Hamilton

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He consistently posts as Patch70 - that's the name we know him (or
her?) by. That's good enough. What would knowing a "real" name make
different?

Anyone that agrees with your position is good enough for you. But then
you're a real doofus - you don't ride and you post to the motorcycle groups
as well with the same stupid [censored] you post here.

As far as my position on posters and what they choose to call
themselves goes, well, I don't really care. If someone turns up
repeatedly using the same "name", then I can identify them and
eventually have a pretty good idea about the postitions they have. You
are apparently not sharp enough to tell the difference between posting
*PSEUDO*nonymously (as Patch70 and many others do) and posting
*A*nonymously. I guess you think that using an (allegedly) "real" name
makes you tough or something. And Tommykins thinks he's the toughest guy
around...

Just where the hell you get the idea that I "don't ride" is beyond
me. Except for the fact that you feel like making [censored] like that up so
as to prove to yourself that you are, of course, the "superior being".
(~~~Snicker~~~) Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
ride, what difference does that make? This group isn't about "how far I
rode", it's about discussing racing, and for the most part is focused on
pros. As far as any other posting I do, where do you get the idea that I
post to "groupS" - I occasionally post to one other group. Are you doing
the creepy internet stalker dude thing again, creepy dude? Try worrying
less about what I post elsewhere, dork.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I might go a bit further than that and say that my own notions of justice
are firmly tied to the proposition that guilt must be proven by the
accusers. The bit about proving your own innocence feels unjust to me.

Well, plainly that goes against the belief system of the majority of posters
here who are more than willing to believe rumors, internet myths and
just-supposes.

Hey Tom
Just some thoughts and observations.
Out of the regulars, not including those who pop up to be [censored]
for the hell of it, it's actually pretty amazing how strong the
support for due process, better transparency, credibility, and
responsibility on the part of the anti-doping establishment is and the
condemnation of how things are now.
It's been moving that way, slowly, for a long time now and there
seem, to me, to be very few loose cannons, or apologists for the
behavior of people like Pound, left here.
It took me quite a while to see it because, like you, I was outraged
by the behavior of Wada, and their toadies, and wasn't really
listening to anyone who wasn't as militant as I was.
I know that I'm way out on the end of the spectrum in how militant I
am in demanding objectivity, credibility, openness, and actual justice
that is as close to equal as it can be. In any questionable
circumstance the allowance has to be made in favor of the defendant.
I think that almost everyone here feels pretty much the same way,
just to differing degrees.
The point a lot of people keep bringing up, and it's true, is that
the riders are actually operating under what passes for [censored] poor
collectively bargained agreements in which they signed away a [censored]
of their rights. They failed miserably as a group to protect
themselves. I think a lot of it sucks, and if they had any balls at
all they'd of boycotted one of the Classics, with a warning that one
of the GTs could be next unless there was some responsibility taken by
UCI and Wada, and consideration of their rights.
Looks like this is going to be a fairly large theme in French
politics for the next year or so at least, so why not in cycling too?
Bill C

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fred Fredburger said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote in
> news:[email hidden]:
>
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> "patch70" <[email hidden]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email hidden]...
>>>> Tom Kunich Wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's just the fact that some nitwitted jackass in a referee
>>>>> costume can take away a man's entire livlihood and ruin a
>>>>> reputation built on a decade of very hard work on a whim and
>>>>> you're perfectly satisfied to parrot whatever is said as if
>>>>> there's no doubt at all.
>>>> Wake up doofus.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone is doping. Even - God forbid - Americans.
>>> Someone that is afraid to post under their own name oughtn't to call
>>> someone else a duffus.
>> He consistently posts as Patch70 - that's the name we know him (or
>> her?) by. That's good enough. What would knowing a "real" name make
>> different?
>>
> It's because you look slightly less silly threatening to beat the living
> [censored] out of someone because of an argument on usenet if it is plausible
> you could actually find them in person.
>
> Sometimes, the small things make all the difference.
The real dumbass move here is assuming that the people with real-looking
names are using real names. Just because patch70 advertises his
pseudonymity doesn't mean he's alone.

I think I'll start posting as Jennifer 8 Lee,

We'd all think you were cuter then, and you'd get more responses. Maybe
you'd get someone else to pay for the drinks...

Would you really think I was cuter?

http://gawker.com/news/jennifer-8%27-lee/how-to-pitch-jennifer-8-lee-2212
94.php

1. The word "cuter" is comparative.
2. This is RBR. Our standards are notoriously low.

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
ride, what difference does that make?

The fact that you don't ride has shown more than once in the idiotic ideas
you seem to have about racing. You're one of those guys who proves how much
he knows about baseball by telling us about how you stole first base.

I don't really care what you post but let's just put it into perspective -
you don't ride and you don't know what's it's like to ride.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just some thoughts and observations.
Out of the regulars, not including those who pop up to be [censored]
for the hell of it, it's actually pretty amazing how strong the
support for due process, better transparency, credibility, and
responsibility on the part of the anti-doping establishment is and the
condemnation of how things are now.

You mean like Lafferty, Munro, Amit ("like basso, he had the option to
submit to
additional tests that could clear him."😉, Leo from Europe, dupedcyclist,
patch70 ("Did you see the list of doping products he was taking?"😉, etc.

The point is that these guys know nothing and tell us all about it. That's
fine when it has something to do with racing or some such but it gets pretty
disgusting when they're like a pack of 8 year olds assassinating someone's
character because it's so much fun.

Quoted message said:

It's been moving that way, slowly, for a long time now and there
seem, to me, to be very few loose cannons, or apologists for the
behavior of people like Pound, left here.

When you get a good look in a mirror you often don't like what you see. No
surprises there.

Quoted message said:

Looks like this is going to be a fairly large theme in French
politics for the next year or so at least, so why not in cycling too?

Sarkozy is going to be a good President. I suspect that he might even bring
a bit of honor back to the office.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

The point is that these guys know nothing and tell us all about it. That's
fine when it has something to do with racing or some such but it gets pretty
disgusting when they're like a pack of 8 year olds assassinating someone's
character because it's so much fun.

Like you know nothing at all about endlessly prattling on about
anything and everything, or character assassination. Biggest hypocrite
on usenet = Tom Kunich.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
ride, what difference does that make?

The fact that you don't ride has shown more than once in the idiotic ideas
you seem to have about racing. You're one of those guys who proves how much
he knows about baseball by telling us about how you stole first base.

I don't really care what you post but let's just put it into perspective -
you don't ride and you don't know what's it's like to ride.

You are exactly what Curtis said you are: a pissant. You make these
grand statements based on nothing except your fertile yet feeble
imagination. Statements like how I don't ride or how Brian Lafferty
can't hold onto a job. You're an obsessive old fool, Tom, as well as a
chronic liar. Did you tell us who that French Nobel laureate is yet?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich said:

You mean like Lafferty, Munro, Amit ("like basso, he had the option to
submit to additional tests that could clear him."😉, Leo from Europe, dupedcyclist,
patch70 ("Did you see the list of doping products he was taking?"😉, etc.

Dumbass,
Its about time SchwartzSoft upgraded your memory. Please tell me where I
supported WADA or any of the righteous indignation crowd:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/f780a9d660e33a78

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
ride, what difference does that make?

The fact that you don't ride has shown more than once in the idiotic ideas
you seem to have about racing. You're one of those guys who proves how much
he knows about baseball by telling us about how you stole first base.

Not easy to steal first.

Ron

On May 7, 1:09 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

laudien i think was the first proponent of that theory. but the other
more likely possibility is simply that perez and hamilton were both
using homologous transfusions.

maybe first to post on r.b.r but mentioned elsewhere before that.

why would you not use your own blood, if you were going to blood-
dope? that's what seemed to make the bag-mixup theory a likely one.

Bill C said:

Just some thoughts and observations.
Out of the regulars, not including those who pop up to be [censored]
for the hell of it,

Yeah, those guys [censored] me off. The least they could do is be [censored]
with a reason...like everyone else on Usenet.

R

Curtis L. Russell said:

Fred Fredburger said:

1. The word "cuter" is comparative.
2. This is RBR. Our standards are notoriously low.

Yeah, as in "snake belly" and "passing overhead" pop into mind. Then,
again, no wasted energy trying to keep them up.

Once you awaken flat on your back with a formaldehyde hangover,

Do the initials O.B. mean anything to you?

Fred Fredburger said:

1. The word "cuter" is comparative.
2. This is RBR. Our standards are notoriously low.

Yeah, as in "snake belly" and "passing overhead" pop into mind. Then,
again, no wasted energy trying to keep them up.

Once you awaken flat on your back with a formaldehyde hangover,
looking up at a water buffalo, you just don't have the heart to argue
when someone disses your standards. At least the water buffalo stepped
carefully when IT passed overhead.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

Once you awaken flat on your back with a formaldehyde hangover,

Do the initials O.B. mean anything to you?

Only thing I remember was the in-country version of Singhai Beer. You
could drink the version with formaldehyde or the version that had the
filmy looking things swimming around in it. The first half of the
tour, I went with the first; later, I started looking at the filmy
looking things as entertainment and it came free with some of the beer
and almost all of the ice tea. Just hold the glass up to the light...

Have to say, formaldehyde hangovers hurt. In bright sunlight, it was
very nearly deadly.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
ride, what difference does that make?

The fact that you don't ride has shown more than once in the idiotic ideas
you seem to have about racing. You're one of those guys who proves how much
he knows about baseball by telling us about how you stole first base.

Not easy to steal first.

Ron

But possible. I would be impressed by the baseball savvy and skills of
anyone who has managed the trick.

No, seriously non-baseball fans, it is possible to "steal" first, though
I don't know if that's how the play is recorded when it happens.

An exercise for the reader,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

On Wed, 09 May 2007 15:20:05 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No, seriously non-baseball fans, it is possible to "steal" first, though
I don't know if that's how the play is recorded when it happens.

Its not. Stealing by definition is advancing one base beyond one that
is earned: taking first on a dropped ball is not stealing. At one
time, long ago, you could steal first from second - this actually has
value in very limited situations - but that is no longer permitted
either.

So, no stealing first.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

RicodJour said:

Bill C said:

Just some thoughts and observations.
Out of the regulars, not including those who pop up to be [censored]
for the hell of it,

Yeah, those guys [censored] me off. The least they could do is be [censored]
with a reason...like everyone else on Usenet.

R

Nah, I had to be beaten over the head repeatedly before people like
CritPro stopped really pissing me off. Took forever for me to get it
through my thick skull that they were getting off on it, and only
doing it to crank people up for their own entertainment.
Might be stupid, but I'll actually try and talk reasonably to someone
who, people think, is being an [censored] if they seem to be doing it for
some reason other than "Look at ME!!!".
Bill C

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 04:14:12 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Besides, even if I (or anyone else) didn't actually
> ride, what difference does that make?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that you don't ride has shown more than once in the idiotic ideas
you seem to have about racing. You're one of those guys who proves how much
he knows about baseball by telling us about how you stole first base.

Quoted message said:

Not easy to steal first.

Quoted message said:

Ron

But possible. I would be impressed by the baseball savvy and skills of
anyone who has managed the trick.

No, seriously non-baseball fans, it is possible to "steal" first, though
I don't know if that's how the play is recorded when it happens.

An exercise for the reader,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I seem to remember it happening a couple of years ago in either a
playoff, or critical late season regular game and it was big news for
a while because it was such a heads up play.
Now if someone could actually explain the balk rule to me so it makes
sense. ;-)
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Wed, 09 May 2007 15:20:05 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

No, seriously non-baseball fans, it is possible to "steal" first, though
I don't know if that's how the play is recorded when it happens.

Its not. Stealing by definition is advancing one base beyond one that
is earned: taking first on a dropped ball is not stealing. At one
time, long ago, you could steal first from second - this actually has
value in very limited situations - but that is no longer permitted
either.

So, no stealing first.

I'll take your word for it on the definition, but the act of taking
first base without hitting the ball or being awarded a walk is certainly
more akin to a base-steal than anything else.

But I assume it is not recorded as such, merely as a special-case play.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Bill C said:

I seem to remember it happening a couple of years ago in either a
playoff, or critical late season regular game and it was big news for
a while because it was such a heads up play.

And again, not really. It happens often enough that every hitter
SHOULD be prepared, but then, some wouldn't bother. Anyway, it is
scored as a strike and either a passed ball or a wild pitch, depending
on whether the catch or pitch is at fault.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...