The Official LANCE ARMSTRONG Thread 2010-2011

[Dr. Maserati]

..... But generally it's someone who is making ad hominen attacks, can't stay on topic, and repeatedly does things to provoke others and tries to ruin a thread just because someone they don't like is posting in it, like the fella here who is posting pictures instead of making a point. I suppose that level of trolling is a sort of fascism.

You appear to know a lot about this - what would you suggest for someone who repeatedly does the highlighted above, gets banned and then comes back again and again?

And isn't someone who calls someone a 'troll' just highlighting the truth?

 

[MikeyClark]

You appear to know a lot about this - what would you suggest for someone who repeatedly does the highlighted above, gets banned and then comes back again and again?

That would be a serious disruption to the forum. People who did that would have to be banned, wouldn't you agree?

And isn't someone who calls someone a 'troll' just highlighting the truth?

Thank you. But it's not always the case - it can be used about someone who stays on topic and hasn't done anything to warrant the term. No one would suggest, apart from you it would seem, that TFF is not a troll, but it can be used as a tool of censorship and bullying by pretending the guy they don't agree with is trolling. That's why I am relaxed about people having a bit of banter - we shouldn't get too upset about that sort of low level trolling. But the stuff that you highlighted me saying should get a banning.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

So - you agree by having used multiple usernames that you should be banned - then why keep coming back?

 

[MikeyClark]

So - you agree by having used multiple usernames that you should be banned - then why keep coming back?

This is what you quoted:

can't stay on topic, and repeatedly does things to provoke others and tries to ruin a thread

If they were doing that and were banned, yes of course they should not be allowed back.

Are you agreeing with me that people who do that should be banned?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is what you quoted:

If they were doing that and were banned, yes of course they should not be allowed back.

Are you agreeing with me that people who do that should be banned?

No - I am merely asking a simple question - why when you have had over thirty usernames banned do you keep coming back?

 

[MikeyClark]

No - I am merely asking a simple question - why when you have had over thirty usernames banned do you keep coming back?

I did not think you would be able to answer.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Back on topic

To get us back on the topic of Wonderboy, LA has tweeted that he is returning to Aspen. Guess he'll finally get some climbing training in after riding around Texas for a week.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I did not think you would be able to answer.

I have asked you a question repeatedly - you have refused to answer.

Why would I then answer your question when you use your quote (not mine) and ask me to agree with it.

 

[Publicus]

To get us back on the topic of Wonderboy, LA has tweeted that he is returning to Aspen. Guess he'll finally get some climbing training in after riding around Texas for a week.

Well at least he's doing something. He's going to be a monster at the Tour of the Gila.

 

[MikeyClark]

I have asked you a question repeatedly - you have refused to answer.

No.

I answered your question. You asked this question by quoting my definition of trolling, and then asking me if someone had done this should they be banned?

I answered yes.

Then I asked you my own question.

You then refused to answer that question and instead asked me a different question.

The question should be to you: why should I answer your question when you refused to answer mine?

I must confess that I do love how you stitched yourself up playing your own game. If you're going to pile in and be all pedantic then you have to get your sequencing right, old boy.

Next!

 

[Publicus]

Just nothing to be gained by engaging this guy. Nothing.

 

[Anonymous]

Just nothing to be gained by engaging this guy. Nothing.

You are correct. Just report his posts and move on. Mentally ill people such as he are impossible to interact with on a rational level because they are not rational people.

 

[Bicicleta]

You are correct. Just report his posts and move on. Mentally ill people such as he are impossible to interact with on a rational level because they are not rational people.

And he/she/it is apparently deleting his/her/its posts. Why even bother posting if you are going to delete. Ay ay ay. As my mother say - un zero a la iquierda - a zero to the left. Its worth nothing.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Can we get back to talking about what a douche Armstrong is? Thanks.

I'm going to the Tour of the Gila. If you see a big sign on the road saying IL PISTOLERO CONTADOR, it wasn't me. Really.

 

[karlboss]

Can we get back to talking about what a douche Armstrong is? Thanks.

I'm going to the Tour of the Gila. If you see a big sign on the road saying IL PISTOLERO CONTADOR, it wasn't me. Really.

Sounds like fun. How about another sign with the races he was scheduled to do and cross out all the ones he didn't get to...or the photo next to impey and the question "71kg?"

Too much effort for me to ever do I was more in favour of one of the adelaide cycle club's supporting a random non english speaking rider at the tour down under, if i was putting in an effort I'd prefer that someone else gets a kick out of it.

 

[MikeyClark]

You are correct. Just report his posts and move on. Mentally ill people such as he are impossible to interact with on a rational level because they are not rational people.

Jesus would not like you calling people mentally ill, TFF.

 

[MikeyClark]

And he/she/it is apparently deleting his/her/its posts. Why even bother posting if you are going to delete. Ay ay ay. As my mother say - un zero a la iquierda - a zero to the left. Its worth nothing.

Er, no, the mods delete the posts.

They have a problem, you see. They used to claim that they were deleting my posts because they were trolling. But I had the easy answer to that, "if I'm trolling then show me which post was trolling?" No evidence ever turned up to support their claim. Not one post. Just a quick glance at BroDeal and TFF's posts reveal endless trolling, but ziltch for me.

So they worked out a way to get around the "no evidence" problem.

That was - delete all his posts so nobody will know he is not a troll!

It's magic.

 

[flicker]

I do not care what an A-Ho. lance is I still like him.

Contador looks mighty unbeatable right now though.

 

[Angliru]

The basic reason people dislike Lance is because he is winner

The basic reason people like Lance is because he is a winner.

Shouldn't this all be in the past tense? He's won one insignificant race since his return to the sport.

Additionally I find it troubling that you think you can simply put everyone's perspective on Armstrong into 2 distinct categories.

 

[Jonathan]

I do not care what an A-Ho. lance is I still like him.

Contador looks mighty unbeatable right now though.

You know, some think that this forum is anti-armstrong, but I'm just imagining what would have happened if you'd said the same thing about Virenque instead of Armstrong about eight years ago (yes, there were cycling forums back then).

This whole idea of 'haters' is a relatively recent meme. There was never something wrong with people bagging continually about Pantani, Virenque or Ullrich back then. Them being douchebags was accepted as a law of nature. But now it's Armstrong's turn, and suddenly the backlash is considered a cosmic injustice to a man who has been deceiving us more than any other rider mentioned in this post.

 

[Publicus]

You know, some think that this forum is anti-armstrong, but I'm just imagining what would have happened if you'd said the same thing about Virenque instead of Armstrong about eight years ago (yes, there were cycling forums back then).

This whole idea of 'haters' is a relatively recent meme. There was never something wrong with people bagging continually about Pantani, Virenque or Ullrich back then. Them being douchebags was accepted as a law of nature. But now it's Armstrong's turn, and suddenly the backlash is considered a cosmic injustice to a man who has been deceiving us more than any other rider mentioned in this post.

Why do you love cancer so much?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Can we get back to talking about what a douche Armstrong is? Thanks.

I'm going to the Tour of the Gila. If you see a big sign on the road saying IL PISTOLERO CONTADOR, it wasn't me. Really.

Awesome!
Be careful you don't get run over by the chalkbot though.

You know, some think that this forum is anti-armstrong, but I'm just imagining what would have happened if you'd said the same thing about Virenque instead of Armstrong about eight years ago (yes, there were cycling forums back then).

This whole idea of 'haters' is a relatively recent meme. There was never something wrong with people bagging continually about Pantani, Virenque or Ullrich back then. Them being douchebags was accepted as a law of nature. But now it's Armstrong's turn, and suddenly the backlash is considered a cosmic injustice to a man who has been deceiving us more than any other rider mentioned in this post.

+1 Great point.

 

[flicker]

Shouldn't this all be in the past tense? He's won one insignificant race since his return to the sport.

Additionally I find it troubling that you think you can simply put everyone's perspective on Armstrong into 2 distinct categories.

Me, I like to live with intelligence and humor.

I try to see the good in Lance for what he has done.

I know that there is a catogory of fans who Lance has let down. My guess is

they loved Lance just as Greg did at one time.

I have followed cycling since the 70s and know the history of certain pros back to the early 1900s.

I take things in balance. I am sorry that I have called people haters, riders dopers, crybabies, wimps etc.

I do not expect perfection from anyone, including pro cyclists. I do not condone certain riders who I considers out and out dopers. I do not consider Lance one of those, no matter what the naysayers say.

The consensus I have with the experienced riders and fans whom I know consider the Tour an out and out insanity in every way and unfortunatley cyclists use unfair advantage to get through that insanity.

If Lance has chosen the Tour to be his stage chapeau Lance. That is the greatest race there is and the hardest race there is.

As far as riders, quality and class I think Contador has risen to the top by far.

I will still cheer for Lance. He has courage to take on Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador. Chapeau Lance.

 

[kurtinsc]

Show me a route like this and I'll start listening.

Century route of the Deer Creek Challenge.

 

[El Oso]

Century route of the Deer Creek Challenge.

I'll throw the Death Ride in the mix too:

That being said, I think these are the exception rather than the norm. While I've never ridden in Europe, I have ridden in the Sierras and Rockies. I didn't find the Rockies to be overly difficult. Long, yes, high, yes, but not terribly steep. Although I might have ridden the wrong passes.

He does need to get his *** back to Europe to train in the Alps and Pyrennes. Especially if there are some climbs he doesn't know better than the back of his hands. I can't remember which book it was, I'd guess Every Second Counts or Lance Armstrong's War, but I remember there was a time when he did a climb twice in a day when he was scheduled to do it once (I believe it was the Tourmelet) because "he didn't have a feel for it." Thus his approach is a significant departure from his Tour winning approach.

Even with those he has climbed several times before, he needs to ride them again. You're body is going to react differently going up the Tormelet at 38 than it did at 28 or 34.