That was a prediction you made 3 weeks and 14 pages ago in this thread that failed almost as spectacularly as just about everything else you post.
At that time, others were saying this about you:
"Almost all of your ad hominem attacks are on the level of junior high school kids. And you are so predictable. Not a good troll dude."
"Another "witty" one liner when your faulty logic is revealed."
"Again, where is your science, man? It's not enough to "think" somebody is doping, such public claims are called defamation of character.
Just for once in the history of your presence on letsrun provide a substantial source that could prove any of your doping claims."
And I predicted:
"You won't ever get the science or any substantial source from Armstronglivs, just allegations, readings from his own gospels, occasional advice to do your own research, combined with arrogance, and condescension."
But when the board's chief doping denier turns up I regard that as a personal invitation. Someone has to p*ss on the endless propaganda that he spouts on every thread where he is present.
You lack of self-control makes you sound like Pavlov's dog post-explaining why he drooled, or Ralphie to Schwartz when they left Flick -- "I don't know, the bell rang!"
You were actually invited to stop the ad hominem, and "witty one liners", and bring science or substantional sources. You have not done that as I predicted.
I'm somewhat comforted that you don't think of me as a "pig in the muck" where "there's nothing to be gained from wrestling".
When the slop hits the trough ya come running. Like a moth to a flame. Are you sure you're done, Wilbur?
That'll do pig, that'll do. lol
Are you accusing rekrunner of "slop hitting the trough"? - because if you are I'll have to agree. It's his chosen role - and there doesn't appear to be anyone else in sight you might be referring to.
Nope. I'm talking about you pig wrestling. at every opportunity.
If you consider him turning up a '"personal invitation" one can only conclude you love your porcine pleasures despite your claims to the contrary.
Are you accusing rekrunner of "slop hitting the trough"? - because if you are I'll have to agree. It's his chosen role - and there doesn't appear to be anyone else in sight you might be referring to.
Nope. I'm talking about you pig wrestling. at every opportunity.
If you consider him turning up a '"personal invitation" one can only conclude you love your porcine pleasures despite your claims to the contrary.
Do you also put lipstick on them by chance?
The only contender for what you describe as pig in a trough here has been rekrunner, since all the others have long since left. But I see you have a sentimental attachment to the practice of pig wrestling yourself.
But when the board's chief doping denier turns up I regard that as a personal invitation. Someone has to p*ss on the endless propaganda that he spouts on every thread where he is present.
You lack of self-control makes you sound like Pavlov's dog post-explaining why he drooled, or Ralphie to Schwartz when they left Flick -- "I don't know, the bell rang!"
You were actually invited to stop the ad hominem, and "witty one liners", and bring science or substantional sources. You have not done that as I predicted.
I'm somewhat comforted that you don't think of me as a "pig in the muck" where "there's nothing to be gained from wrestling".
You might want to explain why you have spent nearly 30 pages bringing your insights to those who aren't interested in them. Surely it isn't solely because you wish to persuade me of anything? It appears your compulsion to post without respite whenever doping is mentioned is an unusual form of "self control".
Nope. I'm talking about you pig wrestling. at every opportunity.
If you consider him turning up a '"personal invitation" one can only conclude you love your porcine pleasures despite your claims to the contrary.
Do you also put lipstick on them by chance?
The only contender for what you describe as pig in a trough here has been rekrunner, since all the others have long since left. But I see you have a sentimental attachment to the practice of pig wrestling yourself.
Nope, you're still here. I'm just leaning on the rails, wondering when you're going to realize the irony.
You lack of self-control makes you sound like Pavlov's dog post-explaining why he drooled, or Ralphie to Schwartz when they left Flick -- "I don't know, the bell rang!"
You were actually invited to stop the ad hominem, and "witty one liners", and bring science or substantional sources. You have not done that as I predicted.
I'm somewhat comforted that you don't think of me as a "pig in the muck" where "there's nothing to be gained from wrestling".
You might want to explain why you have spent nearly 30 pages bringing your insights to those who aren't interested in them. Surely it isn't solely because you wish to persuade me of anything? It appears your compulsion to post without respite whenever doping is mentioned is an unusual form of "self control".
I might, or I mightn't. Do I want to explain whatever new goalposts/scarecrows/myths you've fabricated? The content of my posts and the external data I bring into the discussion are rather self-explanatory. Contradicting yourself, you seem by far the most interested in my insights and my opinions. My self-control is not in question because I am not acting contrary to anything I said. You said you were going to leave because it wasn't worth wrestling with the pigs in the muck, and then you stuck around for 16 more pages because apparently you decided I was much more than a pig in the muck, and it was worth all of your time spent "engaging" with me, attempting to "refute" my annotated posts, not with merit, but with arrogance and ad hominimen and "witty one liners" without science and without substantial sources.
The only contender for what you describe as pig in a trough here has been rekrunner, since all the others have long since left. But I see you have a sentimental attachment to the practice of pig wrestling yourself.
Nope, you're still here. I'm just leaning on the rails, wondering when you're going to realize the irony.
You're right. You are leaning in the rails. From inside the pig-pen. That's the only irony.
You might want to explain why you have spent nearly 30 pages bringing your insights to those who aren't interested in them. Surely it isn't solely because you wish to persuade me of anything? It appears your compulsion to post without respite whenever doping is mentioned is an unusual form of "self control".
I might, or I mightn't. Do I want to explain whatever new goalposts/scarecrows/myths you've fabricated? The content of my posts and the external data I bring into the discussion are rather self-explanatory. Contradicting yourself, you seem by far the most interested in my insights and my opinions. My self-control is not in question because I am not acting contrary to anything I said. You said you were going to leave because it wasn't worth wrestling with the pigs in the muck, and then you stuck around for 16 more pages because apparently you decided I was much more than a pig in the muck, and it was worth all of your time spent "engaging" with me, attempting to "refute" my annotated posts, not with merit, but with arrogance and ad hominimen and "witty one liners" without science and without substantial sources.
I missed the part where you explain why you've been here for nearly 30 pages and why you're still here. Such "self control".
If no one helps J.I. with the pace at W.C., he can be defeated. J.I. most likely will be the slowest 400m man at W.C., 1500m. Make him work alone if he wants a fast pace through 1200m.
That's my post. I must have posted from a different device and did not recall my password.
If no one helps J.I. with the pace at W.C., he can be defeated. J.I. most likely will be the slowest 400m man at W.C., 1500m. Make him work alone if he wants a fast pace through 1200m.
That's my post. I must have posted from a different device and did not recall my password.
You're welcome. Makes a change from the resident doping denier and his little band of trolls.
I might, or I mightn't. Do I want to explain whatever new goalposts/scarecrows/myths you've fabricated? The content of my posts and the external data I bring into the discussion are rather self-explanatory. Contradicting yourself, you seem by far the most interested in my insights and my opinions. My self-control is not in question because I am not acting contrary to anything I said. You said you were going to leave because it wasn't worth wrestling with the pigs in the muck, and then you stuck around for 16 more pages because apparently you decided I was much more than a pig in the muck, and it was worth all of your time spent "engaging" with me, attempting to "refute" my annotated posts, not with merit, but with arrogance and ad hominimen and "witty one liners" without science and without substantial sources.
I missed the part where you explain why you've been here for nearly 30 pages and why you're still here. Such "self control".
I will give that part a miss. You thought I might want to explain another scarecrow, but again, you were wrong. You might want to look at your own responses for the answers you seek, particularly the one where someone has to "p" on your _ropoganda.
And once again -- you've constructed a new goal hoping to hide your failures to score any goals in these same 31 pages, despite repeated attempts.
You predictably accuse me of "self-control" employing another one of your childish games of role reversal where you see your faults in others, like the cast iron pot accusing the stainless steel kettle of being black because he only sees himself in the reflection.
I missed the part where you explain why you've been here for nearly 30 pages and why you're still here. Such "self control".
I will give that part a miss. You thought I might want to explain another scarecrow, but again, you were wrong. You might want to look at your own responses for the answers you seek, particularly the one where someone has to "p" on your _ropoganda.
And once again -- you've constructed a new goal hoping to hide your failures to score any goals in these same 31 pages, despite repeated attempts.
You predictably accuse me of "self-control" employing another one of your childish games of role reversal where you see your faults in others, like the cast iron pot accusing the stainless steel kettle of being black because he only sees himself in the reflection.
So you still can't say what keeps drawing you back to the thread for 30 pages. Your "self control"?
I will give that part a miss. You thought I might want to explain another scarecrow, but again, you were wrong. You might want to look at your own responses for the answers you seek, particularly the one where someone has to "p" on your _ropoganda.
And once again -- you've constructed a new goal hoping to hide your failures to score any goals in these same 31 pages, despite repeated attempts.
You predictably accuse me of "self-control" employing another one of your childish games of role reversal where you see your faults in others, like the cast iron pot accusing the stainless steel kettle of being black because he only sees himself in the reflection.
So you still can't say what keeps drawing you back to the thread for 30 pages. Your "self control"?
Neither can you. Maybe he just likes watching a bit of good old fashioned hog wrestling starring you?
So you still can't say what keeps drawing you back to the thread for 30 pages. Your "self control"?
Neither can you. Maybe he just likes watching a bit of good old fashioned hog wrestling starring you?
I have yet to see that you have anything to offer on the thread subject, or anything else, except your continuing fascination with what I think. The trough suits you - since it is the only thing that draws you here.
Neither can you. Maybe he just likes watching a bit of good old fashioned hog wrestling starring you?
I have yet to see that you have anything to offer on the thread subject, or anything else, except your continuing fascination with what I think. The trough suits you - since it is the only thing that draws you here.
I offered that I like watching you wrestle pigs and then claim you don't like it and are leaving right now. That's why I'm here.
You just need to vacate the pen to prove your word can be trusted. Can you do that?
I have yet to see that you have anything to offer on the thread subject, or anything else, except your continuing fascination with what I think. The trough suits you - since it is the only thing that draws you here.
I offered that I like watching you wrestle pigs and then claim you don't like it and are leaving right now. That's why I'm here.
You just need to vacate the pen to prove your word can be trusted. Can you do that?
I bet you can't.
You don't just like to watch pig wrestling, you like to participate. I can see you want the pen to yourself.
I will give that part a miss. You thought I might want to explain another scarecrow, but again, you were wrong. You might want to look at your own responses for the answers you seek, particularly the one where someone has to "p" on your _ropoganda.
And once again -- you've constructed a new goal hoping to hide your failures to score any goals in these same 31 pages, despite repeated attempts.
You predictably accuse me of "self-control" employing another one of your childish games of role reversal where you see your faults in others, like the cast iron pot accusing the stainless steel kettle of being black because he only sees himself in the reflection.
So you still can't say what keeps drawing you back to the thread for 30 pages. Your "self control"?
Apparently you can and did say -- you wanted to "vacate" four weeks ago, and said as much, but you stayed apparently because you see yourself as a puppet with me pulling the strings.
So you still can't say what keeps drawing you back to the thread for 30 pages. Your "self control"?
Apparently you can and did say -- you wanted to "vacate" four weeks ago, and said as much, but you stayed apparently because you see yourself as a puppet with me pulling the strings.
Since you are only here because I am and you have said nothing except in response to me you are clearly confused about whose strings are being pulled.