Bobke sees the light. Hallelujah!

[thunder]

Vaughn, the assumption was, the race is selective, and the talent is like for like.

No mealy mouth reliance on "tactics".

Example, Liege ridden from the gun. Not in the last 50 kms. No one has much influence on the peloton to say "slow, piano" unless it is Cipo at the Giro a decade ago.

Or a Tour TT on day 20. Tactics? What? Timing your effort. Getting your position dialled in?

Come on, who are we kidding?

 

[thoughtforfood]

If you are saying that one's perception of truth and facts is defined and molded by their personal perceptions, experiences and traits, then yes, I agree with you there.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

However, there certainly is a big difference between fact and opinion by definition.

Both are subjective given that without someone to perceive, fact is like a tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it. Once fact has entered the brain of the given individual, it is processed through that persons filter of experience, beliefs, fears, etc. Therefore, most statements of "fact" made by any given individual are altered to varying degrees. (I changed "any" to "most" because even though one could argue a statement such as "That car is blue" is still subjective, in reality it most likely is not)

Secondly, prove existence of anything before we move on. I will however throw the monkey wrench ahead of your attempt and that is this, the nature of the infinite precludes an ability to actually prove existence. In the absence of existence being a fact, what else can be?

Fact is a merry-go-round of logic, and is unprovable by anyone. Therefore I submit that opinion and fact inhabit the same space within each individual.

 

[thoughtforfood]

Well, I have to disagree here. That's pretty far reaching really. If you are saying that one's perception of truth and facts is defined and molded by their personal perceptions, experiences and traits, then yes, I agree with you there. However, there certainly is a big difference between fact and opinion by definition.

But if there has ever been a fact that did exist, then it is this one: The Spin Doctors are the worst band to have ever played music.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Can anyone tell me what happened to FlockOfSeagulls? And whether FlockOfBros is the same as FlockOfSeagulls? <We need a smilie with cross-eyes>.

A certain girl just PM'd that she had the hots for him yesterday and now he's disappeared, no longer on the member's list. Talk about shy.

 

[C'dale Girl]

Yes, that is what I am saying.


Both are subjective given that without someone to perceive, fact is like a tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it. Once fact has entered the brain of the given individual, it is processed through that persons filter of experience, beliefs, fears, etc. Therefore, most statements of "fact" made by any given individual are altered to varying degrees. (I changed "any" to "most" because even though one could argue a statement such as "That car is blue" is still subjective, in reality it most likely is not)

Secondly, prove existence of anything before we move on. I will however throw the monkey wrench ahead of your attempt and that is this, the nature of the infinite precludes an ability to actually prove existence. In the absence of existence being a fact, what else can be?

Fact is a merry-go-round of logic, and is unprovable by anyone. Therefore I submit that opinion and fact inhabit the same space within each individual.

You're actually arguing what I've been arguing for over year now. So you're preaching to the choir. But, it goes both ways. This is why I always say, the truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in the middle.

But, by definition, there is a big difference between opinion and fact technically speaking. Yes, one's perception of fact is influenced by their personal life experiences. But, opinion is just that. One's personal thoughts on a matter, albeit also influenced by their personal life experiences.

Just look at the legal system. Watch what happens when a lay witness tries to offer up their opinion on something, or an expert witness tries to offer up an opinion for which they weren't proffered and are not qualified. They aren't going to get very far. True, there is room for argument in that setting as well as to what is fact and what is opinion sometimes.

Life . . . it's all one big shade of gray. We agree.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Fact is a merry-go-round of logic, and is unprovable by anyone. Therefore I submit that opinion and fact inhabit the same space within each individual.

Kind of like the theory of relativity...or superstring theory. I like it. I agree. There are very few facts in this world. Everything is relative to how people look at things. Everybody has a different perception.

 

[nns1400]

You're actually arguing what I've been arguing for over year now. So you're preaching to the choir. But, it goes both ways. This is why I always say, the truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in the middle.

But, by definition, there is a big difference between opinion and fact technically speaking. Yes, one's perception of fact is influenced by their personal life experiences. But, opinion is just that. One's personal thoughts on a matter, albeit also influenced by their personal life experiences.

Just look at the legal system. Watch what happens when a lay witness tries to offer up their opinion on something, or an expert witness tries to offer up an opinion for which they weren't proffered and are not qualified. They aren't going to get very far. True, there is room for argument in that setting as well as to what is fact and what is opinion sometimes.

Life . . . it's all one big shade of gray. We agree.

But see, TFF wants to BE a lawyer...he's just practicing....

 

[C'dale Girl]

Kind of like the theory of relativity...or superstring theory. I like it. I agree. There are very few facts in this world. Everything is relative to how people look at things. Everybody has a different perception.

There ya have it. Another one that gets it.

 

[C'dale Girl]

But see, TFF wants to BE a lawyer...he's just practicing....

Yeah, well, he's gonna have to work on his definitions of fact and opinion first. Seems to me a lawyer needs to be able to recognize what is fact and what is opinion in order to successfully represent their client in a court of law . . . at least, that's what I've picked up on from watching the OJ trial.

Maybe watch a few more episodes of Law and Order TFF. I learn lots there too.

 

[nns1400]

Yeah, well, he's gonna have to work on his definitions of fact and opinion first. Seems to me a lawyer needs to be able to recognize what is fact and what is opinion in order to successfully represent their client in a court of law . . . at least, that's what I've picked up on from watching the OJ trial.

Maybe watch a few more episodes of Law and Order TFF. I learn lots there too.

Have to disagree there...the OJ trial showed that a lawyer needs to be able to confuse a jury about what is fact and what is opinion...so I think TFF is doing great.. He just needs more rhyme, man...

If it doesn't fit...you must acquit....

 

[confusedfan]

(snip)
There are some things that cannot be said and others that can at dpf, regardless of the 'In my opinion' caveat, because of the tsunami of vitriol (and occasional moderation) that comes your way when you do. The doping forums have this problem, the Floyd forum specialises in it. The fact that the ridiculous posts made by CF members at dpf were taken seriously for a time is also indicative. I know you can't change the debate or the views of people that post there, but do understand that it stifles sensible discussion about cycling: who can be bothered positing a view if it means limbering up for trench warfare every time?

In short, I understand your reasons and don't expect dpf policy to change. Please also understand some of the consequences of that policy.

Well said, Drongo. And a good explanation of why I rarely post at DPF any more (having experienced the vitriol and trench warfare).
-a DPF refugee

 

[confusedfan]

I can appreciate your policy although I disagree with it.

I just have one question. Why was my original post deleted even after the filter changed it to bull----? I mean, I made legitimate points in the post and unfortunetly used objectionable language in a couple of places. The problem with the foul language was automatically corrected. So, I can only assume that my post was deleted because of the ideas contained in it as opposed to the words used. Do your moderators delete posts that are objectionable to their point of view? If so, that is not much of a forum, is it?

Im guessing that if you ever get an explanation from Vaughn or from a DPF mod it would go something like this - theres a rule listed somewhere on DPF that youre not supposed to discuss moderating decisions (and by extension, forum rules) in the general threads - it has to be in the Feedback and Support section. Said rule gets carried to extremes at times...

 

[earth_dweller]

Im guessing that if you ever get an explanation from Vaughn or from a DPF mod it would go something like this - theres a rule listed somewhere on DPF that youre not supposed to discuss moderating decisions (and by extension, forum rules) in the general threads - it has to be in the Feedback and Support section. Said rule gets carried to extremes at times...

It's the fact that moderators hide behind the rules when they apply *****-nilly their power of moderation to posts that they don't agree with - nothing to do with objectively enforcing the rules, and everything to do with removing any posts that goes against their opinions.

 

[VrT]

VrT,

I respect your motives and principles and have faithfully abided by them while posting at dpf. The problem, though, is that considering racing without discussing likely or probable doping at the same time is an act of wilful blindness. More than that, a failure to discuss doping distorts the analysis of the races themselves. That is: it is not possible to separate doping and cycling any more. Any sensible analysis of the cycling itself must take into account the likely effect of doping. That is not hysteria.

There are some things that cannot be said and others that can at dpf, regardless of the 'In my opinion' caveat, because of the tsunami of vitriol (and occasional moderation) that comes your way when you do. The doping forums have this problem, the Floyd forum specialises in it. The fact that the ridiculous posts made by CF members at dpf were taken seriously for a time is also indicative. I know you can't change the debate or the views of people that post there, but do understand that it stifles sensible discussion about cycling: who can be bothered positing a view if it means limbering up for trench warfare every time?

In short, I understand your reasons and don't expect dpf policy to change. Please also understand some of the consequences of that policy.

Cheers,
Drongo

Sadly there is a bit of truth in what you say about separating doping/cycling for most fans. But I'm not surprised by that with the attention the media gives to it fanning the flames. What we discovered was it was a lot easier and clearer to have a separate topic so that every cycling discusssion wasn't pulled off topic with doping rumors and other ****.
And yes sometimes the rumors do prove out. But until they prove out with a confirmation, charges and hearings done and a official finding, or a confession they are rumors or conjecture.
I've never said that we don't have a problem with doping in sports. We do, and we do need to discuss it and and solutions to the problem.
I think anyone can say anything they want about the topic within civil constructs without painting all riders with the same black paint. Its a pretty high standard, I'll admit. Everyone has their opinions. What we need more of is respect of others opinions and a willingness to let them have them. This might lower the amount of vitriol expressed on forums at large.
Thanks Drongo.

 

[VrT]

But we enjoy it that way. We like coming here and meeting up with our forum homies. You know (well probably you don't since we're talking about friends), this forum is like when I was a kid running with my little posse. Sure, one or two kids in the posse were stupid, one was even a full blown dyke, but there was no judgments. If someone in our crew got into a fight, we backed them up. If someone was against one of us they were against all of us. That's the way it is here. Look around here, you ****ing tool. People are forming real friendships. Some, recently, are even acting like they might be falling in love.

Look, "little posse" friendships can't form over at DP because if you try to be yourself and write the way you think then they come down on you with, "Sorry, but we have rules regarding language and the expression of thoughts here."

Hey man, take those goddamn rules and jam them up your mother ****ing ass.

Try to say that over at DP forums.

Indeed! To each his own. I'm not here to recruit members to the dp forums. If you are happy here more power to you.

 

[Bro Deal]

A mans good name is built over a lifetime and can be easily ruined by one slanderous rumor.

Would anyone worried about their good name go into cycling? Doping and lying about it are as integral to the sport as doing intervals in training.

 

[VrT]

So I again repeat the question VrT : Is there any truth to the rumor that you are a Scientologist? I understand that this could be a baseless rumor, and I for one don't spread baseless rumors, but is this rumor true? You have identified yourself as Vaughn, and have spoken on his behalf, so I assume you are Vaughn Trevi, the Daily Peloton site owner.

I have nothing against people's beliefs. So whether you are or you aren't a Scientologist doesn't really matter about you as a person IMHO. It may however help to explain your forum's attitude towards drugs though. But it is all dependant on the fact of whether you are a Scientologist or not, which I have not been able to establish.

Awaiting your confirmation or denial.

Are you Jewish, Episcopalian, Christian, Baptist, Mormon? I don't think this is salient to the discussion on any forum unless it is a religious forum. Its also not important what my political beliefs are. Should we have a section under our nicknames on forums stating/requiring our religious and political affiliations? This is a cycling forum, I would guess that cyclists come in every form of political, religious and professional background so to me its a bit nonsequitor. Though I would be happy to respond to that question in a pm and you can fill me in on your own philosophic/religious affiliation.
Yeah I am pretty much anti-drug. I grew up in the sixties and had my own experiences with drugs at that time. Drugs kill. I lost two family members, friends and some of my favorite Rock and country artists to drugs; and one of my favorite riders of the day Tommy Simpson. In the end, I became less inclined to agree with the media that drugs were the solution to a man or women's problems. It only created more problems.
Medicines may cure, but drugs only mitigate a problem temporarily or ease pain after, the problem or pain is likely to be there. It takes no courage to take drugs; though it takes a lot of courage to change your life and try to succeed through your own honest efforts. But thats just my personal opinion based on what I've experienced and studied over the last 62 years. I have no sympathy for an athlete who takes drugs to excel at any sport, its cheating and theft, and an open admission he couldn't earn the victory through his own efforts.
I think most of the posts here and at the dpforums are anti-doping in the main; after all as fans we admire riders for their achievements, its pretty hard to admire someone who is doping and cheating to win.

 

[confusedfan]

It's the fact that moderators hide behind the rules when they apply *****-nilly their power of moderation to posts that they don't agree with - nothing to do with objectively enforcing the rules, and everything to do with removing any posts that goes against their opinions.

Hey, I didnt say they were objectively enforcing the rules, just pointing out which rule theyd probably be hiding behind about the post in question that was deleted .

 

[Bro Deal]

Hey Up Thunder,
The stronger rider will always win. Doping is a problem, on any given day a clean rider can beat doped riders, the reverse may be equally true. But a doped rider of lower talent and less ability to read the race can be beat. Likewise a talented rider gains an edge with dope; but this doesn't mean he will win.
There is a lot to consider when one predicts a race winner, and the use of dope is not the end all be all. The course, weather, team and rider tactics, riders form, intelligence and stupidity, desire, ability to suffer pain, heart and the riders given strengths. Doping can't overcome all of these factors.
The media Hysteria and tabloid style of reporting only destroys the sport as it has ruined the reputations of many in the past.
Doping is a problem that will take a better and fairer system, improved tests and testing, more tests, medical passports and a change of the moral and ethtical standards the riders and teams operate on to drive it out of cycling.
My only point here is we should look past the hysteria and act in good faith to help make a change. The hysteria of "Killer Weed" movies never kept a juvenile from trying pot; but it probably helped increase interest in it.
Then again this is only my opinion.

This goes a long long way toward explaining why DP is the way it is. The owner is still stuck in 2003.

I can understand the naivete of typical American fans. Most started cycling after 1999 because it was a new fad. They read Armstrong's book and believed the BS. When they flipped on the TV coverage, they listened to Ligget and Sherwin downplay the doping issue. But these fans eventually figured out the truth--with a few notable exceptions. Currently the only ones who still claim to believe in the sport's fairytales are a pitiful lot.

To have the owner of DP express the same cluelessness that was rampant in 2003 and 2004 today is fairly shocking. Use google or something and look up the performance gains of EPO.

 

[VrT]

I can appreciate your policy although I disagree with it.

I just have one question. Why was my original post deleted even after the filter changed it to bull----? I mean, I made legitimate points in the post and unfortunetly used objectionable language in a couple of places. The problem with the foul language was automatically corrected. So, I can only assume that my post was deleted because of the ideas contained in it as opposed to the words used. Do your moderators delete posts that are objectionable to their point of view? If so, that is not much of a forum, is it?

I don't know... send me a pm at the dpf with a link to the thread and I'll look into it and reply.