13579 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Sprouts"? Brussel?
Since you're nitpicking, it's "Brussels."
They're actually named after the city in Belgium where they have long been popular.
As usual, you are sprouting more irrelevant twaddle.
13579 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Sprouts"? Brussel?
Since you're nitpicking, it's "Brussels."
They're actually named after the city in Belgium where they have long been popular.
As usual, you are sprouting more irrelevant twaddle.
restrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As I said a while ago, you have nothing worth discussing.
Like an eel.
Because of his terrible character, he just can't give a mature reply like:
"I stick to my statement, anybody close to a current WR is a doper, so Coe also was a doper"
"Coe might have been clean, so no, not anybody close to a current WR has to be a doper".
It's so easy to destroy most of what he writes.
But, clearly, not for you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
13579 wrote:
Since you're nitpicking, it's "Brussels."
They're actually named after the city in Belgium where they have long been popular.
As usual, you are sprouting more irrelevant twaddle.
"Irrelevant" 🤣
I am "irrelevant" just because I suggested that you perhaps should at least listen to Greg LeMond offer another opinion on the cyclists of today?
If anyone here is "irrelevant," it is you. You have a long history of irrelevancy and spewing drivel on this forum.
Armstronglivs wrote:
restrunner wrote:
Like an eel.
Because of his terrible character, he just can't give a mature reply like:
"I stick to my statement, anybody close to a current WR is a doper, so Coe also was a doper"
"Coe might have been clean, so no, not anybody close to a current WR has to be a doper".
It's so easy to destroy most of what he writes.
But, clearly, not for you.
For me - as clearly to see in this thread and also in others - and for many others.
Armstronglivs wrote:
13579 wrote:
Since you're nitpicking, it's "Brussels."
They're actually named after the city in Belgium where they have long been popular.
As usual, you are sprouting more irrelevant twaddle.
You made fun of him because of a mistake but then you can't deal with the fact that you too made a mistake.
You are the irrelevant one here. If you died today, no one would miss you. That's pretty sad.
Armstronglivs wrote:
restrunner wrote:
Like an eel.
Because of his terrible character, he just can't give a mature reply like:
"I stick to my statement, anybody close to a current WR is a doper, so Coe also was a doper"
"Coe might have been clean, so no, not anybody close to a current WR has to be a doper".
It's so easy to destroy most of what he writes.
But, clearly, not for you.
He just exposed your incoherence. So, clearly, yes for him.