My claims 'may' be wrong???????? So if I have a knack for arbitrating these 50-50 issues then my claims can convert from 'may' to 'definitely right'!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's where human art and skill of reason and persuasion comes in play Mr PD!!!!!
If all world record holders believe they couldn't break the WR in their respective events because they relied on objective data from 'scientists' showing how they are epigenetically and physically disadvantaged compared to their competitors then no record would be broken!!!!!!! Athletes thus need to impose their subjective will on the 'objective data' and turn it into their favor.
I'm kinda doing almost the same exact thing here in different aspect of existence as an RF-based anti-doping expert, you feeling me Mr PD????????
I'm using the metaphysical LAW OF ATTRACTION to impose my subjective will on space and time and hoping the surrounding space-time yields the truth to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a higher law than objective data alright!!!!
Whoever said you have this knack?
World Record holders don't need to believe in objective data from scientists, but in themselves, their coach, and their training. The objective data will be their times, providing positive feedback.
A few LRC folks have affirmed this knack of mine alright!!!!! My friends have also said I do an eerie good job of arbitrating the truth about human emotion, sensations, feelings and psychology due to my RF expertise!!!!! I sense things and truths most people can't ordinarily through ordinary means of knowing. I have extraordinary means of knowing and that again is due to RF understanding!!!
And so you finally admit that even world record holders need to be subjective enough to believe in themselves, their coach, training and PEDs to succeed!!!!! Thank you Mr PD!!!
But also others are interested when your ignorance is exposed.
Absolutely typical that you change the subject when some of your wrong claims were exposed.
"Changing the subject" is you being unable to follow discussion. That's understandable, when you can only follow what is in your own head.
You have changed the subject. As always when your ignorance is exposed.
It's the most natural thing to clarify when wrong statements are done. You have done a few wrong statements here but you have absolutely no interest to clarify it.
"Changing the subject" is you being unable to follow discussion. That's understandable, when you can only follow what is in your own head.
You have changed the subject. As always when your ignorance is exposed.
It's the most natural thing to clarify when wrong statements are done. You have done a few wrong statements here but you have absolutely no interest to clarify it.
A strange whining noise keeps cropping up on this thread.
Correction, it was you who suggested there can be no definitive measure -- one of your answers to my request for more information.
Recall my point was that "there is little information". You only prove me right again. Whenever I ask for more information, I hit a detour, or a dead-end, as you are unable to provide any such information. Just weird analogies with mountains.
This is how you lie. I say there isn't a definitive measure of the extent of doping so you claim that is saying we really know nothing about doping, which is the opposite of saying we can know a lot but not necessarily with exactitude. How big is the ocean, rekrunner? You really have made a fine art of stupidity.
Recall, I said "there is little information". I did not claim, as you deceptively suggest, that "we really know nothing". This is how you lie. My many requests for more information are met with a half-dozen predictable responses which is everything but the missing information, including weird analogies, now about the ocean.
Regarding the oceans, "The oceans cover an area of 361.8 million km2 (139.7 million sq mi) with a mean depth of 3,682 m (12,080 ft), resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332 billion km3 (320 million cu mi)."
World Record holders don't need to believe in objective data from scientists, but in themselves, their coach, and their training. The objective data will be their times, providing positive feedback.
A few LRC folks have affirmed this knack of mine alright!!!!! My friends have also said I do an eerie good job of arbitrating the truth about human emotion, sensations, feelings and psychology due to my RF expertise!!!!! I sense things and truths most people can't ordinarily through ordinary means of knowing. I have extraordinary means of knowing and that again is due to RF understanding!!!
And so you finally admit that even world record holders need to be subjective enough to believe in themselves, their coach, training and PEDs to succeed!!!!! Thank you Mr PD!!!
OK, a few anonymous LRC folks, and some alleged friends have affirmed that you are not ordinary. If you say so.
Here's another example of how your extraordinary spidey senses have failed you: I did not finally admit that world record holders need to believe in PEDs to succeed. I am not a disciple and promoter of the power of PEDs, putting it on a PEDestal.
Because of human nature, athletes need to subjectively believe in themselves, and this may or may not ultimately produce the desired objective result. Their belief in themselves, their training, their coach, etc., may not result in the objective truth they want to subjectively believe. However, outside observers, like me and you, can only inject external personal bias by injecting our own personal subjective beliefs.
Look Mr PD, you are equally adept at another skill called gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!
So you lie, and if you failed you switch to gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!! And if that's not enough, you then do pro-doping to top it off!!!!!!
Don't tell me what I saw or didn't see, it's my own 2 eyes alright and it has happened so often and in so recent era of the past 1 year!!!!!!!!!
You not only challenged specific figures, you even challenged the widely held belief of WADA and AIU that doping is prevalent and widespread for the sake of winning the debate against me, don't you remember Mr PD???????
We had so many battles and arguments but it became more personally charged each other which resulted in you taking stances and positions you normally wouldn't take just so that I do not gain the upper hand over you in the course of the debate!!!!!! You were afflicted by narcissism alright!!!!!!!!!!! You just wanted to win which was why you even said doping wasn't prevalent anymore precisely because I took the very opposite position that it was!!!!! You were so pretentious and two-faced!!!
And I gladly let you have the upper hand and let you ridicule me and let you have the empty victory while saying a prayer for you in Christ that you will be saved from eternal lakefire!!!!!
You forget all these things very well Mr PD!!!!
I did not tell you what you say, but rather told you I'm not so sure what you think you saw. I can only tell you what I wrote and what I believe, both then and now. You are not the first one to accuse me of lies I never said that contradict both my statements and beliefs.
But surely, if I'm lying and gaslighting, and it happened so often, just in the last year, it should be trivial for you to go back and find a few of the best examples when I challenged that doping was rampant, prevalent, widespread, broad, deep, throughout, even at the top. I do not challenged these non-quantitative terms that leave everyone unable to pinpoint with any reasonable precision whether prevalence is closer to 10% or 80%.
My position and belief in the widespread belief in the power of doping as the reason for widespread prevalence, is unchanged from 2019, when I wrote: "Athletes take drugs based on belief and hope. Sometimes it works. Sometimes they get busted. Belief in drugs in the hope of improved performance is deep and wide", or for that matter, since shortly after 2009, when I started looking for the emporer's clothes.
Whatever you think about which game you think you are losing does not interest me. I do not aspire to have the upper hand, but only the right hand that describes the objective reality we observe.
This is how you lie. I say there isn't a definitive measure of the extent of doping so you claim that is saying we really know nothing about doping, which is the opposite of saying we can know a lot but not necessarily with exactitude. How big is the ocean, rekrunner? You really have made a fine art of stupidity.
Recall, I said "there is little information". I did not claim, as you deceptively suggest, that "we really know nothing". This is how you lie. My many requests for more information are met with a half-dozen predictable responses which is everything but the missing information, including weird analogies, now about the ocean.
Regarding the oceans, "The oceans cover an area of 361.8 million km2 (139.7 million sq mi) with a mean depth of 3,682 m (12,080 ft), resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332 billion km3 (320 million cu mi)."
Thanks. You've just shown with your statistics that you don't understand what an analogy is. Only a person without wit or imagination thinks that numbers are the measure of everything.
Look Mr PD, you are equally adept at another skill called gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!
So you lie, and if you failed you switch to gaslighting!!!!!!!!!!!! And if that's not enough, you then do pro-doping to top it off!!!!!!
Don't tell me what I saw or didn't see, it's my own 2 eyes alright and it has happened so often and in so recent era of the past 1 year!!!!!!!!!
You not only challenged specific figures, you even challenged the widely held belief of WADA and AIU that doping is prevalent and widespread for the sake of winning the debate against me, don't you remember Mr PD???????
We had so many battles and arguments but it became more personally charged each other which resulted in you taking stances and positions you normally wouldn't take just so that I do not gain the upper hand over you in the course of the debate!!!!!! You were afflicted by narcissism alright!!!!!!!!!!! You just wanted to win which was why you even said doping wasn't prevalent anymore precisely because I took the very opposite position that it was!!!!! You were so pretentious and two-faced!!!
And I gladly let you have the upper hand and let you ridicule me and let you have the empty victory while saying a prayer for you in Christ that you will be saved from eternal lakefire!!!!!
You forget all these things very well Mr PD!!!!
I did not tell you what you say, but rather told you I'm not so sure what you think you saw. I can only tell you what I wrote and what I believe, both then and now. You are not the first one to accuse me of lies I never said that contradict both my statements and beliefs.
But surely, if I'm lying and gaslighting, and it happened so often, just in the last year, it should be trivial for you to go back and find a few of the best examples when I challenged that doping was rampant, prevalent, widespread, broad, deep, throughout, even at the top. I do not challenged these non-quantitative terms that leave everyone unable to pinpoint with any reasonable precision whether prevalence is closer to 10% or 80%.
My position and belief in the widespread belief in the power of doping as the reason for widespread prevalence, is unchanged from 2019, when I wrote: "Athletes take drugs based on belief and hope. Sometimes it works. Sometimes they get busted. Belief in drugs in the hope of improved performance is deep and wide", or for that matter, since shortly after 2009, when I started looking for the emporer's clothes.
Whatever you think about which game you think you are losing does not interest me. I do not aspire to have the upper hand, but only the right hand that describes the objective reality we observe.
There is NEVER any "objective reality" in anything you say. It is entirely an exercise in confirmation bias. Everyone can see it - except you.
Recall, I said "there is little information". I did not claim, as you deceptively suggest, that "we really know nothing". This is how you lie. My many requests for more information are met with a half-dozen predictable responses which is everything but the missing information, including weird analogies, now about the ocean.
Regarding the oceans, "The oceans cover an area of 361.8 million km2 (139.7 million sq mi) with a mean depth of 3,682 m (12,080 ft), resulting in an estimated volume of 1.332 billion km3 (320 million cu mi)."
Thanks. You've just shown with your statistics that you don't understand what an analogy is. Only a person without wit or imagination thinks that numbers are the measure of everything.
I do understand it is a weird analogy. You are a master of weird analogies, when you are not trying to insult posters you cannot refute. When the topic is information about doping, you consistently fail to respond, but instead ask me how big a mountain is, or how big the ocean is. What's next, the deserts? The glaciers? An iceberg? The moon?
If I am wrong about "little information", how about you sharing some of the "information about the role doping plays in elite distance running" and "information about doping in terms of what is being used, by whom and its likely effects" right here right now?
Please dwell on the information that clearly establishes that the effects of doping played an active role on some of the incredible performances we have seen in the last few years.
There is NEVER any "objective reality" in anything you say. It is entirely an exercise in confirmation bias. Everyone can see it - except you.
Whether this is true or not, this allegation does not cure the objectivity gaps in virtually everything you have said in the last 5+ years, or everything your RF-darling you are defending says.
The current test for him to provide something objective is: "if I'm lying and gaslighting, and it happened so often, just in the last year, it should be trivial for you to go back and find a few of the best examples when I challenged that doping was rampant, prevalent, widespread, broad, deep, throughout, even at the top."
I predict he will fail spectacularly, and somehow blame me for his failure, surely with some bold words and lots of !!!!!! and ??????? punctuation, and some false allegations. Maybe for kicks, he'll tell me again he is some kind of un-ordinary world reknowned RF fortune telling timelord, or try to shift the topic to religion or politics or Covid.
You have changed the subject. As always when your ignorance is exposed.
It's the most natural thing to clarify when wrong statements are done. You have done a few wrong statements here but you have absolutely no interest to clarify it.
A strange whining noise keeps cropping up on this thread.
That's your neuron bouncing around in your empty skull.
Your ongoing discourse presents a veritable symposium of jurisprudential acumen, a dialectic ballet of such exquisite execution that one is nigh compelled to contemplate the establishment of a paid colloquium.
Considering the intellectual bounty on display, a suggested honorarium of $10 per witness seems a modest proposition.
However, in the interest of preserving the intellectual bandwidth of this esteemed forum, might I most humbly suggest a strategic retreat to a more intimate venue for the continuation of your erudite sparring? The sheer brilliance on display risks overwhelming us mere mortals.
In anticipation of your judicious consideration, I remain, Exhausted and Depleted Recked and Rusty
Your ongoing discourse presents a veritable symposium of jurisprudential acumen, a dialectic ballet of such exquisite execution that one is nigh compelled to contemplate the establishment of a paid colloquium.
Considering the intellectual bounty on display, a suggested honorarium of $10 per witness seems a modest proposition.
However, in the interest of preserving the intellectual bandwidth of this esteemed forum, might I most humbly suggest a strategic retreat to a more intimate venue for the continuation of your erudite sparring? The sheer brilliance on display risks overwhelming us mere mortals.
In anticipation of your judicious consideration, I remain, Exhausted and Depleted Recked and Rusty
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm impressed by your use of Victorian English to elucidate your enchantment with my darling Armstrong and his enemy Mr PD rekrunner!!!!!! I however don't feel overwhelmed one bit as I easily unravel the cunning stratagems of rekrunner's evil pro-doping agenda!!!!
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.