Shelby Houlihan is Clean, USADA Still Tests Her Regularly Since Ban

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

Read the rules and the decision; that advice is not trolling.

Not brute force but clear logic.

Read stuff prior to posting.You will be surprised.

Writing "dId YoU eVeN rEaD tHe CaS rEpOrT?" thousands of times, under dozens of handles to 3 different posters seems like a bit more like brute force than clear logic especially when your response is typically unrelated to the post you are replying to.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Writing "dId YoU eVeN rEaD tHe CaS rEpOrT?" thousands of times, under dozens of handles to 3 different posters seems like a bit more like brute force than clear logic especially when your response is typically unrelated to the post you are replying to.

I hardly think that pointing out mis quotes from the decision and pointing out that Rule 10 applies is brute force.Rather it is a fine demonstration of logical thinking of the clearest form.

So have you actually bothered to read the rules yet?

casual obsever wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Writing "dId YoU eVeN rEaD tHe CaS rEpOrT?" thousands of times, under dozens of handles to 3 different posters seems like a bit more like brute force than clear logic especially when your response is typically unrelated to the post you are replying to.

+1

Especially if one has read the CAS decision, and seen that:

a) the AIU wanted to see her banned for the full four years for intentional doping;

b) CAS agreed and banned her for the full four years for intentional doping.

And now we have heard in a podcast, straight from Tygart himself, that Tygart also agrees that the AIU did everything right. That exposed yet another lie from the justly banned drug cheat.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Writing "dId YoU eVeN rEaD tHe CaS rEpOrT?" thousands of times, under dozens of handles to 3 different posters seems like a bit more like brute force than clear logic especially when your response is typically unrelated to the post you are replying to.

I hardly think that pointing out mis quotes from the decision and pointing out that Rule 10 applies is brute force.Rather it is a fine demonstration of logical thinking of the clearest form.

So have you actually bothered to read the rules yet?

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

I hardly think that pointing out mis quotes from the decision and pointing out that Rule 10 applies is brute force.Rather it is a fine demonstration of logical thinking of the clearest form.

So have you actually bothered to read the rules yet?

When letsrun gives out their lifetime achievement award for "Most dedicated long-term trolling effort without breaking character", I suspect you will have a legitimate claim to the victory.

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

I hardly think that pointing out mis quotes from the decision and pointing out that Rule 10 applies is brute force.Rather it is a fine demonstration of logical thinking of the clearest form.

So have you actually bothered to read the rules yet?

Also, you appear to not even understand the definition of "brute force". Did you even read The Webster?

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

When letsrun gives out their lifetime achievement award for "Most dedicated long-term trolling effort without breaking character", I suspect you will have a legitimate claim to the victory.

Pointing out that people post about the rules without ever bothering to read them is not trolling.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Also, you appear to not even understand the definition of "brute force". Did you even read The Webster?

The subtle precision of the words of the rules are the opposition of brute force.

I compare the this with the brute force wishes from some posters that SH should fall over when out running and smash her face in.

Also Armstronglivs expressed the brute force view that a spade should be use to split an other posters head.

Now put that to Webster

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

The subtle precision of the words of the rules are the opposition of brute force.

I compare the this with the brute force wishes from some posters that SH should fall over when out running and smash her face in.

Also Armstronglivs expressed the brute force view that a spade should be use to split an other posters head.

Now put that to Webster

Ah, yes divert attention away from the real question by narrowing the scope and changing the subject.

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

Pointing out that people post about the rules without ever bothering to read them is not trolling.

If I write, "I think creamy JIF peanut butter is the best peanut butter and everyone should eat it.", is that trolling or "giving advice"? Then if someone responds "I like Skippy" and I obsessively post "Did you even read the recipe?" literally thousands of times with dozens of handles, I think that I would be guilty of brute-force trolling.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

If I write, "I think creamy JIF peanut butter is the best peanut butter and everyone should eat it.", is that trolling or "giving advice"? Then if someone responds "I like Skippy" and I obsessively post "Did you even read the recipe?" literally thousands of times with dozens of handles, I think that I would be guilty of brute-force trolling.

It is not a matter of preference or taste but rather what the rules say.

But what you do is indicate that you see the SH case in terms of your preferences and prejudices rather that the application of the rules.

Tofffui wrote:

Narrowed the scope to the rules.

Have you read them yet?

Tofffui wrote:

Pointing out that people post about the rules without ever bothering to read them is not trolling.

casual obsever wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

Pointing out that people post about the rules without ever bothering to read them is not trolling.

LOL. It is trolling when people have read them, as you should know.

At least you don't pretend anymore that she wasn't banned for intentional doping, so there is progress.

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

Narrowed the scope to the rules.

Have you read them yet?

If it ever comes out that one of your sock-puppets is one (or all!) of the psychotic Tuohy posters, that would be worthy of some real respect. There are some very compelling similarities both in volume and tone. Doubtful, but man that would be true dedication to your craft.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

If it ever comes out that one of your sock-puppets is one (or all!) of the psychotic Tuohy posters, that would be worthy of some real respect. There are some very compelling similarities both in volume and tone. Doubtful, but man that would be true dedication to your craft.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to present the above in English.

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

It is not a matter of preference or taste but rather what the rules say.

But what you do is indicate that you see the SH case in terms of your preferences and prejudices rather that the application of the rules.

No, I just feel really strongly about creamy JIF peanut butter.

Tofffui wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

No, I just feel really strongly about creamy JIF peanut butter.

Still preferences rather than the rules.

Surprise! wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

Perhaps you would be kind enough to present the above in English.

Read properly.

You were not banned for making "logical, clear points."