Landis Gets Applause
B. Lafferty
raamman
> http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills...
my applause for Landis came out the other end
CowPunk
That's ironic considering Landis has diarrhea of the mouth.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7R...@giganews.com...
> http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills-race.html
So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone living in
Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a wire
story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can come
up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper" programmed to
look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can carefully
choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
already believe.
The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
derf...@gmail.com
should be obvious. Like before, he's looking for acceptance and
approval. When he was caught that meant putting on the deny, defend,
& fight front. Complete with enlisting others in the fight.
After that ran its course and didn't work out, and he's washed up as a
racer and largely forgotten, what's the next approach? Switch to the
other side and try to garner approval for fighting the corrupt
system. It's all a game either way. If he really had integrity he'd
shut up and get a regular job and just live like a regular joe..
B. Lafferty
Anton Berlin
wrote:> >http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/07/30/2024459/landis-rides-in-catskills...
>
> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone living in
> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a wire
> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can come
> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper" programmed to
> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can carefully
> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
> already believe.
>
> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Mike - all news is like this. And music. An algorithm computes how
many times one should hear lady gaga at 2.1 times an hour and at a
ration not to exceed 1.317 that of Zac Bieber
In this way we call all think the same news and dance to the same
music. It's Orwell's heaven
Mike Jacoubowsky
How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link to
the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to my
point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your scraper
works?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
RicodJour
wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > On 7/31/2010 1:59 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >> So I'm thinking, who would read the Fresno Bee except someone living in
> >> Fresno? Of course, the answer is nobody. So why would someone use a wire
> >> story from the Fresno Bee as a "news" source? The only thing I can come
> >> up with is that that somebody has a wire service "scraper" programmed to
> >> look for certain keywords in articles and collect those articles.
> >> Basically you program a robot to do your work for you. And the
> >> interesting thing about this is, instead of research, you can carefully
> >> choose your keywords so that you get results that support what you
> >> already believe.
>
> >> The real beauty to this is that you avoid being exposed to things you
> >> don't want to see or disagree with. You can construct your own safe
> >> world where everything supports what you already believe, and you can
> >> tell the world look, I'm right, here's proof I found on the 'net!
>
> >> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> >http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/38495011/ns/sports/
>
> How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link to
> the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to my
> point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your scraper
> works?
Of course it doesn't answer your question. Ex-lawyers are even less
successful at answering a direct question than a current lawyer. They
answer the question that they want to answer.
BlogLapper decided to answer the question about the viewership of a
news source (even though they are the same AP story picked up at
different times), as if somehow that matters.
I'm sure you are spot on about his web crawling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_crawler
He's so clever.
What do you think his search terms are? I'm guessing:
'LANCE Armstrong doper indictment fraud boy does he have it coming!'
I think I might take a page from his book and set up a web crawler of
my own...let's see:
'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag'
On second thought, I'd never be able to review all of those hits, so I
need to trim it down:
'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag NAMBLA'
That should do it.
R
B. Lafferty
larger news outlets. But of course, it is.
Mike Jacoubowsky
The worst thing about some of your "answers" is that I can see myself in
them, back in high school and college. If I didn't know the answer to the
question on a test, I'd substitute an answer for a question that I did know,
hoping that somebody would think, oh, perhaps the question wasn't clear
enough, I'll let that one slide.
RicodJour
>
> I took your comment to mean that the story wasn't worth being covered by
> larger news outlets. But of course, it is.
http://www.esl-guide.com/dir/newyork/index.html
R
Betty
> Mike - all news is like this. And music. An algorithm computes how
> many times one should hear lady gaga at 2.1 times an hour and at a
> ration not to exceed 1.317 that of Zac Bieber
>
> In this way we call all think the same news and dance to the same
> music. It's Orwell's heaven
Don't you wish it was 1984 again.
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
You can do that? I am all over it!
Let's see ...
"Bike shop" "bloated plutocrat" grind face poor dust
That's odd. I'm not getting any hits.
--
Old Fritz
Mike Jacoubowsky
> Let's see ...
> "Bike shop" "bloated plutocrat" grind face poor dust
>
>
> That's odd. I'm not getting any hits.
>
> --
> Old Fritz
"Bike shop" and "plutocrat" in the same sentence? "Bloated" no less? No
wonder you didn't get a hit. :-)
"Bloated" and "bike shop owner" and ("has-been" or "washed up" or "never
was") would likely turn up a few. At least me anyway. Different definition
of "bloated" though.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Frederick the Great" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-BECCF0....@news.albasani.net...
B. Lafferty
perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
unbelievable.
H. Fred Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> I think I might take a page from his book and set up a web crawler of
> my own...let's see:
> 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag'
> On second thought, I'd never be able to review all of those hits, so I
> need to trim it down:
> 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag NAMBLA'
> That should do it.
Just so you know in da fyooocha: When speaking of products by Massengill or
Summer's Eve, it's "douchebag." In this case it's "douche bag." A copy editor told me
so. Otherwise, spot on.
RicodJour
>
> The bottom line is that it appears public
> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
> unbelievable.
Yeah, stoolie's have always had fine standing on both sides, Barry.
You're a piece of work.
R
RicodJour
wrote:
> In article <45d52938-c3b2-44a4-8861-2204af6a1...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > I think I might take a page from his book and set up a web crawler of
> > my own...let's see:
> > 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag'
> > On second thought, I'd never be able to review all of those hits, so I
> > need to trim it down:
> > 'Brian Lafferty OCD trolling douchebag NAMBLA'
> > That should do it.
>
> Just so you know in da fyooocha: When speaking of products by Massengill or
> Summer's Eve, it's "douchebag." In this case it's "douche bag." A copy editor told me
> so. Otherwise, spot on.
Thanks for the correction. If you don't mind me asking, why did you
get feedback from a copy instead of an original?
English is a stupid language. ;)
R
RicodJour
>
> How is this a response to my post? What is your intent in posting a link to
> the identical story in a different website? How does that respond to my
> point about scraping for news one agrees with? Proof that your scraper
> works?
Well, I set up a web spider to search for 'Brian Lafferty douche
bag' (thanks to H. Fred Kveck), and the spider up and died. Can't
blame it. But I did manage to get one piece of information - the
single individual that was so instrumental in Barry-otomy's status as
The World's Foremost Authority.
You'll see where Barry got his rapier-like twit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw
R
Anton Berlin
Hell yes. I could ride without fear of SUVs and texting drivers.
( + the skanks were plentiful )
RicodJour
Yes, fear and a person's awareness of mortality increase with age.
Sorry.
R
B. Lafferty
it be ironic if these guys are indicted under RICO, Rico?
Phil H
> On 7/31/2010 1:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:-O2dnWd2TuwrxcnR...@giganews.com...
> >> On 7/31/2010 12:03 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:n6adndcE0NopvsnR...@giganews.com...
> >>>> On 7/31/2010 1:59 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>>>> "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:pLSdnWK0PsNY6c7R...@giganews.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
The same way some previous champions have beaten the rest. Did you
ever hear of normal distribution and outliers?
While a doper may achieve exceptional performance, it is in no shape
or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one unbiased
juror with an IQ > 100.
Phil H
RicodJour
> On 7/31/2010 6:17 PM, RicodJour wrote:> On Jul 31, 4:59 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> The bottom line is that it appears public
> >> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
> >> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> >> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
> >> unbelievable.
>
> > Yeah, stoolie's have always had fine standing on both sides, Barry.
> > You're a piece of work.
>
> it be ironic if these guys are indicted under RICO, Rico?
That word, irony, I do not think it means what you think it means,
Barry. Funnily enough, I really don't care what happens with things
that are beyond my control. I'm not invested in them, and I don't
have a man-crush affecting, and afflicting, my brain.
As far as the truth with respect to cycling...WTF are you talking
about? I give people the benefit of the doubt, that is all. If they
all go to jail, or no one goes to jail, what's it to me? Right -
nothing. I'm content to let it play out.
You, on the other hand, are dribbling from the end of your little
dinky with anticipation. Be polite - clean up after yourself and
remember to change your underwear once a day...okay, twice a day, you
dribbling douche baggie.
R
H. Fred Kveck
RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote:
Hey, he'll be here all week! Try the veal! Tip your waiter!
> English is a stupid language. ;)
Yep.
B. Lafferty
>>
>>>> I took your comment to mean that the story wasn't worth being covered
>>>> by larger news outlets. But of course, it is.
>>
>>> The worst thing about some of your "answers" is that I can see myself in
>>> them, back in high school and college. If I didn't know the answer to
>>> the question on a test, I'd substitute an answer for a question that I
>>> did know, hoping that somebody would think, oh, perhaps the question
>>> wasn't clear enough, I'll let that one slide.
>>
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReaction.com
>>
>> Nice straw man, Mike. The bottom line is that it appears public
>> perception of Landis changing for the good. People are asking more and
>> more questions about how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
>> clean. It's Lance and his mouthpieces, Herman and Daly, who are looking
>> unbelievable.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The same way some previous champions have beaten the rest. Did you
> ever hear of normal distribution and outliers?
Yes. That's been discussed here over the years. Believe in the tooth
fairy if you choose to.
> While a doper may achieve exceptional performance, it is in no shape
> or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
> publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one unbiased
> juror with an IQ> 100.
All it will ever come to in a criminal trial is how the jury votes. It
could be not guilty, guilty or hung jury/mis-trial. And your point was?
>
> Phil H
Phil H
It isn't about what I believe in. Its about having or not having
irrefutable proof.
>
> > While a doper may achieve exceptional performance, it is in no shape
> > or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
> > publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one unbiased
> > juror with an IQ> 100.
>
> All it will ever come to in a criminal trial is how the jury votes. It
> could be not guilty, guilty or hung jury/mis-trial. And your point was?
>
"how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
clean"...........not proof of doping to an unbiased juror.
Phil H
Mike Jacoubowsky
> > or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
> > publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one
> > unbiased
> > juror with an IQ> 100.
>
> All it will ever come to in a criminal trial is how the jury votes. It
> could be not guilty, guilty or hung jury/mis-trial. And your point
> was?
>
"how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
clean"...........not proof of doping to an unbiased juror.
Phil H
=======
I doubt a prosecutor will be dumb enough to ask that question (how could
Lance have won all those tours if he hadn't doped) because it would be
so easy to refute. All they'd have to do is say look at all the people
he supposedly had an advantage over (by doping); many of them have
already been nailed for doping. If doping worked so well, they'd be
beating Lance, not the other way around, since the evidence, the fact
that they were caught, is an indication that they were doing more than
whatever it is we're alleging Lance to have done.
-
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Phil H" <phol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:77194559-5f16-4786...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
B. Lafferty
It's about having proof by a preponderance of the evidence(civil) or
beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Here at rbr, preponderance is the
standard as far as I'm concerned and for me that threshold has been more
than met. If Armstong is ever charged with a crime and goes to trial,
the standard of proof will be higher and it will be for a jury to
decide, unless he waives his right to a jury trial in favor ofa bench trial.
>
>
>>
>>> While a doper may achieve exceptional performance, it is in no shape
>>> or form one iota of proof of doping. From what we know so far
>>> publicly, if it came to a jury trial, all Lance needs is one unbiased
>>> juror with an IQ> 100.
>>
>> All it will ever come to in a criminal trial is how the jury votes. It
>> could be not guilty, guilty or hung jury/mis-trial. And your point was?
>>
>
> "how Lance could have beaten all those dopers riding
> clean"...........not proof of doping to an unbiased juror.
It is, in all probability, something that a prosecutor may try to use in
an opening statement or summation to the jury. Whether it would get by
the judge is a question that may or may not be answered.
>
> Phil H
Mike Jacoubowsky
As an opening statement, it would be a big mistake in my humble opinion,
because it's so easy to refute. Unless physical evidence turns up to
corroborate the stories, the "Lance won because he doped" line goes for
him, not against him, when you can show evidence of how many others
doped and were caught.... likely doping to a much greater degree than
Lance is alleged to have doped. And they didn't win. Unless you buy into
the idea that Lance had a monopoly on effective & safe (won't show up in
a test) doping, and what would make Lance so special that way?
As a summation, if that could be snuck in without being countered, it
would be a good play for the prosecution. But not knowing how these
things work, I don't know if that's possible. And I would think a good
defense attorney would try to pre-empt such a play.
B. Lafferty
> a test) doping, and what would make Lance so special that way?
>
> As a summation, if that could be snuck in without being countered, it
> would be a good play for the prosecution. But not knowing how these
> things work, I don't know if that's possible. And I would think a good
> defense attorney would try to pre-empt such a play.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
sides can get away with summing up. I recall that there was once a
prosecutor in NY State who told the jury the only reason the defendant
was in the court to be judged by them was because the police couldn't
shoot straight. That conviction was reversed on appeal.
Mike Jacoubowsky
It's not the judge's job to set the jury straight on that sort of thing?
You don't see that on TV or the movies, so I don't know, but can you
really get away with murder (perhaps literally in some cases) during the
summation and the only remedy is on appeal? The prosecutor or defense
attorney can't object? The judge has to stay silent?
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Dumbasses,
This is idiotic because as you both know, doping
to win the Tour de France is not a crime and neither
Armstrong nor anyone else will be charged with
it in a US court, so proving that he doped to win the
Tour is secondary to any possible judicial proceeding.
If anyone gets charged it is going
to be on some derivative charge, like distributing
controlled substances, fraud in team accounting
(laundering bikes to buy dope, etc) or this theory
of defrauding the sponsor by turning in doped
performances (which I am skeptical is actually
going to lead to a charge without some kind of hard
evidence like bookkeeping irregularities).
On such charges, raising hypotheticals like whether
LANCE had to dope to beat a bunch of dirty-dog
Euro dopers is secondary and is likely to confuse
the jury (if anything, spending time detailing how
accepted doping is in pro cycling might arouse
sympathy for the defendant, and defang the
defrauding-the-sponsor charge). So I don't think a
smart prosecutor is going to ramble off on that
tangent during opening or summation.
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
Justice Services in NY State put out a list of more absurd statements by
prosecutors during summation that led to reversal on appear. Two more
that come to mind are:
"The presumption of innocence is only for the innocent."
"We don't indict innocent people"