Why I will always be a "fanboy" and proud of it

[Hugh Januss]

Would that be Grape Smuggler Kool-Aid?

A mighty tighty whitey and a' smuggling plums?*

 

[Altitude]

Hater (plural: haterz, slang: hatiz, verb form: hate on) : Shows some skepticism about whether Lance Armstrong won any of his Tours de France cleanly. Must love cancer. Also skeptical about the purpose of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Hates cycling. Hates everything. Should do more cycling and spend less time on Cyclingnews forums. Regularly clashes in internet forums with fanboys. Incapable of believing in miracles. Refuses to drink certain types of kool-aid. See: Anti-Armstrong brigade.

"The Situation" would take issue with that definition.

 

[blutto]

agai

Create any kind of time line where LeMond was taking drugs. I'll even allow innuendo as evidence. Come up with anything before the guy was 27 years old.

Names, rumors, speculation as to when it started, what he was taking....ANYTHING......can't do it.....



Nothing, nada

...ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap substitute for fact...well I have something here that I would love your input on and it is kinda innuendoism with some facts thrown in for good measure...its a bit of confusion at this point and badly needs some clarity...it involves numbers which is good...and seems like an interesting comparison...

...would like to start with some background assumptions...which represent some things that are generally agreed upon in these here parts...

...assume that EPO use trumps clean riders...

....assume that the EPO era started in 91...which is when Greg LeMond was faced for the first time with a peloton addled with EPO...and consequently lost because of it...

...assume that LeMond and Indurain were at reasonably similar levels in the 90 Tour...

...assume that LeMond is clean as a whistle throughout his career and Indurain is dirty post 90 ( and that his drug use directly leads to his Tour wins and LeMond's retirement )

...against this background I will introduce some wattage numbers gleaned from some graphs introduced on another thread on these forums...these graphs show wattage outputs for LeMond in 89 and Indurain in 94....when normalized for weight they show that LeMond actually had a higher output than Indurain....

...now these normalized graph numbers don't fit with our assumptions do they...as in LeMond's output as a clean rider is bigger than a doped rider who was level with him in the pre-dope days...

...so does this mean that LeMond really was the greatest rider of all time because he could beat the output of a very talented doper ( because if you run these numbers across the assumptions and the graph numbers LeMond is in the neighborhood of having an output 15% higher than Indurain, as in an absolute 5% gain as shown in the graphs plus a minus 10% to offset the gain Indurain would have gotten from drug use )...and what does it say about his reason for quitting...because according to the weighted numbers the 89 LeMond was markedly superior to the 94 Indurain...does this mean that Indurain didn't dope...or is this in realm of miraculous intervention...

...hoping you can bring some clarity to this...because I'm all mixed up...and apparently numbers don't lie...and then there are those assumptions...confusion..confusion...

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto

 

[buckwheat]

agai

...ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap substitute for fact...well I have something here that I would love your input on and it is kinda innuendoism with some facts thrown in for good measure...its a bit of confusion at this point and badly needs some clarity...it involves numbers which is good...and seems like an interesting comparison...

...would like to start with some background assumptions...which represent some things that are generally agreed upon in these here parts...

...assume that EPO use trumps clean riders...

....assume that the EPO era started in 91...which is when Greg LeMond was faced for the first time with a peloton addled with EPO...and consequently lost because of it...

...assume that LeMond and Indurain were at reasonably similar levels in the 90 Tour...

...assume that LeMond is clean as a whistle throughout his career and Indurain is dirty post 90 ( and that his drug use directly leads to his Tour wins and LeMond's retirement )

...against this background I will introduce some wattage numbers gleaned from some graphs introduced on another thread on these forums...these graphs show wattage outputs for LeMond in 89 and Indurain in 94....when normalized for weight they show that LeMond actually had a higher output than Indurain....

...now these normalized graph numbers don't fit with our assumptions do they...as in LeMond's output as a clean rider is bigger than a doped rider who was level with him in the pre-dope days...

...so does this mean that LeMond really was the greatest rider of all time because he could beat the output of a very talented doper ( because if you run these numbers across the assumptions and the graph numbers LeMond is in the neighborhood of having an output 15% higher than Indurain, as in an absolute 5% gain as shown in the graphs plus a minus 10% to offset the gain Indurain would have gotten from drug use )...and what does it say about his reason for quitting...because according to the weighted numbers the 89 LeMond was markedly superior to the 94 Indurain...does this mean that Indurain didn't dope...or is this in realm of miraculous intervention...

...hoping you can bring some clarity to this...because I'm all mixed up...and apparently numbers don't lie...and then there are those assumptions...confusion..confusion...

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto

No kidding?

 

[flicker]

Beautiful. Brought a tear to my eye.

3 questions. How did you get your cat to wear a lime peal, or cut up tennis ball on his head. Is your cat a fanboy or a hater. What is puss aND BOOTS NATIONALITY?

 

[Race Radio]

Finally, we agree.

 

[blutto]

Finally, we agree.

...well you could un-mix me by dealing with the issue I had dropped on the table in my post...

...find it kinda odd you didn't jump in and answer the query actually...should be a slam dunk for someone of your professed and/or obvious intelligence...

...couldn't be that simple old me stumped you...you almost seem at a loss for words...

Cheers from your super special friend

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

It appears you did not get the Memo. Instead of high-jacking every thread into a LeMond hatefest there is now a special thread designed especially for you

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10982

 

[AngusW]

Move this to the Greg Lemond doping thread, please

agai

...ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap ...

(snipped for brevity)

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto

All valid points, I'm sure, but would you please post this in the appropriate thread? This thead is about why stray dog is a fanboy.

Sorry, RR addressed this issue before me. As you were.

 

[buckwheat]

All valid points, I'm sure, but would you please post this in the appropriate thread? This thead is about why stray dog is a fanboy.

Sorry, RR addressed this issue before me. As you were.

Stray dog is a fan boy because he's a lap dog.

 

[blutto]

Stray dog is a fan boy because he's a lap dog.

....gee...why is that silence suddenly deafening...and in a related matter what program did you use to put your nose on Lances' face in your avatar...that is a very good piece of work...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

It appears you did not get the Memo. Instead of high-jacking every thread into a LeMond hatefest there is now a special thread designed especially for you

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10982

...was just answering someone else's question...there was a crying out for answers that just had to be dealt with...

Cheers from your super special friend

blutto

 

[blutto]

All valid points, I'm sure, but would you please post this in the appropriate thread? This thead is about why stray dog is a fanboy.

Sorry, RR addressed this issue before me. As you were.

...is there a problem here officer?...just answering a question if that is ok...

...and as long as you are conducting an investigation and stuff maybe you should question the instigator in this sordid affair...but be forewarned he is pretty slippery...

...by-the-by nice dictionary entry...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Merckx index]

...sorry dude but I'm going to have to throw my hat in with Mr. Stephens...the 20th Century is as much as anything defined by an Einsteinian relativistic world-view which very neatly put the absolutism of the Newtonian world-view into the back corner for use on only the most simple of tasks ( like economic theory and driving nails ...props here to Maslow...)...relativism by its nature denies absolute positions...and Hegel?...an interesting transitional figure in the change from the one world view to the next...and totalitarianism?...a 19th Century response to a 19th Century problem using 20th Century tools ...as in a misguided search for absolutes...and the reason that it is so clearly an abomination is that is does not deal with the idea that truth is relative...as in there are has numerous ways to perceive truth...none perfect...but given the human condition and its inherent foibles that is as good as it ever is going to get ( our intrinsically flawed way of perceiving truth not totalitarianism )...or put another way...broadly speaking Plato good Artistotle bad...the map is not the territory damn it!...

I think you’re conflating physics and philosophy. Wilfrid Sellars argued for “the myth of the given”, the given being the notion that our senses can give us direct information about the world. His view actually has some support in modern neuroscience. But taken to its logical extreme, you get the claim of some postmodern philosophers that there is no objective reality. This is basically another way of stating that there is no Truth, or no absolute.

But very few scientists, including physicists, buy into this. The fact that quantum physics tells us that the position/velocity of particles is inherently uncertain does not necessarily imply that there is not an objective universe independent of our perceptions of it. Uncertainty is not incompatible or inconsistent with an objective universe. If it were, scientists would be forced to believe that the physical universe as we know it did not exist prior to the evolution of human beings capable of observing it. I don't know any scientist who would give this claim serious consideration.

Not taking a stand on this issue, mind you, just pointing out that physics is very unwilling to be dragged in here in support of the philosophers. There are a few philosophers--Greg Desilet comes to mind--who think that 20th century physics supports this view, but as far as I know, he has no following among scientists.

P.S. - What in the world does “driving nails” have to do with Maslow?

 

[blutto]

I think you’re conflating physics and philosophy. Wilfrid Sellars argued for “the myth of the given”, the given being the notion that our senses can give us direct information about the world. His view actually has some support in modern neuroscience. But taken to its logical extreme, you get the claim of some postmodern philosophers that there is no objective reality. This is basically another way of stating that there is no Truth, or no absolute.

But very few scientists, including physicists, buy into this. The fact that quantum physics tells us that the position/velocity of particles is inherently uncertain does not necessarily imply that there is not an objective universe independent of our perceptions of it. Uncertainty is not incompatible or inconsistent with an objective universe. If it were, scientists would be forced to believe that the physical universe as we know it did not exist prior to the evolution of human beings capable of observing it. I don't know any scientist who would give this claim serious consideration.

Not taking a stand on this issue, mind you, just pointing out that physics is very unwilling to be dragged in here in support of the philosophers. There are a few philosophers--Greg Desilet comes to mind--who think that 20th century physics supports this view, but as far as I know, he has no following among scientists.

P.S. - What in the world does “driving nails” have to do with Maslow?

...first, thank you for your response...

...sorry but the Maslow reference is to a line I thought was still ubiquitous...it was in my day...the line is...if the only tool you have is a hammer you will treat everything as if its a nail...

...the map comment was a line from communication theory that attempts to put into perspective the issues of dealing with Truth ( the territory or raw nature ) and our means to understand it ( the map or the words, numbers or theories that guide our dealings with raw nature )..

...now I do believe that there is Truth out there I just think that our means of dealing with it are flawed...hence the juxtaposition of map and territory in that line...

...would love to carry this on but its a real busy morning and a lengthy response that I had cobbled together for you just got lost in the ether...and I'm now time-constrained and frustrated...will try to redo the initial response as time allows and PM you with it if that is OK...but have to run...

...thank you for your time and patience...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Dr. Maserati]

agai

...ok...ok...so you will take innuendo as a cheap substitute for fact...well I have something here that I would love your input on and it is kinda innuendoism with some facts thrown in for good measure...its a bit of confusion at this point and badly needs some clarity...it involves numbers which is good...and seems like an interesting comparison...

...would like to start with some background assumptions...which represent some things that are generally agreed upon in these here parts...

...assume that EPO use trumps clean riders...

....assume that the EPO era started in 91...which is when Greg LeMond was faced for the first time with a peloton addled with EPO...and consequently lost because of it...

...assume that LeMond and Indurain were at reasonably similar levels in the 90 Tour...

...assume that LeMond is clean as a whistle throughout his career and Indurain is dirty post 90 ( and that his drug use directly leads to his Tour wins and LeMond's retirement )

...against this background I will introduce some wattage numbers gleaned from some graphs introduced on another thread on these forums...these graphs show wattage outputs for LeMond in 89 and Indurain in 94....when normalized for weight they show that LeMond actually had a higher output than Indurain....

...now these normalized graph numbers don't fit with our assumptions do they...as in LeMond's output as a clean rider is bigger than a doped rider who was level with him in the pre-dope days...

...so does this mean that LeMond really was the greatest rider of all time because he could beat the output of a very talented doper ( because if you run these numbers across the assumptions and the graph numbers LeMond is in the neighborhood of having an output 15% higher than Indurain, as in an absolute 5% gain as shown in the graphs plus a minus 10% to offset the gain Indurain would have gotten from drug use )...and what does it say about his reason for quitting...because according to the weighted numbers the 89 LeMond was markedly superior to the 94 Indurain...does this mean that Indurain didn't dope...or is this in realm of miraculous intervention...

...hoping you can bring some clarity to this...because I'm all mixed up...and apparently numbers don't lie...and then there are those assumptions...confusion..confusion...

....hope to hear from you soon...

Cheers

blutto

Even though you didn't introduce any "facts" or "wattage number"s in your post as you said you would, I have answered it in the appropriate thread.

Thread.
Post.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Speaking of quantum physics... What about the 'cloud of potentiallity'? In terms of any objective view of reality, well... I guess there is none. Ties into the pursuit of determining who is the 'greatest racer of all time'. It's all relative, and subjectively objective (or objectively subjective). There is no greatest rider of anytime...

 

[AngusW]

...is there a problem here officer?...just answering a question if that is ok...

...and as long as you are conducting an investigation and stuff maybe you should question the instigator in this sordid affair...but be forewarned he is pretty slippery...

...by-the-by nice dictionary entry...

Cheers

blutto

No investigation - just heeding Barrus's warning about posting stuff about Lemond doping in an Armstrong thread.

You may have a point with the power output stuff - why not post the figures and links? (erm, in the appropriate thread of course)

 

[buckwheat]

Concerning the OP, stray dog will always be a fanboy because that was his destiny from the beginning of time at the big bang.

I think you’re conflating physics and philosophy. Wilfrid Sellars argued for “the myth of the given”, the given being the notion that our senses can give us direct information about the world. His view actually has some support in modern neuroscience. But taken to its logical extreme, you get the claim of some postmodern philosophers that there is no objective reality. This is basically another way of stating that there is no Truth, or no absolute.

Mr X answered these kinds of questions very succinctly, and tore arguments similiar to Blutto's to shreds.

But very few scientists, including physicists, buy into this. The fact that quantum physics tells us that the position/velocity of particles is inherently uncertain does not necessarily imply that there is not an objective universe independent of our perceptions of it. Uncertainty is not incompatible or inconsistent with an objective universe. If it were, scientists would be forced to believe that the physical universe as we know it did not exist prior to the evolution of human beings capable of observing it. I don't know any scientist who would give this claim serious consideration.

Einstein himself didn't buy into it and would not appreciate being misrepresented by Blutto. Einstein believed the entire universe was completely deterministic. Einstein was a big follower of Spinoza.

Feynman (Mr. X) even went so far to say that the Uncertainty Principle was unneccessary if you drew all the arrows.

Just because one can't predict something with absolute certainty, does NOT mean it isn't deterministic.

Not taking a stand on this issue, mind you, just pointing out that physics is very unwilling to be dragged in here in support of the philosophers. There are a few philosophers--Greg Desilet comes to mind--who think that 20th century physics supports this view, but as far as I know, he has no following among scientists.

P.S. - What in the world does “driving nails” have to do with Maslow?

Tolstoy DID take a stand here. Read last paragraph of War and Peace.

Then end it all.

BTW, thanks for pointing out Blutto's silliness.

 

[blutto]

Concerning the OP, stray dog will always be a fanboy because that was his destiny from the beginning of time at the big bang.




Mr X answered these kinds of questions very succinctly, and tore arguments similiar to Blutto's to shreds.



Einstein himself didn't buy into it and would not appreciate being misrepresented by Blutto. Einstein believed the entire universe was completely deterministic. Einstein was a big follower of Spinoza.

Feynman (Mr. X) even went so far to say that the Uncertainty Principle was unneccessary if you drew all the arrows.

Just because one can't predict something with absolute certainty, does NOT mean it isn't deterministic.



Tolstoy DID take a stand here. Read last paragraph of War and Peace.

Then end it all.

BTW, thanks for pointing out Blutto's silliness.

...embarrassing as this may be, I will have to admit that I spent a bit of time trying to formulate a response to your post...and then I saw one of your posts with the George Bernard Shaw quote...suddenly I realized that that time had been a total waste...dude, you are absolutely hopeless....maybe just barely smart enough to be consistent in your world view if you can call it that...but beyond that, utterly and totally hopeless ( as are all fundamentalists...which is basically what you are...a trait you share with Shaw BTW and which probably explains the intellectual resonance )...

...words to the wise...beware of all true believers...and... there is always a gorilla in the room...

...and by the way here is my official response to your post...9 times 6 equals 42... (...from D. Adams...the late greatest 20th Century philosopher ever..like everyone else sucks...eh...)

Cheers

blutto

 

[Kennf1]

.
...and by the way here is my official response to your post...9 times 6 equals 42... (...from D. Adams...the late greatest 20th Century philosopher ever..like everyone else sucks...eh...)

Cheers

blutto

9 x 6 = 54.

 

[blutto]

9 x 6 = 54.

...now, that, is real funny...in fact, that is off the scale hilarious...good one...

Cheers

blutto