I think it's ridiculous that somebody can sit behind an anonymous keyboard and take a cheap shot by posing as me. I hope you're satisfied, coward.
My two and a half cents wrote:
Not that I care, since this is an anonymous board, but the above post wasn't me.
Not that I care about anything, especially the reputation of athletes who are far more successful than I will ever be, but the above post was by me.[/quote]
That's it, henceforth I won't be posting on this thread under my original name. I will only post with the four other names I have used so far. Anything else should be considered fraudulent and an attempt to drag the discourse down into slandering and debased reasoning without any reasonable foundation.
"You've got to be kidding me! What a lode of crap! SFU has better resources and funding than any other NAIA school! And SFU and UBC have student populations the size of large DI schools. What are they doing in the NAIA anyway?"
Their student populations, and their funding, are for more academic and science-based endevors. UBC pumps out some of today's best and brightest, and SFU is no slouch either. They're in the NAIA because they can be; I think it's dumb, but whatever. The fact still is, the SFU track program has shit for funding. At least, way less then would be needed to even CONSIDER what they're being accused of.
Oh, and that above post was by me. But from now on I will use the other names I've used so far. So pay no attention to posts under this name from here on.
Just keep posting
Wait, another post
I think someone's lost it completely!
I can't tell who is me, and who is me anymore
Stop the madness!
O.K., this is my new handle. Any posts by "My two and a half cents" are phony. Now can we get back to why these girls are obviously doping?
I just wish I were Canadian
My real name is two laps. Or is it?
oh yeah?
Whatever my name is, it doesn't get around the fact that any drug test is beatable. Even with the miniscule funding that SFU has. So don't be surprised at all of the negative drug tests for Rebecca and Julia and others in the future.
This is ridiculous, I could be any F%0king body!
Get out of here with that tripe. You are disgusting.
Sitting On a Corn Flake wrote:
Whatever my name is, it doesn't get around the fact that any drug test is beatable. Even with the miniscule funding that SFU has. So don't be surprised at all of the negative drug tests for Rebecca and Julia and others in the future.
Holy Smokes! The Canadians have taken over the boards! Run for the hills! We'll all be posting in French soon!
Hahahaha!
Just keep in mind that behind this flame war are some very informed individuals who have a kind of "X-Ray Vision" about who is and who isn't on drugs. We can see right throuh any attempts to smokescreen the truth. How is this? Years and years of self-loathing and jealous contemptuousness have focused our psychological resources to high pitch, above that of "normal" people. Kind of how dogs can hear a dog whistle and humans can't. That's how we know that SFU is awash in steroids, EPO, gene-doping and some technologies that haven't even been though of yet.
Man, I guess my comments have cause a real stir! As long as we are on the subject of funding, if you google "Canada+undetectable+drugs+U.N.", you will find documents which show how Canada has instituted a program to put them ahead of all other nations in Track and Field, using funds from the United Nations designated for "development" by nations that the U.N. deems appropriate to the U.N. agenda of globalizing ad socializing all economies at the expense of the U.S.A..
It may seem shocking to some, but Rebecca Johstone and SFU are just the pointed edge of a wedge will bring U.N. hegemony and the downfall of capitalist-based, free enterprise economies like the United States.
I'm not saying for sure that she is on drugs, but behind a pretty face can be the downfall of the greatest economic system the world has ever known. It's happened before and it could happen again. "I have shown you the sign" said a great (drug-free) philosopher.
My two and a half cents wrote:
I think it's ridiculous that somebody can sit behind an anonymous keyboard and take a cheap shot by posing as me. I hope you're satisfied, coward.
This guy is clearly an imposter; the original My two and a half cents doesn't know how to spell "ridiculous".
Anyway, I'm not going to say that I think that ol' 2.5 is a pedophile, but it's certainly possible. How else can you explain this person's behaviour? Pedophiles have been known to pose anonymously on the internet in order to lure children. I'm also willing to bet that this person has worn a ball cap - which pedophiles sometimes use to disguise their faces.
I'm not saying that My two and a half cents is a pedophile. I do think it is an interesting situation and is entirely possible.