Dans le message de
news:
[email protected],
Michael Press <
[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dans le message de
>> news:[email protected],
>> Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dans le message de
>>>> news:[email protected],
>>>> Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dans le message de
>>>>>> news:[email protected],
>>>>>> Michael Press <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> Smack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lemond's only problem is that he speaks his mind. Anybody who's
>>>>>>>> spent any time with him or followed his career knows that.
>>>>>>>> Sometimes that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he had a mind to speak of, that would be different.
>>>>>>> Contrast with Eddie Merckx's demurral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except ---
>>>>>> Lemond could well have been served a subpoena, thus being
>>>>>> compelled to appear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let them serve. A public statement as Eddie makes his position
>>>>> clear.
>>>>
>>>> While your president may not feel constrained by national
>>>> boundaries, there is a little legal problem with your comparative.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing legalisms, you twit.
>>
>> I must remember to treat you similarly in the future. Now, I will
>> just explain to you how civilized people act.
>
> I am not interested.
More and more evident as days go by.
>
>>> I repeat. [a habit you have] Lemond could have
>>> taken the high road. Said publicly he has nothing substantive to
>>> contribute and it is none of his business. Then USADA serves a
>>> sapena or whatever. Fine. He shows up at the hearing and answers
>>> questions. The point: is he a man of character or an attention
>>> starved buffoon?
>>
>> To let a subpoena be the only reason someone serves as a witness is
>> a sham. Lots of witnesses don't want to appear to be willing, so
>> they ASK to be served. The high road, for a person of principle, is
>> to take personal responsibility and act. You may notice, that
>> Landis made the original call, and one can fairly presume, it was
>> not to compliment Lemond on the latter's statements. It was Landis
>> who published coarse and threatening material for public access.
>> And it seems far from the truth (a substance you seem leery to
>> encounter) to suggest Lemond has nothing substantive to contribute ;
>> on the contrary, from what he did testify, he does. Your drivel
>> [this is later] is much more like that of an attention starved
>> buffoon.
>
> Is this the best you can do? Throw my words back at me. Perhaps I
> _should_ take notes on civilized behavior. Seems dead easy.
> Somebody utters a nasty and the reply is ready made. "Well so are
> you!"
>
> I repeat. I do not care about subpoena. I was talking about
> something else. And I was not and am not talking about the
> proceedings of USADA and Floyd Landis.
>
> So how about it? Comment on how you dragged legalisms into a
> message that said and implied nothing about legalisms?
If you are speaking of your idea, for Lemond to arrive and disclaim
knowledge, you don't get invited to make declarations for an arbitration
record without the formalities. I was only pointing out the sham frequently
used to make it look as though one is speaking against one's own will.
>
>>> Another thread recently you argued against something a guy was not
>>> saying. Remember the conspiracy thread?
>>
>> Clearly. I commented in that thread. Are they all out to get you?
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation. I am not talking about conspiracy.
> Used the word as a referent to a thread.
Well of course ! Your crystalline reference helps the memory.
>
> You commented to something the guy did not say. Just as you argue
> legalisms when I said nothing about legalisms. We all know you are
> a professional in some branch of law.
Some have said that, yes, that I dabble in law.
> In addition to all the other irrelevancies you dragged in you also
> chose to comment on USA foreign policy. Do I have something to do
> with that?
Yes, to the latter.
And, sonny, you suggested that Lemond arrive in court, and your version of
his taking the high road is to LIE and say he knows nothing. The answer to
a question, "I have nothing to contribute" is certainly not an answer to any
question I can imagine. Or did you think they sit around with cigars and
brandy and say "Toff" ?
