Re: Score one for Armstrong

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:26:36 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"David Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:32:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>

The prosecutor concluded that it was the word of one against the other
with
no way to prove Someone's allegations of the threats made by Armstrong.
Simply put--no witnesses to what was said. Note that the investigation of
Super Mario is ongoing. Omerta still rules the peloton.

Which means you secretly think he did it. Though you will say 'there
is no way to know'.

Given what you know of Armstrong's personality and other public statements
about Ferrari and Simeoni, it wouldn't be a great leap to assume that
Simeoni is probably telling the truth. Proving it in a judicial proceeding
is something entirely different.

Quoted message said:

You live off of accusations and circumstantial speculation.

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

No, you go with whatever the worse case scenario is.

I don't doubt that Simeoni felt insulted and intimidated. But there is
a leap to Armstrong actually throwing out insults beyond "dumbass" and
certainly another leap to " threats", as you put it.

What ISN'T a great leap is that Simeoni is just [censored] and easily
insulted. After all, the dumbass filed suit after Armstrong said he
was a 'liar'(which, if I recall, wasn't even the word he used).

For everything that has been mentioned that Simeoni has filed suit for
I should sue Henry Dumbass Chang........

It's exactly that stupid.

"David Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:26:36 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"David Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:32:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>>
>
>The prosecutor concluded that it was the word of one against the other
>with
>no way to prove Someone's allegations of the threats made by Armstrong.
>Simply put--no witnesses to what was said. Note that the investigation
>of
>Super Mario is ongoing. Omerta still rules the peloton.
>

Which means you secretly think he did it. Though you will say 'there
is no way to know'.

Given what you know of Armstrong's personality and other public statements
about Ferrari and Simeoni, it wouldn't be a great leap to assume that
Simeoni is probably telling the truth. Proving it in a judicial
proceeding
is something entirely different.

Quoted message said:

You live off of accusations and circumstantial speculation.

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

"You made a mistake to speak against Ferrari, and you made a mistake
to take legal action against me. I have money and time and lots of
lawyers. I can destroy you."

Does that sound more like an Italian making up a threat or a Texan
threatening someone? "speak against"? "take legal action against"?
"destroy you"?

You are no doubt aware that Dr. Prentice Steffen stated on ESPN that
Armstrong threatened him in a similar manner. You may want to take a look
at some of Joe Lindsey's writing. He outlines Armstrong's method of
attacking the character of anyone who questions him on the drug issue:
http://www.mountainbike.com/community/article/1,4823,8762_621,00.html

http://www.mountainbike.com/community/article/1,4823,10081_621_P,00.html

Quoted message said:

I could give a big fat [censored] either way. I thought the move was funny
as hell and made for a better stage. But the whole thing sounds dumb
as hell. If he said it to me I'd kick him in the nut.

Ok, I'll chase your red herring for a minute.

yes yes, I know, anyone against Armstrong is a liar or trying to ruin
cycling. I got it. The article says that he is not going to "attack
her". It goes on to say that, regarding those they will name in a
suit, "But we won't discriminate". Meaning the suit wouldn't
necessarily be limited to the authors. Perceived as a threat against
O'Reilly.

Is this really what you're working with?

Talk about grasping at straws.

If someone leaves my team and rides for my greatest rival or tells
people I do EPO when I don't(true or not) I'm going to be [censored]. And
I'm going to let it be known.

As for Steffen, we both know he left Postal a year before Armstrong
signed on because he refused "to do all that could be done" to help
postal riders win. How many leaps do you have to make to turn that
into "Lance does dope"?

But I digress, the point of my post is not to rehash all this [censored].
It's to point out that YOU always see things as "GUILTY". You are a
nutter. You have a problem.

D

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok, I'll chase your red herring for a minute.

yes yes, I know, anyone against Armstrong is a liar or trying to ruin
cycling. I got it. The article says that he is not going to "attack
her". It goes on to say that, regarding those they will name in a
suit, "But we won't discriminate". Meaning the suit wouldn't
necessarily be limited to the authors. Perceived as a threat against
O'Reilly.

Is this really what you're working with?

Talk about grasping at straws.

If someone leaves my team and rides for my greatest rival or tells
people I do EPO when I don't(true or not) I'm going to be [censored]. And
I'm going to let it be known.

And if you used EPO and the former team mate said so in public, you'd be
[censored] and a liar also. Your point is reall irrelevant to the discussion.

Quoted message said:

As for Steffen, we both know he left Postal a year before Armstrong
signed on because he refused "to do all that could be done" to help
postal riders win. How many leaps do you have to make to turn that
into "Lance does dope"?

You missed the point. Steffen's report of receiving a phoine call from
Armstrong making the same type of threats Simeoni allges were made to him by
Armstrong would lead one to think that there might be some truth to
Simeoni's allegation. Even more so after Armstrong called him an outright
liar in the French press.

Quoted message said:

But I digress, the point of my post is not to rehash all this [censored].
It's to point out that YOU always see things as "GUILTY". You are a
nutter. You have a problem.

It's current news as we go down the road to a November trial in London. And
this is only one of something like eleven legal actions Armstrong is
involved it. The man just isn't going away any time soon.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:55:01 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's current news as we go down the road to a November trial in London. And
this is only one of something like eleven legal actions Armstrong is
involved it. The man just isn't going away any time soon.

This is RBR. By definition he's already away.

But you won't let it go, will you?

Maybe you should start alt.fan.lancearmstrong

D

B. Lafferty said:

"David Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:32:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>

The prosecutor concluded that it was the word of one against the other
with
no way to prove Someone's allegations of the threats made by Armstrong.
Simply put--no witnesses to what was said. Note that the investigation of
Super Mario is ongoing. Omerta still rules the peloton.

Which means you secretly think he did it. Though you will say 'there
is no way to know'.

Given what you know of Armstrong's personality and other public statements
about Ferrari and Simeoni, it wouldn't be a great leap to assume that
Simeoni is probably telling the truth. Proving it in a judicial proceeding
is something entirely different.

Quoted message said:

You live off of accusations and circumstantial speculation.

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

No, the rest of us are cycling fans.

Ron

Maybe he will sue you someday, Brian. Do you think that he will be reading
this newsgroup ?
"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"D. Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ok, I'll chase your red herring for a minute.

yes yes, I know, anyone against Armstrong is a liar or trying to ruin
cycling. I got it. The article says that he is not going to "attack
her". It goes on to say that, regarding those they will name in a
suit, "But we won't discriminate". Meaning the suit wouldn't
necessarily be limited to the authors. Perceived as a threat against
O'Reilly.

Is this really what you're working with?

Talk about grasping at straws.

If someone leaves my team and rides for my greatest rival or tells
people I do EPO when I don't(true or not) I'm going to be [censored]. And
I'm going to let it be known.

And if you used EPO and the former team mate said so in public, you'd be
[censored] and a liar also. Your point is reall irrelevant to the discussion.

Quoted message said:

As for Steffen, we both know he left Postal a year before Armstrong
signed on because he refused "to do all that could be done" to help
postal riders win. How many leaps do you have to make to turn that
into "Lance does dope"?

You missed the point. Steffen's report of receiving a phoine call from
Armstrong making the same type of threats Simeoni allges were made to him

by

Quoted message said:

Armstrong would lead one to think that there might be some truth to
Simeoni's allegation. Even more so after Armstrong called him an outright
liar in the French press.

Quoted message said:

But I digress, the point of my post is not to rehash all this [censored].
It's to point out that YOU always see things as "GUILTY". You are a
nutter. You have a problem.

It's current news as we go down the road to a November trial in London.

And

Quoted message said:

this is only one of something like eleven legal actions Armstrong is
involved it. The man just isn't going away any time soon.

B. Lafferty said:

You are no doubt aware that Dr. Prentice Steffen stated on ESPN that
Armstrong threatened him in a similar manner. You may want to take a look
at some of Joe Lindsey's writing. He outlines Armstrong's method of
attacking the character of anyone who questions him on the drug issue

I certainly am glad that YOU would never attack anyone's character for
spurious reasons or based on hearsay.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

Each individual follows it in their own way. Some similarities and some
differences exist.

If I followed it the way you do (ande vice-versa), we'd be making
near-identical posts.

gwhite said:

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

Each individual follows it in their own way. Some similarities and some
differences exist.

If I followed it the way you do (ande vice-versa), we'd be making
near-identical posts.

Even if you followed it the same way as Lafferty, you couldn't
make identical posts, because as Heraclitus of Ephesus said,
you can never step in the same pile of dogshit twice.

"Steven Gee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Maybe he will sue you someday, Brian. Do you think that he will be reading
this newsgroup ?

If he doesn't, some of his minions do. Sue me for what?

Steven Gee said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe he will sue you someday, Brian. Do you think that he will be reading
this newsgroup ?

B. Lafferty said:

If he doesn't, some of his minions do.

Is a minion a domestique with which you only have an employer/employee
relationship ? A new term for the rbr glossary then.

Quoted message said:

Sue me for what?

I'm sure someone on rbr will be able to think of something. Discuss.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:04:01 -0400, D. Ferguson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:55:01 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's current news as we go down the road to a November trial in London. And
this is only one of something like eleven legal actions Armstrong is
involved it. The man just isn't going away any time soon.

This is RBR. By definition he's already away.

Away and up the road and over the line with a six tour advantage over the
chasers.

Ron

Quoted message said:

But you won't let it go, will you?

Maybe you should start alt.fan.lancearmstrong

D

"I simply follow the sport like everyone else here."

I think you mean you follow men - a lot.

For spreading LIES

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven Gee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Maybe he will sue you someday, Brian. Do you think that he will be reading
this newsgroup ?

If he doesn't, some of his minions do. Sue me for what?

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

Quoted message said:

For spreading LIES

I think not.

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"Steven Gee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Maybe he will sue you someday, Brian. Do you think that he will be
reading
this newsgroup ?

If he doesn't, some of his minions do. Sue me for what?

Quoted message said:

gwhite said:

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

Each individual follows it in their own way. Some similarities and some
differences exist.

If I followed it the way you do (ande vice-versa), we'd be making
near-identical posts.

Even if you followed it the same way as Lafferty, you couldn't
make identical posts, because as Heraclitus of Ephesus said,
you can never step in the same pile of dogshit twice.

He also said:
"Our envy always lasts longer than the happiness of those we envy."

Note to whom it concerns: before boating with bjw, be sure to explain
the difference between a river and dogshit. The difference could be
important.

Tim Lines said:

Quoted message said:

gwhite said:

"B. Lafferty" wrote:

Quoted message said:

>I simply follow the sport like everyone else here.

Each individual follows it in their own way. Some similarities and some
differences exist.

If I followed it the way you do (ande vice-versa), we'd be making
near-identical posts.

Even if you followed it the same way as Lafferty, you couldn't
make identical posts, because as Heraclitus of Ephesus said,
you can never step in the same pile of dogshit twice.

He also said:
"Our envy always lasts longer than the happiness of those we envy."

Note to whom it concerns: before boating with bjw, be sure to explain
the difference between a river and dogshit. The difference could be
important.

It's difficult to explain anything to people who already have all the
answers.

Tim Lines said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even if you followed it the same way as Lafferty, you couldn't
make identical posts, because as Heraclitus of Ephesus said,
you can never step in the same pile of dogshit twice.

He also said:
"Our envy always lasts longer than the happiness of those we envy."

Note to whom it concerns: before boating with bjw, be sure to explain
the difference between a river and dogshit. The difference could be
important.

I'm reminded of the scene in "The Jerk" where, before Steve Martin's
naif character sets out to make his way in the world, his grizzled
farmer adoptive dad tests him to make sure he can tell the difference
between [censored] and Shinola.