Lafferty and the RBR jury of his peers.

[Bill C]

Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is incredibly
biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but his
denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem for
me.
I freely admit that I am in favor of libertarian debate and everyones
right to speak out, and be challenged on any and all issues. I advocate
massive skepticism about everyone and everything including my
understanding of the issues. I have answers that work for me, but they
are evolving with every piece of information that I receive.
I thought that I'd throw it open for debate as a subject.
Bill C

 

[B Lafferty]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is incredibly
> biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
> Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
> I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
> opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but his
> denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem for
> me.
> I freely admit that I am in favor of libertarian debate and everyones
> right to speak out, and be challenged on any and all issues. I advocate
> massive skepticism about everyone and everything including my
> understanding of the issues. I have answers that work for me, but they
> are evolving with every piece of information that I receive.
> I thought that I'd throw it open for debate as a subject.
> Bill C
>

Not at all interested. Plonk to you.

 

[Bill C]

B Lafferty wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is
incredibly
> > biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
> > Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
> > I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
> > opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but
his
> > denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem
for
> > me.
> > I freely admit that I am in favor of libertarian debate and
everyones
> > right to speak out, and be challenged on any and all issues. I
advocate
> > massive skepticism about everyone and everything including my
> > understanding of the issues. I have answers that work for me, but
they
> > are evolving with every piece of information that I receive.
> > I thought that I'd throw it open for debate as a subject.
> > Bill C
> >
>
> Not at all interested. Plonk to you.

Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
about you?
Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.
Bill C

 

[Sandy]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email protected]...
> Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is incredibly
> biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
> Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
> I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
> opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but his
> denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem for
> me.

Please, Bill, this is not a Maoist self-confession camp. And he isn't your
kid who filtched from the cookie jar and has to own up. He is advocating by
presenting what you could fairly call a limited selection of facts, tending
to support a point of view, and he is commenting on them with that slant.
That doesn't mean that he is blind to the other side, but he is simply not
advocating that other position. He and I share similar legal training. I
don't worry about whether I offend too many folks - I just like to win.
That's the orientation, and I don't apologize for it.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[Bill C]

Just an update: Brian has chosen to at this moment to decline links to
information that we have sent to each other for quite a while now that
we felt needed discussion.
I have been happy to have him, Bruce and Howard send me things from
their point of view and have learned a lot. I have had to reconsider my
positions and alter them based on what has been sent to me. Never have
I just flat out refused to receive new information.
Brian, you have chosen to make this personal, rather than position
based. I regret that because I have a lot of respect for you and the
positions you have taken, even if I feel that they are based on bad
information. Why is it that you can't respect people who have a
fundamental disagreement with you and admit they might have a reason
for feeling the way they do?
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

Thank You!
That I can respect, and do. You and I now have a common ground for
discussions from here on and I'm sure that I will learn from you, and
hopefully, you from me.
Bill C

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 22 Jan 2005 15:27:38 -0800, Bill C wrote:
> Thank You!
> That I can respect, and do. You and I now have a common ground for
> discussions from here on and I'm sure that I will learn from you, and
> hopefully, you from me.

Group hug!


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is incredibly
> biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
> Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
> I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
> opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but his
> denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem for
> me.
> I freely admit that I am in favor of libertarian debate and everyones
> right to speak out, and be challenged on any and all issues. I advocate
> massive skepticism about everyone and everything including my
> understanding of the issues. I have answers that work for me, but they
> are evolving with every piece of information that I receive.
> I thought that I'd throw it open for debate as a subject.

I like Brian as well, except that in the last year it has been almost
impossible to read his biased scree and I've been forced to put him in the
kill file.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Please, Bill, this is not a Maoist self-confession camp. And he isn't
> your kid who filtched from the cookie jar and has to own up. He is
> advocating by presenting what you could fairly call a limited selection of
> facts, tending to support a point of view, and he is commenting on them
> with that slant. That doesn't mean that he is blind to the other side, but
> he is simply not advocating that other position. He and I share similar
> legal training. I don't worry about whether I offend too many folks - I
> just like to win. That's the orientation, and I don't apologize for it.

However, Sandy, I've yet to see you unreasonable. Brian lost his sense of
proportion long ago now and unlike you I don't chose to believe that he can
even see another side of these issues.

 

[[email protected]]

Okay, you agree he is biased. But then he does lack the character to
own up to it.

Oh well, "I just like to win."

ray

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Bill C wrote:
> Since Brian has chosen to challenge my assertion that he is
incredibly
> biased regarding Lance, doping, and politics and will not admit it.
> Carville, Rove, Atwater are all able to admit it, but not Brian.
> I like Brian, I think he's a pretty decent person, who has strong
> opinions, and is courageous and honest and does a lot of good but his
> denial that he is biased in favor of his predjudices is a problem for
> me.
> I freely admit that I am in favor of libertarian debate and everyones
> right to speak out, and be challenged on any and all issues. I
advocate
> massive skepticism about everyone and everything including my
> understanding of the issues. I have answers that work for me, but
they
> are evolving with every piece of information that I receive.
> I thought that I'd throw it open for debate as a subject.




Dumbass -

Lafferty's anti-LANCE bias possesses the same amount of objectivity as
any bias of Rush Limbaugh's.

The annoying thing about both of those losers is they like to present
themselves as unbiased.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[k.papai]

"However, Sandy, I've yet to see you unreasonable. Brian lost his sense
of
proportion long ago now and unlike you I don't chose to believe that he
can
even see another side of these issues."

E X A C T L Y.


-Ken

 

[k.papai]

"However, Sandy, I've yet to see you unreasonable. Brian lost his sense
of
proportion long ago now and unlike you I don't chose to believe that he
can
even see another side of these issues."

E X A C T L Y.


-Ken

 

[gwhite]

Bill C wrote:
>
> B Lafferty wrote:

> > Not at all interested. Plonk to you.
>
> Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
> reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
> You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
> and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
> about you?
> Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.


While I obviously think he is all dorked out, I haven't necessarily perceived
him saying what you perceived him saying. I can only await the PIPA report so I
know what to think.

On the bright side, he makes Hank and me seem almost normal. IOW, he's not
completely useless.

 

[B Lafferty]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill C wrote:
>>
>> B Lafferty wrote:
>
>> > Not at all interested. Plonk to you.
>>
>> Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
>> reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
>> You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
>> and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
>> about you?
>> Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.
>
>
> While I obviously think he is all dorked out, I haven't necessarily
> perceived
> him saying what you perceived him saying. I can only await the PIPA
> report so I
> know what to think.
>
> On the bright side, he makes Hank and me seem almost normal. IOW, he's
> not
> completely useless.

Care to define "normal?"

 

[k.papai]

"Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
about you?
Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.
Bill C"

What I have to see is that Laff and I have had our ups and downs; we've
had our quarrels and name calling. I am trying now to resist that
because it
doesn't make me feel any better in the long run.

Yes, Brian is biased against Lance. It may be personal or it may be
because Brian perceives Lance's arrogance -- one which nearly all
champions own, to a high degree, and for good measure, of arrogance --
so much to his (to Brian's) detriment that is blinds Laff. It clashes.
Whatever. Brian and his friends will not be able to ever conjure up
any proof of cheating against Lance.

So I am letting this debate not consume me. Laff can write what he
wants.
Amit has gone downhill rapidly and Legate's always bizarre and
stalker-like.

The only person I still cannot stand is Tosi. Haters like him, whether
he knows
it or not, are ugly and mean.

Crit Pro Poo and anonymous trolls are background noise. Juveniles like
them are more important to their own minds than anything else. Idiots
like that can never, or should never be taken seriously. They are
Cowards, plain and simple. Taggers. Boring. 99% Hot Air.

That's the State of RBR in a tiny nutshell from my minor POV.
RBR was aboutt real racing and results prior to 1998 when the
Internet/Web exploded and news was everywhere. Now it's more similar to
a circle jerk.

-kjp

 

[gwhite]

gwhite wrote:
>
> Bill C wrote:
> >
> > B Lafferty wrote:
>
> > > Not at all interested. Plonk to you.
> >
> > Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
> > reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
> > You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
> > and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
> > about you?
> > Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.
>
> While I obviously think he is all dorked out, I haven't necessarily perceived
> him saying what you perceived him saying. I can only await the PIPA report so I
> know what to think.
>
> On the bright side, he makes Hank and me seem almost normal. IOW, he's not
> completely useless.

http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/sexaddict/a/normalinet.htm

lol

 

[B Lafferty]

"gwhite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> gwhite wrote:
>>
>> Bill C wrote:
>> >
>> > B Lafferty wrote:
>>
>> > > Not at all interested. Plonk to you.
>> >
>> > Let's let the others here have their say. How like you to PLONK a
>> > reasonable debate that you find discomforting.
>> > You stand by people's right to decide, let's have the debate in a free
>> > and open forum. I'm willing to take my lumps and learn from them, how
>> > about you?
>> > Ken, Greg, Sandy, Bruce, Howard, Tom let's hear what you have to say.
>>
>> While I obviously think he is all dorked out, I haven't necessarily
>> perceived
>> him saying what you perceived him saying. I can only await the PIPA
>> report so I
>> know what to think.
>>
>> On the bright side, he makes Hank and me seem almost normal. IOW, he's
>> not
>> completely useless.
>
> http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/sexaddict/a/normalinet.htm
>
> lol

Different issue.