Lance, Lance

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

If you believe everything you read, you must be a great fan of the
National
Enquirer.

When the information is a first hand account, I tend to believe it
more than
second hand information. I only read the national enquirer when I
need to
get some alien information. 🙂
-------------
Alex

That LA Confidential book is full if first-hand accounts. Just people
telling what they themselves saw and heard.

Research 101. Is the book a primary or secondary source? Hint: did the
author actually witness the reported events.

Phil H

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I demure.

I think you mean you demur. Demure with an e at the end is an adjective.
The word you mean is to demur, meaning to voice opposition or to object. In
the old days, the way that a defendant answered a lawsuit was to file either
a general demurrer (denying the allegations -- what we now call an answer)
or a special demurrer (alleging some defect in the lawsuit -- what now is a
motion to dismiss).

"Philip Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

>If you believe everything you read, you must be a great fan of the
>National
>Enquirer.

When the information is a first hand account, I tend to believe it more
than
second hand information. I only read the national enquirer when I need
to
get some alien information. 🙂
-------------
Alex

That LA Confidential book is full if first-hand accounts. Just people
telling what they themselves saw and heard.

Research 101. Is the book a primary or secondary source? Hint: did the
author actually witness the reported events.

The witnesses did. They're primary sources for what they witnessed,
obviously. The author wrote down what they said, but they just as well could
have done it themselves. Ofcourse you're free to go to Emma O'Reilly
yourself and let her tell the story again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082300140.html

"Armstrong has been dogged by questions in the French media about how
someone whose testicular cancer had spread to his lungs and brain could
rise to the top of one of the most grueling sporting events in the
world." -- AP, 08/24/2005

Might we learn, ultimately, that Lance's "miracle" was in fact a
carefully crafted sports-agent plot, with Armstrong's acquiescence, to
create a get-rich project, fed by the public's insatiable and laughable
need for heroes - facts and reason notwithstanding?
============================

Fenimore said:

The Lance Armstrong "story" has the smell of bogusness. Is it possible
that he and his "handlers" have crafted a saga that targets Americans
and citizens worldwide that have, in these very troubled and uncertain
times, a need for superheroes, to give purpose and assurance to
uncertain lives and weak psyches.

I have several additional questions:

1) How did Lance Armstrong beat his testicular cancer which, as he's
often stated, had spread to his lungs, brains and other areas of his
body?

2) What treatment(s) were used in his "miraculous" cure?

3) Why have we not heard about persons with similarly serious cancers
overcoming their
afflictions?

4) How, without using steroidal-type chemicals, has he been able to
WIN 7 TDF RACES IN A ROW, in the face of competitors who were as
determined as he is and who doubtless as strong and conditioned (or
steroided) as Armstrong?

Some pro-Lance posters maintain that, yes, he could have been 'cured'
of testicular cancer with chemo because this type of cancer is
'primitive' and very 'susceptible to chemotherapy.'

THE POINT IS, however, Lance the spinmeister sez his cancer had spread
to his lungs and brain(!) THESE types of metastatic malignancies ARE
NOT 'primitive' and are not easily cured by chemo.

THIS IS THE POINT most doubters make. And to date, no credible
individual 'cured case' has come forward to
offer his- or herself as a parallel to Armstrong's claims.