Gidey just ran the single greatest female running performance ever... Give her the black page! Letesenbet MF Gidey 1:02:52

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

Definitely not directed to the wrong poster. I have no idea if rekrunner ever has claimed to be never wrong on something . And liar soorer I just know from this thread. And I probably have just posted a few handful of times and for sure I can't categorically state that I never was wrong on something even in those few posts - so your answer is complete nonsense, as so many others you have written with no interest to touch the subject at all. Just giving contra because you can't admit when beeing wrong. Childish behavior .

Because others have disagreed with me doesn't prove I have been wrong about anything I have said here. Just as your empty claim doesn't make it true. I generally disagree with doping deniers, racist and misogynistic bigots and morons. It is hard to be wrong doing so.

Just your answer to my few posts here show that you are often wrong.

You obviously only have one interest: beeing the "winner" of the discussion - to see in dozens of threads. Childish behavior.

letsdrum wrote:

Definitely not directed to the wrong poster. I have no idea if rekrunner ever has claimed to be never wrong on something . And liar soorer I just know from this thread. And I probably have just posted a few handful of times and for sure I can't categorically state that I never was wrong on something even in those few posts - so your answer is complete nonsense, as so many others you have written with no interest to touch the subject at all. Just giving contra because you can't admit when beeing wrong. Childish behavior .

In the words of Public Image Limited, “I could be wrong, I could be right”

In forums like this, among contributors largely ignorant of the specific details of the subject they are discussing, it is often not possible to for these ignorant contributors to reliably determine what is right and what is wrong.

If someone told me I was wrong, my next question is, how would they know? Can they prove it? I am generally not interested in the ignorant poster’s assessment of right or wrong, but rather how well they are able to support such an assessment with facts, observations, evidence, and logical reasoning.

I always welcome anyone who can “prove” me wrong, as being proved wrong is how mankind has made the most advancements in learning.

Sadly, some try to do this by simply asserting their opposite beliefs as true, without substantiation, supplemented by personal insults and a series of fallacies. It may be premature to rule out these opposite beliefs, but without substance or support, it’s just another uncertain alternative to consider.

I agree

Well presented.

I am reminded of essays that kept getting C minus and the writer not having grasped the fundamentals of any debate. In the case of Armstronglivs such is compounded by his declared refusal to read and inability to stop lying.

Of course you were reminded of essays that kept getting a C-minus; they were yours.

It isn't like you to supply humour - however unintended - but you did make me laugh there. Your posturing is indeed comical.

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because others have disagreed with me doesn't prove I have been wrong about anything I have said here. Just as your empty claim doesn't make it true. I generally disagree with doping deniers, racist and misogynistic bigots and morons. It is hard to be wrong doing so.

Just your answer to my few posts here show that you are often wrong.

You obviously only have one interest: beeing the "winner" of the discussion - to see in dozens of threads. Childish behavior.

It is quite comforting that you are the one who decides whether or not I am wrong; I might have feared someone of discernment but obviously that isn't you.

And look up the spelling of "being". I am happy to correct your error. You're welcome.

letsdrum wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

You assume he is interested in matters of the intellectual.

He is a one trick pony and then trolls on that basis.

Contaminates thread after thread.

For people who have learned to argue it's really not easy to deal with persons like Armstronglivs.

That must be because your arguments aren't very good.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

For people who have learned to argue it's really not easy to deal with persons like Armstronglivs.

That must be because your arguments aren't very good.

No, because most discussions take place with people who read and don’t lie.

You refuse to read.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Well presented.

I am reminded of essays that kept getting C minus and the writer not having grasped the fundamentals of any debate. In the case of Armstronglivs such is compounded by his declared refusal to read and inability to stop lying.

Of course you were reminded of essays that kept getting a C-minus; they were yours.

No; those being marked at HE level.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

No comment of no fault convictions.

Any comment?

Any answers ?

Or want to continue avoiding?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Well presented.

I am reminded of essays that kept getting C minus and the writer not having grasped the fundamentals of any debate. In the case of Armstronglivs such is compounded by his declared refusal to read and inability to stop lying.

Of course you were reminded of essays that kept getting a C-minus; they were yours.

Wow. And you got this info exactly where?

Are you really proud when giving such a 6-years-old comment?

letsdrum wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Of course you were reminded of essays that kept getting a C-minus; they were yours.

Wow. And you got this info exactly where?

Are you really proud when giving such a 6-years-old comment?

Isn't that the mental age around here? I thought I pitched it about right.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That must be because your arguments aren't very good.

No, because most discussions take place with people who read and don’t lie.

You refuse to read.

People who read and don't lie - I don't think I have encountered any here yet.

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Any comment?

Any answers ?

Or want to continue avoiding?

No answers and avoidance ! Am I correct ?

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Any answers ?

Or want to continue avoiding?

No answers and avoidance ! Am I correct ?

Armstronglivs has been cornered and goes into “ ignore” mode.

Seen it on all the threads he contaminates.

Also failed to explain what he means when he calls me and others “doping deniers”.

Armstronglivs wrote:

letsdrum wrote:

Wow. And you got this info exactly where?

Are you really proud when giving such a 6-years-old comment?

Isn't that the mental age around here? I thought I pitched it about right.

So you agree that your posting habit is on a level of a 6 years old?

But I'm sceptical about the reason you have given for this.

Any chance to improve it, Armstronglivs ?

I have followed some threads you appeared in and it's always exactly the same pattern. You act like a child.

Armstronglivs wrote:

And look up the spelling of "being". I am happy to correct your error. You're welcome.

How many languages do you speak fluently, you arrogant fool?

liar soorer wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

No answers and avoidance ! Am I correct ?

Armstronglivs has been cornered and goes into “ ignore” mode.

Seen it on all the threads he contaminates.

Also failed to explain what he means when he calls me and others “doping deniers”.

No response !