Victoria Pendleton: Cycling's Golden Girl
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote:
No, what I'm doing is participating in an online discussion. You have said things that I disagree with, you have accused me of saying things that I haven't and you have tried to dispute the examples that I have used.BillyMansell wrote:
Nah. DDD is fighting with himself.cyclingprop wrote:Is this where we gather around them in a circle, shouting "fight fight fight", and pushing them towards each other in the hope of physical confrontation?
All of which, like this, I have responded to. In that context I do not believe that I have exceeded the purpose of the website. If you accuse me of anything else you are just doing so in an attempt to ridicule and strengthen your own resolve.
ETA: And you have continually avoided my question.
What IS the estimated time of arrival?What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?0 -
Edited to add...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
Oh I get it I just didn't know nowt and you have jinxed me ugh.
Close?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
pangolin wrote:Oh I get it I just didn't know nowt and you have jinxed me ugh.
Close?
OIGIIJDKNAYHJMU.
Oh I get it, I just didn't know (the) new acronym you have just made up.What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?0 -
So close...- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Actually I saw ITB do it, didn't know what it meant, Google'd it.cyclingprop wrote:pangolin wrote:Oh I get it I just didn't know nowt and you have jinxed me ugh.
Close?
OIGIIJDKNAYHJMU.
Oh I get it, I just didn't know (the) new acronym you have just made up.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ETA
10th one down I think.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Actually I saw ITB do it, didn't know what it meant, Google'd it.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ETA
10th one down I think.
If it was ITB using it, are you sure he didn't mean Elvis Tribute Artist?Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
The 10th possible meaning of ETA?DonDaddyD wrote:
Actually I saw ITB do it, didn't know what it meant, Google'd it.cyclingprop wrote:pangolin wrote:Oh I get it I just didn't know nowt and you have jinxed me ugh.
Close?
OIGIIJDKNAYHJMU.
Oh I get it, I just didn't know (the) new acronym you have just made up.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ETA
10th one down I think.
I know I could look for myself but I'm being childish instead.0 -
Anyway, I use the word ergo all the time and certainly don't recall the Matrix reference....product of a public school edumacation see.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
In the second one: the dude in white with the beard.
Perfectly good word, is 'ergo'. Can make you look a bit of a show off though.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Similarly, my limited knowledge of latin comes from the education system and academic work but the QI fact I learnt from a colleague about latin is the plural of forum is forum and not fora as some would think. I didn't get the matrix reference as I've never seen it.SimonAH wrote:Anyway, I use the word ergo all the time and certainly don't recall the Matrix reference....product of a public school edumacation see.0 -
rjsterry wrote:In the second one: the dude in white with the beard.
Perfectly good word, is 'ergo'. Can make you look a bit of a show off though.
cogito ergo sum...
on the other hand, when used to describe the torture that is a stationary rowing machine, "ergo" is NOT a perfectly good word, but one that induces terror.
Isn't it Rick? (ex boatie aren't you?)
oh, wait, you were a coxing ergo dodger weren't you? :twisted:0 -
Like I'm going to have some scrawny loudmouth in the back of the boat decide how I'm going to row.
Pffft.0 -
Hoist by your own petard :-DFCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
I thought this was an outstanding documentary. I wrote a review of it on my blog:
http://chestercyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/victoria-pendleton-documentary.html
I thought she came across really well. I thought the documentary said a lot more about the male dominated set up of British Cycling to be honest, and how it was not really set up to handle women cyclists well. The way the relationship issue was handled by BC was a disgrace. Clearly they can't have too many moral scruples since they've now brought him back into the team ! And let's be clear workplace romances are pretty common amongst consenting adults. Neither of those involved have done anything wrong, and to be perfectly blunt, it is no one else's business but theirs.
Let's hope VP now goes out and gets gold.0 -
As I've said before, the relationship between coach and athlete is kind of similar to that of doctor and patient. If a doctor got busy with a patient, they would be struck off even though they are both consenting adults.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
But it's notEKE_38BPM wrote:the relationship between coach and athlete is kind of similar to that of doctor and patient
0 -
-
EKE_38BPM wrote:As I've said before, the relationship between coach and athlete is kind of similar to that of doctor and patient. If a doctor got busy with a patient, they would be struck off even though they are both consenting adults.
I think at most it would be seen as unprofessional. I do not believe it is the same as a breach of the code of conduct (ethical grounds I believe).; General Medical Council: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_ ... daries.asp
If a doctor were to fall in love with a patient ( or 'service user' to use the prefered term within mental health: Billy Mansell), at work, they would be hard pushed to explain that they haven't used their position to enter into a sexual relationship. In my particular area there is no grey area, even if I met a patient outside work I would know that they are or were a patient and therefore should always maintain a professional relationship. If I met the person first and then gained knowledge that they were a patient I would have to explain the relationship, but they could never be "my" patient. The line is that vulnerable people must always be protected.
This is not the same as Vicky and Stuart's relationship, my understanding is that it would be seen as highly unprofessional but not in breach of a code of conduct. I think the Vicky/Stuart case is similar to Manager/staff member where the issue isn't the relationship but that they (she in this case) benefitted professionally from his position/expertise and/or other staff members (athletes in this case) did not. They could argue that they have been treated unfairly in comparision.
[Billy Mansell, you will understand that I am someone who has worked in health care services for a considerable amount of time. I simply do not need to qualify, justify or start any part of my responses with 'as someone who has worked in...' I find it immensely arrogant, to the point of being laughable actually, that you assume that I do not know anything about CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.]Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Blimey, are you still stuck in this negative cycle of thinking? That was 3-4 days ago, the world's move on, nothing to see here.DonDaddyD wrote:[Billy Mansell, you will understand that I am someone who has worked in health care services for a considerable amount of time. I simply do not need to qualify, justify or start any part of my responses with 'as someone who has worked in...' I find it immensely arrogant, to the point of being laughable actually, that you assume that I do not know anything about CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.]0 -
Fundamentally I do not see responding to a past post on a forum as a negative cycle of thinking, but nice attempt to reference a need for CBT. The human brain is capable of thinking in abstract of things past, present and what is to come. It took very little for me to respond to EKE's post and then remember to write enough to link it back to you.BillyMansell wrote:
Blimey, are you still stuck in this negative cycle of thinking? That was 3-4 days ago, the world's move on, nothing to see here.DonDaddyD wrote:[Billy Mansell, you will understand that I am someone who has worked in health care services for a considerable amount of time. I simply do not need to qualify, justify or start any part of my responses with 'as someone who has worked in...' I find it immensely arrogant, to the point of being laughable actually, that you assume that I do not know anything about CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.]
You however are pathetic and continually duck evey point raised that you cannot answer or admit where you have been proven wrong or shown you ass.
You will take of the following:I wrote:Billy Mansell wrote:In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.
I'm asking how this is relevant. I then followed with:
I'll ask again:
How does working in mental health somehow validate what you are saying?
I have other questions:
What is your specific job that makes you feel so quialified to reference your time in mental health?
How long have you worked in mental health?
Now are you going to answer the above questions?
I could on, but basically you've irked me with your accusations of things I've never said and ridicule. Still, what irritates me most about people like you on forums is that when you are proven wrong, when the counterpoint has been justified or you have been questioned with things you cannot answer [for the sake of not wanting to lose face] you simply avoid, cower and ignore instead of being a man and actually standing behind what you said or holding your hands up and admitting that the other person actually has a point.
It is spineless really. I'm done with you.
And no, I am not at work today.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:loads of guff.
Save it for the road and show some speed where it really counts. Enough of the sniping now.What do you mean you think 64cm is a big frame?0 -
The guy is a prick and needs telling.cyclingprop wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:loads of guff.
Save it for the road and show some speed where it really counts. Enough of the sniping now.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Fundamentally I do not see responding to a past post on a forum as a negative cycle of thinking, but nice attempt to reference a need for CBT. The human brain is capable of thinking in abstract of things past, present and what is to come. It took very little for me to respond to EKE's post and then remember to write enough to link it back to you.BillyMansell wrote:
Blimey, are you still stuck in this negative cycle of thinking? That was 3-4 days ago, the world's move on, nothing to see here.DonDaddyD wrote:[Billy Mansell, you will understand that I am someone who has worked in health care services for a considerable amount of time. I simply do not need to qualify, justify or start any part of my responses with 'as someone who has worked in...' I find it immensely arrogant, to the point of being laughable actually, that you assume that I do not know anything about CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.]
You however are pathetic and continually duck evey point raised that you cannot answer or admit where you have been proven wrong or shown you ass.
You will take of the following:I wrote:Billy Mansell wrote:In context, and as someone who works in mental health, it's perfectly valid - interesting that you took it out of context to find offence.
I'm asking how this is relevant. I then followed with:
I'll ask again:
How does working in mental health somehow validate what you are saying?
I have other questions:
What is your specific job that makes you feel so quialified to reference your time in mental health?
How long have you worked in mental health?
Now are you going to answer the above questions?
I could on, but basically you've irked me with your accusations of things I've never said and ridicule. Still, what irritates me most about people like you on forums is that when you are proven wrong, when the counterpoint has been justified or you have been questioned with things you cannot answer [for the sake of not wanting to lose face] you simply avoid, cower and ignore instead of being a man and actually standing behind what you said or holding your hands up and admitting that the other person actually has a point.
It is spineless really. I'm done with you.
And no, I am not at work today.
lots of name calling, repetition of past thinking, proving someone wrong on the internet and still you don't think you stuck in a negative cycle of thinking?
For clarification, I could go back to my original post on this thread and point out where you diverted the discussion preferring to paint yourself as a victim, a role I suspect you're very adept at. Like you, I don't have to prove anything to you as you're irrelevant to my work plus, unlike me, I suspect you're only interest in knowing of my work is for nefarious purposes.
Have a good day 0 -
This discussion has been closed.
