Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

iainf72

Nah, it's not being a fanboy Den

But I like to be informed before I open my mouth. But clearly that kind of thing doesn't bother you.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I liked D Pate of Sky tweeting that real ambassadors don't do
blood transfusions and tell 30% of the truth..tommy plea bargainer called
himself an ambassador in that cyc news interview yesterday. Darryl Impey retweeted pate

Yeah, saw that. So did Adam Myerson who had a few things to say himself on Twitter after Leipheimer's interview the other day.


The US pros in particular are scathing of these confessors, in particular Danielson and Leipheimer - ones I follow feel that they were both doping long before the start dates they've admitted to in their confessions

I just looked up Myerson. On 1 hand the plea bargainers did good in taking La out of sport forever but they are shamless

He's well worth following. Outspoken, committed, passionate and not prone to following the twitter taliban group-think.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Nah, it's not being a fanboy Den

But I like to be informed before I open my mouth. But clearly that kind of thing doesn't bother you.

So what we've got here is someone that follows every little thing about a famous person. I think someone doing this would be better off being labeled as only an avid LA fanboy. The only other viable option would seem to be stalker. Me thinks this has gone way beyond being "informed". "Informed" would be the middle ground of all this. Somewhere between "oh yea, he's that bike racer / cancer dude" and avid fan worshipper/stalker/hater. This forum is definitely not the middle ground.

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Nah, it's not being a fanboy Den

But I like to be informed before I open my mouth. But clearly that kind of thing doesn't bother you.

So what we've got here is someone that follows every little thing about a famous person. I think someone doing this would be better off being labeled as only an avid LA fanboy. The only other viable option would seem to be stalker. Me thinks this has gone way beyond being "informed". "Informed" would be the middle ground of all this. Somewhere between "oh yea, he's that bike racer / cancer dude" and avid fan worshipper/stalker/hater. This forum is definitely not the middle ground.

I only actually visit this thread to collect data for my cod-psychological observation of dennis doing cod-psychological oberservation of forumite.

I've come to the conclusion he's obsessed with us. And to think he's never even had a beer with any of us.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Nah, it's not being a fanboy Den

But I like to be informed before I open my mouth. But clearly that kind of thing doesn't bother you.

So what we've got here is someone that follows every little thing about a famous person. I think someone doing this would be better off being labeled as only an avid LA fanboy. The only other viable option would seem to be stalker. Me thinks this has gone way beyond being "informed". "Informed" would be the middle ground of all this. Somewhere between "oh yea, he's that bike racer / cancer dude" and avid fan worshipper/stalker/hater. This forum is definitely not the middle ground.

Yeah, but unlike you, I've heard of other cyclists and probably know a similar amount of stuff about them. Because I'm interested in pro cycling and it's characters. I couldn't give a good goddamn about amateur cycling, the local club or going on a bike.

Richmond Racer

I know it started a while ago but there's a bloody good web interview with Walsh, going on right now

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/pub ... 171764.ece

Nick Fitt

Richmond Racer wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Whats Lance been up to these days? Has he be seen in public?

Apparently splits his time closeted away chez-Lance (Austin branch) and chez-Lance (Hawaii branch)

I think hes going to get away with it all too. The US politicians etc apparently have no appetite for putting 'a hero' in court. Oh well, in some ways, cycling could do without the media coverage. It is a shame though, the case would make a great book for someone

dennisn

Nick Fitt wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Whats Lance been up to these days? Has he be seen in public?

Apparently splits his time closeted away chez-Lance (Austin branch) and chez-Lance (Hawaii branch)

I think hes going to get away with it all too. The US politicians etc apparently have no appetite for putting 'a hero' in court.

I'm thinking that "politicians" are not the ones who decide who does or doesn't go to court. It's not like they call down from on high and say "you, yes you, you're going down". Congress and politicians are called lawmakers because they write the laws, not enforce them. Police, FBI, DEA, etc. enforce the laws, not write them. Two different things. Maybe you give too much credit and ability to politicians. Any more, over here they are generally looked upon as a sort of useless bunch of people who have lost touch with life in general. Ask pretty much anyone what they think of politicians and the words that come up most are "bunch of crooks".

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Whats Lance been up to these days? Has he be seen in public?

Apparently splits his time closeted away chez-Lance (Austin branch) and chez-Lance (Hawaii branch)

I think hes going to get away with it all too. The US politicians etc apparently have no appetite for putting 'a hero' in court.

I'm thinking that "politicians" are not the ones who decide who does or doesn't go to court. It's not like they call down from on high and say "you, yes you, you're going down". Congress and politicians are called lawmakers because they write the laws, not enforce them. Police, FBI, DEA, etc. enforce the laws, not write them. Two different things. Maybe you give too much credit and ability to politicians. Any more, over here they are generally looked upon as a sort of useless bunch of people who have lost touch with life in general. Ask pretty much anyone what they think of politicians and the words that come up most are "bunch of crooks".

Given that politicians aren't the one that decide who goes to court, could you just explain to me the role of a district attorney, including the mechanism by which a DA gets the job?

dennisn

No tA Doctor wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

pb21 wrote:

Whats Lance been up to these days? Has he be seen in public?

Apparently splits his time closeted away chez-Lance (Austin branch) and chez-Lance (Hawaii branch)

I think hes going to get away with it all too. The US politicians etc apparently have no appetite for putting 'a hero' in court.

I'm thinking that "politicians" are not the ones who decide who does or doesn't go to court. It's not like they call down from on high and say "you, yes you, you're going down". Congress and politicians are called lawmakers because they write the laws, not enforce them. Police, FBI, DEA, etc. enforce the laws, not write them. Two different things. Maybe you give too much credit and ability to politicians. Any more, over here they are generally looked upon as a sort of useless bunch of people who have lost touch with life in general. Ask pretty much anyone what they think of politicians and the words that come up most are "bunch of crooks".

Given that politicians aren't the one that decide who goes to court, could you just explain to me the role of a district attorney, including the mechanism by which a DA gets the job?

I would say that Wikipedia would give you a much better explanation of a DA than I ever could. I do see where you're going with this though, as DA's are either elected or appointed. I will say one thing about DA's. If they are soft on crime they usually don't get re-elected.

Beatmaker

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shit load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

mr_poll

Beatmaker wrote:

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shoot load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

About to post this - given she co-wrote his book could this be the start of a PR campaign to increase public opinion of why Lance doped (she doesn't deny it in the article, basically saying he had to, to compete) prior to a confession. Would make sense as if she is so close to him wouldn't be surprised if this was "sanctioned".

Beatmaker

mr_poll wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shoot load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

About to post this - given she co-wrote his book could this be the start of a PR campaign to increase public opinion of why Lance doped (she doesn't deny it in the article, basically saying he had to, to compete) prior to a confession. Would make sense as if she is so close to him wouldn't be surprised if this was "sanctioned".

I get the definite feeling its a propaganda piece. I love the 'what's so bad about blood doping anyway?' rhetoric. I know if I had been the ghost on two books, and I later found the subject had lied to me throughout the writing process, I'd be extemely pissed at them.

dennisn

Beatmaker wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shoot load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

About to post this - given she co-wrote his book could this be the start of a PR campaign to increase public opinion of why Lance doped (she doesn't deny it in the article, basically saying he had to, to compete) prior to a confession. Would make sense as if she is so close to him wouldn't be surprised if this was "sanctioned".

I get the definite feeling its a propaganda piece. I love the 'what's so bad about blood doping anyway?' rhetoric. I know if I had been the ghost on two books, and I later found the subject had lied to me throughout the writing process, I'd be extemely pissed at them.

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Beatmaker

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

dennisn

Beatmaker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

I would guess that "...in the first place she is a..." writer. Writers write, or so the saying goes. You simply saying that because she is a journalist she must therefore be interested in the truth is not something I'll buy into. The internet, magazines, books, newspapers, and even television are filled with journalists. You claim that they are interested in truth. I'm claiming they are interested in getting published and truth may or may not be in the cards. They will write about whatever as long as it pays their bills. This could include truth, of course, but is not restricted to it.

And I don't have a copy of LA's book. Never read it. Famous people / celeb bio's are not the type of thing that interests me. I'm sort of a classic fiction junkie(Don Quixote, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, To Kill a Mockingbird, that sort of stuff).

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

I would guess that "...in the first place she is a..." writer. Writers write, or so the saying goes. You simply saying that because she is a journalist she must therefore be interested in the truth is not something I'll buy into. The internet, magazines, books, newspapers, and even television are filled with journalists. You claim that they are interested in truth. I'm claiming they are interested in getting published and truth may or may not be in the cards. They will write about whatever as long as it pays their bills. This could include truth, of course, but is not restricted to it.

And I don't have a copy of LA's book. Never read it. Famous people / celeb bio's are not the type of thing that interests me. I'm sort of a classic fiction junkie(Don Quixote, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, To Kill a Mockingbird, that sort of stuff).

Dennis, it's irrelevant whether she's interested in truth or getting published. Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on. It's fairly basic for non-fiction.

dennisn

No tA Doctor wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

I would guess that "...in the first place she is a..." writer. Writers write, or so the saying goes. You simply saying that because she is a journalist she must therefore be interested in the truth is not something I'll buy into. The internet, magazines, books, newspapers, and even television are filled with journalists. You claim that they are interested in truth. I'm claiming they are interested in getting published and truth may or may not be in the cards. They will write about whatever as long as it pays their bills. This could include truth, of course, but is not restricted to it.

And I don't have a copy of LA's book. Never read it. Famous people / celeb bio's are not the type of thing that interests me. I'm sort of a classic fiction junkie(Don Quixote, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, To Kill a Mockingbird, that sort of stuff).

Dennis, it's irrelevant whether she's interested in truth or getting published. Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on. It's fairly basic for non-fiction.

Neither you nor I have any clue as to whether she is interested in the truth or not, but I can assure you she is interested in getting published.

As for "truthfulness". It's NEVER been something that I ever held a journalist or writer to, so your we in "...standards we hold...) does not include me. For me, someone tacking the words writer / journalist on behind their name has very little connection to the word truth. I'm very, very skeptical and don't necessarily have to or want to believe something simply because someone wrote it or said it. I question everything. It's just the way I am.

No_Ta_Doctor

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

I would guess that "...in the first place she is a..." writer. Writers write, or so the saying goes. You simply saying that because she is a journalist she must therefore be interested in the truth is not something I'll buy into. The internet, magazines, books, newspapers, and even television are filled with journalists. You claim that they are interested in truth. I'm claiming they are interested in getting published and truth may or may not be in the cards. They will write about whatever as long as it pays their bills. This could include truth, of course, but is not restricted to it.

And I don't have a copy of LA's book. Never read it. Famous people / celeb bio's are not the type of thing that interests me. I'm sort of a classic fiction junkie(Don Quixote, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, To Kill a Mockingbird, that sort of stuff).

Dennis, it's irrelevant whether she's interested in truth or getting published. Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on. It's fairly basic for non-fiction.

Neither you nor I have any clue as to whether she is interested in the truth or not, but I can assure you she is interested in getting published.

As for "truthfulness". It's NEVER been something that I ever held a journalist or writer to, so your we in "...standards we hold...) does not include me. For me, someone tacking the words writer / journalist on behind their name has very little connection to the word truth. I'm very, very skeptical and don't necessarily have to or want to believe something simply because someone wrote it or said it. I question everything. It's just the way I am.

Fair enough, you don't think journalists are obliged by professional and moral considerations to tell the truth. Not much point in journalists then, is there? Meanwhile you're sceptical about what they write, presumably on the basis of some other standard than truth, since you don't hold with it.

Jenkins is either a liar or a fool. I'm not overly concerned which, but either way she's not credible.

dennisn

No tA Doctor wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Beatmaker wrote:

dennisn wrote:

In the first place she's an author. My understanding of authors is that they write books to SELL them, not to tell a story that no one wants to hear. Now these stories can be true, sorta true, maybe true, not even true, partly false, fantasy, completely unbelievable, etc. Whether he lied to her most likely isn't even an issue. What is at issue is whether the books sells and whatever it takes to make it sell is what goes in it. Did YOU buy this book??? Not everything you read is sent down from "on high".

Actually Dennis, in first place she is a journalist, a sports journalist at that. She should be interested in publishing the truth, not what she thinks the audience want to hear. The clue is in the little word printed on the back of the book by the bar code, if it says fiction, its probably made up, if it says autobiography/biography, it shouldn't be. why not go and check your copy of It's Not About the Bike and let's us know which is printed on yours?

My take is she perhaps knew all along he was a drug cheat, which discredits her reputation as a journalist as much as his as an athlete.

I would guess that "...in the first place she is a..." writer. Writers write, or so the saying goes. You simply saying that because she is a journalist she must therefore be interested in the truth is not something I'll buy into. The internet, magazines, books, newspapers, and even television are filled with journalists. You claim that they are interested in truth. I'm claiming they are interested in getting published and truth may or may not be in the cards. They will write about whatever as long as it pays their bills. This could include truth, of course, but is not restricted to it.

And I don't have a copy of LA's book. Never read it. Famous people / celeb bio's are not the type of thing that interests me. I'm sort of a classic fiction junkie(Don Quixote, Crime and Punishment, Atlas Shrugged, To Kill a Mockingbird, that sort of stuff).

Dennis, it's irrelevant whether she's interested in truth or getting published. Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on. It's fairly basic for non-fiction.

Neither you nor I have any clue as to whether she is interested in the truth or not, but I can assure you she is interested in getting published.

As for "truthfulness". It's NEVER been something that I ever held a journalist or writer to, so your we in "...standards we hold...) does not include me. For me, someone tacking the words writer / journalist on behind their name has very little connection to the word truth. I'm very, very skeptical and don't necessarily have to or want to believe something simply because someone wrote it or said it. I question everything. It's just the way I am.

Fair enough, you don't think journalists are obliged by professional and moral considerations to tell the truth. Not much point in journalists then, is there? Meanwhile you're sceptical about what they write, presumably on the basis of some other standard than truth, since you don't hold with it.

Jenkins is either a liar or a fool. I'm not overly concerned which, but either way she's not credible.

I suppose that many people do hold them to a higher standard than I do. I'm not sure that they are obliged to tell the truth. There are plenty of journalists(so to speak) writing all kinds of things for all kinds of publications that are simply
out and out lies.

Medical doctors take an oath to "do no harm" yet there are more than few out there who don't "adhere"(so to speak) to that oath. Not sure but have never heard of journalists / writers having to take any sort of pledge to write only the truth.

As for Jenkins being credible or not, I think you're right in that it doesn't matter. Above all, she wanted to write a book that SOLD. Sometimes truth sells, sometimes fiction sells, sometimes a combo of the two sells, but the key word is "sells". Truth is most likely somewhere on the list of reasons for writing, but I doubt it's too near the top.

nathancom

Do you argue about everything?

dennisn

nathancom wrote:

Do you argue about everything?

Yeah, pretty much. Beats the alternative of "I agree" "Yeah, me too" and conversation over. I really do enjoy all the different takes on things on this forum. I actually have agreed with someone on a rare occasion or two. I do tend to say what I think about things(good or bad) and quite often that comes back to bite me. Sometimes I'll say things and then realize that, no I shouldn't have, but too late, submit is clicked and I'm not sure I understand how to delete something. If I think that I may have offended someone just a bit too much(all the time) I do feel sorry about it. Must have seemed like the thing to do, in my frame of mind, at the time. I am who I am. Must be in the DNA.

blazing_saddles

Beatmaker wrote:

Sally Jenkins on why she can't be angry at Lance Armstrong. Ummm, perhaps because he made ou a shoot load of cash?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/why-im-not-angry-at-lance-armstrong/2012/12/15/5802bcce-460e-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html?tid=ts_carousel

David Walsh on Katherine Jenkins,....................sorry, Sally Jenkins :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/117045089/Walsh-on-Jenkins

Armstrong was lying through his teeth to his friend, giving her the lies that she would use to create a story of heroism and nobility and courage and defiance and all the other qualities that inspire people. I couldn‟t recount the number of times I told a friend that Armstrong was a fraud only to be deflated by the news that this person had just given his terminally ill parent or family member or colleague a copy of the cyclist‟s inspirational book.

When it became obvious that Armstrong had duped her into writing fiction as fact, sordidness as heroism, Jenkins had a dilemma. She could have apologised for allowing herself to be part of the Armstrong propaganda machine, but she didn‟t. As for Armstrong, she was entitled to feel disgust at the cynical way he used her reputation and her talent to fool so many people, especially those afflicted by cancer.


As for the poor fools who competed clean and had their careers stolen, forget them. They absolutely don‟t matter.

Richmond Racer

got to hand it to Walsh, he's a bloody good writer. The utter anger he feels just screams out with every word

dave_1

There is a v interesting utube link.. The Late show in Ireland in 2002 where David Walsh
get into heated debate about conconi's EPO treatment to SR.
I did agree with Roche that he got kimmage a contract
and tdf spot and then kimmage launched a journalism
career off his access and involvement at that exclusive level

dave_1

There is a v interesting utube link.. The Late show in Ireland in 2002 where David Walsh
gets into heated debate about conconi's EPO treatment to SR.
I did agree with Roche that he got kimmage a contract
and tdf spot and then kimmage launched a journalism
career off his access and involvement at that exclusive level

Mad_Malx

More importantly, back to slighlty amusing videos:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12 ... _hp_ref=uk

Interesting company he is keeping.

rob churchill

Wasn't Bruyneel supposed to be up before the CAS beak this month? I've been looking forward to that. Have I missed something?

No tA Doctor wrote:

Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on.

Says who? Journalists, that's who. But the lying scumbag hacks are lying about that too.

No_Ta_Doctor

rob churchill wrote:

Wasn't Bruyneel supposed to be up before the CAS beak this month? I've been looking forward to that. Have I missed something?

No tA Doctor wrote:

Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on.

Says who? Journalists, that's who. But the lying scumbag hacks are lying about that too.

And yet there you are holding them accountable on it. I never said they lived up to it.

dennisn

rob churchill wrote:

Wasn't Bruyneel supposed to be up before the CAS beak this month? I've been looking forward to that. Have I missed something?

No tA Doctor wrote:

Truthfulness is one of the standards we hold journalists accountable on.

Says who? Journalists, that's who. But the lying scumbag hacks are lying about that too.

...but, are they lying about lying? Which would mean aaaaaaaaaaah, hmmmmmmmm. What would that mean?