ShortsNL wrote:
Looks like isso and Aquarius just got schooled by lluuiiggii on how to have a real discussion.
Thumbs up with gifs all you want guys, no matter how much knowledge on the doping matter you think you have, you need to properly demonstrate that knowledge if you are on a discussion forum and not just instigate anybody with an opposing point of view.
That is, if you really ever want to have Sky fans enlightened and not just want impose your superior intelligence on the crowd.
+1 vote on lluuiiggii for newly to-be created PCMDaily Award as best debater of the year.
Ah, ShortsNL. Some time ago I was wondering who was the forum guy picking at me at every opportunity and couldn't recall the name.
Understand that I'm such a bad guy that I can't even remember all the many wrong things I've done in my life. Probably I either stole your girlfriend in high school or stole candies from your bag, either I passed you in a sprint for the win after wheelsucking through the race, or something like that, which is why you never miss an opportunity to pick at me... Speak your heart out, did I verbally bully you on this forum or in some other place or do you just despise me for some good reason or perhaps no reason at all ?
I believed, and still believe, that a ~120 pages long forum topic and the various news threads contained enough arguments, including those that have been called lately, which lluuiiggii summed up very well, to draw a rather clear picture of Sky's doings.
Then comes a guy who claims he 'highly doubts Sky are doping', and, when asked to, refuses to give arguments, and claims there's just no convincing evidence.
lluuiiggii could be bothered to argument (obviously in vain since our friend is 'going to be absent from the forum'). I did too, but I couldn't refrain expressing my contempt through sarcasm and irony. lluuiiggii got thumbs up as a reward for his time loss, as obviously, no matter how relevant his message was, The Hobbit was never going to answer and argument or counter-argument. I'm trying a more pragmatic approach these days.
My superior intelligence ? When did I claim that ? It's a relative notion, so I'm more intelligent than some people, but also deal with people more intelligent than me almost every day...
Edited by Aquarius on 24-03-2014 11:33
You dont laught too much Kubys, you are picking at me every time too.
Anyway nice post Luuiiggii, but that is basicaly what was said 100times in Sky doping thread by all of us, so anyone who want to discuss it should go and read the thread, you are doing them too much of a service by this...
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You dont laught too much Kubys, you are picking at me every time too.
Anyway nice post Luuiiggii, but that is basicaly what was said 100times in Sky doping thread by all of us, so anyone who want to discuss it should go and read the thread, you are doing them too much of a service by this...
Ahh, that's not true, I am just defender of non-biased world. Well, except Chelsea and Sky, everyone should hate them.
Die hard fan of Tom Boonen and Quickstep since 2004.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
You dont laught too much Kubys, you are picking at me every time too.
Anyway nice post Luuiiggii, but that is basicaly what was said 100times in Sky doping thread by all of us, so anyone who want to discuss it should go and read the thread, you are doing them too much of a service by this...
Ahh, that's not true, I am just defender of non-biased world. Well, except Chelsea and Sky, everyone should hate them.
I don't hate you as a forum member, I don't hate your opinion, and when I saw my girlfriend yesterday she didn't mention you so I assume that is still ok. Don't take it personal because for me it's not. I honestly can't recall any moment in the past where I was picking on you before.
For me you have a reputation of being very knowledgeable and quite polite, and I have had the greatest respect for you out of most if not all members who frequent the Cycling forum. I normally enjoy your contributions to the discussion forum and you have made many informative posts on how doping and athlete performance works.
Your posts in response to the Hobbit were nothing like that however. If it were from isso only, I would not be not surprised. He has shown many times he knows what he's talking about, yet he also gets called a troll by some for arguing with people in a unconstructive and unpolite way. I saw you going down this direction. Maybe it's because you felt a bit lazy during the discussion. Maybe you were just in a bad mood. But it doesn't look good on you and I was upset when I saw you going down this road.
On the topic of the Sky Doping thread, I've tried summarizing it once, neutrally, in my free time. I started going through each page, noting each argument, argument, counterargument and any direct/indirect evidence, for both sides. Two conclusions:
-There are very, very few useful points made per page. It's mostly just chatter and laughing at the other guy.
-Because of the above, summarizing is practically impossible and undoable. After 10 pages or so I gave up because I got nowhere and had hardly any content.
Aquarius, you have a good reputation in my book with many people here as a good discusser who knows and explains his stuff, and who is polite. Your new approach based on sarcasm and irony is no good. It doesn't add to the discussion, and takes away from you. Don't do it man, I know you're better than this.
Edited by ShortsNL on 24-03-2014 13:33
Since when sarcasm and irony make someone a worse and more stupid discusser? Didnt know abou this "rule". Actually smarter people tend to use more sarcasm, dumb people dont know what it is.
@ShortsNL: Although isso and Aquarius can contribute valuable content, they are descendants of Trolls, so just ignore them, if they fall back to archaic behaviour pattern.
Sarcasm and irony don't make for a person who is bad at discussing.
In a discussion if you use sarcasm and irony, that's fine. It can make your case look more pretty and shows that you're a stylish speaker or writer but it doesn't make the case itself more solid.
Unfortunately, sarcasm, irony and fallacies are all used too often by people when they don't have the proper arguments to back it up or they just one to make the other party look bad. Case in point: politicians.
Anyways @Aquarius (or admins): if you prefer, we can talk this out over PM instead of this thread. I'd be happy to do so.
ShortsNL wrote:
Looks like isso and Aquarius just got schooled by lluuiiggii on how to have a real discussion.
correct me if I'm wrong but a disccusion is when people on two different sides are talking to each other to come to an agreement. not just one person given a speech for 20 minutes
about the subject at hand: I don't care if or if not sky has a doping program.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Since when sarcasm and irony make someone a worse and more stupid discusser? Didnt know abou this "rule". Actually smarter people tend to use more sarcasm, dumb people dont know what it is.
It can make you a worse discusser for the exact reason you named: When it's used in a condescending way to mock the less intelligent or simply less knowledgeable. I agree that it can strengthen your argument when used as a witty comment, but when it's a personal attack, it makes your argument look weaker because you're not arguing with facts anymore.
That said, I can understand guys like isso or Aquarius when they're annoyed by the same discussion coming up over and over again, and I think most people here can contextualize the sometimes sarcastic comments, but don't be surprised when some don't and react the way ShortsNL did.
Oh, and funnily enough, the first part of Aquarius' reply to ShortsNL was a prefect example for what he had criticized before.
Lachi wrote:
@ShortsNL: Although isso and Aquarius can contribute valuable content, they are descendants of Trolls, so just ignore them, if they fall back to archaic behaviour pattern.
Yeah, of course... They are the trolls...
They are simply the users with the most knowledge on this forum and especially Aquarius is usually very correct and polit. If the same old Sky trolls come over and over again, without even a single argument, what are they supposed to react? Everything got mentioned many times before, so i really understand them.
ShortsNL wrote:
Looks like isso and Aquarius just got schooled by lluuiiggii on how to have a real discussion.
Thumbs up with gifs all you want guys, no matter how much knowledge on the doping matter you think you have, you need to properly demonstrate that knowledge if you are on a discussion forum and not just instigate anybody with an opposing point of view.
That is, if you really ever want to have Sky fans enlightened and not just want impose your superior intelligence on the crowd.
+1 vote on lluuiiggii for newly to-be created PCMDaily Award as best debater of the year.
Ah, ShortsNL. Some time ago I was wondering who was the forum guy picking at me at every opportunity and couldn't recall the name.
Understand that I'm such a bad guy that I can't even remember all the many wrong things I've done in my life. Probably I either stole your girlfriend in high school or stole candies from your bag, either I passed you in a sprint for the win after wheelsucking through the race, or something like that, which is why you never miss an opportunity to pick at me... Speak your heart out, did I verbally bully you on this forum or in some other place or do you just despise me for some good reason or perhaps no reason at all ?
I believed, and still believe, that a ~120 pages long forum topic and the various news threads contained enough arguments, including those that have been called lately, which lluuiiggii summed up very well, to draw a rather clear picture of Sky's doings.
Then comes a guy who claims he 'highly doubts Sky are doping', and, when asked to, refuses to give arguments, and claims there's just no convincing evidence.
lluuiiggii could be bothered to argument (obviously in vain since our friend is 'going to be absent from the forum'. I did too, but I couldn't refrain expressing my contempt through sarcasm and irony. lluuiiggii got thumbs up as a reward for his time loss, as obviously, no matter how relevant his message was, The Hobbit was never going to answer and argument or counter-argument. I'm trying a more pragmatic approach these days.
My superior intelligence ? When did I claim that ? It's a relative notion, so I'm more intelligent than some people, but also deal with people more intelligent than me almost every day...
Interesting that isn't it...
So, you are wondering why someone would possibly ever point out when you are wrong or doing anything wrong? I think if you look just a little below in your post you see the answer. Gotta love you, you seem like a really nice guy.
I did say why, I read, and appreciated the comment made by lluuiiggii so you can shut up about how it's a waste of time. I appreciate you think I am stubborn and ignorant, and I don't really care what you think about me.
Also, if some one says they are going to be away from the forum for their own reasons, then saying something in the kind of what you said is known as being a complete idiot. So, you don't think you are of superior intelligence? I guess the tone which most of your comments have come across in is completely accidental then, and no offence was meant?
I wish I didn't check in on this forum for 5 minutes, and now. I might not come back. You can call me a hypocrite and idiot all you want now, because I'm not going to see it.
Aquarius, I can answer your question: Shorts loves Cancellara and insults people who say bad things about him
I love you too shorts. Here, have Cancellara discussing being anally raped
(I've decided if I have that reputation, I'd better start acting in accordance with it )
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
So, you are wondering why someone would possibly ever point out when you are wrong or doing anything wrong? I think if you look just a little below in your post you see the answer. Gotta love you, you seem like a really nice guy.
I'm not trying to be nice or deliberately unpleasant, I can't be bothered to think in those terms. If you feel you have to have an opinion about whether I'm a nice person or not feel free to have one, but it's probably a waste of time.
You pointed that I was wrong ? I generally like that. Heck, I'm a rational guy : demonstrate me that I'm wrong and I'll change my opinion. but I didn't see where nor how what I wrote about Sky was wrong.
The one thing I truly dislike in this discussion is not people, it's the lack of arguments, the intellectual laziness, etc. Once again, you come out of nowhere and claim 'you highly doubt Sky are doping' with no element to back it up, and then refused to give any. Sorry for figuring that meant you had none (since you've given none since then).
The Hobbit wrote:
I did say why, I read, and appreciated the comment made by lluuiiggii so you can shut up about how it's a waste of time. I appreciate you think I am stubborn and ignorant, and I don't really care what you think about me.
Also, if some one says they are going to be away from the forum for their own reasons, then saying something in the kind of what you said is known as being a complete idiot. So, you don't think you are of superior intelligence? I guess the tone which most of your comments have come across in is completely accidental then, and no offence was meant?
I wish I didn't check in on this forum for 5 minutes, and now. I might not come back. You can call me a hypocrite and idiot all you want now, because I'm not going to see it.
1) I don't have, nor have to have, an opinion of you, you're a random nickname on an internet forum
2) You didn't answer to lluuiiggii 's message in this topic, so how am I supposed to know if you liked it, if you subscribe to what he meant, if you disagree and why you do, etc. The troll attitude is rather to make a random statement, start a hot discussion, then leave it be while people pick at each other
3) Yeah, most likely I found very convenient that you intended to take some time out of this forum after starting another episode of this serious Team Sky discussion without showing the beginning of an argument
4) Stay, leave, read only or read and write, it's your decision, not mine.
Edited by Aquarius on 24-03-2014 20:17
On a more interesting note, since I got the opportunity to chat with a promising young rider (see more in the the 'your cycling' thread), he explained me how they measure critical power outputs variations during the season, without undergoing an effort test.
Based on recent SRM datas (that's a power meter for those who don't know) from the best six minutes effort, he has to repeat 4x3 minutes at that power, with 1.5 minute of rest in between, then if he manages it's 3x4 minutes with 2 minutes rest (rests always last half the effort time), and if he manages that step too, he tries another 6 minutes max effort. If it's successful he validates the new number as his reference to determine new training zones.
It might look random, but that figure a key factor, as most intensity zones are expressed as a percentage of that number.
I felt it was worth sharing the methodology, hoping it was not a secret. Edited by Aquarius on 24-03-2014 20:26
