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

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

None with you. There is a difference.

If there is a difference, you have not ever shown it. Is that part of the rest that will have to remain conjecture?

If not me, then who on this forum would you be interested in discussing these questions with?

I’m am just one poster — you can post for everyone else, or anyone else who is interested, if they exist. What are you afraid of? That you will make a fool of yourself again, like comparing Gidey to stars from the 1960s? Most of the rest of us realize that there was a ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, ‘00s, and ‘10s, and we are now in the 2020s. Apparently your knowledge ends with Bikila and Snell.

Don’t blame me for not filling your posts with real knowledge, which you allegedly possess with your law qualifications and many interactions with professional athletes, coaches, and anti-doping officials, while you choose instead to fill them with dog manure and yapping poodles.

the_rocket wrote:

This Armstrong guy seems to have a lot of interest to discuss his position:

- I have expressed a view but I haven't come here to educate you about doping - or persuade you of anything.

- I could go into detail about why I believe Gidey is doping

- I haven't been proved wrong.

- I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.

- It seems to be beyond you that I am uninterested in answering your questions or debating with you. It would be as pointless as trying to meaningfully converse with a wino on the street.

- I have described what a doping apologist is on other threads.

- You don't have any concrete points.

- It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped.

- I am really not interested in your weak arguments - or your questions.

- Someone who keeps asking that question for the nth time.

- You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you.

- You're asking the wrong person these questions. You need to ask them of yourself.

- It is, because you insist that I have to respond to you.

- I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you.

- Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge.

- I am not interested in discussing any of these questions with a practised doping denier, as you are. Dialogue with you on any of these issues is as helpful as wading through dog manure and expecting my shoes will be clean. But you have some brainless yapping poodles here who will be happy to wallow in what you leave behind.

- Not you. The rest will have to remain conjecture.

- None with you. There is a difference.

Armstronglivs wrote:

the_rocket wrote:

This Armstrong guy seems to have a lot of interest to discuss his position:

- I have expressed a view but I haven't come here to educate you about doping - or persuade you of anything.

- I could go into detail about why I believe Gidey is doping

- I haven't been proved wrong.

- I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.

- It seems to be beyond you that I am uninterested in answering your questions or debating with you. It would be as pointless as trying to meaningfully converse with a wino on the street.

- I have described what a doping apologist is on other threads.

- You don't have any concrete points.

- It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped.

- I am really not interested in your weak arguments - or your questions.

- Someone who keeps asking that question for the nth time.

- You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you.

- You're asking the wrong person these questions. You need to ask them of yourself.

- It is, because you insist that I have to respond to you.

- I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you.

- Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge.

- I am not interested in discussing any of these questions with a practised doping denier, as you are. Dialogue with you on any of these issues is as helpful as wading through dog manure and expecting my shoes will be clean. But you have some brainless yapping poodles here who will be happy to wallow in what you leave behind.

- Not you. The rest will have to remain conjecture.

- None with you. There is a difference.

You have selectively quoted my responses to doping denial morons, like rekrunner and his illiterate minions. If you wish to include yourself amongst them you will receive the same kind of response.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

None with you. There is a difference.

If there is a difference, you have not ever shown it. Is that part of the rest that will have to remain conjecture?

If not me, then who on this forum would you be interested in discussing these questions with?

I’m am just one poster — you can post for everyone else, or anyone else who is interested, if they exist. What are you afraid of? That you will make a fool of yourself again, like comparing Gidey to stars from the 1960s? Most of the rest of us realize that there was a ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, ‘00s, and ‘10s, and we are now in the 2020s. Apparently your knowledge ends with Bikila and Snell.

Don’t blame me for not filling your posts with real knowledge, which you allegedly possess with your law qualifications and many interactions with professional athletes, coaches, and anti-doping officials, while you choose instead to fill them with dog manure and yapping poodles.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If there is a difference, you have not ever shown it. Is that part of the rest that will have to remain conjecture?

If not me, then who on this forum would you be interested in discussing these questions with?

I’m am just one poster — you can post for everyone else, or anyone else who is interested, if they exist. What are you afraid of? That you will make a fool of yourself again, like comparing Gidey to stars from the 1960s? Most of the rest of us realize that there was a ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, ‘00s, and ‘10s, and we are now in the 2020s. Apparently your knowledge ends with Bikila and Snell.

Don’t blame me for not filling your posts with real knowledge, which you allegedly possess with your law qualifications and many interactions with professional athletes, coaches, and anti-doping officials, while you choose instead to fill them with dog manure and yapping poodles.

You have real difficulty in understanding English. I told you I would rather wade through dogsh*t than engage in discussion about doping with you or any other dumb*ss doping denier on this thread. Your presuming to ask questions for fictional others does not make you them. If I encountered someone worth responding to I would. But as I reiterate - and you cannot grasp - that isn't you.

the_rocket wrote:

This Armstrong guy seems to have a lot of interest to discuss his position:

- I have expressed a view but I haven't come here to educate you about doping - or persuade you of anything.

- I could go into detail about why I believe Gidey is doping

- I haven't been proved wrong.

- I am not interested in your questions. You can answer them yourself.

- It seems to be beyond you that I am uninterested in answering your questions or debating with you. It would be as pointless as trying to meaningfully converse with a wino on the street.

- I have described what a doping apologist is on other threads.

- You don't have any concrete points.

- It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you agree; you cannot prove she isn't doped.

- I am really not interested in your weak arguments - or your questions.

- Someone who keeps asking that question for the nth time.

- You aren't interested in the views of someone you label as arrogant and ignorant - so I won't bother to discuss mine with you.

- You're asking the wrong person these questions. You need to ask them of yourself.

- It is, because you insist that I have to respond to you.

- I've explained my position as much as I care to in this thread. But I am not interested in explaining it to you.

- Unlike you, I have spent years informing myself about doping, and I have discussed these issues with professional athletes, coaches and anti-doping officials. My views of Gidey are based on that knowledge.

- I am not interested in discussing any of these questions with a practised doping denier, as you are. Dialogue with you on any of these issues is as helpful as wading through dog manure and expecting my shoes will be clean. But you have some brainless yapping poodles here who will be happy to wallow in what you leave behind.

- Not you. The rest will have to remain conjecture.

- None with you. There is a difference.