Turning Over Every Rock
BLafferty
Fred Flintstein
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/more/11/19/doping.ap/
Laff, just wondering.
If someone who is not on US soil and is not a US citizen lies
through his teeth to a US investigator, are they on the hook
for perjury?
I just tossed you a softball, don't disappoint us.
Fred Flintstein
Phil H
wrote:
Now you've fogged up the issue. When you think there are probably
quite a few Laffertyesque characters who would like nothing more than
to see Lance fall, by hook or by crook, and they are presented with a
free shot to tilt the truth.....well, what do you think? The case
still lacks hard evidence; lots of posturing and puffed up reports but
no beef yet.
Phil H
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:09c7dcee-6cc2-4163...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net>
wrote:
> On 11/20/2010 7:29 AM, BLafferty wrote:
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/more/11/19/doping.ap/
>
> Laff, just wondering.
>
> If someone who is not on US soil and is not a US citizen lies
> through his teeth to a US investigator, are they on the hook
> for perjury?
>
> I just tossed you a softball, don't disappoint us.
>
> Fred Flintstein
Now you've fogged up the issue. When you think there are probably
quite a few Laffertyesque characters who would like nothing more than
to see Lance fall, by hook or by crook, and they are presented with a
free shot to tilt the truth.....well, what do you think? The case
still lacks hard evidence; lots of posturing and puffed up reports but
no beef yet.
Phil H
We don't actually know what "hard evidence" there is. This is one time that
BL is correct. There could be damning evidence that they're using to procure
more damning evidence and create a real case. We've got to get away from the
idea that, if BL thinks something, it must be wrong. It *could* be wrong,
but just because the thinking comes across as emotional cheerleading, we
shouldn't dig ourselves into an opposing position. Whatever evidence comes
our way should give us reason to examine our beliefs and ask questions. As
we always should.
Life is dynamic. Things change. Few situations are so obvious that we
instantly know all there is to know about them. What did we really see
happen? Ask five witnesses and get five different answers to the same event.
It takes time to sort things out. We can use that time to harden our
position (the usual rbr way of life) or we can use it to ask questions and
become better educated about things.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
BLafferty
you have no idea what hard evidence they have. The fact that they sent a
fairly large investigative delegation to Europe tells me they have hard
evidence and are either digging up more and/or are looking to
corroborate the hard evidence they already have.
Phil H
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not privy, but until we know what they have, it's like I said, all
posturing and no beef.
There has to be more than a few reports from athletes to overturn the
numerous negative drug tests. They had several years of extreme
suspicion yet they came up with nada. Show me the hard evidence then
I'll STFU.
Phil H
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> We've got to get away from the
> idea that, if BL thinks something, it must be wrong. It *could* be wrong,
> but just because the thinking comes across as emotional cheerleading, we
> shouldn't dig ourselves into an opposing position. Whatever evidence comes
> our way should give us reason to examine our beliefs and ask questions. As
> we always should.
I don't want to interrupt the philosophy discussion,
but is there any reason to believe that most of rbr
automatically thinks that because BL thinks something,
it must be wrong? That sounds like a strawman.
A lot of us argue with Lafferty. It doesn't mean that
we always disagree with everything he says, it means that
we like arguing. And, to be fair, BL has a history of
being wrong when he makes specific predictions on these
subjects. So reflexive opposition is not necessarily
as thoughtless as you make out.
(I think he's better on general predictions, but predicting
that doping is rife in the peloton and somebody will get
busted is one of those things where you're so likely to be
right that it no longer scores points.)
As for the original article, it had this interesting tidbit:
: Another participant described the meetings as very productive,
: saying many cycling topics were discussed and that Armstrong
: wasn't the sole focus.
It's obvious that they are chasing an Armstrong indictment
(reminder, indictment is not conviction) but what actually
comes out of the process may be quite different.
Fredmaster Ben
BLafferty
would lead to others involved with Armstrong like Thom and Johan. The
real fun will begin when indictments are handed down and the snakes
start eating each other to stay out of prison.
Norman
Hampsten was interviewed in the type of purpose, Mathew Rosengart told
AP. No more witch hunts, no more Landis is playing it just shows they
already to the placebo effect might be that would have suspicions
about
done: relentless investigator. I would clean (for every rock looking
for the US Thanksgiving Day holiday this week the career he did it
meant fewer victories; he was happy with Armstrong the US Attorney's
investigation you from his doctor father in law the following link
should give you receive such a loose cannon now it meant fewer
victories; have suspicions about making a fairly large investigative
delegation to others involved; with being a formal targets of time
purpose Mathew Rosengart told AP: appropriate).
I expect that they were looking for the career he did it just shows
they
sent a good observation.
Fred Fredburger
> We've got to
> get away from the idea that, if BL thinks something, it must be wrong.
"We"? I'm not presumptuous enough to speak for anyone but myself.
I argue with Lafferty because he makes candy assed predictions then
claims to be right. He predicts every possible outcome, then reappears 6
months later to announce that he was correct.
This investigation is a fine example. He's claimed that a long list of
people will "do the perp walk" then backed off by saying "time will
tell" and pointed out that we don't know what the evidence is. He's got
all his bases covered. If they build a dome over the US and incarcerate
us all, he will have pretty much predicted it. If no one gets
prosecuted, he's got that covered too.
Fred Fredburger
> Unless you are privy to the workings of the US Attorney's investigation,
> you have no idea what hard evidence they have. The fact that they sent a
> fairly large investigative delegation to Europe tells me they have hard
> evidence and are either digging up more and/or are looking to
> corroborate the hard evidence they already have.
If I understand you correctly, Phil's opinion should be discounted
because he is not "privy to the workings of the US Attorney's
investigation". YOUR speculation, in contrast, requires no such
confirmation.
This is why so many believe you are a horse's ass.
RicodJour
wrote:
Belief requires a leap of faith. With such abundant proof no leap is
required.
R
Andy Coggan
English, please: I can't understand a single word of what you just
said (wrote).
Andy Coggan
derf...@gmail.com
> English, please: I can't understand a single word of what you just
> said (wrote).
it reads like either a bad Google translate ... or someone reading
r.b.r while on acid.
DirtRoadie
Really? I have no problem with any single word. They all appear to
normal English words, abbreviations and proper names. However, I agree
that there is no comprehensibility in the combination.
But since this a Laffertian* thread, I'm not sure that
comprehensibility would be of any value.
*Laffertian = only two possibilities
1 Lance is a dirty, filthy, lying, cheating, good-for-nothing, never-
been-a-worthy-bike-racer, criminal, doper AND I knew it all along
2 Not 1
DR
RicodJour
Beloved Fred No. 1
>> English, please: I can't understand a single word of what you just
>> said (wrote).
derF...@gmail.com wrote:
> it reads like either a bad Google translate ... or someone reading
> r.b.r while on acid.
You need acid if you read rbr. I bet Lafferty has visions (or
nightmares) of LANCE while he's tripping.
Brad Anders
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/more/11/19/doping.ap/
What a ridiculous quest this pursuit of LA is. We all know he doped -
along with everyone else in the top 20 on GC at every major tour he
rode during his dominant years. Let's say they're successful, and
prove beyond a doubt that LA was doping - so what? Do they also go
after the next guy on GC (assuming he hasn't already gotten nailed)?
The next one after that? The next one? Of course not. LA's only real
crime during this time was doing it all better than the rest and
winning. All that will be accomplished by this obsession of Novitzky's
is more fame for him, fewer sponsors for pro cycling, less fan
interest, and fewer athletes entering the sport. Doping today in
cycling continues, but it's no different than any other sport. If
Novitzky wants to make real change in sports doping in the US, he
should go back to the old well he was dipping in, professional ball
sports - that's something people in this country give a rat's ass
about, and actually influences people's behavior, not some skinny-ass
bicycle racer.
Brad Anders
BLafferty
This is not directly about doping in sport. It is about defrauding the
US government. Do try to keep your eye on the ball, Brad.
Fred Fredburger
We need a translator here. What Brian MEANT to say was:
"Unless you are privy to the workings of the US Attorney's
investigation, you have no idea what hard evidence they have. Therefore
your speculations are meaningless and should cease. Please all
exceptions for MY meaningless speculations, which I have no control over
and defy all logic because I'm an OCD Jackass."
--D-y
If we looked at Novitsky's athletic background, would we find similar
motivation to Dick Pound's?
And for that matter, Greg "fits the doper profile" Lemond?
With a healthy dose of Lafferty's "he's too arrogant" thrown in, of
course.
This is all about finding a big bad rap to hang on someone. Merely
getting TdF victories taken away isn't nearly enough, obviously, or
they'd not be going after the "defrauding the US government" angle.
Victor Conte got a slap on the wrist, and was defiant, and insulting.
Marion Jones took her punishment, also comparatively minor, and is
rehabilitating herself.
No, what they need is some good hard jail time and the destruction of
an empire. Baseball is too big, and the public doesn't care, and Bonds
isn't going to take much of a fall.
Too bad, Lance, looks like the fickle finger of fate might be pointing
at you!
--D-y
Brad Anders
> This is not directly about doping in sport. It is about defrauding the
> US government.
Then it's even more of a ridiculous witch hunt. I'd wager that the
investigation to date has cost more to the taxpayer than the total
amount of the supposed "fraud". By the time it's done, it'll be closer
to 10X. As they say, good money after bad.
Brad Anders
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Even you can't possibly believe that.
Novitsky is and has been a doping investigator, not a
fraud investigator. Doping is what he cares about.
The fraud angle in this case is the hook by which
to investigate doping, rather than doping being the
hook by which one uncovers frauds. It's like saying
Al Capone was a tax cheat more than a gangster
because he got done for tax evasion - no, he was
investigated because he was a gangster, and tax
evasion was the hook.
Again, I refer to the original SI article:
: Another participant described the meetings as very productive,
: saying many cycling topics were discussed and that Armstrong
: wasn't the sole focus.
You interpreted this as leading to Weisel and Bruyneel,
which is your own interpretation, but one could
also think that "many cycling topics" refers to other
cyclists, other dope rings, whatever. I kinda suspect
it refers to multiple dope investigations rather than
multiple fraud cases.
Fraudmaster Ben
RicodJour
wrote:
Barry is for the most part simply obfuscating with his standard
alternating bait/switch/insult cycle. There are larger implications
than LANCE alone, and these are, of course, the interesting things.
Barry just likes to argue to provide distraction and to keep fluffed.
R
BLafferty
everywhere.
BLafferty
Wrong. That's your interpretation. I never made that connection with
that statement. I've also been saying for quite some time that the
investigation involves more than just Armstrong.
> which is your own interpretation, but one could
> also think that "many cycling topics" refers to other
> cyclists, other dope rings, whatever. I kinda suspect
> it refers to multiple dope investigations rather than
> multiple fraud cases.
It is not clear what the speaker was referring to. It could be either or
both.
You children are so fixated on flaming me that you've lost any semblance
of reasoning ability that you may have had. Carry on, kids. :-)
>
> Fraudmaster Ben
Brad Anders
Most law enforcement agencies have a "minimum standard" when it comes
to certain investigations, below which they won't take them on. By
brother-in-law was an FBI agent in NYC working in bank fraud in the
1980's. At that time, they wouldn't go after any case that wasn't for
at least $250K - I'm sure today that figure is probably $1M+. IMO,
this case against Lance falls below such standards.
Additionaly, let's assume LA and the whole Postal team was doping.
Exactly how did they defraud the govenment? US Postal got exactly what
they wanted for the money they spent - tremendous positive publicity
in Europe and the US, driven by multiple TdF wins and numerous other
races, as well as profits from the sale of Postal paraphernalia, all
which was actually realized and is on the books.
Lastly, who is to say that people at Postal had zero knowledge of
doping and gave tacit approval by their silence? Hiring pro cyclists
to hawk your wares is like hiring Schwartzenegger as your spokesperson
and then being shocked by his steroid use.
Brad Anders
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy. That
was spot on!
Fred Flintstein
BLafferty
to a criminal charge. But, you know that already.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 11/22/2010 11:41 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > Again, I refer to the original SI article:
>
> > : Another participant described the meetings as very productive,
> > : saying many cycling topics were discussed and that Armstrong
> > : wasn't the sole focus.
>
> > You interpreted this as leading to Weisel and Bruyneel,
>
> Wrong. That's your interpretation. I never made that connection with
> that statement. I've also been saying for quite some time that the
> investigation involves more than just Armstrong.
Just upthread, on November 21 2010, which is also
known as "yesterday," I posted that quote and you
responded:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/43d08444922111a5?hl=en
> It would not be surprising if they were looking for money transfers that
> would lead to others involved with Armstrong like Thom and Johan. The
> real fun will begin when indictments are handed down and the snakes
> start eating each other to stay out of prison.
So how can you claim that you didn't make a
connection to Weisel and Bruyneel? Were you
talking about some other Thom and Johan?
You can't even keep your own candyassing
straight at this point.
Fredmaster Ben
BLafferty
even trigger a thought of Weisel and Johan. In the context of their
being at Interpol in France, I was thinking there was another
investigation that our agents might be helping the Euro investigators
with. You can keep try to attack me, but the fact of Lance and Co. are
what they are.
Are you on salary with Fabio's firm.
RicodJour
> On Nov 22, 11:14 am, BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/22/2010 11:41 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > > Again, I refer to the original SI article:
>
> > > : Another participant described the meetings as very productive,
> > > : saying many cycling topics were discussed and that Armstrong
> > > : wasn't the sole focus.
>
> > > You interpreted this as leading to Weisel and Bruyneel,
>
> > Wrong. That's your interpretation. I never made that connection with
> > that statement. I've also been saying for quite some time that the
> > investigation involves more than just Armstrong.
>
> Just upthread, on November 21 2010, which is also
> known as "yesterday," I posted that quote and you
> responded:
>
>
> > It would not be surprising if they were looking for money transfers that
> > would lead to others involved with Armstrong like Thom and Johan. The
> > real fun will begin when indictments are handed down and the snakes
> > start eating each other to stay out of prison.
>
> So how can you claim that you didn't make a
> connection to Weisel and Bruyneel? Were you
> talking about some other Thom and Johan?
> You can't even keep your own candyassing
> straight at this point.
It's not necessary for him to keep track. If he just scatters enough
shit around something will eventually grow out of it.
R
Fred Fredburger
> You can keep try to attack me, but the fact of Lance and Co. are
> what they are.
>
> Are you on salary with Fabio's firm.
Single minded moron,
Lance is a DICK!!!
So are you.
BLafferty
How much is Fabio paying you to pollute newsgroups and comment forums?
BLafferty
Beloved Fred No. 1
>> Single minded moron,
>> Lance is a DICK!!!
>> So are you.
BLafferty wrote:
> How much is Fabio paying you to pollute newsgroups and comment forums?
Where do I apply to get paid for posting to rbr ?
drmofe
Your application has been considered and rejected.
Funds are limited.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 11/22/2010 3:43 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 11:14 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2010 11:41 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> >>> Again, I refer to the original SI article:
>
> >>> : Another participant described the meetings as very productive,
> >>> : saying many cycling topics were discussed and that Armstrong
> >>> : wasn't the sole focus.
>
> >>> You interpreted this as leading to Weisel and Bruyneel,
>
> >> Wrong. That's your interpretation. I never made that connection with
> >> that statement. I've also been saying for quite some time that the
> >> investigation involves more than just Armstrong.
>
> > Just upthread, on November 21 2010, which is also
> > known as "yesterday," I posted that quote and you
> > responded:
>
>
> >> It would not be surprising if they were looking for money transfers that
> >> would lead to others involved with Armstrong like Thom and Johan. The
> >> real fun will begin when indictments are handed down and the snakes
> >> start eating each other to stay out of prison.
>
> > So how can you claim that you didn't make a
> > connection to Weisel and Bruyneel? Were you
> > talking about some other Thom and Johan?
> > You can't even keep your own candyassing
> > straight at this point.
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> Wrong again, little boy. My comment referred to in this post did not
> even trigger a thought of Weisel and Johan.
ENGLISH PLEASE.
> In the context of their
> being at Interpol in France, I was thinking there was another
> investigation that our agents might be helping the Euro investigators
> with. You can keep try to attack me, but the fact of Lance and Co. are
> what they are.
>
> Are you on salary with Fabio's firm.
It's true, your arguments are so persuasive that
no one would disagree with you unless they were
paid. And Fabiani finds you such a threat that he
commissions us to argue with you on Usenet.
"Us" in a manner of speaking - of course, maybe
these are all pseudonyms and it's all just one person
arguing with you behind a bunch of sock puppets.
Maybe it's actually LANCE arguing with you on rbr.
I hear that Weisel prefers the cyclingnews forums.
Fredmaster Ben (maybe)
BLafferty
BLafferty
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> Dumbass,
>
> You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
>
> I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy. That
> was spot on!
>
>
dumbass,
lafferty is the psycho ex to weisel and ochowicz. he is what is known
as a resentful stalker:
http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/TypesofStalkers.html
this stems from old USCF battles. armstrong just happens to be a high
profile public associate of those two.
BLafferty
LOL! Nice try as a pseud-attorney, but there is absolutely no stalking
here by me just as there is no stalking by you and other friends of
Lance and Fabio of me here at rbr.
By the way, you might be interested to know that CyclingNews forums has
just banned a suspected Fabio & Co. poster to their forums. That would
never happen here, right children?
Carry on girls.
Jimmy July
A bit less than he's paying you to be his PR rep.
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Give my best to Fabio when you contact him or his office.
Only if he shows me some dead presidents.
BLafferty
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Give Fabio a big hug for me when you
see him.
RicodJour
> On 11/23/2010 3:31 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 3:12 pm, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
>
> >> I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy. That
> >> was spot on!
>
> > as a resentful stalker:
>
> >http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/TypesofStalkers.html
>
> > this stems from old USCF battles. armstrong just happens to be a high
> > profile public associate of those two.
>
> LOL! Nice try as a pseud-attorney, but there is absolutely no stalking
> here by me just as there is no stalking by you and other friends of
> Lance and Fabio of me here at rbr.
Nicely crafted sentence. Can anyone imagine that _not_ being spoken
in an inebriated voice? All that's missing are the burps.
R
derf...@gmail.com
> Nicely crafted sentence. Can anyone imagine that _not_ being spoken
> in an inebriated voice? All that's missing are the burps.
Me winning isn't, you do.
Fred Fredburger
So now LANCE murdered all those Presidents? THE CONSPIRACY DEEPENS!!!!
Fred Fredburger
No, thank YOU for sharing your lack thereof!
BLafferty
BLafferty
> BLafferty wrote:
>> On 11/23/2010 4:26 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2010 05:01 PM, BLafferty wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2010 6:43 PM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>>>> BLafferty wrote:
>>>>>> You can keep try to attack me, but the fact of Lance and Co. are what
>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you on salary with Fabio's firm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Single minded moron,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lance is a DICK!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> So are you.
>>>>
>>>> How much is Fabio paying you to pollute newsgroups and comment forums?
>>>
>>> A bit less than he's paying you to be his PR rep.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>
> No, thank YOU for sharing your lack thereof!
Oh, what a dig that was. ROTFL! You'll never keep a job with Fabio
using those retorts.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Huh?
The rest of rbr is not stalking you. We're not even your
adversaries. We're your only friends. No one else is
left who will listen. That's why you came back, isn't it?
Even psycho ex-girlfriends need a support group, yes?
Fredmaster Ben
Fred Fredburger
"Fabio is paying you!" is killing us. It's hard to imagine anything as
witty as that.
You are every bit as successful a comedian as you were a lawyer.
Brad Anders
wrote:
> "Fabio is paying you!" is killing us. It's hard to imagine anything as
> witty as that.
Gotta agree, it's about the most retarded "that's what you are but
what am I" retort I've seen in a while.
Brad Anders
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:74SdnesQc7BauHHR...@giganews.com...
What possible reason would there be for an agent of (insert RBRs current
infatuation) to hang out here?
Seriously.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Nicely crafted sentence. Can anyone imagine that _not_ being spoken
> in an inebriated voice? All that's missing are the burps.
All bases yours covered by us.
BLafferty
> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:74SdnesQc7BauHHR...@giganews.com...
>> On 11/23/2010 3:31 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 3:12 pm, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dumbass,
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
>>>>
>>>> I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy.
>>>> That
>>>> was spot on!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> dumbass,
>>>
>>> lafferty is the psycho ex to weisel and ochowicz. he is what is known
>>> as a resentful stalker:
>>>
>>> http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/TypesofStalkers.html
>>>
>>> this stems from old USCF battles. armstrong just happens to be a high
>>> profile public associate of those two.
>>>
>>
>> LOL! Nice try as a pseud-attorney, but there is absolutely no
>> stalking here by me just as there is no stalking by you and other
>> friends of Lance and Fabio of me here at rbr.
>>
>> By the way, you might be interested to know that CyclingNews forums
>> would never happen here, right children?
>>
>> Carry on girls.
>
> What possible reason would there be for an agent of (insert RBRs current
> infatuation) to hang out here?
>
> Seriously.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
BLafferty
word retort. Carry on.
Amit Ghosh
> LOL! Nice try as a pseud-attorney, but there is absolutely no stalking
> here by me
dumbass,
your fixation is on weisel and ochowicz, it always has been.
BLafferty
rational discussion. That fixation has become obsessive for many of you.
But, I understand this is your virtual playground. Say hi to Fabio.
Carry on, kids. :-)
RicodJour
wrote:
Because RBR is a world leader in shaping public opinion. Either that
or we have really deep pockets.
R
BLafferty
> On Nov 24, 12:38 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:74SdnesQc7BauHHR...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/23/2010 3:31 PM, Amit Ghosh wrote:
>>>> On Nov 22, 3:12 pm, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Dumbass,
>>
>>>>> You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
>>
>>>>> I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy.
>>>>> That
>>>>> was spot on!
>>
>>>> dumbass,
>>
>>>> lafferty is the psycho ex to weisel and ochowicz. he is what is known
>>>> as a resentful stalker:
>>
>>>> http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/TypesofStalkers.html
>>
>>>> this stems from old USCF battles. armstrong just happens to be a high
>>>> profile public associate of those two.
>>
>>> LOL! Nice try as a pseud-attorney, but there is absolutely no
>>> stalking here by me just as there is no stalking by you and other
>>> friends of Lance and Fabio of me here at rbr.
>>
>>> By the way, you might be interested to know that CyclingNews forums
>>> would never happen here, right children?
>>
>>> Carry on girls.
>>
>> What possible reason would there be for an agent of (insert RBRs current
>> infatuation) to hang out here?
>>
>> Seriously.
>
> Because RBR is a world leader in shaping public opinion. Either that
> or we have really deep pockets.
>
> R
Ten years ago the motive for Fabio to have minions post here would have
been far greater. Places like the CyclingNews forum are much more
influential these days. That still does not rule out Fabio trolls
lurking here.
Mike Jacoubowsky
It would be highly ironic if Fabio was being paid to monitor newsgroups
like this while at the same time crying foul about spending public money
to engage Armstrong & Company. :-)
RicodJour
> been far greater. Places like the CyclingNews forum are much more
> influential these days. That still does not rule out Fabio trolls
> lurking here.
Kettleball - pot. You are the troll, troll. It is your function, it
is your right. Bask in it.
R
BLafferty
Michael Press
<6f99ed29-cf6e-4afb...@k5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 3:12 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Dumbass,
> >
> > You're trying to reason with him. WTF! Think about that a second.
> >
> > I have to give Amit credit for the psycho ex-girlfriend analogy. That
> > was spot on!
> >
> >
>
> dumbass,
>
> lafferty is the psycho ex to weisel and ochowicz. he is what is known
> as a resentful stalker:
>
> http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/TypesofStalkers.html
Could be interesting if there were more contrast
between foreground and background colors.
--
Michael Press
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Because that's one of the things that contracted PR firms routinely do.
Do you _read_ rbr? Or only the replies to you?
Have you seen the replies to "Hi, I'm new to this forum"?
--
Old Fritz
Frederick the Great
BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 11:55 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 9:06 pm, Fred Fredburger<I...@just.dont.know.anymore>
> > wrote:
> >> "Fabio is paying you!" is killing us. It's hard to imagine anything as
> >> witty as that.
> >
> > Gotta agree, it's about the most retarded "that's what you are but
> > what am I" retort I've seen in a while.
> >
> Brad, I'm really happy to see that I expanded your vocabulary with the
> word retort. Carry on.
He's a chemist, you retort.
--
Old Fritz
Brad Anders
> In article <hK-dnRtrnMN-m3DRnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>,
Goddamn, that's what I love about this n.g., even an old dog can learn
new tricks. I had no idea there were other meanings for "retort",
thanks. I guess I could be an undertaker, too.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On Nov 24, 12:52 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <hK-dnRtrnMN-m3DRnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>,
>
> > BLafferty <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/23/2010 11:55 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
> > > > On Nov 23, 9:06 pm, Fred Fredburger<I...@just.dont.know.anymore>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "Fabio is paying you!" is killing us. It's hard to imagine anything as
> > > >> witty as that.
>
> > > > Gotta agree, it's about the most retarded "that's what you are but
> > > > what am I" retort I've seen in a while.
>
> > > Brad, I'm really happy to see that I expanded your vocabulary with the
> > > word retort. Carry on.
>
> > He's a chemist, you retort.
>
> new tricks. I had no idea there were other meanings for "retort",
> thanks. I guess I could be an undertaker, too.
Anderson Cooper 360,
Don't try to pretend you are ignorant of analytical
chemistry. You've been cooking up designer drugs in
a shack down by the river just like the rest of us
in RBR, to be up there in the sprint on those
Saturday masters training rides.
When Jeff Novitsky finally sets his sights on RBR
he will burn this wretched place with the clear and
purifying flame of his wrath, for lo, he is the Autoclave
of Human Souls. Behold, there comes a pale rider,
on a white bicycle, and may the dopers, PR flacks,
fanboys, and LANCE sock-puppets quiver in fear!
Fredprophet Ben
Fred Fredburger
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Behold, there comes a pale rider,
> on a white bicycle, and may the dopers, PR flacks,
> fanboys, and LANCE sock-puppets quiver in fear!
Its easy to quiver when you're fat.