• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:
I didn't start out that way?


Really? I know it was a long post....but Jeez....did you miss the bit about talking about the future....talking as in discussing...but then, that's right, you guys are only interested in hearing opinions that line up with yours

as for the same format of argument....it's called a consensus....ie...I am not the only one....somehow believing that I trawled through these myriad similar arguments that you and Hugh, and the other latter day kimmage saints think I have before posting, would indicate I have as much free time as you do....which i take umbrage with.

And again I point out the very first paragraph of my original post as to my employment status....original thought really does bypass fools.


And here it is....if you can only resort to questioning my employment status....my identity....or anything else to divert from serious discussion then I thoroughly underline calling you a fool....because that is what you are
What seems to **** you off the most about Lemond, Kimmage, Simeoni, Bassons, etc is that they were right about almost everything. Turns out Armstrong was a doper, just like they've been saying all along.

So if they were right, what exactly is your problem?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:
I didn't start out that way?


Really? I know it was a long post....but Jeez....did you miss the bit about talking about the future....talking as in discussing...but then, that's right, you guys are only interested in hearing opinions that line up with yours

as for the same format of argument....it's called a consensus....ie...I am not the only one....somehow believing that I trawled through these myriad similar arguments that you and Hugh, and the other latter day kimmage saints think I have before posting, would indicate I have as much free time as you do....which i take umbrage with.

And again I point out the very first paragraph of my original post as to my employment status....original thought really does bypass fools.


And here it is....if you can only resort to questioning my employment status....my identity....or anything else to divert from serious discussion then I thoroughly underline calling you a fool....because that is what you are

Your initial post characterized those with opposing positions as "haters" and you employ the phrase "you guys". I'm neither.
As for format-the similarity of "discussion" content and approach to debate is so similar as to suggest a single author or source. Note I did not challenge a single point you have offered nor discussed your argument.

Those constant similarities complete with circular logic would make me a fool to respond to them. And nowhere did I call you a name or characterize your intelligence.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
straydog said:
I did reply to you....and I am not sure that I understand what constitutes behaving like a troll?....is it liking Armstrong....or arguing in his favour....ok....guilty as charged

Where did I call you a 'troll'?

Really, 26 posts (in one day) and you have twice managed to try and portray something that I did not say - someone could point that out as trollish behavior.

I don't care that you like Armstrong - that was apparent from your first post that you "admire" his accomplishments while acknowledging his PED use.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Where did I call you a 'troll'?

Really, 26 posts (in one day) and you have twice managed to try and portray something that I did not say - someone could point that out as trollish behavior.

I don't care that you like Armstrong - that was apparent from your first post that you "admire" his accomplishments while acknowledging his PED use.

...and start out a thread characterizing opposing points of view. Is there a reason to respond to this guy and Biffins?
 
straydog
the problem is that your a bit like a eurosceptic..yes there are issues with closer economic integration but ultimately its all about immigration (sorry uk based analagy)

i agree with some of your musings

has arnie suffered because of his steriod use? would any useful purpose have been serve by having him vilified in the late seventies?

armstrong is ruthlessly successful....."its what he does..its all he does" to quote an arnie film

the tapestry of life is arguably better with him having being in it

if the software allows a count of the proportion of posts which mention armstong would be an interesting stat...mods?
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Oldman said:
Your initial post characterized those with opposing positions as "haters" and you employ the phrase "you guys". I'm neither.
As for format-the similarity of "discussion" content and approach to debate is so similar as to suggest a single author or source. Note I did not challenge a single point you have offered nor discussed your argument.

Those constant similarities complete with circular logic would make me a fool to respond to them. And nowhere did I call you a name or characterize your intelligence.

Actually i didn't chracterize anyone.....I merely said I was interested to see what lengths the "haters" would go to label me a troll or question my employment status because of my post...the point which was ably proved time and again throughout the thread if you care to read it before posting...

And I used the phrase "you guys" in direct response to a number of posters....informal....but correct

The point of posting was so people WOULD challenge my points or my argument...it's called a discussion....If I want some pseudo intellectual nonsensical discussion on semantics....trust me you are not the man I would choose

The suggestion of a single author for all of the pro Armstrong posts merely confirms my suspicions about the paranoiac conspiracy theorist tendencies I outlined originally....

And no...you didn't call me a name....I called you one....and I stand by it...you are a fool

And Maserati....my response about what constitutes trolling was very clearly directed....try reading it again....slowly if you have to
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:
Actually i didn't chracterize anyone.....I merely said I was interested to see what lengths the "haters" would go to label me

The suggestion of a single author for all of the pro Armstrong posts merely confirms my suspicions about the paranoiac conspiracy theorist tendencies I outlined originally....

And no...you didn't call me a name....I called you one....and I stand by it...you are a fool

And Maserati....my response about what constitutes trolling was very clearly directed....try reading it again....slowly if you have to

I think your answer is asked and answered. I wasn't looking to psychoanalyze you, either.

And it really makes me sad to be called a fool.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
straydog said:
Actually i didn't chracterize anyone.....I merely said I was interested to see what lengths the "haters" would go to label me a troll or question my employment status because of my post...the point which was ably proved time and again throughout the thread if you care to read it before posting...

And I used the phrase "you guys" in direct response to a number of posters....informal....but correct

The point of posting was so people WOULD challenge my points or my argument...it's called a discussion....If I want some pseudo intellectual nonsensical discussion on semantics....trust me you are not the man I would choose

The suggestion of a single author for all of the pro Armstrong posts merely confirms my suspicions about the paranoiac conspiracy theorist tendencies I outlined originally....

And no...you didn't call me a name....I called you one....and I stand by it...you are a fool

And Maserati....my response about what constitutes trolling was very clearly directed....try reading it again....slowly if you have to

I have read it - twice, and s l o w l y .....

Please point out where I had suggested you were a troll in the original post - I will be happy to amend it and apologise.

30 posts in a about 7 hours - may I ask, are you interested in debating points or just posters?
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I have read it - twice, and s l o w l y .....

Please point out where I had suggested you were a troll in the original post - I will be happy to amend it and apologise.

30 posts in a about 7 hours - may I ask, are you interested in debating points or just posters?

Ok....the trolling comment was a response to hrotha....not you....I agree that might not be clear so apologies for the sarcasm if it wasn't....and I honestly don't care about being called a troll...but don't expect me to take anyone who throws it around seriously

And I am interested in this subject and I will debate with anyone who actually says something about the subject....whatever that might be...as I have done with you
 
straydog said:
as for the same format of argument....it's called a consensus....ie...I am not the only one....somehow believing that I trawled through these myriad similar arguments that you and Hugh, and the other latter day kimmage saints think I have before posting, would indicate I have as much free time as you do....which i take umbrage with.
FFS man you are over 30 posts in one day and you are trying to sell anyone on the notion that you have something else to do with your time?
If you kept up the pace for as long as I have been here you would have 11550 posts. Once again you've failed Irony 101, but good news, you are rapidly climbing in my estimation from ignorant noob to calculating troll. So, probably getting your desired reaction there.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
straydog said:
Ok....the trolling comment was a response to hrotha....not you....I agree that might not be clear so apologies for the sarcasm if it wasn't....and I honestly don't care about being called a troll...but don't expect me to take anyone who throws it around seriously

And I am interested in this subject and I will debate with anyone who actually says something about the subject....whatever that might be...as I have done with you

Whats to debate?

You have said you are a "fanboy" and you are proud of it - so? You "admire" his acomplishements - and yet accept how they were acheieved.

What are you looking for - a badge?
 
straydog said:
Ok....the trolling comment was a response to hrotha....not you....I agree that might not be clear so apologies for the sarcasm if it wasn't....and I honestly don't care about being called a troll...but don't expect me to take anyone who throws it around seriously

And I am interested in this subject and I will debate with anyone who actually says something about the subject....whatever that might be...as I have done with you
My troll comment was warranted by the fact you were not addressing the relevant points, rather you were repeating the same points in your original post as if they hadn't been addressed, and posting stuff like the usual unsubstantiated innuendo about Lemond and doping.
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
FFS man you are over 30 posts in one day and you are trying to sell anyone on the notion that you have something else to do with your time?
If you kept up the pace for as long as I have been here you would have 11550 posts. Once again you've failed Irony 101, but good news, you are rapidly climbing in my estimation from ignorant noob to calculating troll. So, probably getting your desired reaction there.

it's called a day off....and i love an argument....especially when people like you make it so easy

and my desired reaction....you are rapidly climbing in my estimation from ignorant noob to calculating troll...well it is nice to be proved right....thanks
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Visit site
straydog said:
....and i love an argument....

no you don't :D

straydog said:
and my desired reaction....you are rapidly climbing in my estimation from ignorant noob to calculating troll...

Admitting that your desired reaction is to inflame people into veering off topic and calling you a troll is admitting that you are trolling.

Ignore list
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
My troll comment was warranted by the fact you were not addressing the relevant points, rather you were repeating the same points in your original post as if they hadn't been addressed, and posting stuff like the usual unsubstantiated innuendo about Lemond and doping.

no....your troll comment was "warranted" by it being the refuge and first port of call for those incapable of discussion....dress it up how you like....

and not all the points have been addressed as I am sure they won't be....but then how would you maintain your bias if you really had to think?

It is perfectly acceptable to subject Lemond to the very same level of questioning and so called "innuendo" that he himself has been happy to subject others to....or would that be somehow unfair?

On that note....good night....tomorrow i do have to work.
 
straydog said:
no....your troll comment was "warranted" by it being the refuge and first port of call for those incapable of discussion....dress it up how you like....

and not all the points have been addressed as I am sure they won't be....but then how would you maintain your bias if you really had to think?

It is perfectly acceptable to subject Lemond to the very same level of questioning and so called "innuendo" that he himself has been happy to subject others to....or would that be somehow unfair?

On that note....good night....tomorrow i do have to work.
Funny, because you didn't address my last post where I was actually trying to debate. The one where I explained what sets Armstrong apart from the rest. Look it up. You're welcome.

Lemond hasn't subjected others to innuendo. Currently there's no case against Lemond, there's no evidence or witness testimonies against him. That's not the case with Armstrong.
 
Mar 24, 2010
34
0
0
Visit site
sars1981 said:
7 Stages of Grief:

1 Shock and Denial
2 Pain and Guilt
3 Anger
4 Bargaining
5 Depression and Sorrow
6 Testing and Reconstruction
7 Acceptance

I agree with this. Thanks for sharing. I never took a psychology class.

An analogy I thought of is: falling in love. When you're in love with someone, logic often goes out the door. People in love do crazy things. They'll justify their partner to the death. They won't care about any bad behavior their partner did. They're in love.

People don't love Armstrong romantically, but the similar fanaticism makes them turn a blind eye to his cheating.
 
straydog said:
no....your troll comment was "warranted" by it being the refuge and first port of call for those incapable of discussion....dress it up how you like....

and not all the points have been addressed as I am sure they won't be....but then how would you maintain your bias if you really had to think?

It is perfectly acceptable to subject Lemond to the very same level of questioning and so called "innuendo" that he himself has been happy to subject others to....or would that be somehow unfair?

On that note....good night....tomorrow i do have to work.

I just read this thread top to bottom and I have to say it is f@*#ing brilliant!! Thank you Straydog for giving me the most entertaining read in more than a year. I am only sorry that didn't find it sooner and help throw some gas on the fire, but you obviously didn't need any help. It was a masterful display. And the beauty is that those who were most egregiously exposed don't even get it.

You know that you're doing something especially right when they both label you a FanBoy, and insult your children. Bravo! Come back again soon. It gets a little dim in here.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Visit site
VeloFidelis said:
I just read this thread top to bottom and I have to say it is f@*#ing brilliant!! Thank you Straydog for giving me the most entertaining read in more than a year. I am only sorry that didn't find it sooner and help throw some gas on the fire, but you obviously didn't need any help. It was a masterful display. And the beauty is that those who were most egregiously exposed don't even get it.

You know that you're doing something especially right when they both label you a FanBoy, and insult your children. Bravo! Come back again soon. It gets a little dim in here.


Wow. Yr easily impressed. :p
 
Jul 23, 2010
18
0
0
Visit site
menlo_guy said:
I agree with this. Thanks for sharing. I never took a psychology class.

An analogy I thought of is: falling in love. When you're in love with someone, logic often goes out the door. People in love do crazy things. They'll justify their partner to the death. They won't care about any bad behavior their partner did. They're in love.

People don't love Armstrong romantically, but the similar fanaticism makes them turn a blind eye to his cheating.

Let me preface by saying "I am a July 2010 Newbie Troll?"

I am in agreeance with you on this. I would also add that people who loathe a person to the point of obsession do similarly crazy things.

People who go extreme one way or the other way (in any argument) always become clouded, tunnel-visioned, and emotional.. and will ignore logic when it conflicts with their emotional/pre-determined opinion on the matter. People on both sides of the LA argument exist in this forum from what I have viewed in the last few days.

I don't know the facts for certain, but after reading this forum and other sources linked from this forum, it is my sarcastic guess that somewhere between 8%-100% of the pro-peleton is cheating and/or has cheated........and my sarcastic observation that about 80% of this forums peleton take any piece of information that validates their opinion and discounts the opposite opinion, and subsequently post it as absolute authenticated fact.

I am strangely drawn to this soap-opera but more as a spectator of the emotion that it stirs up then the actual issue at hand and how it affects Pro-Cycling.

p.s. If somehow I get called a "fanboy" or a "Lemond Lover" for this post, my point will be proven.
 

Forum Omerta

BANNED
Jul 28, 2010
3
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage was not some kind of full time cycling doper, he did it a few times. Read his book!

If you are self obsessed fanboy. then take yourself of to a fully fledged fanboy site where you and other fanboys can while away the hours together in fanboy harmony, not on here with your mis information trying to confuse matters with lots of postings.

We are all fully aware of the history of cycling and pretty much up to date with what has been published about professional cycling and its failings, ie doping.

The biggest court case and investigation in regards to cycling is about to start and it is being discussed at length on here. to start posting your fanboy stuff is trolling and trying to be an apologist for LA as he did not start it..blah blah, omerta already there blah blah....dont excuse it. Like the nazi guards at the camps. No excuse. LA knew what he was doing and no explaination can justify it. Now away with you.

Wow, there couldn't be a better example of forum omerta.

Not one single user in the rest of the thread condemns this post that basically tells someone to clear off the site because he doesn't agree with the general view about LA. Not one of these guys who is so pious about "trolls" had the courage to speak up and say that this is not the right approach to have on a cycling forum, or even condemn the grossly offensive comparison to the Nazis.

They stay silent. Instead Dr Maserati does his usual thing of looking for some irrelevant nuance to to pick holes in what he said (like the guy is not going to get confused when arguing with ten different people), and we have Hugh Janus telling him that we're not debating him because we've heard it all before (well why respond at all then!)

Seriously, what are you people like? How are you not cringing at your shameless hypocrisy? Surely a little brain cell somewhere must have thought "well there is another current thread we're we are pretending that we only have a problem with "trolls" and not people we disagree with, so maybe it's not a good idea to blow our cover so quickly?"

But no, not one of you stepped up. Wow. Brilliant.