Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

You mean a reacharound?

You are very strange. Very strange.

 

[red_flanders]

indeed - 660, from over 26,000 posts - about 2.5% of the total
28 - from 626 posts - about 4.5% of the total

I was, in effect, twice as engaged in the Dan Martin thread; it just lasted less time because...ta-dah---you guys didn't clog it anywhere near as much with bullsh!t!!

Point proven.

Try again, wee lad.

Got it. more than 30x more posts = less engaged.

836 people contributing on the Sky thread. Well 835.
107 people contributing on the Dan Martin thread.

I hope you don't think you're convincing anyone but yourself.

 

[martinvickers]

Got it. more than 30x more posts = less engaged.

836 people contributing on the Sky thread. Well 835.
107 people contributing on the Dan Martin thread.

I hope you don't think you're convincing anyone but yourself.

You don't understand mathematics too well, do you boy?

 

[mortand]

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

.............

 

[martinvickers]

.............

Chapeau! Well played.

So, anyone actually want to discuss Sky with a bit of rationality?

 

[red_flanders]

You don't understand mathematics too well, do you boy?

Does calling me "boy", "wee lad", "pet", "juvenile", or any of the other names you've called me on this thread make your "points" feel more salient to you?

From here it feels like someone getting a wee bit upset and someone who has no point, nor a compelling argument.

I suggest you take a breather and calm down.

 

[Digger]

You don't understand mathematics too well, do you boy?

You seriously need to calm down.

 

[martinvickers]

Does calling me "boy", "wee lad", "pet", "juvenile", or any of the other names you've called me on this thread make your "points" feel more salient to you?

Not really; it just amuses me, and sure it's better than just swearing, no?

Except juvenile, that was because I felt you were acting...well, juvenile.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Does calling me "boy", "wee lad", "pet", "juvenile", or any of the other names you've called me on this thread make your "points" feel more salient to you?

From here it feels like someone getting a wee bit upset and someone who has no point, nor a compelling argument.

I suggest you take a breather and calm down.

Would you rather he called you "old man" or "gramps"?

 

[martinvickers]

You seriously need to calm down.

Please, Diggsy, don't mistake conviction for anger. I'm absolutely tranquillo. I've a lovely cumberland pie awaiting me shortly, followed hopefully by a brisk shore line walk in the twilight. Life is actually, pretty darn nice, all things considered.

All I seek is people play by the rules of the rhetorical game, Digger. That REALLY seems to p*** off some posters who think their hunches are the full measure of reality. Look up Hitchens' Razor, you'll understand.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Martin - please calm down. Thanks.

 

[Digger]

Please, Diggsy, don't mistake conviction for anger. I'm absolutely tranquillo. I've a lovely cumberland pie awaiting me shortly, followed hopefully by a brisk shore line walk in the twilight. Life is actually, pretty darn nice, all things considered.

All I seek is people play by the rules of the rhetorical game, Digger. That REALLY seems to p*** off some posters who think their hunches are the full measure of reality. Look up Hitchens' Razor, you'll understand.

You think Liverpool will win the league? Or Chelsea sneak up the inside?

 

[martinvickers]

You think Liverpool will win the league? Or Chelsea sneak up the inside?

You're a good man, digger ;-) thanks.

Liverpool, all the way. Sticks in my craw as a mufc man, but GErrard deserves it, and Rodgers only needs a draw from jose

 

[the sceptic]

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.

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.

 

[Netserk]

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.

You're wrong here, and you know it. There is plenty of evidence to support Hitch's opinion, so what you call Hitchen's razor doesn't apply here.

 

[red_flanders]

Yet he has the grand total of 0 posts in the Horner thread.

I think you nailed it.

 

[Netserk]

I think you nailed it.

That's obviously because there's zero BS in that thread

 

[tellywatcher]

My position and a question for all the fence sitters out there.

Sky - undecided whether there is team involvement in doping, not convinced they are being as transparent as they could be, which just creates suspicion

Wiggins - I actually like his personality so I hope he is clean but wouldn't fall off my chair if he wasn't , I don't find his transformation to a GC rider that unbelievable

Froome - I wish I could time travel 20 years to the future, just to know! I would fall off my chair if he turned out clean.

The question - what would it take to convince you of guilt?

For me, without a positive test, it would only be confessions from teammates or coaches, or a team employee being caught with a bag full of EPO. Analysis of performance will only ever get me 50% convinced, but an accumulation of evidence does have some merits, no?

 

[martinvickers]

Good post.

.

Again, circular backslap.

 

[martinvickers]

You're wrong here, and you know it. There is plenty of evidence to support Hitch's opinion, so what you call Hitchen's razor doesn't apply here.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand Hitchen's Razor.

 

[Netserk]

Then I'm afraid you don't understand Hitchen's Razor.

"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.

 

[andy1234]

You're a good man, digger ;-) thanks.

Liverpool, all the way. Sticks in my craw as a mufc man, but GErrard deserves it, and Rodgers only needs a draw from jose

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.......

 

[martinvickers]

I think you nailed it.

I find the stalking particularly sweet, boys. Honestly. No man playing or baiting there at all. Nah. none.

There are no posts in the Horner thread for the simple reason I've barely read it. I have very little doubt if I did, there's be the same levels of bullsh!t from the same handful of sources. But the truth is, I haven't read it, so I can't really comment in it, can I?

I can only deal with one turd at a time, guys.

 

[andy1234]

Martin - please calm down. Thanks.

I think he is remaining incredibly calm in the face of the tag team baiting going on

 

[The Hitch]

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.

Youve never had any problems defining other peoples motives on this forum before. You did it to me just a week ago.

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?

But when someone else does it to you, suddenly it's wrong?

And red unlike you, when you accuse people of bias, actually offered backup to his accusation. He pointed out that your posts are heavily concentrated in one thread. I also remember last week you referred to one side (the one we think you occupy) as rational and mocked the other as people who just want to shout Brailsfraud.