That must apply to everyone that posts on threads about them. But being obsessed with another anonymous poster tops everything.
When you post about something you must be obsessed about it?
You have to reply. You will reply. We just have to wait you waking up.
That's your life. Writing nonsense. Sleeping. Checking all the dozens of answers you got who made fun of your nonsense. Answering all of them for the next hour. Writing more nonsense...
waffle snarf burp fart idiot piffle doping not reading all that! moron barf gargle slurp drool herb elliott barf fart gag moron waffle slurp fart choke dope doping doper rekrunner! peter snell secret man crush barf arc trainer athlete survey! cross training is treadmill running slurp gag moron i am armstronglivs, i am LR love child of rekrunner and khamis barf snurf gag puke moron doping doper doped gargle gurgle idiot no sleep post on letsrun 100 posts a day barf fart gasp moron kenyans ingebrigtsen man crush choke barf arc trainer moron waffle valby gargle cross training treadmill doper burp slurp swallow gasp choke gag ingebrigtsen not reading that snurf sniffle drivel dribble slurp burp gag barf moron doping! you devout follower idiot doping dope 1000 posts a month moron ingebrigtsen valby snell I can’t write times burp fart I am armstronglivs gag barf barf moron jakob arc trainer waffle
You're a perfect representative of the level of average intellect here.
You're a gentleman. I can agree to disagree with you - and we often do - but we can see each other's point of view.
Yes, we can see each other’s point of view. And although I disagree with quite a lot I also think some of your posts are good and nuanced.
No, I’m not a gentleman (although I sometimes choose to pretend I am) -just like you I can be really harsh. But I think it’s really interesting to direct my “harshness” against the people in my own camp (the Jakob fans), because some of them really don’t like criticism or nuances… Heck -I even plan to analyse / criticise Jakob’s “arrogance”, because despite liking a lot of his mind set I really think he might be clueless on some major parts, for some interesting reasons…
So to your “harshness” -I think you are on your worst and most unfair when you criticise “rekrunner” for only being a doping apologists. Because I think his main thing is to speculate and analyse as good as he can. And I really think he tries to do this in the manner he calls “objectively”. Well, I won’t defend him more than that in this post for two reasons: 1. I think he’s totally capable of defending himself. 2. I think a criticism of people in one’s own camp often is more productive than always defending them. So here it comes: Yes, I think you are right when you claim that posters are driven by their own feelings and hopes. And “rekrunner” has admitted that other’s claims of high prevalence of doping ruins his appreciation for the sport -giving him a motive for denying those claims more than “objectively”. (I might myself be in the same situation as he).
My point in the above is this: Guys like “rekrunner” and myself may think we are very honest and show objectively in our reasoning, because we really try. But in this we may really miss how feelings might colour our reasoning, and how we might cherry pick the science that suits us, and disregard the ones that don’t. So I think the only solution is this: Try to acknowledge that the feelings are strong, and try to be even more “objective”…
I'll disagree with you on one point. The other poster whom you choose to defend is the most practiced liar I have ever encountered.
Because I think his main thing is to speculate and analyse as good as he can. And I really think he tries to do this in the manner he calls “objectively”. Well, I won’t defend him more than that in this post for two reasons: 1. I think he’s totally capable of defending himself. 2. I think a criticism of people in one’s own camp often is more productive than always defending them. So here it comes: Yes, I think you are right when you claim that posters are driven by their own feelings and hopes. And “rekrunner” has admitted that other’s claims of high prevalence of doping ruins his appreciation for the sport -giving him a motive for denying those claims more than “objectively”. (I might myself be in the same situation as he).
Two corrections.
My main thing is not to speculate at all, one way or the other, but to provide supporting facts, data, and evidence.
I admitted "other’s claims of high prevalence of doping ruins his appreciation for the sport"? That doesn't sound quite right. I still appreciate the sport as much as ever regardless of what other people say. What I may have said is that baseless claims (lacking facts, data, evidence), including claims of high prevelance, hurt the sport.
My main thing is not to speculate at all, one way or the other, but to provide supporting facts, data, and evidence.
I admitted "other’s claims of high prevalence of doping ruins his appreciation for the sport"? That doesn't sound quite right. I still appreciate the sport as much as ever regardless of what other people say. What I may have said is that baseless claims (lacking facts, data, evidence), including claims of high prevelance, hurt the sport.
I think you misunderstand me because of some wording… I didn’t mean that you are doing baseless speculation. On the contrary, although I haven’t read all your posts my impression is that you collect facts, and are trying to see some possible consequences from them. But you often pose questions / conclusions that are quite “open” (as you should, in a proper scientific spirit) - that was what I meant by “speculations”; I meant it in a positive way. F.x research shows that the modern revealed doping regime in Russia hasn’t given the boost in performances many would expect -you then “speculate” (or maybe better: raise a hypothesis) of some form of doping not being potent / not having effect, instead of claiming this research as a decisive and final proof of no effect…
”Appreciation for the sport” -you wrote in a post that you had learned to appreciate/like/love this sport (something like that; I don’t remember the exact wording, and it isn’t important), and that you thought it was sad that posters so frequently and overdone and baseless claim that doping is extremely prevalent, and thus baselessly try to ruin the enjoyment of the sport (something like that; again just rephrasing). -This is not an accusation against you; on the contrary; I myself can feel some of the mentioned sadness… And I neither have lost the enjoyment and enthusiasm.
My point is this: You collect facts, and are trying to draw conclusions or hypothesis based on this. And you are trying to do this objectively. But as everybody you will be influenced by your feelings and preferences and hope. I then think it would be a good thing to acknowledge this (a bias / subjectivity) and try to compensate for this by trying to be even more objective… At least this is how I talk to myself after discovering how bias we all in some ways unconsciously are….
waffle snarf burp fart idiot piffle doping not reading all that! moron barf gargle slurp drool herb elliott barf fart gag moron waffle slurp fart choke dope doping doper rekrunner! peter snell secret man crush barf arc trainer athlete survey! cross training is treadmill running slurp gag moron i am armstronglivs, i am LR love child of rekrunner and khamis barf snurf gag puke moron doping doper doped gargle gurgle idiot no sleep post on letsrun 100 posts a day barf fart gasp moron kenyans ingebrigtsen man crush choke barf arc trainer moron waffle valby gargle cross training treadmill doper burp slurp swallow gasp choke gag ingebrigtsen not reading that snurf sniffle drivel dribble slurp burp gag barf moron doping! you devout follower idiot doping dope 1000 posts a month moron ingebrigtsen valby snell I can’t write times burp fart I am armstronglivs gag barf barf moron jakob arc trainer waffle
You're a perfect representative of the level of average intellect here.
That is an old mindweak meme. But you wouldn't understand it.
I think you misunderstand me because of some wording… I didn’t mean that you are doing baseless speculation. On the contrary, although I haven’t read all your posts my impression is that you collect facts, and are trying to see some possible consequences from them. But you often pose questions / conclusions that are quite “open” (as you should, in a proper scientific spirit) - that was what I meant by “speculations”; I meant it in a positive way. F.x research shows that the modern revealed doping regime in Russia hasn’t given the boost in performances many would expect -you then “speculate” (or maybe better: raise a hypothesis) of some form of doping not being potent / not having effect, instead of claiming this research as a decisive and final proof of no effect…
”Appreciation for the sport” -you wrote in a post that you had learned to appreciate/like/love this sport (something like that; I don’t remember the exact wording, and it isn’t important), and that you thought it was sad that posters so frequently and overdone and baseless claim that doping is extremely prevalent, and thus baselessly try to ruin the enjoyment of the sport (something like that; again just rephrasing). -This is not an accusation against you; on the contrary; I myself can feel some of the mentioned sadness… And I neither have lost the enjoyment and enthusiasm.
My point is this: You collect facts, and are trying to draw conclusions or hypothesis based on this. And you are trying to do this objectively. But as everybody you will be influenced by your feelings and preferences and hope. I then think it would be a good thing to acknowledge this (a bias / subjectivity) and try to compensate for this by trying to be even more objective… At least this is how I talk to myself after discovering how bias we all in some ways unconsciously are….
Let's reclarify. You are right that I try to do "as good as (I) can".
If something has no supporting basis, we should not be afraid to call it speculation, myth, faith, hypothesis, or something similar, rather than proof, conclusion, evidence, fact, etc. No one needs my permission or approval to speculate, and I don't require it. I don't actually require proofs or facts or data or studies either, just that we call things as they are.
But if you want to strengthen your argument beyond mere baseless speculation, you need something objective and tangible and directly connected, such as data, fact, evidence, controlled observation, or something similar. Otherwise it is just hypothesis no better than any alternative hypothesis. It's not so much a question of which speculation is right or wrong, but rather if it is weak or strong.
I appreciate the sport regardless of baseless speculations from both "experts" and fans, but do find it sad for both athletes and fans when widespread baseless speculation itself causes fans to doubt amazing results.
Let's reclarify. You are right that I try to do "as good as (I) can".
If something has no supporting basis, we should not be afraid to call it speculation, myth, faith, hypothesis, or something similar, rather than proof, conclusion, evidence, fact, etc. No one needs my permission or approval to speculate, and I don't require it. I don't actually require proofs or facts or data or studies either, just that we call things as they are.
But if you want to strengthen your argument beyond mere baseless speculation, you need something objective and tangible and directly connected, such as data, fact, evidence, controlled observation, or something similar. Otherwise it is just hypothesis no better than any alternative hypothesis. It's not so much a question of which speculation is right or wrong, but rather if it is weak or strong.
I appreciate the sport regardless of baseless speculations from both "experts" and fans, but do find it sad for both athletes and fans when widespread baseless speculation itself causes fans to doubt amazing results.
I'll disagree with you on one point. The other poster whom you choose to defend is the most practiced liar I have ever encountered.
It was stupid of me to bring up “rekrunner” the way I did -ended up sort of offending both of you. -Not my intention at all, so I apologise. And I should also have stressed a “no interference mark” around whatever beaf you and he have -I haven’t read all the posts of you two, and obviously have way too little knowledge to even try to do any judging…
I'll disagree with you on one point. The other poster whom you choose to defend is the most practiced liar I have ever encountered.
It was stupid of me to bring up “rekrunner” the way I did -ended up sort of offending both of you. -Not my intention at all, so I apologise. And I should also have stressed a “no interference mark” around whatever beaf you and he have -I haven’t read all the posts of you two, and obviously have way too little knowledge to even try to do any judging…
For one of them I have enough knowledge to for judging: Armstronglivs is a notorious liar (a fact when looking how many times I saw him doing it) who never ever would agree when someone has just shown him to be wrong on something.
It was stupid of me to bring up “rekrunner” the way I did -ended up sort of offending both of you. -Not my intention at all, so I apologise. And I should also have stressed a “no interference mark” around whatever beaf you and he have -I haven’t read all the posts of you two, and obviously have way too little knowledge to even try to do any judging…
For one of them I have enough knowledge to for judging: Armstronglivs is a notorious liar (a fact when looking how many times I saw him doing it) who never ever would agree when someone has just shown him to be wrong on something.
I'll disagree with you on one point. The other poster whom you choose to defend is the most practiced liar I have ever encountered.
It was stupid of me to bring up “rekrunner” the way I did -ended up sort of offending both of you. -Not my intention at all, so I apologise. And I should also have stressed a “no interference mark” around whatever beaf you and he have -I haven’t read all the posts of you two, and obviously have way too little knowledge to even try to do any judging…
You don't have to apologise. I am not offended by what you said about that poster. I simply disagreed.
For one of them I have enough knowledge to for judging: Armstronglivs is a notorious liar (a fact when looking how many times I saw him doing it) who never ever would agree when someone has just shown him to be wrong on something.
You never have.
You often lie, for example about what you have said in the past - a fact.
You often lie, for example about what you have said in the past - a fact.
I don't shie from the fact that I have called out the morons on these threads - which must include you.
Oh you don't "shie", do you? Get some sleep, grandpa. And calling out "morons on these threads", in your case, just epitomizes the old man shouting at clouds meme. You are pathetic.
…and with cheat shoes and a little help from some “friends” he probably will. Well, until someone else figures out the system. In the meantime, no one gives a crap.
I don't shie from the fact that I have called out the morons on these threads - which must include you.
Oh you don't "shie", do you? Get some sleep, grandpa. And calling out "morons on these threads", in your case, just epitomizes the old man shouting at clouds meme. You are pathetic.
And you shout back - as you always do. You must be getting hoarse by now.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.