trollism wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
This isn't over. She's appealing.
They always appeal Cleo. The ban is always upheld.
Bad Mama had a bad day here.
Does that mean you've stopped thinking I'm masquerading as at least a dozen other anonymous posters on this board? Being a Bad Mama appears to be a full-time job as I suspect either you or Coevett can attest. Yes, I'll be willing to bet my house one of you is her.
El Keniano wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
This isn't true. Diack ran the sport from a pro drugs perspective. Everyone got away with doping under him. Is Coe protecting a handful of Brits? Probably and we are all on here calling it out. As for the Anglo Saxons (+ Celts) I have said that some of the massive improvements of Shelby Houlihan last year or the red flags against Evan Jager, who you defended when the Fancy Bears list broke and you stood by Kiprop’s excuses at that time. I'm suspicious of the Robertsons, yet where do they live? I think that most on here, maybe even Rekrunner too, are suspicious of the Spanish in the 1990s. The Anglo Saxons didn't run the IAAF in the 90s.
I must've missed this. This is the LRC version of "some of my best friends are black".
Go back to Roswell Rachael Maddow and leave the athletics discussion to people with knowledge. According to guys like you, what Africa really needs is Marxism.
please go away wrote:
you ruin every thread you are in.
He is just competing with the wannabe Kenyan for the weirdest poster award.
I was away, until egg-face trolled me.
please go away wrote:
you ruin every thread you are in.
Always the others that troll, right? Keep telling yourself that.
Poor Eggy wrote:
Always the others that troll, right? Keep telling yourself that.
Arguing with rekrunner is like arguing with a cult. He quite happily takes the role of God.
I am constantly amazed by the collective denial and short term memory loss among some of my critics. One only need to go back to the bottom of page 12 to see that "egg on the face" resurrected an opinion I expressed in April (8 months ago back on page 7), which was neutrally conditioned on a future outcome, going well out of his way in order to make a personal attack against me, simply for intellectually honestly recognizing the ambiguity that existed among all the evidence that was available at that time. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, he accused me of not accepting evidence, ample evidence, strong evidence, backed up by news reports. It turns out, as everyone can see for themselves in the original post on page 1, that this strong ample evidence came, not from news reports, but from an "LRC note", and even LRC described it as "allegedly refused". This strong ample evidence was neither strong, nor ample, nor evidence. As everyone can also see as plainly obvious, the opposite was true -- I acknowledged all of the available evidence, including the conflicting evidence, rather than picking the one piece I liked the most, exaggerating its importance, and declaring it strong and ample to lay the foundation of a personal attack. Back in April, when I was explicitly asked for "my take", I expressed my opinion, based on all of the known facts, conditioned on an outcome of an allegation that was not yet known. Even today, in light of the current verdict, because of the way it was carefully crafted, my expressed opinion is not wrong - i.e. I expressed possibilities of both likely outcomes: if she remains eligible, she should keep it, AND implicitly, if she does not remain eligible, she should not keep it. In fact, I don't see how this stated opinion could ever be wrong, unless she gets to keep the record while being sanctioned, or does not while she is not. You can always tell yourself what you want, but the history of this thread backs up my account. What fascinates me lately is the psychology behind how my opinions, where my stated basis and thought process has usually been made clear, can bring out the worst traits in several posters here, putting themselves in denial, or fabricating strawmen, if not outright lies. Frankly, why does anyone care so much? If you don't agree with what I write, in a forum which encourages discussion and allows for all viewpoints to be expressed, when done civilly, why don't you simply dismiss it, and move on? What motivates some posters to resurrect non-controversial opinions in order to go out of their way to deliver a personal attack? I recently found an article which may shed some light on why my posts, disrupting the harmony of what would otherwise become an echo chamber, seems to offend some posters so much. Maybe I rely too much on facts and history and logic, while ignoring social aspects based on the primitive evolutionary fear of exclusion in society. To overcome some of this fact resistance, "Ultimately, (I) need to take social aspects into account when communicating facts and arguments with various groups."https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-how-belief-is-rooted-in-evolution-not-ignorance-128803
Poor Eggy wrote:
Always the others that troll, right? Keep telling yourself that.
It's possible that this article will shed light on the dynamics in many of the LRC doping threads:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9599-delusional-disorder
Pay particular attention to subtype "grandiose."
Notably, it can be hard to get help for delusional disorder because you may not even understand that you have a problem.
El Keniano wrote:
Does that mean you've stopped thinking I'm masquerading as at least a dozen other anonymous posters on this board? Being a Bad Mama appears to be a full-time job as I suspect either you or Coevett can attest. Yes, I'll be willing to bet my house one of you is her.
To be honest, I was happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you stopped using your fake names once you made your grand 'El Keniano' return.
I know you used to use fake names when you were in your biggest Brit hating moods, almost like you were a bit ashamed of your xenophobia. Now you seem less bothered by it.