On Oct 4, 1:18 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3-Oct-2012, wrote:
> > If you believe the sport is clean all I can say is, you are
> > not too bright, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish as
> > am I.
> Who said the sport is clean in this thread? This isn't the first time
> you've used that red herring to support your belief in silent bans for
> Nadal.
Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?
Let me say it again: I think Nadal is serving a suspension or his
absence is related to PED use in some way--i.e. perhaps he was advised
to cycle down for longer. The fact that I don't think tennis is clean
in general is a separate argument. Interpret is however you wish, I
don't care.
My comment was really more specific to Vari who goes on and on on RST
about his theories why Nadal has been absent from tennis for the past
few months--i.e. he thinks Nadal is afraid of players like Rosol. If
that is not a joke in itself I don't know what is. That "theory" is
supposed to be accepted by us on RST but Nadal using PEDS and serving
a suspension is supposed to be a way-out theory. Come on.
> On Oct 3, 11:47 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 3.10.2012 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
>>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
>>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
>>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
>>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
>>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
>> What happened to 3 month silent ban?
>> How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?
> I have always maintained he is under a silent ban.
You can "maintain" anything you like, and indeed you do. Supporting what you "maintain" is the problem. We all know what happened when you decided to "support" the cocaine-is-a-PED thing. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.
> > On Oct 3, 11:47 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 3.10.2012 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
> >>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
> >>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
> >>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
> >>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
> >>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
> >> What happened to 3 month silent ban?
> >> How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?
> > I have always maintained he is under a silent ban.
> You can "maintain" anything you like, and indeed you do. Supporting what
> you "maintain" is the problem. We all know what happened when you
> decided to "support" the cocaine-is-a-PED thing. Not pretty. Not pretty
> at all.
I never said cocaine is a PED in the strict sense. I said some
athletes may "think" mistakenly that cocaine has some PED benefits. I
also said there are some effects of cocaine that could be seen as very
short-term benefits and I quoted a doctor of WADA who backs this up.
Do you personally know yourself that every single pro athlete who has
taken cocaine before a sports performance has not thought that the
cocaine would be of some benefit? No, I don't think you do. Now, can
you for once in your life form a coherent post. I have not seen one
from you yet.
On 4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
> herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?
You consistently do just that. For instance, if someone says they don't
believe some specific player is doping you'll ridicule them for "believing
the sport is clean".
> On Oct 4, 1:52 pm, Pelle Svansl s <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> On 4.10.2012 13:23, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 11:47 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 3.10.2012 23:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 4:36 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Toni has been saying this same speech for every tournament the past
>>>>>>> few months--i.e. "we may be ready for this tournament or that one." It
>>>>>>> is all a bunch of horseshit
>>>>>> What will you say about the supposed silent 6-month ban if he does?
>>>>> Nothing. I still think he is under a silent suspension, whether it is
>>>>> 3, 4 or 6 months is immaterial.
>>>> What happened to 3 month silent ban?
>>>> How long are you going to carry on this nonsense?
>>> I have always maintained he is under a silent ban.
>> You can "maintain" anything you like, and indeed you do. Supporting what
>> you "maintain" is the problem. We all know what happened when you
>> decided to "support" the cocaine-is-a-PED thing. Not pretty. Not pretty
>> at all.
> I never said cocaine is a PED in the strict sense.
The "senses" keep changing every time you're caught with your pants down. Ifs turn into "ifs".
> I said some
> athletes may "think" mistakenly that cocaine has some PED benefits.
Okey dokey.
> I
> also said there are some effects of cocaine that could be seen as very
> short-term benefits and I quoted a doctor of WADA who backs this up.
For 15 minutes. Okey dokey.
> Do you personally know yourself that every single pro athlete who has
> taken cocaine before a sports performance has not thought that the
> cocaine would be of some benefit?
On Oct 4, 2:04 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4-Oct-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Who says I am using the argument that the sport is not clean as a red
> > herring to support my belief of silent bans for Nadal?
> You consistently do just that. For instance, if someone says they don't
> believe some specific player is doping you'll ridicule them for "believing
> the sport is clean".
Because it is true, I find it impossible to believe there are people
out there who could think any pro sport is clean and I do ridicule
them for thinking so, you are correct. Nadal is one of the most
obvious cases but imo all of the top players use or have used
something. I have said that again and again and I will continue to
assert that no matter how much it may bother you.
> > Let me say it again
> That's OK, I'll pass.
But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
my posts don't you? ;)
On Oct 4, 2:51 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
> > my posts don't you? ;)
> An effective lawyer presents persuasive arguments....you're just
> argumentative.
No I am not argumentative. I will challenge you to a debate any day,
but I assure you, you will lose! ;) Unless of course the debate is
about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.
Does anybody ask for this type of discussion from you?
> Because it is true, I find it impossible to believe there are people
> out there who could think any pro sport is clean and I do ridicule
> them for thinking so, you are correct. Nadal is one of the most
> obvious cases but imo all of the top players use or have used
> something. I have said that again and again and I will continue to
> assert that no matter how much it may bother you.
The point is it's a non-sequitur. In summary:
Poster X: There's no evidence that Nadal is serving a silent ban.
Court_1: My god you're stupid if you think the sport is clean.
On Oct 4, 3:16 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4-Oct-2012, wrote:
> > Because it is true, I find it impossible to believe there are people
> > out there who could think any pro sport is clean and I do ridicule
> > them for thinking so, you are correct. Nadal is one of the most
> > obvious cases but imo all of the top players use or have used
> > something. I have said that again and again and I will continue to
> > assert that no matter how much it may bother you.
> The point is it's a non-sequitur. In summary:
> Poster X: There's no evidence that Nadal is serving a silent ban.
> Court_1: My god you're stupid if you think the sport is clean.
On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:51 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 2:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > But you DON'T pass, you take every opportunity you can to respond to
> > > my posts don't you? ;)
> > An effective lawyer presents persuasive arguments....you're just
> > argumentative.
> No I am not argumentative.
Reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Person paying for argument:
"That's not an argument, it's merely
contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements
intended to establish a proposition."
On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unless of course the debate is
> about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
> which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.
Well you lost your argument about your fake orgasms and your use of
cocaine
for performance enhancement.
And your Nadal suspension argument is on pretty thin ice right now.
So, yeah, I think you'd better bone up on your male genitalia
arguments...
I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
vagina...you're
not much of a debater.
On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> On Oct 4, 3:15 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unless of course the debate is
> > about something crude like the discussion about your private parts
> > which you seem to be terribly fond of discussing ad nauseam on here.
> Well you lost your argument about your fake orgasms and your use of
> cocaine
> for performance enhancement.
I did not lose either argument as I wasn't arguing about either. I
never said a word about fake orgasms other than to make the
generalization that men have no idea if women are faking or not. Re
the cocaine issue, I said that nobody knows whether an athlete has
taken cocaine prior to a sporting event in the belief that it will
help him or her in the short term. Nobody here can prove otherwise
least of all a crass know-it-all like yourself.
> And your Nadal suspension argument is on pretty thin ice right now.
Again, I am not arguing about it, I am merely stating it is my opinion
that he is serving a suspension. That fact that you disagree does not
make my opinion any less valid does it?
> So, yeah, I think you'd better bone up on your male genitalia
> arguments...
> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
> vagina...you're
> not much of a debater.
>> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own >> vagina...you're not much of a debater.
> ...*schlppllrk*.... :))
^^
...and I guess you can take that either to be my coffee hitting the keyboard.....or the sound of Court1 winning an argument *with* her own mangina....er sorry, I mean vagina. :)
> >> I mean if you can't win an argument with men about your own
> >> vagina...you're not much of a debater.
> > ...*schlppllrk*.... :))
> ^^
> ...and I guess you can take that either to be my coffee hitting the
> keyboard.....or the sound of Court1 winning an argument *with* her own
> mangina....er sorry, I mean vagina. :)
The sound of yet another bicycle seat being swallowed. You'd think
they'd make
those things wider for female riders....just another example of male
engineers being insensitive to the needs of women.
I've heard that sound so many times it sickens me. The things we have
had
to extract from a lady's wazzuza in the emergency department.....well,
it would shock
you.
"Madam, I'm afraid it's neither boy nor girl.....but it IS black."
> I've heard that sound so many times it sickens me. The things we have had > to extract from a lady's wazzuza in the emergency department.....well,
> it would shockyou.
Lol....
"Well Dr.....it was the strangest thing! I had just taken the vegetable rack out for cleaning and had set it on the kitchen floor....when I spilled piping hot tea down me. I had no choice but to rip off my dress to save myself from getting burned. Of course...you can imagine the rest...in the commotion I stumbled then slipped on the wet floor...pulled a tripple back summersault with pike and ended up landing in the splits right over the vegetable rack.....".
So you work in medicine, eh? Now that has ruined my image of you as a trading floor rapscallion!! ;)
On Oct 4, 11:11 pm, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:
.
> So you work in medicine, eh? Now that has ruined my image of you as a
> trading floor rapscallion!! ;)
The most unusual was a man who had the intestinal fortutude to remove
one
of his own testicles. He brought it in a specimen jar for histology
because he was
convinced that it was cancerous.
> On Oct 4, 11:11 pm, "felangey" <oncl...@nine.com> wrote:
> .
> > So you work in medicine, eh? Now that has ruined my image of you as a
> > trading floor rapscallion!! ;)
> The most unusual was a man who had the intestinal fortutude to remove
> one
> of his own testicles. He brought it in a specimen jar for histology
> because he was
> convinced that it was cancerous.
> It wasn't.
Working in medicine? Right. Is that what they call the janitorial
service who clean up the puke and blood left by patients these days?
That is a quite a broad definition of working in medicine, no?
> Again, I am not arguing about it, I am merely stating it is my opinion
> that he is serving a suspension. That fact that you disagree does not
> make my opinion any less valid does it?
It's my opinion that planes bounce off buildings. Of course I've never seen such an incident and nobody I've talked about it has either. But that's what planes do.
The fact that somebody happens to disagree with my opinion doesn't make it less valid, does it?
On Oct 5, 12:11 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> It's my opinion that planes bounce off buildings.
Good for you!
> Of course I've never
> seen such an incident and nobody I've talked about it has either. But
> that's what planes do.
> The fact that somebody happens to disagree with my opinion doesn't make
> it less valid, does it?
Look, I believe that there is a lot of PED use in tennis and I believe
that top players must have failed drug tests and have been sanctioned
without the public knowing about it. It is impossible to believe that
no top player has failed a drug test or ever been sanctioned unless
you still believe in Cinderella and the Tooth Fairy, which in your
case judging by your posts, you probably do.
It is all something which nobody in the sport--i.e. present players,
past players, commentators, journalists, etc. want to talk about. It
is one of the best examples of the Omerta principle that I can think
of. If you listen carefully to some of the comments for example that
past players have made or that commentators sometimes blurt out, it is
obvious that PED use not only exists but is rampant in the sport. Past
players such as Courier, McEnroe and Becker have all alluded to PED
use in tennis by their comments over the years but obviously this has
all gone over your head, no big surprise there. ;)
