Shelby Quote " it could've been someone around me " .... Who is the saboteur 🧐?

The Truuth wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.

You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.

You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.

This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.

For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.

Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.

I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.

You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.

Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.

You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Speaking there of fantasies, the unicorn is really just an extinct Siberian rhinoceros in your view - despite the fact that it is a term that is used to refer to a creature of mythology? You have completely missed the point of referring to "unicorns", which is your attributing existence without evidence. But I see you still do it.

It's not my view -- others called it the Siberian unicorn, and found fossils. I guess it can also mean the mythical magical creature, but you weren't that specific.

I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies.

You think possibilites require evidence as a necessity in order to become possibilities, and you think you can demonstrate this with examples of fantasy.

It's possible, as evidenced earlier, that's because you don't really know what "evidence" means.

According to experts who study the field of possibility:

"Possibility theory is driven by the principle of minimal specificity. It states that any hypothesis not known to be impossible cannot be ruled out."

"It is a principle of minimal commitment that stipulates that anything that is not explicitly declared impossible should remain possible (in other words, one has not to be more restrictive about the possible situations than what is enforced by the available pieces of knowledge)."

The Truuth wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My point - except to the pedants here - is that the nandrolone was found in Houlihan's body. Is that being disputed? Does it matter where exactly it was found? Is the positive test being disputed? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant. She claimed to have eaten a burrito. I imagine she digested it but if you and others insist the drug wasn't in her "digestive system" it's a puzzle how it made its way to her bladder.

You persistently argued that it was found in her digestive system.

You defended your position with vigour that it was found there.

This is different from saying that it was in her digestive system.

For this to be pointed out does not mean; and you have been told this many times; that it was not at some point in her digestive system.

Your lack of education in this area should disqualify from ever thinking you are a fit person to post.

I add that you persisted in saying that Asprin had no side effects because your drug use had shown non.

You are unfit to be taken remotely serious on anything to do with science.

Further; you have said that it matters not that non cheaters are convicted.

You are morally as well as scientifically bankrupt. Go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's not my view -- others called it the Siberian unicorn, and found fossils. I guess it can also mean the mythical magical creature, but you weren't that specific.

I got your point all too well. You are uncomfortable with reality, so you bring in fantasies.

You think possibilites require evidence as a necessity in order to become possibilities, and you think you can demonstrate this with examples of fantasy.

It's possible, as evidenced earlier, that's because you don't really know what "evidence" means.

According to experts who study the field of possibility:

"Possibility theory is driven by the principle of minimal specificity. It states that any hypothesis not known to be impossible cannot be ruled out."

"It is a principle of minimal commitment that stipulates that anything that is not explicitly declared impossible should remain possible (in other words, one has not to be more restrictive about the possible situations than what is enforced by the available pieces of knowledge)."

So here is the creature that you believe possibly existed - because your "possibility theory" says so. Lack of evidence - as in all things, as we see with your view of Shelby's defence - isn't a problem for you.

Link:www.britannica.com/topic/unicorn

unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a goat with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China.