# Moderators Note: No more personal attacks



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Things have gotten out of control. Certain posters seem more intent on attacking the messenger than discussing the point. It seems like every thread on Armstrong or Lemond ends in bans, posting vacations, deleted posts and thread locks. After the last meltdown, things need to change.

So no more "fan boy" insults. No more "ignorant" or other insults. If you think Armstrong doped, post up the facts and your opinion. If you think Lemond doped, post up your facts and your opinion. If you think Armstrong and Lemond didn't dope, post up your facts and opinion to counter. But if you just want to rip on people- you're going to have a short run here. 

Thanks for your understanding.


----------



## joeqp1 (Sep 12, 2006)

Why is 'ignorant' considered an insult? If a person continues to maintain an opinion or belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it be fair and accurate to describe them as ignorant?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

joeqp1 said:


> If a person continues to maintain an opinion or belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, wouldn't it be fair and accurate to describe them as ignorant?


No it wouldn't.

Almost every rider out there that has been caught doping didn't have any "indicators" or "Evidence to the Contrary" released to the public through Eye Witnesses, Teammates, Press releases, Doctors, Special Friends, etc.

In fact generally the only time that information comes out is when somebody has a vendetta against another rider and they want to bring him/her down. It's always been the goal of the press and others to bring down the biggest name possible because people love to bring down those who stand the tallest....and it gives a huge boost to a reporters career if they can do it.

Just because there is no evidence that somebody is doping, doesn't mean they are "Ignorant" because they choose to be skeptical and not ignore the general fact that many, if not all of the pro peloton is using extra "Products" on one level or another.

However, there are lots of people that adhere to the "Innocent until proven guilty" under all circumstances rule....which when it comes to cycling is far from the truth and it's not a court of law. When it comes to public figures...which pro cyclists are...it has always been, and always will be "Guilty until proven innocent".

Call me "Ignorant", a "Fan Boy, whatever you want...but when past Historical/top level pro's...talk about what is needed to win races at that level you can't ignore that and honestly believe that everybody is clean and has been until the late 80's when EPO became available.

One good example is A-Rod...everybody looked at his progression in pro baseball. No huge "Spike" years, nobody talking about it, nothing to make one believe that he had been "Juicing" for years....In fact, almost everybody thought he was one of the "Clean Few" that were All Stars and just more talented than everybody. Then all of the sudden, he's exposed out of the blue...and it looks like it could have been going on all the way back to high school...which continued use and a good program would show steady continual progress with no spikes in their performance.

I think we see this with many cyclists. Their programs start at a young age and stay with them as they progress through the ranks.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> In fact generally the only time that information comes out is when somebody has a vendetta against another rider and they want to bring him/her down.


Actually, that's not even close to resembling "fact". But whatever. 

While certainly the press has its own agenda, there are many high-caliber investigative journalists who choose their careers based on a love for the sport rather than the desire to bring anyone down or to make money.
Many of these journalists have made no money and have suffered attacks from those who directly or indirectly benefit from Armstrong's success. Quite honestly, the point at which Armstrong chased down Simeon while claiming to be "protecting the interests of the peloton" should have been a signal to all but the most ardent Armstrong supporter that something was rotten in the state of cycling and the rot started from the top.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

FondriestFan said:


> Actually, that's not even close to resembling "fact". But whatever.
> 
> While certainly the press has its own agenda, there are many high-caliber investigative journalists who choose their careers based on a love for the sport rather than the desire to bring anyone down or to make money.
> Many of these journalists have made no money and have suffered attacks from those who directly or indirectly benefit from Armstrong's success. Quite honestly, the point at which Armstrong chased down Simeon while claiming to be "protecting the interests of the peloton" should have been a signal to all but the most ardent Armstrong supporter that something was rotten in the state of cycling and the rot started from the top.


Just a question....and this may be construde as a personal attack...however, can you actually make a post in the doping forum without mentioning Armstrong? I mean seriously  

I made no mention of either riders that start most of the arguments...and even went out of sport to make a point....such is life I guess :idea: 

And if you read my post....I said "Generally" as in most of the time, but not all...but then follow the rule of thumb on this forum, only read what fits your argument and ignore the rest :thumbsup:


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> Just a question....and this may be construde as a personal attack...however, can you actually make a post in the doping forum without mentioning Armstrong? I mean seriously
> 
> I made no mention of either riders that start most of the arguments...and even went out of sport to make a point....such is life I guess :idea:
> 
> And if you read my post....I said "Generally" as in most of the time, but not all...but then follow the rule of thumb on this forum, only read what fits your argument and ignore the rest :thumbsup:


Debating doping in cycling without mentioning Armstrong is like debating American foreign policy without discussing the war in Iraq. It's the leading topic at this point, and Armstrong has made it so. 

As far as your comment is concerned, you said "In fact, generally". I pointed out that it's not a fact, it's simply your opinion that this is generally the case, especially considering that many of these journalists have gained virtually nothing from their crusades against doping in cycling.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

So will any PO memes like moreon or asshat be allowed?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> Debating doping in cycling without mentioning Armstrong is like debating American foreign policy without discussing the war in Iraq.


If we're discussing the Marshall Plan, how would discussing the war in Iraq be relevant? Just like if we are discussing Lemond in the era of his tour wins, why does someone inevitably poison the thread by bringing in Armstrong?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

TheDon said:


> So will any PO memes like moreon or asshat be allowed?


No unfortunately. Things tend to flare pretty quickly here and something ostensible meant as a joke can go south in a hurry. With the TdF coming up, that is usually when many of the worst offenses happen. 

It would be nice to give the Lemond/Armstrong hijacks a rest- but I can understand why someone would differ.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Fan boy is an insult now?

I'm assuming bigpinkt was banned permanently.

Just delete the damn forum already, it's a waste of space.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Fan boy is an insult now?


That's how was being used over the last month. Especially in any Lemond/Armstrong thread.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I read the thread on Rooks. Can we start a new one, a thread about Rooks doping, that's ABOUT ROOKS DOPING??? It's just a suggestion, makes sense to me....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> That's how was being used over the last month. Especially in any Lemond/Armstrong thread.


Is it an insult to say "I think poster x is biased in favor of rider x"?

Because that has the same meaning to me.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I hope this attempt by the moderator is successful.........


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

+1. The moderator (we'll call him God) was pretty succienct. Talk about the SUBJECT. No attacking. If you want to attack......go bring your bikes, find a nice long stretch of road....


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

SilasCL said:


> Is it an insult to say "I think poster x is biased in favor of rider x"?
> 
> Because that has the same meaning to me.


I'm not a regular here, but fan boy has a more derogatory meaning. It implies that the person is a fan no matter what, to the point he/she is blinded to facts and reason.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

DrRoebuck said:


> I'm not a regular here, but fan boy has a more derogatory meaning. It implies that the person is a fan no matter what, to the point he/she is blinded to facts and reason.


I agree. Here, fanboy is meant to be a stinging, persistent insult.

Calling someone an asshat is actually far more civil, because the connotation is somewhat humorous because of the word, and therefore not so personal. Calling someone an asshat says, I really disagree with you, but this is an Internet argument, and who really cares?


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> If we're discussing the Marshall Plan, how would discussing the war in Iraq be relevant? Just like if we are discussing Lemond in the era of his tour wins, why does someone inevitably poison the thread by bringing in Armstrong?


Well, in all fairness, Armstrong's relevance to a LeMond discussion is greater than that between the Marshall Plan and the Iraq war.

But regardless, I would suppose it depends on the topic. I'm not sure why discussion of Armstrong's alleged doping bothers people so much.

I do agree that if we're talking 1980s, then perhaps bringing in Armstrong would be irrelevant.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> I agree. Here, fanboy is meant to be a stinging, persistent insult.
> 
> Calling someone an asshat is actually far more civil, because the connotation is somewhat humorous because of the word, and therefore not so personal. Calling someone an asshat says, I really disagree with you, but this is an Internet argument, and who really cares?



That makes zero sense. Fanboy is an insult but asshat is more civil? Whatever.  

I think calling someone fanboy says "You're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."

I fail to see how this is a stinging, personal insult to anyone but the most thin-skinned.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Fan boy is an insult now?
> 
> I'm assuming bigpinkt was banned permanently.
> 
> Just delete the damn forum already, it's a waste of space.


I agree, if bigpinkt has been banned, then might as well call this the Livestrong Forum: dedicated to those who try to cheat the great Armstrong from winning 10 Tours.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

FondriestFan said:


> I think calling someone fanboy says "You're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."


That "rational criticism" bridge would be interesting to cross--should we ever get to it!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

FondriestFan said:


> That makes zero sense. Fanboy is an insult but asshat is more civil? Whatever.
> 
> I think calling someone fanboy says "You're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."
> 
> I fail to see how this is a stinging, personal insult to anyone but the most thin-skinned.


This is exactly what it means.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> I think calling someone fanboy says "You're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."


That would be an acceptable usage, if it were in fact, true. But what it really means in this forum is "You disagree with me, but I am never wrong, and the only possible explanation for questioning anything I say is not because there is any possibility that I could be wrong, but because you're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> That would be an acceptable usage, if it were in fact, true. But what it really means in this forum is "You disagree with me, but I am never wrong, and the only possible explanation for questioning anything I say is not because there is any possibility that I could be wrong, but because you're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


Well, not in the cases I've seen. I find it baffling that I and others have been accused of being a fanboy of a certain rider, who I do not follow and wish would just go away. Meanwhile, my accusers find and post every news item on this guy regardless of how trivial, know all the mundane details of his life, know who he is dating and where he eats, follow his twitter posts, etc. I mean, seriously. I'm the fanboy? This is the normal context for usage of that term, and while it will be claimed that a cigar is just a cigar, even to the casual observer, it's obviously not.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Well, not in the cases I've seen. I find it baffling that I and others have been accused of being a fanboy of a certain rider, who I do not follow and wish would just go away. Meanwhile, my accusers find and post every news item on this guy regardless of how trivial, know all the mundane details of his life, know who he is dating and where he eats, follow his twitter posts, etc. I mean, seriously. I'm the fanboy? This is the normal context for usage of that term, and while it will be claimed that a cigar is just a cigar, even to the casual observer, it's obviously not.


fan boy does not imply that you are an expert on the matter, it simply says says you are biased. In the original usage (fan boy of Sega vs. Nintendo) actual knowledge is something a fan boy doesn't generally have, as they are considered to be unable to deal with facts.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

how about 'no posts unless you are adding to the conversation'?


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

alexb618 said:


> how about 'no posts unless you are adding to the conversation'?


What is the point of a forum then?


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

alexb618 said:


> how about 'no posts unless you are adding to the conversation'?


Some forums actually do work that way and are moderated heavily to make sure that content is king. This forum is conversational, I wouldn't expect it to change.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> fan boy does not imply that you are an expert on the matter, it simply says says you are biased. In the original usage (fan boy of Sega vs. Nintendo) actual knowledge is something a fan boy doesn't generally have, as they are considered to be unable to deal with facts.


What's funny about this is that the people accusing me of bias are so biased in their own right, they can't even consider any other point of view. Pot, meet kettle. It's true what they say. Irony is dead. At least in this forum.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> Some forums actually do work that way and are moderated heavily to make sure that content is king. This forum is conversational, I wouldn't expect it to change.


Agreed, excessive moderation is more work than it’s worth. Maybe everyone just needs to take a deep breath before pressing ‘submit’ on their replies.

I think the moderators also need to appreciate there is a big difference between someone who is passionate and brings a lot of good information to a discussion, and someone who is just looking to cause trouble.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

alexb618 said:


> Agreed, excessive moderation is more work than it’s worth. Maybe everyone just needs to take a deep breath before pressing ‘submit’ on their replies.


The problem with this approach is that the people with the least hesitation to post will dominate the discussion. I'm sure we all know people who talk a lot but have little to say, the same problem can happen on forums.

I think the only way to have a forum like this work well is with heavy moderation and a good dose of shouting down baseless opinions. I'm sad to see that both are now off the table...


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

understood and agreed 100%


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> That would be an acceptable usage, if it were in fact, true. But what it really means in this forum is "You disagree with me, but I am never wrong, and the only possible explanation for questioning anything I say is not because there is any possibility that I could be wrong, but because you're a fan of so and so and you won't listen to rational criticism of that person."


Uh, you need to lighten up.

Because that's not what it means at all.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> What's funny about this is that the people accusing me of bias are so biased in their own right, they can't even consider any other point of view. Pot, meet kettle. It's true what they say. Irony is dead. At least in this forum.



I don't even know who you are, not do I care. This thread isn't about you.

The thread is about civility in discussion, which, I agree, should be exercised.

If anyone was offended by my use of the term "fanboy", then I offer my sincere apologies.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

FondriestFan said:


> Uh, you need to lighten up.
> 
> Because that's not what it means at all.


Yes,
When FF uses that term it means he respects and agrees with you. How could you have not seen that? (sometimes a cigar is just a dildo)


----------



## B15serv (Apr 27, 2008)

I think the main issue is people threadjacking non doping threads and turning them into "everybody's a fanboy" matches. I think that the political and doping forums shouldnt be policed because its too hard to draw a line and in fairness i think we all accept the usual tone of conversation for those posts. the annoying thing to me is when a thread about a rider or riders in general becomes a doping war/conversation.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

cyclesport45 said:


> I read the thread on Rooks. Can we start a new one, a thread about Rooks doping, that's ABOUT ROOKS DOPING??? It's just a suggestion, makes sense to me....


Please feel free to do so, it certainly merits serious discussion- especially the details of what was going on then.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

FondriestFan said:


> I don't even know who you are, not do I care. This thread isn't about you.


No, it's about you, and others, who throw the insults around. I'm just using me as an example.


----------



## eyebob (Feb 3, 2004)

*The insults are not necessarily "insulting"*

at least when I read them, I just find the back and forth boring.

I'd like some more factual, civil discourse too, but I stop reading and bounce out when the insults start to bore me.

Just my two cents.

bt


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

eyebob said:


> I'd like some more factual, civil discourse too, but I stop reading and bounce out when the insults start to bore me.


Same for me.

It has been my observation that sentences/phrases starting with "You are a ..." are going to be received badly, no matter how benign the adjecetive that follows.

Sentences/phrases starting with "I disagree with your position because ..." should be well received by a reasonable person.

Sentences/phrases starting with "I conclude xxx based on yyy facts" are the most enlightening for me, even when I disagree with the conclusion

JSR


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Coolhand,

Have any of LA's defenders here ever been banned? It appears the banning is overwhelmingly doled out to LA's detractors.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Agreed. Look, riders in the peleton put themselves under increased public scrutiny through their unwillingness to break the Omerta (Kohl and Manzano being exceptions). The trickle of revelations must be really hard to take for the average fan. Boy, I know that finding out that your hero is in reality a walking medical experiment must be pretty shocking. The implications of what is leaking out from Kohl's discussions with the AFLD are realy big. Pink jersey, yellow jersey, Amarillo jersey, they are all probably on the same page, but for how long? 

In the not so distant future we might see genetic doping lead to a new generation of riders able to climb at a steady 500 watts and with, to boot, bright but 100% natural red elmo-hair. Chair of the future UCI committee on doping? -- why not Bjarnie-boy? 

Many observers may simply turn away from cycling as it rapidly becomes less cool. Hand it to those few that still watch the racing with a (jaded) eye -- maybe enough will remain to keep sponsors interested in continuing their support... but who knows for how long?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Coolhand,
> 
> Have any of LA's defenders here ever been banned? It appears the banning is overwhelmingly doled out to LA's detractors.


Yep, the meltdowns have gone both ways. Usually though it is personal conflicts that cause the most issues. That and around TdF time abject trolling of Pro Cycling. Hopefully the new rules can head issues off at the pass, so we can avoid these problems in the future. 

FWIW: content wise I can say we certainty that nobody cares whether a particular poster believes Armstrong/LeMond et al is a doper. The issues by and large come from personal attacks, chronic line pushing, abject trolling of Procycling and things like that.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Coolhand,
> 
> Have any of LA's defenders here ever been banned? It appears the banning is overwhelmingly doled out to LA's detractors.


This, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with this forum, IMO. The ability of some posters with entrenched positions to see everything as black and white and turn everything thread into Us vs. Them.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Coolhand,

I just posted and didn't include any names or insults and the post was removed, and I'm assuming it was removed by you. Why?

Wow, I went back and checked and it's gone. 

Nuts......


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Coolhand,
> 
> Have any of LA's defenders here ever been banned? It appears the banning is overwhelmingly doled out to LA's detractors.


I've been called a Lance "Fan Boy".....even if I'm not, and have received notice before...so I've backed off. If others don't get the message the first time, such is life  

Maybe the overwhelmingly doled out LA Detractor bans are because they are so overzealous toward their campaign to "Out" him as a doper rational thought goes out the window and they don't know when to stop....Just a guess :idea: 

In the end it's all irrelevant...riders dope, have doped in the past and will continue to dope long into the future. Racing is a sport and it's entertainment, personally investing in a certain racer thinking they are "Clean" is the wrong way to approach the sport...watch it, enjoy it, root for riders you like and jeer for riders you don't....just don't be disappointed when the riders you cheer for get caught


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> I've been called a Lance "Fan Boy".....even if I'm not, and have received notice before...so I've backed off. If others don't get the message the first time, such is life
> 
> Maybe the overwhelmingly doled out LA Detractor bans are because they are so overzealous toward their campaign to "Out" him as a doper rational thought goes out the window and they don't know when to stop....Just a guess :idea:




Overzealous?

Out him? 

One doesn't have to be overzealous to out him becuase it's obvious but then again we have forum members who contradict themselves in one paragraph or even one sentence.

He's so outed that you believe he dopes!

What's interesting is that when you point out the obvious regarding LA you are called a "hater." Is that a personal insult? Have you ever called anyone a "hater" for believing the same thing you believe about Armstrong?

It appears you're arguing the issue from all sides and then saying it's irrelevant anyway!

I just posted about the evidence without naming one name or the name of a forum member and without any insults and the post was summarily deleted by the moderator. .


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> This, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with this forum, IMO. The ability of some posters with entrenched positions to see everything as black and white and turn everything thread into Us vs. Them.


"I'll say no."

Was that response by you know who, to a black and white question, an acceptable answer?:lol: 

Hey, who's the only person who ever defended Ferrari publicly? Besides his lawyer, I mean.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> This, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with this forum, IMO. The ability of some posters with entrenched positions to see everything as black and white and turn everything thread into Us vs. Them.


My irony meter is going off Mohair...No offense intended but you don't feel like you have taken such a position before?

I try not to, but I probably have too.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I guess you don't get the point  

It's not a matter of whether people know, believe or don't believe that Armstrong used PED's....It would appear some people on this forum will go to great lengths to prove their point that he did and make it look like they want want that fact plastered on the front page of every paper in the world to ruin him, his image, the Livestrong foundation....etc.

They are to the point that every thread posted in this forum (at least it seems like it) leads to an: Amstrong is a doper thread...and they don't stop. Anybody that challenges their point of view is called a "Fan Boy", or some other form of of name to further their point.

You're right, I do approach it from all side....why  Because I don't think there is a clean rider in the pro peloton, nor do I think there have been a majority of clean riders ever in the history of the sport.

I go back and look at quotes from previous champions, back into the 60's and it's more than obvious they were using what ever PED's they could at the time. That didn't change in the 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's....The champions were doped....simple as that :mad2: 

Just because there is no evidence pointing to a rider doping, doesn't mean that/those riders didn't dope...it just means there is nothing pointing there way. Most riders caught don't have any evidence pointing their way until they are caught. So why should we think any different about any other rider in the peloton past or present?

So in the end, all discussion of who dopes, who's clean, etc. is irrelevant in the end. Enjoy the sport....not the racers.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

lookrider said:


> Coolhand,
> 
> I just posted and didn't include any names or insults and the post was removed, and I'm assuming it was removed by you. Why?
> 
> ...


Trying to keep this thread on topic- feel free to go ahead an start a new thread on that topic if you wish. Might be good to start a new thread on the Rook doping admission topic too, as it looked like there was some interest in that area.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> So in the end, all discussion of who dopes, who's clean, etc. is irrelevant in the end. Enjoy the sport....not the racers.


Sounds like you should find a new forum to waste your time in.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> My irony meter is going off Mohair...No offense intended but you don't feel like you have taken such a position before?
> 
> I try not to, but I probably have too.


I certainly have, but it's not very often. Almost all of my posts here are not to take a position at all, but to question someone's statements or refute some "evidence." And sometimes I like to poke certain people with a stick because I know what their hot button issues are.

I don't claim to know it all, but my BS meter goes off pretty often. I also don't see the world in black and white. If someone wants to question something I post, I actually consider what they have to say, rather than just write them off as a "detractor" of some sort. I've done posts where I've acknowledged that I was wrong about something. How many others here can say the same thing?


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Moderator(s). All concerned have been made aware of the rules. Some actually listened... I'm amused that there's over FIFTY posts now! So, how about that Rooks guy? Too bad his name isn't Armstrong, or LeMond......


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

cyclesport45 said:


> Moderator(s). All concerned have been made aware of the rules. Some actually listened... I'm amused that there's over FIFTY posts now! So, how about that Rooks guy? Too bad his name isn't Armstrong, or LeMond......


I will start a Rooks thread now.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I lurk here about once a day or every other day. The L.A. doping/non-doping arguments are akin to 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. I am tempted to start a thread about kittens and see if, within 6 posts, it can get turned into some sort of argument about whether or not Lance Almighty used drugs.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Andrea138 said:


> I lurk here about once a day or every other day. The L.A. doping/non-doping arguments are akin to 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. I am tempted to start a thread about kittens and see if, within 6 posts, it can get turned into some sort of argument about whether or not Lance Almighty used drugs.


Leave kittens out of this. . . .


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Andrea138 said:


> I lurk here about once a day or every other day. The L.A. doping/non-doping arguments are akin to 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. I am tempted to start a thread about kittens and see if, within 6 posts, it can get turned into some sort of argument about whether or not Lance Almighty used drugs.



Lance once kicked a kitten cause he was on roid rage.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> Lance once kicked a kitten cause he was on roid rage.


He's having kittens over Kristen testifying.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

TheDon said:


> Lance once kicked a kitten cause he was on roid rage.


Did anyone notice that his cats all look like his mother?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> Did anyone notice that his cats all look like his mother?


Winner!


----------

