Sure you are convinced. And I may even be slow. But as I showed you are taken in flagranti. The way you reason. That is your problem.
Much of what you write about Jakob I may disagree with but you have thoroughly owned Armstronglivs in the previous exchange, exposing him again for being the dunce he is. After all, this is his argument:
1) Jakob dopes.
2) Jakob is not fast enough to break the 1500m record.
3) IF Jakob does break the 1500m record, I am still correct that he wasn’t fast enough but he managed to find better dope.
Aemstronglivs is a fool. Now I do agree with the fool on 1 and 2 BUT 3 is preposterous. You might just as well add that he found faster shoes, tracks or some other technical aid.
Sure you are convinced. And I may even be slow. But as I showed you are taken in flagranti. The way you reason. That is your problem.
Much of what you write about Jakob I may disagree with but you have thoroughly owned Armstronglivs in the previous exchange, exposing him again for being the dunce he is. After all, this is his argument:
1) Jakob dopes.
2) Jakob is not fast enough to break the 1500m record.
3) IF Jakob does break the 1500m record, I am still correct that he wasn’t fast enough but he managed to find better dope.
Aemstronglivs is a fool. Now I do agree with the fool on 1 and 2 BUT 3 is preposterous. You might just as well add that he found faster shoes, tracks or some other technical aid.
So a doped athlete can't dope to get even faster? If that were so why are there so many different substances on WADA's banned list and why are there so many other substances they haven't detected yet? So all drugs work just the same as any other and unlike shoes, training and tracks drugs don't and can't get any better?
Sure you are convinced. And I may even be slow. But as I showed you are taken in flagranti. The way you reason. That is your problem.
"Taken in flagranti"? I think you mean "flagrante").
It means "while having sex with someone, especially someone who is not your regular partner". (In flagrante delicto is often simply called in flagrante).
I know you're fond of me but I'm not sure that's what you really meant.
Sure you are convinced. And I may even be slow. But as I showed you are taken in flagranti. The way you reason. That is your problem.
Much of what you write about Jakob I may disagree with but you have thoroughly owned Armstronglivs in the previous exchange, exposing him again for being the dunce he is. After all, this is his argument:
1) Jakob dopes.
2) Jakob is not fast enough to break the 1500m record.
3) IF Jakob does break the 1500m record, I am still correct that he wasn’t fast enough but he managed to find better dope.
Aemstronglivs is a fool. Now I do agree with the fool on 1 and 2 BUT 3 is preposterous. You might just as well add that he found faster shoes, tracks or some other technical aid.
Guys you know what I did? I just blocked this person. I'm at a point in my life where I don't need to entertain or enter into discussion with people not smarter than I am - especially if they are unwilling to even meet halfway and learn (as I have done with people smarter than me over the course of my life). So I realized that this person doesn't actually contribute anything of value to these conversations (I'm going to guess it's only about drugs and "Jakob can't because") and that's simply non value-adding. I suggest you do the same. I've really enjoyed the debate and POV's here on this topic and I haven't read a single word this person has written - because I don't care what opinion they have and I don't have to. You should follow. And I bet you they will respond to this but guess what, I'm not even going to see that either so it will be a complete and utter waste of time for them.
Jakob might not be good enough, but he's as good as we've seen for a long time and again, the point of this thread as you have bought into and thanks for doing so, is dreaming about a way he can. I really think you should follow my lead on this one :)
Peace.
This post was edited 33 seconds after it was posted.
Much of what you write about Jakob I may disagree with but you have thoroughly owned Armstronglivs in the previous exchange, exposing him again for being the dunce he is. After all, this is his argument:
1) Jakob dopes.
2) Jakob is not fast enough to break the 1500m record.
3) IF Jakob does break the 1500m record, I am still correct that he wasn’t fast enough but he managed to find better dope.
Aemstronglivs is a fool. Now I do agree with the fool on 1 and 2 BUT 3 is preposterous. You might just as well add that he found faster shoes, tracks or some other technical aid.
Guys you know what I did? I just blocked this person. I'm at a point in my life where I don't need to entertain or enter into discussion with people not smarter than I am - especially if they are unwilling to even meet halfway and learn (as I have done with people smarter than me over the course of my life). So I realized that this person doesn't actually contribute anything of value to these conversations (I'm going to guess it's only about drugs and "Jakob can't because") and that's simply non value-adding. I suggest you do the same. I've really enjoyed the debate and POV's here on this topic and I haven't read a single word this person has written - because I don't care what opinion they have and I don't have to. You should follow. And I bet you they will respond to this but guess what, I'm not even going to see that either so it will be a complete and utter waste of time for them.
Jakob might not be good enough, but he's as good as we've seen for a long time and again, the point of this thread as you have bought into and thanks for doing so, is dreaming about a way he can. I really think you should follow my lead on this one :)
Sure you are convinced. And I may even be slow. But as I showed you are taken in flagranti. The way you reason. That is your problem.
"Taken in flagranti"? I think you mean "flagrante").
It means "while having sex with someone, especially someone who is not your regular partner". (In flagrante delicto is often simply called in flagrante).
I know you're fond of me but I'm not sure that's what you really meant.
Well, well. Sure I am fond of you. You brightens up my day. Apropos in flagranti. This might be something that interests you: Genes Caught In Flagranti: Integrating Renal Transcriptional Profiles With Genotypes and Phenotypes - PubMed (nih.gov)
Guys you know what I did? I just blocked this person. I'm at a point in my life where I don't need to entertain or enter into discussion with people not smarter than I am - especially if they are unwilling to even meet halfway and learn (as I have done with people smarter than me over the course of my life). So I realized that this person doesn't actually contribute anything of value to these conversations (I'm going to guess it's only about drugs and "Jakob can't because") and that's simply non value-adding. I suggest you do the same. I've really enjoyed the debate and POV's here on this topic and I haven't read a single word this person has written - because I don't care what opinion they have and I don't have to. You should follow. And I bet you they will respond to this but guess what, I'm not even going to see that either so it will be a complete and utter waste of time for them.
Jakob might not be good enough, but he's as good as we've seen for a long time and again, the point of this thread as you have bought into and thanks for doing so, is dreaming about a way he can. I really think you should follow my lead on this one :)
Peace.
I'm heartbroken.
Don’t be heartbroken Armstronglivs, because I will not block you, and I still got some nice words for you (in between my criticism), and could even let myself be influenced by some of your knowledge… I even got some nice words for Salvitore -a pity he will not see them, because he has blocked me as well (but sometimes other poster copy my words, and then he sees them and even responds sometimes…ha, ha!)
Much of what you write about Jakob I may disagree with but you have thoroughly owned Armstronglivs in the previous exchange, exposing him again for being the dunce he is. After all, this is his argument:
1) Jakob dopes.
2) Jakob is not fast enough to break the 1500m record.
3) IF Jakob does break the 1500m record, I am still correct that he wasn’t fast enough but he managed to find better dope.
Aemstronglivs is a fool. Now I do agree with the fool on 1 and 2 BUT 3 is preposterous. You might just as well add that he found faster shoes, tracks or some other technical aid.
So a doped athlete can't dope to get even faster? If that were so why are there so many different substances on WADA's banned list and why are there so many other substances they haven't detected yet? So all drugs work just the same as any other and unlike shoes, training and tracks drugs don't and can't get any better?
It's fun being "owned" by you clods.
So Jakob is the best because he is the best doper?
What is your take on Jake Wightman (if you consider him a doper at all)?
"Taken in flagranti"? I think you mean "flagrante").
It means "while having sex with someone, especially someone who is not your regular partner". (In flagrante delicto is often simply called in flagrante).
I know you're fond of me but I'm not sure that's what you really meant.
Well, well. Sure I am fond of you. You brightens up my day. Apropos in flagranti. This might be something that interests you: Genes Caught In Flagranti: Integrating Renal Transcriptional Profiles With Genotypes and Phenotypes - PubMed (nih.gov)
Thanks for the suggestion but that's a little too much of an academic diversion for me.
Don’t be heartbroken Armstronglivs, because I will not block you, and I still got some nice words for you (in between my criticism), and could even let myself be influenced by some of your knowledge… I even got some nice words for Salvitore -a pity he will not see them, because he has blocked me as well (but sometimes other poster copy my words, and then he sees them and even responds sometimes…ha, ha!)
He doesn't like being differed with. I am used to it - as I expect you will be if you stay long enough.
So a doped athlete can't dope to get even faster? If that were so why are there so many different substances on WADA's banned list and why are there so many other substances they haven't detected yet? So all drugs work just the same as any other and unlike shoes, training and tracks drugs don't and can't get any better?
It's fun being "owned" by you clods.
So Jakob is the best because he is the best doper?
What is your take on Jake Wightman (if you consider him a doper at all)?
It isn't quite as simple as you say. Jakob is the best because he is enormously talented - but he couldn't also be the best unless he doped. I think he probably started pretty young. There's nothing to stop the highly ambitious from doing that - and he is certainly enormously ambitious. He wants to be not only the best in his era but the best of all time.
Jake Wightman is a very talented athlete also. He has gifts that Jakob doesn't have, which includes superior basic speed. He also shows a good tactical sense at championship level and courage. I have never seen anything in his progressions or performances that of themselves raise a red flag but the issue that confronts all runners today is how can you succeed at championship level without doping. So on that basis alone he also probably dopes, although in his case I have no other basis for thinking that. There isn't anything "superhuman" about him, that defies belief. However, to beat dopers or likely dopers today you probably also have to be one. So no one at the top gets a pass.
Don’t be heartbroken Armstronglivs, because I will not block you, and I still got some nice words for you (in between my criticism), and could even let myself be influenced by some of your knowledge… I even got some nice words for Salvitore -a pity he will not see them, because he has blocked me as well (but sometimes other poster copy my words, and then he sees them and even responds sometimes…ha, ha!)
Actually, it's quite funny that he blocks you, too, as he says he likes debate. But only on his terms, apparently.
Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?
I promised myself to stay out of this but it’s just to tempting to interfere… And I know some of you will think it’s narcissistic of me to pretend I can do some schooling here, but the theme is too important to let it be. So feel free to slaughter me afterwards…
”Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?” -man oh man -I get it that you are pixxed (and in your own eyes rightfully), but trying to be a psychologist when we are pixxed got some major side effects:
1. Your wording could extremely easily been turned against you. Armstronglivs didn’t do that fully, but he could have done. And it would be extremely easy for someone like me to analyse you from your choice of words here, and I could easily make it look like the truth (even if I didn’t believe it myself)…
2. You are right that bad parenting can explain inferior complexe, but it can also explain the opposite, and all sorts of other things… But your wording misses out an extremely important nuance: It’s more common than uncommon that people feel their parents didn’t love them enough. -Even if one had good parents… Our need for love is limitless..!
3. I myself had very bad parents:-but I know some of the things this has done to me, and it’s not easy to put all this into a diagnosis or scheme….It’s just part of being human in a very demanding world - We do all pending between feelings of being inferior and feeling over confident, and everything in between -the situation and our calm decide how we act or speak…
4. You can pose that Armstronglivs is the one who is the problem -who started the deprivation of the debate and so on, but you cannot know this for sure. He can have had his experiences, and met things that pixxes him off, even things that you said. -We are all so self righteous that it’s hard for us to imagine anyone can be pixxed on us..!
5. You are not even fair against Armstronglivs -he isn’t harsh all the time. For instance has he said something positive about some of my perspective in a post, and he has also been the bigger man a couple of times he didn’t needed to… That doesn’t mean that you can’t criticise him fiercely (I do that too..).
6. Armstronglivs, Coevett and Salvitore Stichmo are among poster I have called out as “illogical”. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. -In my work life (before retirement) part of my job was to assess grown ups’ mental capabilities and resources -I. can tell you that they all are highly intelligent, knowledgeable and well spoken (then they choose to), and not at all illogical overall (I myself is illogical in some cases, we all are)… And even if Coevett for instance, seems to have a bias against black people, he argues well for him not being a racist..
7. I don’t say that your feelings or your point of views are wrong; not at all… I’m just saying something about the wording , and I’m quite sure I mean this well…😊
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Armstrong is easily the best,funniest person on here,and the most entertaining.A lot of people pretend to detest him,and insult him,but he helps make this site what it is.
Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?
I promised myself to stay out of this but it’s just to tempting to interfere… And I know some of you will think it’s narcissistic of me to pretend I can do some schooling here, but the theme is too important to let it be. So feel free to slaughter me afterwards…
”Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?” -man oh man -I get it that you are pixxed (and in your own eyes rightfully), but trying to be a psychologist when we are pixxed got some major side effects:
1. Your wording could extremely easily been turned against you. Armstronglivs didn’t do that fully, but he could have done. And it would be extremely easy for someone like me to analyse you from your choice of words here, and I could easily make it look like the truth (even if I didn’t believe it myself)…
2. You are right that bad parenting can explain inferior complexe, but it can also explain the opposite, and all sorts of other things… But your wording misses out an extremely important nuance: It’s more common than uncommon that people feel their parents didn’t love them enough. -Even if one had good parents… Our need for love is limitless..!
3. I myself had very bad parents:-but I know some of the things this has done to me, and it’s not easy to put all this into a diagnosis or scheme….It’s just part of being human in a very demanding world - We do all pending between feelings of being inferior and feeling over confident, and everything in between -the situation and our calm decide how we act or speak…
4. You can pose that Armstronglivs is the one who is the problem -who started the deprivation of the debate and so on, but you cannot know this for sure. He can have had his experiences, and met things that pixxes him off, even things that you said. -We are all so self righteous that it’s hard for us to imagine anyone can be pixxed on us..!
5. You are not even fair against Armstronglivs -he isn’t harsh all the time. For instance has he said something positive about some of my perspective in a post, and he has also been the bigger man a couple of times he didn’t needed to… That doesn’t mean that you can’t criticise him fiercely (I do that too..).
6. Armstronglivs, Coevett and Salvitore Stichmo are among poster I have called out as “illogical”. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. -In my work life (before retirement) part of my job was to assess grown ups’ mental capabilities and resources -I. can tell you that they all are highly intelligent, knowledgeable and well spoken (then they choose to), and not at all illogical overall (I myself is illogical in some cases, we all are)… And even if Coevett for instance, seems to have a bias against black people, he argues well for him not being a racist..
7. I don’t say that your feelings or your point of views are wrong; not at all… I’m just saying something about the wording , and I’m quite sure I mean this well…😊
Entertaining but I suspect you have now just consigned yourself to the ranks of the outcasts. It isn't the done thing here to see merit in those who hold views we don't agree with.
Armstrong is easily the best,funniest person on here,and the most entertaining.A lot of people pretend to detest him,and insult him,but he helps make this site what it is.
And I thought you took me seriously! Well, at least those who detest me do - and it's no pretence!
Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?
I promised myself to stay out of this but it’s just to tempting to interfere… And I know some of you will think it’s narcissistic of me to pretend I can do some schooling here, but the theme is too important to let it be. So feel free to slaughter me afterwards…
”Why do you feel so inferior? Parents didn’t love you? What went wrong?” -man oh man -I get it that you are pixxed (and in your own eyes rightfully), but trying to be a psychologist when we are pixxed got some major side effects:
1. Your wording could extremely easily been turned against you. Armstronglivs didn’t do that fully, but he could have done. And it would be extremely easy for someone like me to analyse you from your choice of words here, and I could easily make it look like the truth (even if I didn’t believe it myself)…
2. You are right that bad parenting can explain inferior complexe, but it can also explain the opposite, and all sorts of other things… But your wording misses out an extremely important nuance: It’s more common than uncommon that people feel their parents didn’t love them enough. -Even if one had good parents… Our need for love is limitless..!
3. I myself had very bad parents:-but I know some of the things this has done to me, and it’s not easy to put all this into a diagnosis or scheme….It’s just part of being human in a very demanding world - We do all pending between feelings of being inferior and feeling over confident, and everything in between -the situation and our calm decide how we act or speak…
4. You can pose that Armstronglivs is the one who is the problem -who started the deprivation of the debate and so on, but you cannot know this for sure. He can have had his experiences, and met things that pixxes him off, even things that you said. -We are all so self righteous that it’s hard for us to imagine anyone can be pixxed on us..!
5. You are not even fair against Armstronglivs -he isn’t harsh all the time. For instance has he said something positive about some of my perspective in a post, and he has also been the bigger man a couple of times he didn’t needed to… That doesn’t mean that you can’t criticise him fiercely (I do that too..).
6. Armstronglivs, Coevett and Salvitore Stichmo are among poster I have called out as “illogical”. But that doesn’t mean they are stupid. -In my work life (before retirement) part of my job was to assess grown ups’ mental capabilities and resources -I. can tell you that they all are highly intelligent, knowledgeable and well spoken (then they choose to), and not at all illogical overall (I myself is illogical in some cases, we all are)… And even if Coevett for instance, seems to have a bias against black people, he argues well for him not being a racist..
7. I don’t say that your feelings or your point of views are wrong; not at all… I’m just saying something about the wording , and I’m quite sure I mean this well…😊
You're old and everyone around you has already noticed your oncoming senility. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
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.