Lance goes slumming.

Michael Press said:

I figure he expects to get into bed with both twins.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you might be right. I hope Carmichael has his epo, viagra, hgh
plan set up for this.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

36 is middle-aged? Ah [censored].

That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.

Howard Kveck said:

I'd hope that your liquor cabinet is big enough for you to be buried in
it.

A Viking funeral.

Well, she'd probably set fire to my bike shed...

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

I figure he expects to get into bed with both twins.

--
Michael Press- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you might be right. I hope Carmichael has his epo, viagra, hgh
plan set up for this.
Bill C

Pretty soon we will all be hiring a CTS sexual performance coach and Lance
will be pimping his services with his new book It's Not About the Penis."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>
> I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".-
> Hide
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
reasonably functional human.
Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
Middle age guys do stupid [censored], and if he wants to go for it, good
for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
throw money at her too.
Bill C

36 is middle-aged? Ah [censored].

That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.

Err, Ryan - what 21 year old would go out with you unless you're related and
paying for everything?

Well, it's a theoretical problem, rather like me catting up.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Quoted message said:

Ken Prager said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide
> quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
reasonably functional human.
Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
Middle age guys do stupid [censored], and if he wants to go for it, good
for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
throw money at her too.
Bill C

The (well known) rule for how young of a person you can date without
being criticized is...

Your_Age/2 + 7

Lance needs to wait a few years on Ashley.

DUDE! That means I can date a 38 year old. THANK YOU!!

Mary Kate + Ashley = 42.

So you'd be on firm ground if the 3 of you got together.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

DUDE! That means I can date a 38 year old. THANK YOU!!

Mary Kate + Ashley = 42.

So you'd be on firm ground if the 3 of you got together.

The problem with that is that I don't much care for women under the age of
35 or so and never did. It takes them that long to learn that they're not
God's Gift to Men though most of them carry that belief to their graves.

Bill C said:

I'll duck now, ahead of time. I agree with you. It's not that I
"care", it's that people amuse me, and given the large contingent who
sanctify Lance and everything he does, I was amused.
He's human, and has done lots of good things, and some questionable
at best, just like anyone else.
Looking at the stats though, the family problem is a growing one, and
my personal opinion is that it's come from the war on "traditional"
values, and the family unit waged by the feminists, free love, left
types, who also promoted drugs for everyone including kids, because it
would "expand their conciousnesses".
Now to [censored] the other side, I think that you could see some of
the most effective reversal of this trend coming from gay marriages/
unions. They've had to fight so hard for the ability to be a "family"
that most of the people I know place massive value on it, and being
functional and stable while being attacked constantly. It's really
amazing how conventional, and traditional the reality of these
families can be, especially in today's society where roles aren't as
well defined.

That explains why there are more broken families and a higher
rate of divorce in Massachusetts, home of liberal femtards,
than in Texas, where people have real values. Oh wait, there
aren't and the divorce rate is higher in Texas. Femtards don't
break many families - you know what's correlated with messed
up family units? POVERTY. And that is what helped make
LANCE the man he is today, both for better and for worse.

Another thing about gay families, I suspect, is that gay and
lesbian people who get married or have kids not only have
to be extra dedicated to it, but they're probably better off
economically on average, which should add to their stability.
Obviously, the best thing we could do for America's kids, on
average, is to encourage well-off gay people to have more
of them. If only LANCE had had two daddies simultaneously
rather than three serially ... Well, he'd probably be a
well-adjusted mechanical engineer and we'd all be talking
about whether Contador was the one who could finally
dethrone Jan Ullrich in 2008.

BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
and femtards, because it's really nice up there.

Ben

Bill C said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not that I "care"

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

That is a lie.

Quoted message said:

thanks,

Quoted message said:

K. Gringioni.

I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,

Dumbass -

People who don't care about something also don't post about it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich said:

Err, Ryan - what 21 year old would go out with you unless you're related
and paying for everything?

A very drunk 21 year old.

Frank Drackman said:

Pretty soon we will all be hiring a CTS sexual performance coach and Lance
will be pimping his services with his new book It's Not About the Penis."

And Bicycling will have articles on how to make lactate threshold
intervals enjoyable.

And Pound and co. will have lots of fun categorising new PEDs.

On Nov 1, 11:47 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
and femtards, because it's really nice up there.

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Never said it wasn't beautiful up here. It's even better if you
believe in the one philosophy allowed here, as you do. If you don't
thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to get out of your
Mercedes SUV and look around, especially since you were in Berkshire
county.
Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
1960 - 2.2 / 1000
1970 - 3.5
1981 - 5.3
2001 - 4.0
This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
counterswell.
Here's the poverty stats:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
1959 - 8.7%
1960 - 8.2%
1970 - 5%
1981 -5.3%
2001 - 4.4%
Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
across the board to all subjects.
You don't kneejerk quite as hard as Tom does.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage, as it
happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to stop listening to you
complaining about the Volvo drivers and femtards, because it's really nice
up there.

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to
get out of your Mercedes SUV and look around

An astrophysicist in a Mercedes SUV ? Must be getting some kickbacks
from the intelligent design crowd.

Bill C said:

Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
1960 - 2.2 / 1000
1970 - 3.5
1981 - 5.3
2001 - 4.0
This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
counterswell.

Quoted message said:

Here's the poverty stats:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
1959 - 8.7%
1960 - 8.2%
1970 - 5%
1981 -5.3%
2001 - 4.4%
Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
across the board to all subjects.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

People who don't care about something also don't post about it.

So, Henry, you're telling us that you really care for Bill?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?

jyh.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

People who don't care about something also don't post about it.

So, Henry, you're telling us that you really care for Bill?

[censored] -

He said he didn't care about LANCE. I called him on it.

Just calling a spade a spade.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

jean-yves herve said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?

It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
"near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
*not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
person family in Mississippi.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

jean-yves herve said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?

It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
"near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
*not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
person family in Mississippi.

It'd probably be pretty hard to sort out what the actual dollar amount of income
qualifies one as being "in poverty" if you had to do it as a location specific thing.
Just a few miles could make a huge difference - living in Redwood City versus Palo
Alto, for example.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Quoted message said:

jean-yves herve said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

Quoted message said:

Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?

It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
"near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
*not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
person family in Mississippi.

Wow! I'm amazed someone would even WANT to know that? Here in Texas
we just call them Po and Mo Po.

Howard Kveck said:

Quoted message said:

jean-yves herve said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?

Quoted message said:

It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
"near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
*not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
person family in Mississippi.

It'd probably be pretty hard to sort out what the actual dollar amount of income
qualifies one as being "in poverty" if you had to do it as a location specific thing.
Just a few miles could make a huge difference - living in Redwood City versus Palo
Alto, for example.

It doesn't have to be that complex, in the sense
that you don't necessarily need (or want) to have
different criteria for, say, Headstart in Redwood
City and Palo Alto. However, you might want to
have different criteria between the Bay Area and
Ohio. You could index it on a county by county
basis. The information is generally available.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17orshansky.html

The poverty line measure was never intended to be
an all-encompassing prescription. Everyone knows
there are problems with it, but fixing it would
require a rational discussion of poverty and benefits,
and politics makes that very hard to do.

Ben