Lance Armstrong's stance should be . . .

In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:

I care because it's about time sombody in this world took
a stand against the insanity of bureaucracies raising the
bar and then retroactively calling somebody affected by
that bar raising a 'doper.' Where does it end. How about
all the folks who got stopped by the police and checked
for drunk driving but blew under the control limit of .08%.

The world is full of beaurocratic wrongs. Consider the people who
live not far from me who have yet, thanks to our governmental
agencies, not received any of the promised disaster aid.

Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

Not while you respond to a message on the topic of Lance
Armstrong and drugs. But wait! There's more!! In response
to somebody who made telling points against USADA and UCI
you said to let it go. That is tantamount to telling
someone who addresses the whole matter rationally and
with solid arguments to be quiet. Looks like you find his
arguments too strong to bear with equanimity. Tell us:
Are you in favor of the sanctions imposed upon Lance
Armstrong? The USADA did not let it go. The only party
you can get to let it go is yourself. But first answer
the question of your view on the sanctions imposed upon
Lance Armstrong.

--
Old Fritz

Frederick the Great wrote:
Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

Not while you respond to a message on the topic of Lance
Armstrong and drugs. But wait! There's more!! In response
to somebody who made telling points against USADA and UCI
you said to let it go. That is tantamount to telling
someone who addresses the whole matter rationally and
with solid arguments to be quiet. Looks like you find his
arguments too strong to bear with equanimity. Tell us:
Are you in favor of the sanctions imposed upon Lance
Armstrong? The USADA did not let it go. The only party
you can get to let it go is yourself. But first answer
the question of your view on the sanctions imposed upon
Lance Armstrong.

I don't care enough to have an opinion. As I said, this is old news to
me, and I don't understand why a person must have an opinion on every
subject. This is a complex subject that I'm very glad I'm not in the
middle of. I've got enough of my own life to be concerned with; while
I'm not and never have been a competitive cyclist, I do compete in other
sports well enough to earn titles and records - thank goodness for age
and weight classes!

I take my own training seriously - between my professional, my
amatuer-but-serious sports career, my wife and children, my other
hobbies, well, I just don't spend my life contemplating whether or not
one well-known cyclist from a few years ago has been treated justly or
not. It's like worrying about whether a particular baseball player gets
into the Hall of Fame - sorry but it's old news to me and I'd rather
spend my "sports fan energy," if you will, on who's going to play for
the Yankees in 2013 than worry about whether Mike Piazza actually did or
didn't do drugs.

-S-

In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:
Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

Not while you respond to a message on the topic of Lance
Armstrong and drugs. But wait! There's more!! In response
to somebody who made telling points against USADA and UCI
you said to let it go. That is tantamount to telling
someone who addresses the whole matter rationally and
with solid arguments to be quiet. Looks like you find his
arguments too strong to bear with equanimity. Tell us:
Are you in favor of the sanctions imposed upon Lance
Armstrong? The USADA did not let it go. The only party
you can get to let it go is yourself. But first answer
the question of your view on the sanctions imposed upon
Lance Armstrong.

I don't care enough to have an opinion. As I said, this is old news to
me, and I don't understand why a person must have an opinion on every
subject. This is a complex subject that I'm very glad I'm not in the
middle of. I've got enough of my own life to be concerned with; while
I'm not and never have been a competitive cyclist, I do compete in other
sports well enough to earn titles and records - thank goodness for age
and weight classes!

I take my own training seriously - between my professional, my
amatuer-but-serious sports career, my wife and children, my other
hobbies, well, I just don't spend my life contemplating whether or not
one well-known cyclist from a few years ago has been treated justly or
not. It's like worrying about whether a particular baseball player gets
into the Hall of Fame - sorry but it's old news to me and I'd rather
spend my "sports fan energy," if you will, on who's going to play for
the Yankees in 2013 than worry about whether Mike Piazza actually did or
didn't do drugs.

Yet you continue to respond to the matter.
When will you stop? I have no plans to stop
discussing it.

--
Old Fritz

Frederick the Great wrote:
In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:
Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

Not while you respond to a message on the topic of Lance
Armstrong and drugs. But wait! There's more!! In response
to somebody who made telling points against USADA and UCI
you said to let it go. That is tantamount to telling
someone who addresses the whole matter rationally and
with solid arguments to be quiet. Looks like you find his
arguments too strong to bear with equanimity. Tell us:
Are you in favor of the sanctions imposed upon Lance
Armstrong? The USADA did not let it go. The only party
you can get to let it go is yourself. But first answer
the question of your view on the sanctions imposed upon
Lance Armstrong.

I don't care enough to have an opinion. As I said, this is old news
to me, and I don't understand why a person must have an opinion on
every subject. This is a complex subject that I'm very glad I'm not
in the middle of. I've got enough of my own life to be concerned
with; while I'm not and never have been a competitive cyclist, I do
compete in other sports well enough to earn titles and records -
thank goodness for age and weight classes!

I take my own training seriously - between my professional, my
amatuer-but-serious sports career, my wife and children, my other
hobbies, well, I just don't spend my life contemplating whether or
not one well-known cyclist from a few years ago has been treated
justly or not. It's like worrying about whether a particular
baseball player gets into the Hall of Fame - sorry but it's old news
to me and I'd rather spend my "sports fan energy," if you will, on
who's going to play for the Yankees in 2013 than worry about whether
Mike Piazza actually did or didn't do drugs.

Yet you continue to respond to the matter.
When will you stop? I have no plans to stop
discussing it.

Consider this the corner bar and we're having a beer after a ride. If
either of us doesn't like the conversation, we're free to move to
another table or walk out the door. Such is Usenet. I'll stop
sometime, maybe now. You continue to respond to me responding, too -
when will you stop, eh?

-S-

"Steve Freides" wrote:
Frederick the Great wrote:
In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:
Frederick the Great wrote:
Let it go, Steve.

I have let it go - that was my point and so should we all.

Not while you respond to a message on the topic of Lance
Armstrong and drugs. But wait! There's more!! In response
to somebody who made telling points against USADA and UCI
you said to let it go. That is tantamount to telling
someone who addresses the whole matter rationally and
with solid arguments to be quiet. Looks like you find his
arguments too strong to bear with equanimity. Tell us:
Are you in favor of the sanctions imposed upon Lance
Armstrong? The USADA did not let it go. The only party
you can get to let it go is yourself. But first answer
the question of your view on the sanctions imposed upon
Lance Armstrong.

I don't care enough to have an opinion. As I said, this is old news
to me, and I don't understand why a person must have an opinion on
every subject. This is a complex subject that I'm very glad I'm not
in the middle of. I've got enough of my own life to be concerned
with; while I'm not and never have been a competitive cyclist, I do
compete in other sports well enough to earn titles and records -
thank goodness for age and weight classes!

I take my own training seriously - between my professional, my
amatuer-but-serious sports career, my wife and children, my other
hobbies, well, I just don't spend my life contemplating whether or
not one well-known cyclist from a few years ago has been treated
justly or not. It's like worrying about whether a particular
baseball player gets into the Hall of Fame - sorry but it's old news
to me and I'd rather spend my "sports fan energy," if you will, on
who's going to play for the Yankees in 2013 than worry about whether
Mike Piazza actually did or didn't do drugs.

Yet you continue to respond to the matter.
When will you stop? I have no plans to stop
discussing it.

Consider this the corner bar and we're having a beer after a ride. If
either of us doesn't like the conversation, we're free to move to
another table or walk out the door. Such is Usenet. I'll stop
sometime, maybe now. You continue to respond to me responding, too -
when will you stop, eh?

I answered that. You cannot let go because people
continue to find fault with the actions of the USADA
and the UCI and that bothers you---you want them to be
quiet about it. You may have your smirky back; I'm not
having it. Otherwise I'm donating it to the Salvation Army.

--
Michael Press

Frederick the Great wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

I answered that. You cannot let go because people
continue to find fault with the actions of the USADA
and the UCI and that bothers you---you want them to be
quiet about it. You may have your smirky back; I'm not
having it. Otherwise I'm donating it to the Salvation Army.


Can't decide who you wanna be today huh?

In article om,
atriage wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

I answered that. You cannot let go because people
continue to find fault with the actions of the USADA
and the UCI and that bothers you---you want them to be
quiet about it. You may have your smirky back; I'm not
having it. Otherwise I'm donating it to the Salvation Army.


Can't decide who you wanna be today huh?

You cannot handle any of us, bullyboy.

--
Old Fritz

On 14/01/2013 01:29, Frederick the Great wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

I answered that. You cannot let go because people
continue to find fault with the actions of the USADA
and the UCI and that bothers you---you want them to be
quiet about it. You may have your smirky back; I'm not
having it. Otherwise I'm donating it to the Salvation Army.


Can't decide who you wanna be today huh?

You cannot handle any of us, bullyboy.


Posting in the same thread as two people makes you feel like you have weight of
numbers on your side huh? How utterly pathetic. It just shows how little
confidence you have in even the most rudimentary points you are [barely] capable
of making.

In article om,
atriage wrote:

On 14/01/2013 01:29, Frederick the Great wrote:
In raweb.com,
wrote:

Frederick the Great wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

I answered that. You cannot let go because people
continue to find fault with the actions of the USADA
and the UCI and that bothers you---you want them to be
quiet about it. You may have your smirky back; I'm not
having it. Otherwise I'm donating it to the Salvation Army.


Can't decide who you wanna be today huh?

You cannot handle any of us, bullyboy.


Posting in the same thread as two people makes you feel like you have weight of
numbers on your side huh? How utterly pathetic. It just shows how little
confidence you have in even the most rudimentary points you are [barely] capable
of making.

You cannot answer any of them rudimentary or sketchy.

--
Old Fritz