Only if you're into liars and cheats. So NO.MarylandGator said:anyone else find this stud a hottie?
earth_dweller said:Only if you're into liars and cheats. So NO.
Being right doesn't ALWAYS mean having a contrary opinion to the general consensus. Unless being contrary is more important to one's ego than being right.alienator said:Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.
Say, do you think on your own?
Just answering the question. Didn't know I had to get your approval first, thought this was a public forumalienator said:Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.
Say, do you think on your own?
earth_dweller said:Just answering the question. Didn't know I had to get your approval first, thought this was a public forum
Crankyfeet said:Being right doesn't ALWAYS mean having a contrary opinion to the general consensus. Unless being contrary is more important to one's ego than being right.
Good one. There are no facts involved in an opinion. I thought I could bait you into a trap...but I was screwed in your one post reply.alienator said:Ohhhhh. Is there a "right" in here somewhere?
so you decided by my short answer that I followed group think... well I decided by your short posts that you get your jollies by flaiming and baiting, I guess it makes you feel superior.alienator said:Nah, you don't need my approval. I was just wondering if you did any actual thought on your own, or if you just adopted the group-think of your pet clique.
Did you call Edie a "Ho"?alienator said:Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.
Say, do you think on your own?
that might explain the posts, sticky fingers and allCrankyfeet said:Did you call Edie a "Ho"?
Now that's going to alienate people.
Do you masturbate while you post or just after?
earth_dweller said:so you decided by my short answer that I followed group think... well I decided by your short posts that you get your jollies by flaiming and baiting, I guess it makes you feel superior.
oh and by the way, I decided by myself that Landis is a cheater... it's called reading and thinking, you should try it sometimes.
Yeah. How do we know Landis doped and is lying about it? It's not like he has been convicted. It's also not like there was an 80+ page PDF released that describes the reasoning behind a conviction. It is also not like there was full coverage of his arbitration hearing with the USADA. It is not like everything that occurred in the hearing was mulled over by countless people on countless websites who were interested in the outcome. It is also not like newspapers, which had websites, wrote daily summaries of the hearing.alienator said:Oh, you read and thought. Hmmmm. Did you read, like, evidence, or did you just read what tickled your peachfish in doping forums? Oh, wait....you got your facts from news articles, right? Oh I see. How objective of you. Very illuminating.
Letting your emotions effect your argument a little there Alienator? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Landis' guilt as a doper been proven? It is not an opinion, gleaned from others' opinions, but established at the conclusion of a proper hearing. Since he was proven to be a cheat, and he still denies it, that also makes him a liar. Unless you are of the opinion that a person's guilt can never be attributed while they still plead their innocence? We should let just about everyone out of jail if that were the accepted credo.alienator said:Oh, you read and thought. Hmmmm. Did you read, like, evidence, or did you just read what tickled your peachfish in doping forums? Oh, wait....you got your facts from news articles, right? Oh I see. How objective of you. Very illuminating.
Finally, someone has been able to swim through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on. Thank the gods for earth_dweller. Really. Honestly. She really has a head for the facts. Really.
Crankyfeet said:Letting your emotions effect your argument a little there Alienator? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Landis' guilt as a doper been proven? It is not an opinion, gleaned from others' opinions, but established at the conclusion of a proper hearing. Since he was proven to be a cheat, and he still denies it, that also makes him a liar. Unless you are of the opinion that a person's guilt can never be attributed while they still plead their innocence? We should let just about everyone out of jail if that were the accepted credo.
Edie (earth_dweller) only said Floyd was a cheat and a liar. I think your statement "swimming through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on" doesn't apply to Edie's statement of a proven official judgment.
The BCS college football bowl determination process is farked. But that doesn't mean that the best team can't still win it. Yes.. Landis' whole defence was aimed at creating enough doubt in enough specific stages of the process, to try to get unthinking people to lose confidence in the result. That was done because a thinking person would determine that they [Landis' team] had to explain how a false positive occurred on numerous IRMS tests that showed traces of synthetic testosterone. They didn't attack that point because it was damning incontrovertible evidence. Instead they chose the Chewbacca defense.alienator said:No nothing was proven. It was arbitrated. There was no trial.
That's easy enough to see. I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I do know that nothing was proven. But hey, we don't need that, we just need to accuse a bunch o' people. That's how things get done.
If anyone doesn't think the process was and is completely ****ed, well, enjoy your pollyanna existence.
Well, if you really knew anything about our "clique", you'd know we don't have group-think. OTOH, if you know anything about our clique at all, then I guess you just lurk jealously in the corner instead of posting anything like a real man.alienator said:Nah, you don't need my approval. I was just wondering if you did any actual thought on your own, or if you just adopted the group-think of your pet clique.
I thought MikeEagle12 and the Order of Men told us that there are no real men anymore.nns1400 said:Well, if you really knew anything about our "clique", you'd know we don't have group-think. OTOH, if you know anything about our clique at all, then I guess you just lurk jealously in the corner instead of posting anything like a real man.
Crankyfeet said:The BCS college football bowl determination process is farked. But that doesn't mean that the best team can't still win it. Yes.. Landis' whole defence was aimed at creating enough doubt in enough specific stages of the process, to try to get unthinking people to lose confidence in the result. That was done because a thinking person would determine that they [Landis' team] had to explain how a false positive occurred on numerous IRMS tests that showed traces of synthetic testosterone. They didn't attack that point because it was damning incontrovertible evidence. Instead they chose the Chewbacca defense.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.