Sprintgeezer wrote:
Rek, are you always this obtuse?
Why would you bring Bolt into a thread about Diack?
Why do you think Bolt's gains are "ill-gotten"?
Why would you allege something, but then refuse to explain even what that means?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Rek, are you always this obtuse?
Why would you bring Bolt into a thread about Diack?
Why do you think Bolt's gains are "ill-gotten"?
Why would you allege something, but then refuse to explain even what that means?
All answered on this board, many times.
If you have’t read my posts, I’m ok with that. You should have been able to come up with some of it on your own—but if not, then I really don’t care what you do.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
All answered on this board, many times.
If you have’t read my posts, I’m ok with that. You should have been able to come up with some of it on your own—but if not, then I really don’t care what you do.
If you have previously answered them like you are doing now, then I would disagree that you have answered them at all.
But assuming you have, that makes it all the more puzzling that you would bring Bolt up at all in a thread about Diack.
Nobody asked about Bolt, and presumably the answers were already given many times on this board.
Something is wrong that you felt that you needed to bring up answers that weren't asked, and were already answered many times.
You claim to be easily puzzled, by that which is obvious.
I wonder, do other posters allow you to waste their time?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
You claim to be easily puzzled, by that which is obvious.
I wonder, do other posters allow you to waste their time?
I made no claim that it was easy.
Besides me, both "ukathleticscoach" and "Wet Coast" also asked you for a link or a connection.
You inexplicably brought Bolt into the conversation, and apparently no one knows what the link or connection is.
Sprintgeezer is right - that was discussed at length, for example here:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5317989
But he is wrong with Diack = Bolt; those two just used each other, imho.
And of course, we have seen this a number of times too:
casual obsever wrote:
Sprintgeezer is right - that was discussed at length, for example here:
But he is wrong with Diack = Bolt; those two just used each other, imho.
I have no doubt Sprintgeezer discussed these things before.
It looks like you found evidence that Sprintgeezer used the same pattern then that he is using now, essentially concluding he was right all along, and the reasons for this were already explained before.
casual obsever wrote:
And of course, we have seen this a number of times too:
We have -- does this have anything to do with Diack or Bolt?
*Crickets...
...because nobody wants to waste their time.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
*Crickets...
...because nobody wants to waste their time.
And yet you still haven't moved on.
I know it's an investment in time for you to stand by your statements, or even explain what they mean to the few who showed any interest.
Much easier to just make up what you want, and later declare yourself right all along, because your initial statements were non-committal and open to wide interpretation.
Repeating myself to you is no investment, it’s an expense.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Repeating myself to you is no investment, it’s an expense.
It costs nothing to say nothing.