Tyler--Lance Run In Post-60 Minutes

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:07:45 +0200, Simply Fred
wrote:
Jimmy July wrote:
The problem is that you've never been able to distinguish
between the
set of people who are Lance fan boys (pretty small on RBR) and
the set
of people who think Lafferty is an asshole (it's unanimous).


William Fred wrote:
Can't I go with dillweed?


Asshat,

The correct answer is: all of the above.

"BL" wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:26 am, wrote:

Marco, the idea is to factually educate the Lance fanboys here on
rbr.
Cheers.

BL, of the regular posters here, who do you think qualifies as a LA
"fanboy"? Even Mike J. makes it clear that he thinks LA is a doper.
I
think LA's a doper, everyone I know here thinks he's a doper, too. I
don't see much support for him here. Only thing I see are a lot of
people who think that LA isn't the anti-Christ, aren't obsessed with
his prosecution, and think that even if he's tossed into a supermax
that a large number of pro cyclists will continue to dope unabated.

Who are you trying to "educate" with this stuff that we all have
read
and know?

======
I'm not sure how you can knowing people here, but I'm not convinced
that Armstrong is a doper. Maybe I'm getting legalistic in my old
age,
but I actually use legal standards to guide my personal opinion of
guilt.

-ilan
======

By "legal standards" OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


By civil court legal standards it was proved that he did---wrongful
death and all that.

Hey bro, I'm helping to make *your* case here. My point was that the
"legal standards" that ilan mentions (I'm assuming he's talking
criminal, not civil courts) let people off who are clearly guilty. To
follow such standards is not to seek the truth.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of Lance Fanboy.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Jun 13, 9:08*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"BL" wrote in message

...





On 6/13/2011 12:50 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
On 6/13/2011 10:27 AM, BL wrote:

You can accept that Armstrong is a doper and still be a fanboy.
There
are very few posters here at rbr anymore who aren't fanboys, Brad.
;-)

On a hunch I ran this through Babelfish in an attempt to get a
translation for it. Interesting ..............

What it means is that anyone not in favor of lynching LA and not
agreeing with Laff is a fanboi

Pretty broad brush there Brian.

Bill
Try again, Fanboy.

Perhaps you could provide your own definition? This 20 questions things
gets a bit old, plus there's no way of knowing if you're defining it
dynamically. How about a solid June 13, 2011 definition of Lance Fanboy?

Thanks-

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Find the nearest mirror Mikey-Mike.

Thanks,
JFG

"Juan Gunderson" wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 9:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"BL" wrote in message

...





On 6/13/2011 12:50 PM, William R. Mattil wrote:
On 6/13/2011 10:27 AM, BL wrote:

You can accept that Armstrong is a doper and still be a fanboy.
There
are very few posters here at rbr anymore who aren't fanboys, Brad.
;-)

On a hunch I ran this through Babelfish in an attempt to get a
translation for it. Interesting ..............

What it means is that anyone not in favor of lynching LA and not
agreeing with Laff is a fanboi

Pretty broad brush there Brian.

Bill
Try again, Fanboy.

Perhaps you could provide your own definition? This 20 questions
things
gets a bit old, plus there's no way of knowing if you're defining it
dynamically. How about a solid June 13, 2011 definition of Lance
Fanboy?

Thanks-

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
=====
Find the nearest mirror Mikey-Mike.

Thanks,
JFG
=====

Seriously? That's the best you can do?

C'mon, take a shot at it. Try describing what a "Lance Fanboy" would be
to someone without reference to a person, but rather attributes. Can you
do it?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Jimmy July wrote:
The problem is that you've never been able to distinguish
between the
set of people who are Lance fan boys (pretty small on RBR) and
the set
of people who think Lafferty is an asshole (it's unanimous).

William Fred wrote:
Can't I go with dillweed?

Simply Fred wrote:
Asshat,

elmo leonard wrote:
The correct answer is: all of the above.

Candyass

On 6/15/2011 12:08 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:26 am, wrote:

Marco, the idea is to factually educate the Lance fanboys here on
rbr.
Cheers.

BL, of the regular posters here, who do you think qualifies as a LA
"fanboy"? Even Mike J. makes it clear that he thinks LA is a doper.
I
think LA's a doper, everyone I know here thinks he's a doper, too. I
don't see much support for him here. Only thing I see are a lot of
people who think that LA isn't the anti-Christ, aren't obsessed with
his prosecution, and think that even if he's tossed into a supermax
that a large number of pro cyclists will continue to dope unabated.

Who are you trying to "educate" with this stuff that we all have
read
and know?

======
I'm not sure how you can knowing people here, but I'm not convinced
that Armstrong is a doper. Maybe I'm getting legalistic in my old
age,
but I actually use legal standards to guide my personal opinion of
guilt.

-ilan
======

By "legal standards" OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


By civil court legal standards it was proved that he did---wrongful
death and all that.

Hey bro, I'm helping to make *your* case here. My point was that the
"legal standards" that ilan mentions (I'm assuming he's talking
criminal, not civil courts) let people off who are clearly guilty. To
follow such standards is not to seek the truth.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of Lance Fanboy.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Lok in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest Lance
Fanboy of all? LOL!!

"BL" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2011 12:08 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:26 am, wrote:

Marco, the idea is to factually educate the Lance fanboys here on
rbr.
Cheers.

BL, of the regular posters here, who do you think qualifies as a
LA
"fanboy"? Even Mike J. makes it clear that he thinks LA is a
doper.
I
think LA's a doper, everyone I know here thinks he's a doper, too.
I
don't see much support for him here. Only thing I see are a lot of
people who think that LA isn't the anti-Christ, aren't obsessed
with
his prosecution, and think that even if he's tossed into a
supermax
that a large number of pro cyclists will continue to dope
unabated.

Who are you trying to "educate" with this stuff that we all have
read
and know?

======
I'm not sure how you can knowing people here, but I'm not convinced
that Armstrong is a doper. Maybe I'm getting legalistic in my old
age,
but I actually use legal standards to guide my personal opinion of
guilt.

-ilan
======

By "legal standards" OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


By civil court legal standards it was proved that he did---wrongful
death and all that.

Hey bro, I'm helping to make *your* case here. My point was that the
"legal standards" that ilan mentions (I'm assuming he's talking
criminal, not civil courts) let people off who are clearly guilty. To
follow such standards is not to seek the truth.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of Lance Fanboy.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Lok in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest Lance
Fanboy of all? LOL!!

So you can't rise about school-yard name-calling?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 6/15/2011 12:51 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2011 12:08 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:26 am, wrote:

Marco, the idea is to factually educate the Lance fanboys here on
rbr.
Cheers.

BL, of the regular posters here, who do you think qualifies as a
LA
"fanboy"? Even Mike J. makes it clear that he thinks LA is a
doper.
I
think LA's a doper, everyone I know here thinks he's a doper, too.
I
don't see much support for him here. Only thing I see are a lot of
people who think that LA isn't the anti-Christ, aren't obsessed
with
his prosecution, and think that even if he's tossed into a
supermax
that a large number of pro cyclists will continue to dope
unabated.

Who are you trying to "educate" with this stuff that we all have
read
and know?

======
I'm not sure how you can knowing people here, but I'm not convinced
that Armstrong is a doper. Maybe I'm getting legalistic in my old
age,
but I actually use legal standards to guide my personal opinion of
guilt.

-ilan
======

By "legal standards" OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


By civil court legal standards it was proved that he did---wrongful
death and all that.

Hey bro, I'm helping to make *your* case here. My point was that the
"legal standards" that ilan mentions (I'm assuming he's talking
criminal, not civil courts) let people off who are clearly guilty. To
follow such standards is not to seek the truth.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of Lance Fanboy.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Lok in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest Lance
Fanboy of all? LOL!!

So you can't rise about school-yard name-calling?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Why should I? This is rbr. In your case I guess you're a
Business****Tard selling Treks.

"BL" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2011 12:51 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/15/2011 12:08 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 6/14/2011 1:19 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 5:14 pm, Brad wrote:
On Jun 13, 7:26 am, wrote:

Marco, the idea is to factually educate the Lance fanboys here on
rbr.
Cheers.

BL, of the regular posters here, who do you think qualifies as a
LA
"fanboy"? Even Mike J. makes it clear that he thinks LA is a
doper.
I
think LA's a doper, everyone I know here thinks he's a doper, too.
I
don't see much support for him here. Only thing I see are a lot of
people who think that LA isn't the anti-Christ, aren't obsessed
with
his prosecution, and think that even if he's tossed into a
supermax
that a large number of pro cyclists will continue to dope
unabated.

Who are you trying to "educate" with this stuff that we all have
read
and know?

======
I'm not sure how you can knowing people here, but I'm not convinced
that Armstrong is a doper. Maybe I'm getting legalistic in my old
age,
but I actually use legal standards to guide my personal opinion of
guilt.

-ilan
======

By "legal standards" OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


By civil court legal standards it was proved that he did---wrongful
death and all that.

Hey bro, I'm helping to make *your* case here. My point was that the
"legal standards" that ilan mentions (I'm assuming he's talking
criminal, not civil courts) let people off who are clearly guilty. To
follow such standards is not to seek the truth.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of Lance Fanboy.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Lok in the mirror. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest Lance
Fanboy of all? LOL!!

So you can't rise about school-yard name-calling?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Why should I? This is rbr. In your case I guess you're a
Business****Tard selling Treks.

It is a choice, not a requirement, to avoid civil discourse in a
conversation, on rbr or anywhere else. Just as it is a choice to directly
answer a question in a way that helps someone understand your position, or
simply resort to name calling, 4-letter epithets or whatever.

Yes, this is rbr, and yes, I recognize that I'm out of my mind to believe
that we could be civil here and learn something from others. But I'll keep
trying anyway.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA