This is Scary!
Comments
-
RICHYBOYcp wrote:aurelio wrote:This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!
Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).
Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...
We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.
Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.
Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!
Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Hi again.
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?
Cheers, Andy0 -
andrewgturnbull wrote:RICHYBOYcp wrote:aurelio wrote:This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!
Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).
Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...
We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.
Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.
Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!
Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Hi again.
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?
Cheers, Andy
Nope...as I said...enough...end of topic for me now.0 -
eh wrote:2) That LA thinks coming back is a good thing. Sheesh like you've made millions dude enjoy it, rather than replacing Mike Tyson as the sports person everyone loves to hate.
Dude, Tyson is totally misunderstood. The man is a poet and a philosopher:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson
Plus he keeps keeps pigeons.0 -
I think what is his saying is that if you accuse someone of being `obsessed`, question their mental health and suggest that they `need some type of help`, and that person then defends themselves against such accusations, then this is, in itself, proof of their need to get `help`.andrewgturnbull wrote:
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?RICHYBOYcp wrote:Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Actually, I feel that those who really need to question the functioning of their mental processes are those who will happily accept that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Fuentes is virtually proof of doping, and yet at the same time deny that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Ferrari carries with it any suspicions of doping at all!0 -
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
-
aurelio wrote:
I think what is his saying is that if you accuse someone of being `obsessed`, question their mental health and suggest that they `need some type of help`, and that person then defends themselves against such accusations, then this is, in itself, proof of their need to get `help`.andrewgturnbull wrote:
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?RICHYBOYcp wrote:Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Actually, I feel that those who really need to question the functioning of their mental processes are those who will happily accept that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Fuentes is virtually proof of doping, and yet at the same time deny that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Ferrari carries with it any suspicions of doping at all!
And yet we're meant to accept as truth the testimony of people who've been discredited through their actions in the sport, who have retracted accusations as baseless, who continue to deny their own actions, who cannot substantiate many of the implications of their claims?0 -
RICHYBOYcp wrote:andrewgturnbull wrote:RICHYBOYcp wrote:aurelio wrote:This thread contains so much that I love about the defenders of Armstrong! Cheers guys, you are priceless!
Firstly, we have, once again, people making personal attacks whilst moaning about being `bullied` when they regurgitate the spin and nonsense put out by Armstrong`s corporate-backed propaganda machine. (And I can only assume that by `bullied` they actually mean having the flaws and omissions in their `arguments` pointed out to them...).
Next we have the `hate` word bandied about. Ironic really given that, by his own admission, Armstrong himself has been so motivated by hate and a desire for vengeance on others...
We have people going on about how Armstrong would never be found guilty in a criminal court, conveniently overlooking the fact that doping, as controlled under WADA rules, only needs to be proved to the `comfortable satisfaction` of the investigatory panel. It is also the case that many people have been convicted of serious criminal offences on far less eye-witness, `forensic` and `circumstantial` evidence that stands against Armstrong.
Then we have talk about his `achievements`. I guess this mean doping his way to seven Tour `wins` with the help of doped team-mates and acknowledged doping experts such as Ferrari; his bullying and intimidation of those who have spoken out against doping, such as Bassons and Simeoni; his rock-solid adherence to cycling`s doping `omerta` and , last but not least, his cancer `awareness` foundation which spends almost half of it`s revenue on promoting the LAF/ Lance Armstrong and which, despite some clearly believing otherwise, has donated just 19 million dollars to cancer research out of the 270 million dollars it has raised since it was set up.
Best of all we have the old `anti-American` thing. Again such irony given that Armstrong himself has exploited and fed anti-French xenophobia whenever he has felt doing so would strengthen his position!
Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Hi again.
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?
Cheers, Andy
Nope...as I said...enough...end of topic for me now.
This forum topic is a waste of internet space.0 -
Fair enough, but why start it in the first place? You can't start complaining about people writing in the way they do about Armstrong when you are the one who brings the subject up.0
-
+1 for pointless thread, while Aurelios post do tend to be on the long side ( i do skip alot of them ) there is always decent info in them and i have seen when his been proven to be incorrect willing to acknowledge it. The TDU cant come soon enough and then there wil actually be racing to talk about instead of this crap.Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
On balance, I think I would prefer the lie to the truth....think how many jobs would be lost in cycling...think from the riders point of view.. an LA +
LA is no worse than Indurain yet does not get his achievements respected like Indurain's
Just enjoy the great battle with Contador his out of control ego will lead him into0 -
RICHYBOYcp wrote:
And another thing...I honestly beleive that many would like to enter into topics about LA on this forum but are intimidated by the Anti LA bully boys.... and thats exactly what I think a few on here are...Bullies (only keyboard warriors right enough)....Ive seen on countless occasions people who have written in positive stuff about the man only to be slated and laughed at as if they were some type of ill educated imbecile....thats just out of order!...and I can't personally stand it....I dont mind conflicts of opinion but when its a ganged up attack- thats different.
I think a few on here should have rethink on how they word things...and take some of the 'aggression' out of there offerings....
If you believe that a heated debate has crossed over into personal abuse, and posters are playing the man, not the ball, then bring it to our attention and we'll deal with it.John Stevenson0 -
Do you mean things like accusing someone of being `obsessed`, questioning their mental health and suggesting that they `need some type of help`?John Stevenson wrote:If you believe that a heated debate has crossed over into personal abuse, and posters are playing the man, not the ball, then bring it to our attention and we'll deal with it. 0 -
You seem to be suggesting that, in the case of Armstrong, all the other evidence against him somehow makes his association with Ferrari less significant than otherwise would be the case. I would argue that the opposite is true.leguape wrote:
And yet we're meant to accept as truth the testimony of people who've been discredited through their actions in the sport, who have retracted accusations as baseless, who continue to deny their own actions, who cannot substantiate many of the implications of their claims?aurelio wrote:
I think what is his saying is that if you accuse someone of being `obsessed`, question their mental health and suggest that they `need some type of help`, and that person then defends themselves against such accusations, then this is, in itself, proof of their need to get `help`.andrewgturnbull wrote:
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?RICHYBOYcp wrote:Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Actually, I feel that those who really need to question the functioning of their mental processes are those who will happily accept that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Fuentes is virtually proof of doping, and yet at the same time deny that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Ferrari carries with it any suspicions of doping at all!
As to allegations being retracted because they were `baseless`, I would say that where people have printed retractions this has usually had a lot more to do with threats and bullying from Armstrong`s camp than because what they said wasn't true. Just look at the case of Stephanie McIllvain who admitted that she heard Armstrong using Epo and so on, but who, along with her husband, faced dismissal by Oakley if she did not back up Armstrong at the SCA hearings.
Perhaps people should listen to her speaking and then make their own minds up whether she was speaking the truth or not...
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp30 -
leguape wrote:Kléber wrote:At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.
That's an weak analogy but one which is very telling about one side of the debate. At this time of year you can tell the kids Father Christmas doesn't exist, of course you can. That's one very narrow and proscriptive act which encourages no understanding whatsoever.
Or you can explain to them how "Father Christmas" is part of an extended tradition of folk story that can be traced back through various countries to the early catholicism of Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra, who is associated with the giving of gifts. That his feast day, in early December, is still fairly widely marked in Catholic communities and that by some process of osmosis the Catholic church seems to have used him in its own takeover of the traditional mid-winter/solstice festivals which pre-date Christianity.
I don't know where you went to school leguape but I think most of probably heard Father Christmas isn't real from the bigger kids in the playground, not some understanding parents keen to explain the adoption of pagan mythology into Christian ceremonies! I just meant that people have a nice little belief which suits them, no matter whether it is true or not. But when someone comes along and says "it's not true", people naturally cling to the belief and often try to shoot the messenger.
Still, I suppose we could borrow your idea and say that the tale of Armstrong did rely on age old notions of training, sacrifice and tactics. I don't think anyone doubts this. It's just that many of us believe he was doing what every other GC contender was doing.
I'm not so sure here. Look at the heap of manure dumped on Ricco earlier this summer. Sella was slated. The likes of Di Luca and many more are regularly slammed for their past ways.BenBlyth wrote:Vino doesn't get the same abuse, or Basso, Floyd, Anquetil etc... The LA 'hatred' seems to become totally obsessive. I get the impression some are more bothered about hating Lance than liking cycling.
If anything Ben, it's the other way round. Earlier this year I said that the Giro d'Italia was a festival of doping and that I could not care for the results as it was riddled with doping. A couple of voices asked what I was on about but now we've seen Ricco, Piepoli and Sella caught and there were probably many others. No one is that surprised. Yet if you dare to mention that a certain US rider might have done the same as every other GC contender from the past 15 years, a debate/fight breaks out on here, people leap up to defend this one rider when they are rare to stand behind Ricco, Vinokourov or other riders. I can't find another rider with such evangelical support.0 -
It`s just this sort of inconsistency / irrationality that keeps me coming back to this issue! Despite what some might like to believe I couldn`t care less about Armstrong on any personal level. Rather I find the whole Armstrong debate fascinating because it so well illustrates the power of the corporate-controlled media and the way `my truth is as good as yours` relativism is coming to replace rationalism in the modern age. And when people seriously begin to argue that the truth doesn`t matter as much as protecting corporate profits ("On balance, I think I would prefer the lie to the truth....think how many jobs would be lost in cycling"), well, it all adds to the fears I have for the future of humanity...Kléber wrote:Earlier this year I said that the Giro d'Italia was a festival of doping and that I could not care for the results as it was riddled with doping. A couple of voices asked what I was on about but now we've seen Ricco, Piepoli and Sella caught and there were probably many others. No one is that surprised. Yet if you dare to mention that a certain US rider might have done the same as every other GC contender from the past 15 years, a debate/fight breaks out on here, people leap up to defend this one rider when they are rare to stand behind Ricco, Vinokourov or other riders. I can't find another rider with such evangelical support.
I also find the psychology of many of Armstrong`s disciples intriguing. I am not saying that this applies to posters on here, nor does this apply to all Armstrong`s supporters, but it does seem that many side with Armstrong largely because this fits in with their generally Francophobe attitudes. (Something which Armstrong himself has not been slow to exploit). It also seems that many Armstrong supporters are rather right-wing in their outlook, but perhaps this is what is to be expected given that a classic characteristic of the right-wing mindset is a high level of admiration for `heroes` and authority figures. Given Armstrong`s mythical status and power, not to say the way he so well represents the individualistic, all-powerfull `Übermenschen`, it is perhaps unsurprising that such individuals should be affronted when one of the `lower orders` such as myself dare to criticise him! 0 -
I don't think that Armstrong is unduly picked on. The level of inquisition regarding his integrity and probity as an athlete is proportionate to his "success" in cycling. I think it is also fair to say that if any of the other multi TdFwinners were competing today they would likely be subject to the same level of scepticism. I guess they were fortunate enough to have ridden in era's without the internet and higher tolerance of drugs in cycling.
Other current cheats don't appear to get it in the neck so much because (a) they have been caught red-handed (b) their attempts to deny have been so laughable.
I have to say that during his 15 minutes of fame in this year's TdF Schumacher received Lance levels of scepticism from me up until the point the cat came out of the bag. Now I just consider his denial attempts as high theatre.
If Lance is ever truly unmasked he'll soon become today's chip paper.0 -
aurelio wrote:I also find the psychology of many of Armstrong`s disciples intriguing. I am not saying that this applies to posters on here, nor does this apply to all Armstrong`s supporters.
Well, you could, as they are the same forums over.
I like the suggestion to debate the dirty deeds of other riders - some of us do.
Take the current Vino thread. It has 3 posts, all from the "haters" side. Same faction posting about Schumacher and Basso on other threads.
Of course, this is not being even-handed. We just don't like cycling.
The Pro-Armstrong faction rarely debate doping - too close to home. However, if a rider is caught red-handed, they jump on the "hang 'em high" bandwagon.
Pure deflectionism.
The only reason I post anything on threads such as these, is because I detest any attempt at censorship.
If people only want to read lovely Lancie things, stick to twitter and join the Astana forum.
Otherwise, accept the good, the bad and the ugly."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
The level of inquisition regarding his integrity and probity as an athlete is proportionate to his "success" in cycling.
Actually, the level of inquisition regarding his integrity and probity is proportionate to the volume of output from LA's PR machine.0 -
Being such a pointless thread, i feel i shouldn't join in, but at the same time it annoys the hell outta me when Pro-Armstrong guys blatantly show that they have not read any of literature or listened to any of the in depth arguments against him. U will find all of us who did believe, and now question everything about his achievements do so, not after being brainwashed, but aftervbeing presented with a factual case against his achievements.
I would love for them to present a fully balanced case, and this is where their moans fall on deaf ears with me. Until they can bring an equal case to the table, and not just spout statements with no substance then they need to accept the negative comments against Armstrong.
I would love for him to prove all of us wrong this year, but we'll see what happens shall we.0 -
Factual case? If there is a factual case, why is there no prosecution?O na bawn i fel LA0
-
aurelio wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that, in the case of Armstrong, all the other evidence against him somehow makes his association with Ferrari less significant than otherwise would be the case. I would argue that the opposite is true.leguape wrote:
And yet we're meant to accept as truth the testimony of people who've been discredited through their actions in the sport, who have retracted accusations as baseless, who continue to deny their own actions, who cannot substantiate many of the implications of their claims?aurelio wrote:
I think what is his saying is that if you accuse someone of being `obsessed`, question their mental health and suggest that they `need some type of help`, and that person then defends themselves against such accusations, then this is, in itself, proof of their need to get `help`.andrewgturnbull wrote:
Richy - I genuinely don't understand what you mean - can you explain?RICHYBOYcp wrote:Thanks....you have proved the whole objective of this topic...enough!
Actually, I feel that those who really need to question the functioning of their mental processes are those who will happily accept that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Fuentes is virtually proof of doping, and yet at the same time deny that being associated with a notorious doping doctor like Ferrari carries with it any suspicions of doping at all!
As to allegations being retracted because they were `baseless`, I would say that where people have printed retractions this has usually had a lot more to do with threats and bullying from Armstrong`s camp than because what they said wasn't true. Just look at the case of Stephanie McIllvain who admitted that she heard Armstrong using Epo and so on, but who, along with her husband, faced dismissal by Oakley if she did not back up Armstrong at the SCA hearings.
Perhaps people should listen to her speaking and then make their own minds up whether she was speaking the truth or not...
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
You are, again, trying to put words into my mouth on the subject of Ferrari. I have nowhere suggested what you seem to be saying. You have chosen to interpret my comments that way.
So you are saying that McIllvain knowingly committed perjury in front of a court and act which, were it to be prosecuted, carries a 5 year sentence? That's a pretty strong claim to make against anyone.
Yet she would rather have done that than tell the truth in front of a court and maybe be faced with what would be an entirely obvious case of unfair dismissal by Oakley?
As for corporate-media bullying, well you like a good bit of conspiracy don't you? You seem to see it everywhere.
I still have difficulty reconciling the Jonathan Vaughters who so strongly believes in a clean sport with one who so quickly withdraws his accusations (especially as some of them come from the entirely discredited witness that it Floyd Landis) and still refuses to give a straight answer on his own doping.0 -
RICHYBOYcp wrote:Guys,
I don't usually enter into the Race section too much, mostly because it concentrates so heavily on doping and now that LA has returned, it has swung the Anti LA brigade into overdrive...sometimes its just a bit of banter, sometimes its funny, and everyones obviously allowed there own viewpoint BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...or should concentrate his passions else where...to focus so much of one's time towards one man cannot be good for anyones mental health....surely.
Yes, It's true. You have wandered into the obsessive compulsive Lance haters club. And you're not alone in calling into question the mental health of some of these people. Kind
of sad actually.
Dennis Noward0 -
Arkibal wrote:RICHYBOYcp wrote:Guys,
I don't usually enter into the Race section too much, mostly because it concentrates so heavily on doping and now that LA has returned, it has swung the Anti LA brigade into overdrive...sometimes its just a bit of banter, sometimes its funny, and everyones obviously allowed there own viewpoint BUT over the last wee while Ive looked at a certain members post history...and its just plain scary....there is a guy who I think now is absolutely obsessed with LA (or obsessed in dispising him) , too an extent it staggers beleif....I think the guy in question needs some type of help...or should concentrate his passions else where...to focus so much of one's time towards one man cannot be good for anyones mental health....surely.
+1
-20 -
Scary???? :roll:
4 pages of this? Thats bloody scary :shock:0 -
I would have thought that Oakley would have been home and dry in sacking McIllvain had she not agreed to back up Armstrong. For example, they could have claimed that her speaking to Lemond about Armstrong`s doping was incompatible with her responsibilities to the company, and god-knows what breaches of confidentiality clauses and so on in her contract they could have nailed her on. (Similarly, Trek seem pretty confident that then can get away with destroying Lemond`s business on the grounds that his speaking his mind about Armstrong gives them sufficient grounds for ending their relationship with his company).leguape wrote:... you are saying that McIllvain knowingly committed perjury in front of a court and act which, were it to be prosecuted, carries a 5 year sentence? That's a pretty strong claim to make against anyone. Yet she would rather have done that than tell the truth in front of a court and maybe be faced with what would be an entirely obvious case of unfair dismissal by Oakley?
Also, did she actually commit perjury, given that statements she made in relation to the SCA case was part of a pre-trial hearing and the case was settled out of court?
As I said, listen to that recording of her speaking to Lemond. She clearly thought she was free to speak the truth and was clearly afraid of the repercussions that would arise if what she said leaked out, and yet she still admitted she heard Armstrong admitting to doping. On that tape she certainly doesn`t sound like someone who is lying.0 -
OK. So what are your views on the likes of Fuentes and Ferrari? Is associating with such people enough to raise suspicions of doping, especially if there is other evidence and are other accusations as well?leguape wrote:You are, again, trying to put words into my mouth on the subject of Ferrari. I have nowhere suggested what you seem to be saying. You have chosen to interpret my comments that way.
If you think associating with a notorious `doping doctor` like Fuentes or Ferrari* might raise suspicions but is not enough evidence to make accusations, have you defended the clients of Fuentes against allegations of doping to the extent you have Armstrong?
* Doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton
The cycling doctors are the sorcerers of the peloton. Last year racing saw the team doctor as an important part of the team. The success of Italian cycling is also the success of the Italian doctor Conconi and his former righthand man Ferrari.
Anyway, that is said in the medical world. They are the top specialists of erythropoetine (EPO), the forbidden drug that the peleton is caught in the grip off.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html0 -
I really hope he wins the Giro and Tour this year, just to displease all of the haters.
Very snipey i know, but it's ridiculous how people can allege everything, but can never conclusively prove anything.
Armstrong is both a cycling legend, and a superb example for all aspiring racing cyclists to follow.
Viva Lance!Don't rake up my mistakes, i know exactly what they are.0 -
aurelio wrote:Also, did she actually commit perjury, given that statements she made in relation to the SCA case was part of a pre-trial hearing and the case was settled out of court?
As I said, listen to that recording of her speaking to Lemond. She clearly thought she was free to speak the truth and was clearly afraid of the repercussions that would arise if what she said leaked out, and yet she still admitted she heard Armstrong admitting to doping. On that tape she certainly doesn`t sound like someone who is lying.
At the very least her testimony could be construed as perverting the course of justice. Had the case gone to trial (something she would not have been able to know at the time of giving testimony) and she had repeated that testimony that would have been perjury. So yes, I would say that she knowingly commited an act pursuant to perjury.
I can tell you that a lot of people will say a lot of things when they don't think anyone is listening or they think there aren't going to be quoted in the public record.0 -
+1Nickwill wrote:Like a lot of people, I have some reservations about him, but I also can't help feeling that his return is quite exciting for the sport!
What a good post that was.
Much as I would love to blindly believe the LA story, there seems to be too much evidence (most of it circumstantial surrounding his rivals for the Tour) to make me think he could have been 100% pure.
Then there was the dodgy cream in 1999, the supposed positive tests from the same year and the subsquent red handed capture of most of his USPS team mates.
Could it be that he was stronger than his rivals for the tour 7 times when most of them were taking drugs?
Could it be possible that the team that dragged him through the Tour 7 times were mostly (allegedly) taking something but not him?
Of course the answer is yes, but you wont find many who could blindly say that without some tinge of doubt.0 -
Kléber wrote:
At this time of year, telling children that Father Christmas doesn't exist may be cruel but there comes a point where understanding things is better than imagining fairy tales.
Fr Christmas DOESN'T EXIST???? :shock: :shock:
now you tell me...............
Spring!
Singlespeeds in town rule.0
