Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Online Polls--Armstrong Doped

0 views
Skip to first unread message

B. Lafferty

unread,
Aug 5, 2010, 6:28:29 PM8/5/10
to
For whatever validity online polls might have:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/ex-teammate-says-lance-armstrong-knew-about-doping-080510?gt1=39002

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/early-lead/2010/08/report_cyclists_say_lance_arms.html

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_thechaingang/2010/07/poll-did-lance-armstrong-cheat-to-win-all-those-tours.html

http://nbcsports.newsvine.com/_question/2010/07/15/4685491-do-you-think-lance-armstrong-has-ever-doped-at-the-tour-de-france?chromedomain=msnbc

RicodJour

unread,
Aug 5, 2010, 9:38:05 PM8/5/10
to
On Aug 5, 6:28 pm, "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> For whatever validity online polls might have:

Similar to your credibility in the legal world.

R

K. Fred Gauss

unread,
Aug 5, 2010, 9:53:22 PM8/5/10
to

Where's the poll asking whether anyone gives a shit? I would expect "No"
to win BIG in the US.

B. Lafferty

unread,
Aug 5, 2010, 9:54:05 PM8/5/10
to
You don't know shit about my credibility in the legal world, RICO.

LawBoy01

unread,
Aug 6, 2010, 12:38:39 AM8/6/10
to

Brian, those polls carry more credibility than you have here on RBR.

Kurgan Gringioni

unread,
Aug 6, 2010, 3:47:50 AM8/6/10
to

"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3NqdnV0xYMzH9sbR...@giganews.com...

: You don't know shit about my credibility in the legal world, RICO.

Dumbass -

Your legal analysis skills are awful. They're completely subjective. A good
lawyer is objective, will look at all the strengths/weaknesses of a
position, ignores the fluff. Before going to trial the objectivity helps in
developing awareness for what the opposition may present. In contrast, you
grasp at every straw, no matter how weak. That, combined with your lack of
likeability, puts you into the shallow end of the bell curve, on the wrong
side.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

K. Fred Gauss

unread,
Aug 7, 2010, 1:57:51 PM8/7/10
to

Sure. That's why he's "Been there, done that..." and all he got was a
lousy T-shirt.

RicodJour

unread,
Aug 7, 2010, 9:32:56 PM8/7/10
to
On Aug 6, 3:47 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> : You don't know shit about my credibility in the legal world, RICO.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Your legal analysis skills are awful. They're completely subjective. A good
> lawyer is objective, will look at all the strengths/weaknesses of a
> position, ignores the fluff. Before going to trial the objectivity helps in
> developing awareness for what the opposition may present. In contrast, you
> grasp at every straw, no matter how weak. That, combined with your lack of
> likeability, puts you into the shallow end of the bell curve, on the wrong
> side.

I have a confession to make. Today I met the son of some woman having
a yard sale - he was a lawyer, and, well, I made a lawyer jape, and I
could see it actually pained the guy. I felt bad, and made a self-
deprecating joke in way of an apology, and we started talking. We
basically agreed that there are two types of people that become
lawyers - those that like to argue and want to get paid for it, and
those that want to help people put their best foot forward in a
negotiation.

Barry is most obviously of the first persuasion - you know, an
asshole. So, kids, please don't follow my lead in lumping all lawyers
into that category. Lawyers are people, too. 'cepting Barry.

R

DirtRoadie

unread,
Aug 7, 2010, 11:32:16 PM8/7/10
to

Well put. Let me add - your two types can similarly be divided into
those who SEEK conflict and those who seek resolutions. Your
conclusion remains valid.

DR

0 new messages