankly all that you and Sceptic have done the last few pages, and I will continue to do so.
Netserk said:No it wasn't. Just because you turn a blind eye, doesn't make things go away.
That is a not arguing evidence, it's a declaration of immovable faith - "I know, and I'm certain and that's that".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.
Getting the best out of some of the track stars, who were as one may say were 'high maintenance' was clearly hard.gooner said:Reading about Peters lately, I'm not so sure he has had much of an influence on the road as in comparison to the track. He spoke today about his role at Liverpool and that Brailsford wants him to follow suit to go full-time working with Sky.
Agree that there is something different and added about this guy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2606248/EXCLUSIVE-Steve-Peters-claims-know-football-psychology-guru-key-Liverpool-title-charge-reference-Victoria-Pendleton.html
Now now, sceptic, that's unfair.the sceptic said:Good post.
I dont see much difference between the sky thread and the Horner threads.
Lots of people calling them dopers in both threads. Yet he has the grand total of 0 posts in the Horner thread.
Quite obvious that he has an agenda.
that would have been Wiggins tongue up Armstrong's a$$.........JimmyFingers said:When irresistible force meets immovable object...
Peters' background is in treating psychopaths and the criminally insane.Catwhoorg said:Getting the best out of some of the track stars, who were as one may say were 'high maintenance' was clearly hard.
By comparison the Sky team must seem like a relatively normal collection of blokes, even allowing for Wiggo.
Err, no.....Benotti69 said:that would have been Wiggins tongue up Armstrong's a$$.........
Martin is entitled to defend himself against trolling. It says so right there in his post.The Hitch said:How is netserk "trolling" you? He responds to the points in your post, the way you often do to others. That is trolling now?
that's part of the point.Libertine Seguros said:Now now, sceptic, that's unfair.
I have 378 posts (now 379) in this thread, and 13 in the Horner thread. I don't have an agenda that causes that, it's that that thread is way younger, I was way less interested when that thread kicked off, I couldn't give a flying one about Horner and debate is less involved because the arguments seem to be between those who think he's doping and those who think he's doping but it's ok because he's unmasking Lance/Sky/Nibali/Levi/Froome/insert boogeyman of your choice.
Sky 9.99 out of 10sniper said:that's part of the point.
those in here stressing there's no evidence against sky/froome for some reason don't bother stressing the same in the horner thread.
admittedly, horner is a massive nobrainer, but so are froome/wiggins/sky, to be honest.
(well ok, on a scale of nobrainer-hood, horner perhaps scores 10 out of 10, sky maybe score 9 out of 10)