Cleaning and scrubbing Lafferty
Fred Flintstein
If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
traffic.
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
from Wilma, Fred?
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3R...@giganews.com...
Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
are without merit.
The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
thought?
I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
already believe. That's nuts.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fred Flintstein
Mike, I don't engage Lafferty for the same reason I
don't engage the homeless guy talking to himself on
the street. There's no point and it's time I can't
get back. We should just let him talk to himself and
be at home with his unseen demons.
Just because a crazy person makes an argument that
could possibly be taken as sane doesn't mean they
aren't crazy.
Fred Flintstein
K. Fred Gauss
> If you want him to shut up,
Not especially.
GoneBeforeMyTime
Hey, thanks for the links and comments, I enjoy a lawyers point of view. I
wish Andy Coggan was still around, cause there is something very interesting
that I wanted to ask him about. If you might happen to know how to get in
contact with him, let me know. I haven't found any web mail for him at his
training peaks and associated sites.
Steve Freides
I'm with you on this, Fred.
-S-
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
I get a kick out of his clearly composed-out-of-frustration reply when
someone points out a logical fallacy in his statements.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:c7e0a3c9-77b1-420a...@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
On May 28, 11:51 am, Fred Flintstein
<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
> Dumbasses,
>
> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> traffic.
============
Dumbass -
I get a kick out of his clearly composed-out-of-frustration reply when
someone points out a logical fallacy in his statements.
thanks,
Fred. presented by Gringioni.
============
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/paint+into+a+corner
Of course, that's unique to B. Lafferty, nobody else here. :-)
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Dumbass -
DA74
wrote:
> "Kurgan. presented by Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c7e0a3c9-77b1-420a...@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
Quit top-and-middle posting Mikey Mike.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> news:9a3b8f46-f5a4-4be7-adc4->
> 56aad5...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>
> Quit top-and-middle posting Mikey Mike.
If it's a long post and the only relevant part is in the middle or end, I'll
just clip that and reply to it, but leave the original message intact below.
But in this case, I screwed up; it bottom-posted (because it was short), but
then left the original below my sig again.
Just trying to throw off the DEA & black ops guys who are scanning rbr for
information.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"DA74" <davida...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a3b8f46-f5a4-4be7...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
DA74
wrote:
> > "DA74" <davidasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9a3b8f46-f5a4-4be7-adc4->
>
> > 56aad5142...@a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
> > Quit top-and-middle posting Mikey Mike.
>
> If it's a long post and the only relevant part is in the middle or end, I'll
> just clip that and reply to it, but leave the original message intact below.
> But in this case, I screwed up; it bottom-posted (because it was short), but
> then left the original below my sig again.
>
> Just trying to throw off the DEA & black ops guys who are scanning rbr for
> information.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's not how it works, man. Top-posting is for email. This is
Usenet. There is no way to thread with top posting. It seriously fucks
everything up. You're better than that, even if you feel Floyd's
allegations bring nothing new to the table.
-DA74
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> "Fred Flintstein" <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3R...@giganews.com...
>
> > Dumbasses,
>
> > If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> > stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> > that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> > traffic.
>
> > Fred Flintstein
>
> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his points
> are without merit.
>
> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee, what
> a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> thought?
>
You're wrong. Seriously, and politely, you're wrong
on this. If you try to engage in civilized discourse with
Brian, eventually he will start calling you names or
impugning your character when you disagree with him.
He may not do that to you personally, but don't take
that as evidence he doesn't do it to many others.
Lafferty has become like a stopped clock. Ironically,
he was right ten years ago when he claimed the peloton
was a bunch of dirty dog dopers. However, he can't
be satisfied with being right on that; because we didn't
follow him to the conclusion that his least favorite riders
are the worst and dirtiest, we're all equally morally
contemptible.
> I guess rbr is just mirroring society, or maybe society is getting around to
> mirroring rbr. There's no center anymore. Just a far right and far left,
> with nobody looking for anything except evidence to support what they
> already believe. That's nuts.
rbr is more capable of changing its collective opinion
than the broader society's political culture. If you don't
believe me, compare the way rbr talks about doping
to the way we did in 2001. They are different.
Fredmaster Ben
Fred on a stick
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:E6KdnYAp4ra3ip3R...@earthlink.com...
> Just because I frequently disagree with B. Lafferty doesn't mean his
> points are without merit.
Perhaps, but when points are without merit one should disagree with them.
That's why I'm disagreeing with you.
> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply to
> him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an intelligent
> reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of insults. Gee,
> what a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being civil. Who'd have
> thought?
Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal. Nonetheless, bias
should never trump truth simply because it speaks well and softly. One can
speak with a civil tongue to a mule but sometimes it pays more attention to
a big stick. Alas, that is not a guarantee and occasionally even the stick
doesn't work either on mules or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's
ass.
B. Lafferty
Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
Tom Kunich
news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7R...@giganews.com...
>
> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding Hampsten.
> Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual commentary by me. I
> think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black going on here at rbr. Has
> been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you get
for even minor disagreements.
B. Lafferty
Tom Kunich
There's not much sense in posting here any more since the vast majority of
posters aren't interested in bicycle racing.
B. Lafferty
> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:HeKdnYIHSLGMTp7R...@giganews.com...
>> On 5/31/2010 11:03 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2PCdndnbaJV_UJ7R...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
>>>> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
>>>> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
>>>> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
>>>
>>> I agree with you Brian. I certainly can't understand the reactions you
>>> get for even minor disagreements.
>>>
>> Good to see that you're alive and kicking.
>
> There's not much sense in posting here any more since the vast majority
> of posters aren't interested in bicycle racing.
>
bike racing--say pre-1992 or 93. Hampsten is for me one of US cycling's
greatest riders from his era and perhaps all time. I've said it before,
I don't think Ive ever seen a rider so elegantly ride a machine as Andy.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Airhead -
The original post is part of a long running inside joke here at rbr
(and elsewhere).
Hampsten didn't win that day on the Gavia. Breukink did. Hampsten did
take the pink jersey, but regardless, he didn't win the stage.
It's fun to tease one of our Dutch rbr'ers here by occasionally
glossing on about Hampsten's "victory".
Also, when someone posts "whoosh", it means that the joke went right
over the previous poster's head. And yes, you're an idiot.
B. Lafferty
what might have been just poor syntax. Now I absolutely devastated. LOL!
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
nice.
Andy Coggan
I'm still (always) around. I'm not part of TrainingPeaks LLC, though -
they just pay me to use some of my ideas.
Andy Coggan
Steve Freides
Yeah, very nice - rock on, dude - that's the most fun I've had reading
an rbr post lately.
-S-
Frederick the Great
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2010 5:01 AM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
> > On May 28, 12:19 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"<Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Fred Flintstein"<bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:J-Wdna8dHtkwjZ3R...@giganews.com...
> >>
> >>> Dumbasses,
> >>
> >>> If you want him to shut up, the first step is to
> >>> stop replying to him. He'll never shut up, but
> >>> that'll go a long way towards cutting down the
> >>> traffic.
> >>
> Right, Fred. Take a look at the responses to my post regarding
> Hampsten. Nothing but personal attacks in response to a factual
> commentary by me. I think there is a good deal of pot-kettle-black
> going on here at rbr. Has been for years, IMO. But, carry on.
Quote the personal attacks to your post regarding Hampsten.
You made the accusation.
--
Old Fritz
Betty Munro
> Yeah, very nice - rock on, dude - that's the most fun I've had reading
> an rbr post lately.
If you're having fun you're a pervert or we're not perverted enough.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Someone makes an inside joke and predictably, if you respond, you
respond with some diatribe about doping. Way to ruin a moment of
levity.
Just as the surest way to get others to like you is to make them
laugh, the surest way to get them to dislike you is to try and stop
it, even if it's unintentional. Your actions here over the years would
make a good case study. It could be called "How to Make Enemies and
Not Influence Anyone" by B. Lafferty.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
I thought that post in a "Hampsten's win on the Gavia"
humor thread was a good example of why it's hard to have
a conversation with you about cycling.
I'd be interested in seeing a response to the claim I made
elsewhere that your position has won a Pyrrhic victory -
now we're convinced that they're all dirty dog dopers,
but we don't follow you to the conclusion that a crusade
(or a Lemondesque witchhunt) is necessary to clean
it up.
Fredmaster Ben
B. Lafferty
B. Lafferty
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:hu0e7e$bgm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I think I have it figured out here.
Most discussions on rbr take place in a bar. Lubricated by beer, having
to yell to get heard above the din, and exaggerating things so that
there's no possible way someone who's had three too many doesn't know
what you're saying.
That's the problem. I don't like bars, and I have maybe 5 or so drinks
(drinks that people here would count) a year.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Michael Press
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Case dismissed.
--
Michael Press
Betty Munro
>> No. Go read them for yourself.
Michael Press wrote:
> Case dismissed.
That will teach him not to enter the wrong age group.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
> "Fred on a stick" <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid> wrote in messagenews:hu0e7e$bgm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply
> >> to him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an
> >> intelligent reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of
> >> insults. Gee, what a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being
> >> civil. Who'd have thought?
>
> > Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal.
> > Nonetheless, bias should never trump truth simply because it speaks
> > well and softly. One can speak with a civil tongue to a mule but
> > sometimes it pays more attention to a big stick. Alas, that is not a
> > guarantee and occasionally even the stick doesn't work either on mules
> > or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's ass.
>
> I think I have it figured out here.
>
> Most discussions on rbr take place in a bar. Lubricated by beer, having
> to yell to get heard above the din, and exaggerating things so that
> there's no possible way someone who's had three too many doesn't know
> what you're saying.
>
> That's the problem. I don't like bars, and I have maybe 5 or so drinks
> (drinks that people here would count) a year.
Discussions in rbr are much more like smack-talk
on a training ride than they are like conversations
in a bar.
Every now and then, smack talk on a training ride, fueled
by adrenaline, degenerates into yelling at each other.
You can also see this happen if you hang around enough
Masters races. The nature is somewhat diffferent than
bar conversations, even drunken ones. Actually, sensible
people don't get into arguments in bars - it's not prudent.
It's all very well and good to try to shame people for being
rude on rbr, but if you read rbr enough, there are some
rbr presences that are repeatedly disruptive and not
amenable to reasonable discussion. Eventually, I think
if you are a pain in the ass long enough, you lose a little
of the presumption of politeness. Have you ever seen
someone try to reason politely with a talk show host like
Bill O'Reilly, or even engage in rational discussion on the
old McLaughlin Group? Politeness gets you nowhere under
those circumstances because someone always shouts
louder. The ultimate solution is to not engage the
O'Reillys or McLaughlins at all, which is what Flintstein
advocates for BL or TK, but not all of us have his self-control.
Fredmaster Ben
Mike Jacoubowsky
messagenews:hu0e7e$bgm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> The problem isn't in replying to him; rather, it's *how* people reply
> >> to him. You can strongly disagree with him in a reply and get an
> >> intelligent reply in return, if you don't load it up with a bunch of
> >> insults. Gee, what a concept. You can have a civil discourse by being
> >> civil. Who'd have thought?
>
> > Civility of discourse is, of course, always a worthy goal.
> > Nonetheless, bias should never trump truth simply because it speaks
> > well and softly. One can speak with a civil tongue to a mule but
> > sometimes it pays more attention to a big stick. Alas, that is not a
> > guarantee and occasionally even the stick doesn't work either on mules
> > or, as in this particular instance, on a horse's ass.
>
> I think I have it figured out here.
>
> Most discussions on rbr take place in a bar. Lubricated by beer, having
> to yell to get heard above the din, and exaggerating things so that
> there's no possible way someone who's had three too many doesn't know
> what you're saying.
>
> That's the problem. I don't like bars, and I have maybe 5 or so drinks
> (drinks that people here would count) a year.
=====================
Discussions in rbr are much more like smack-talk
on a training ride than they are like conversations
in a bar.
Every now and then, smack talk on a training ride, fueled
by adrenaline, degenerates into yelling at each other.
You can also see this happen if you hang around enough
Masters races. The nature is somewhat diffferent than
bar conversations, even drunken ones. Actually, sensible
people don't get into arguments in bars - it's not prudent.
It's all very well and good to try to shame people for being
rude on rbr, but if you read rbr enough, there are some
rbr presences that are repeatedly disruptive and not
amenable to reasonable discussion. Eventually, I think
if you are a pain in the ass long enough, you lose a little
of the presumption of politeness. Have you ever seen
someone try to reason politely with a talk show host like
Bill O'Reilly, or even engage in rational discussion on the
old McLaughlin Group? Politeness gets you nowhere under
those circumstances because someone always shouts
louder. The ultimate solution is to not engage the
O'Reillys or McLaughlins at all, which is what Flintstein
advocates for BL or TK, but not all of us have his self-control.
Fredmaster Ben
=====================
Fredmaster: You make some good points, and you're right about some venues
simply not being the place for polite discussion. Skip "polite" we don't
need "polite" it's just a problem when things elevate to the point where the
only thing someone is adding to a discussion is the level of insult. By the
way, none of this has anything to do with calling someone a "dumbass."
Nothing wrong with that. It's like dog's sniffing each other's butts. rbr
tradition.
Kennedy had the right idea during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Respond only to
the part of the message that's relevant (and beneficial) to you. Ignore the
rhetoric. In the end, it makes the guy slinging the rhetoric look like a
jerk, without you having stooped to their level.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
Temperance meeting is down the hall.
--
Michael Press
Frederick the Great
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> =====================
>
> Fredmaster: You make some good points, and you're right about some venues
> simply not being the place for polite discussion. Skip "polite" we don't
> need "polite" it's just a problem when things elevate to the point where the
> only thing someone is adding to a discussion is the level of insult. By the
> way, none of this has anything to do with calling someone a "dumbass."
> Nothing wrong with that. It's like dog's sniffing each other's butts. rbr
> tradition.
You really do not care about or respect people here;
and, as most people, you have no idea what dogs are doing.
It is time you started quoting properly in replies.
Show some respect.
--
Old Fritz
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:rubrum-26E65F....@news.albasani.net...
That might be the nicest thing I'll hear all day (that I have no idea what
dogs are doing). Thanks!
> It is time you started quoting properly in replies.
> Show some respect.
>
> --
> Old Fritz
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Michael Press
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
In that case, since you do not know what you are talking about,
it would be best if you withdrew the canard.
--
Michael Press
Betty Munro
> In that case, since you do not know what you are talking about,
> it would be best if you withdrew the canard.
These carbon canards do crack and explode.
Fred Flintstein
He's like the guy talking to himself
on the street, living his own reality.
How many of you retards would attempt
rational discourse with the guy on
the street?
If you want him to stfu you've got to
stop replying to him.
Fred Flintstein
Fred Flintstein
Just an observation, if you were a troll-bot, you'd
have to work hard to find a foil that is more effective
than Lafferty. So it seems perfectly consistent for
Durex94 to pick up Lafferty's theme.
A question for all you guys that have been getting into
it with Laff, have you gotten anywhere with him? Has it
been a satisfying exchange?
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
It was good for me. You mean it wasn't good for you, too?? ROTFL!!
DA74
Lafferty,
Colonel Fitts is already hot and bothered - don't tease him too much
or he might blow all over his Commodore 64.
Durex94 (with vibrating rings)
GoneBeforeMyTime
He's a lawyer, that's what Lawyers do. I don't mind it so much.
B. Lafferty
OK. I'll try to be nice. Now if you'll excuse me. I haven't played my
Atari yet today.