Canellara's Bull**itting Us Again

I work with a guy who once shoplifted when he was younger. Is he still a thief now, and if so, am I one by association?

If you permanently hung out with a den of thieves whilst all the while denying it, then yes, I would have quite reasonable grounds for suspecting you might be a thief. And that would be entirely your own fault.

Cavalier said:

I work with a guy who once shoplifted when he was younger. Is he still a thief now, and if so, am I one by association?

Gregers said:

The fact that they continue to treat us as if it is we rather than them who have a pemanent recto-cranial connection,

I'll pay that. Thats good [censored] right there Gregers.😄

Thankfully the legal system disagrees with you. Guilt by association is a rather archaic premise, and one which only the best of fools can cling to as some sort of way of indicating guilt.

existence said:

I'll pay that. Thats good [censored] right there Gregers.😄

nice calves Exi, what products you using :p

You are the fool that is making wholly erroneous assumptions about guilt. Pay attention, I deliberately used the word 'suspicion'. The two are entirely different. Guilt can be acted upon by due legal process. Suspicion simply gives me reasonable grounds to come to a personal conclusion about what I regard are the suspicious activities of an individual. You might justifiably come to a different conclusion. It is, however, a poorly considered leap of ilogic to infer that it is my opinion that mere suspicion is enough to establish anyone's guilt and have them sanctioned accordingly.[ You really mustn't try to garland me with what you think are my prejudices. That says more about you than it does about me. Quarter Wit. QUOTE=Cavalier]Thankfully the legal system disagrees with you. Guilt by association is a rather archaic premise, and one which only the best of fools can cling to as some sort of way of indicating guilt.[/QUOTE]

thunder said:

nice calves Exi, what products you using :p

None actually which I am very very proud of! 🙂

thunder said:

nice calves Exi, what products you using :p

Thats actually a picture of his old fella. Existence should change his user id to 'exhibitionist'

Gregers said:

You are the fool that is making wholly erroneous assumptions about guilt. Pay attention, I deliberately used the word 'suspicion'. The two are entirely different. Guilt can be acted upon by due legal process. Suspicion simply gives me reasonable grounds to come to a personal conclusion about what I regard are the suspicious activities of an individual. You might justifiably come to a different conclusion. It is, however, a poorly considered leap of ilogic to infer that it is my opinion that mere suspicion is enough to establish anyone's guilt and have them sanctioned accordingly. You really mustn't try to garland me with what you think are my prejudices. That says more about you than it does about me. Quarter Wit.

That might be worth the tenth of effort you'd put into it if the thread subject you'd created actually had been something that was open-ended rather than a blanket statement to taint someone. Unlucky Mr Wilde. Your prejudice was right there in a four letter thread title.

I really don't think you've quite got the hang of this. A thread is invariably based around personal opinion. My title wasn't a 'closed' statement designed to shut down all contrary opinion. It actually invited a response- just like every other thread does. Nor am I required to provide balance by starting one entitled 'I Think That Cancellara Is A Bullshiter But That [censored] Cavalier Doesn't Necessarily Agree With Me.' Of course I think that that he's a bullshitter. That's not fact, it's just opinion, and it's self-evidently a jaundiced one. It's perfectly possible that I am completely wrong and others will no doubt delight in pointing this out. This kind of thing generally comes under the heading of 'debate' and you might try to understand it.
I never remotely suggested that just because it is my personal opinion that he is a bullshitting fraud, it automatically follows that the full weight of judicial authority should descend on him. I don't think that and it was you that made that barmy inference. Why don't you just content your simple self with disagreeing with me, like plenty of others do, instead of inventing rubbish that was never there.

Cavalier said:

That might be worth the tenth of effort you'd put into it if the thread subject you'd created actually had been something that was open-ended rather than a blanket statement to taint someone. Unlucky Mr Wilde. Your prejudice was right there in a four letter thread title.

Gregers said:

I really don't think you've quite got the hang of this. A thread is invariably based around personal opinion. My title wasn't a 'closed' statement designed to shut down all contrary opinion. It actually invited a response- just like every other thread does. Nor am I required to provide balance by starting one entitled 'I Think That Cancellara Is A Bullshiter But That [censored] Cavalier Doesn't Necessarily Agree With Me.' Of course I think that that he's a bullshitter. That's not fact, it's just opinion, and it's self-evidently a jaundiced one. It's perfectly possible that I am completely wrong and others will no doubt delight in pointing this out. This kind of thing generally comes under the heading of 'debate' and you might try to understand it.
I never remotely suggested that just because it is my personal opinion that he is a bullshitting fraud, it automatically follows that the full weight of judicial authority should descend on him. I don't think that and it was you that made that barmy inference. Why don't you just content your simple self with disagreeing with me, like plenty of others do, instead of inventing rubbish that was never there.

Because you post utter [censored] which basically involves nothing other than character assassination to make it out as though Cancellara's a doper? If you're actually that much of a mong and are so dense that you think throwing out a thread which has random [censored] #467892 saying he thinks such and such is a doper because he doesn't like him and that it's worthy of some sort of discussion which would ostensibly revolve around "no he's not" "yes he is", then christ, go and regurgitate the retardation on myspace or something ?

Cavalier said:

Thankfully the legal system disagrees with you. Guilt by association is a rather archaic premise, and one which only the best of fools can cling to as some sort of way of indicating guilt.

agreed

Mother ship to Cavalier: your synapses are showing little sign of activity, please return to sick bay immediately for a cortex boost before you implode.
Incidentally, when I posted my utter [censored], the very first mong to regard it as being worthy of discussion was one, now who was it, oh yes, Cavalier. He said something like "no he's not." I wonder why that was when he could just as easily have 'regurgitated the retardation on myspace.' Whatever that means. Oh, and that' was a statement that you made-possibly even one of your forbidden, closed statements. It most definitely did not require a question mark.
Btw Others, as ever, are welcome to disagree but I do think that Fab is a doper, that was the whole basis of the thread. There I go again, more character assassination. We must stop having opinions on this forum and stick to more anodyne stuff in case it upsets you. You will be pleased to learn that I actually have no opinion personally on Cancellara as I know little about him beyond his quoted views. I simply happen to take issue with these foolish, value free, statements. Rather like yours. Sorry about that.

Cavalier said:

Because you post utter [censored] which basically involves nothing other than character assassination to make it out as though Cancellara's a doper? If you're actually that much of a mong and are so dense that you think throwing out a thread which has random [censored] #467892 saying he thinks such and such is a doper because he doesn't like him and that it's worthy of some sort of discussion which would ostensibly revolve around "no he's not" "yes he is", then christ, go and regurgitate the retardation on myspace or something ?

Cavalier said:

random [censored] #467892 saying he thinks such and such is a doper because he doesn't like him

So basically that then. You're right, I should have twigged on that it was the case initially rather than taking your asinine comments as though the opinion behind them was speaking through some sort of knowledge or intelligence, as opposed to another regurgitated viewpoint with no basis for discussion other than some fanciful opinion based upon a few carefully selected quotes. Wait, I can do that too. Let's see:.

Gregers said:

I am utterly, utterly and embarrassingly useless.

By god, it works! Except it's somewhat more relevant. Please inform the production line that their QA is lacking.

Cavalier said:

Thankfully the legal system disagrees with you. Guilt by association is a rather archaic premise, and one which only the best of fools can cling to as some sort of way of indicating guilt.

This isn't a court of law. This is a court of public opinion -- people discussing things they believe may or may not be true.

What's the point of making statements like, "You can make these statements because they won't be supported in a court of law and are thus unfounded and, at the same time, impugn the character of someone who should be given the benefit of presumed-innocent. "

Man, [censored] that [censored]. If these freak shows don't want to be in the public spotlight then they picked the wrong profession. The whole reason they make the money they do is so people like us can sit around and talk about them.

I am always happy to admit to my manifold failings. It's what we grown-ups try to do. It generally makes for a more rounded individual though regrettably, as you gleefully point out, I often fall well short.
As for the rest of your protracted sentence, it just doesn't seem to be very coherent. Commas might help, as would some considered thought behind it. I will therefore resist the temptation to make inferences from it that are not justified. Unlike you.
Incidentally you do seem rather keen to maintain an argument about something that you decided a long time had 'no basis for discussion.' Still, that's your prerogative.

Cavalier said:

So basically that then. You're right, I should have twigged on that it was the case initially rather than taking your asinine comments as though the opinion behind them was speaking through some sort of knowledge or intelligence, as opposed to another regurgitated viewpoint with no basis for discussion other than some fanciful opinion based upon a few carefully selected quotes. Wait, I can do that too. Let's see:.

By god, it works! Except it's somewhat more relevant. Please inform the production line that their QA is lacking.

classic1 said:

Thats actually a picture of his old fella. Existence should change his user id to 'exhibitionist'

Thats not my [censored]. My [censored] is bigger than that.

existence said:

Thats not my [censored]. My [censored] is bigger than that.

lol

existence said:

Thats not my [censored]. My [censored] is bigger than that.

The one in your mouth doesn't count.