Anyone else thinking of ditching their Oakleys?
Comments
-
I do find it quite bizarre that I have to keep re-explaining blindingly obvious distinctions in order to counter completely ridiculous analogies... Some people must simply either not be able to read properly or think properly.
No, see above.Should all VW drivers be branded as facists and publically flogged for driving a car that has links to Hitler0 -
this thread is surely a wind up, this sort of moral posturing is total bollox, and (puts daily fail hat on) is the sort of attitude and mealy mouthed sopping that has made this country (if you are from the uk) a joke these days.
justfacking wear them, but make sure to take them off when reading the gruaniad or indy tomorrow...0 -
Cool, you can get a daily fail hat?
Free with the Telegraph I suppose.0 -
neeb wrote:I do find it quite bizarre that I have to keep re-explaining blindingly obvious distinctions in order to counter completely ridiculous analogies... Some people must simply either not be able to read properly or think properly.
No, see above.Should all VW drivers be branded as facists and publically flogged for driving a car that has links to Hitler
Almost as annoying as people who make shallow, hlaf-promises:
I'm seriously thinking about selling all of my Oakleys on ebay and donating the money to a suitable charity.
You obviously have a great deal of morals and sound quite the charitable kind-of-guy, so how about we draw up a list of suitable charities and you put your (dirty), Oakley money where your mouth is?
Here's one for starters:
. Livestrong :!:0 -
neeb wrote:I do find it quite bizarre that I have to keep re-explaining blindingly obvious distinctions in order to counter completely ridiculous analogies... Some people must simply either not be able to read properly or think properly.
Or you could just accept that maybe other people don't agree with you, even if they might be wrong.0 -
So...the playing mantis wrote:this thread is surely a wind up, this sort of moral posturing is total bollox, and (puts daily fail hat on) is the sort of attitude and mealy mouthed sopping that has made this country (if you are from the uk) a joke these days.
justfacking wear them, but make sure to take them off when reading the gruaniad or indy tomorrow...
Any sort of moral stance is posturing? Or if not, would you care to explain the distinction between posturing and a valid moral stance, and why you think having a problem with a major brand supporting LA after the USADA ruling classifies as the former? In correctly spelled words averaging more than one syllable please.
As someone from the UK who is living abroad, I can tell you that if anything has made the UK a joke these days (at least within the rest of Europe) it's the consistently inferior standards of general education (I won't say declining, they haven't been great for a long time) that are responsible for the sort of attitude you represent.
P.S. I suspect you are confusing "mealy mouthed" with "vaguely literate", I've been as direct as it is possible to be in explaining where I am coming from.0 -
I can accept reasonable disagreement, but not blatant distortion of what I am saying.greasedscotsman wrote:neeb wrote:I do find it quite bizarre that I have to keep re-explaining blindingly obvious distinctions in order to counter completely ridiculous analogies... Some people must simply either not be able to read properly or think properly.
Or you could just accept that maybe other people don't agree with you, even if they might be wrong.0 -
What's shallow and half promised? I said "seriously thinking", not "will". And the situation has changed since I said it (again, see above).Pippi Langsamer wrote:Almost as annoying as people who make shallow, hlaf-promises:
I'm seriously thinking about selling all of my Oakleys on ebay and donating the money to a suitable charity.
You obviously have a great deal of morals and sound quite the charitable kind-of-guy, so how about we draw up a list of suitable charities and you put your (dirty), Oakley money where your mouth is?
Here's one for starters:
. Livestrong :!:0 -
neeb wrote:I can accept reasonable disagreement, but not blatant distortion of what I am saying.
Have you corrected your post on the previous page where you misquoted me yet?0 -
hmm, uneducated, eh neeb, well im an LSE boy, dare say im a tad more educated than you, if we want to go down that pathetic route...
as for my syntax, well as i have a job and at work, and my time is actually quite valuable to me, i don't have the time or inclination to proof read or make sure spelling is correct on what i type. the classic lets go down that route of critcising spelling/grammar, cos our argument sucks. yawn.
you have come on a public forum, to show how very 'moral' you are. either just do it and be happy and self satisfied with what you have done without letting everyone know how right on you are, or just dont be so ridiculous. maybe i shud sell my beemer cos they made aircraft engines for the luftwaffe, or stop buying anything associated with anything bad, and walk around starving and naked...0 -
It is a pathetic route and you went down it.0
-
it, is indeed, and i did, however people should not call others uneducated when they have no idea of their background.
the whole point is ridiculous. oakley had nothing to do with it, contracts mean you cannot just dump someone, it took nike and trek time to work out the legals before they could do it. oakley will no doubt do the same. however what are they dropping, livestrong or lance? livestrong is a fantastic cause and shouldnt be hampered by lances misdeaomnours.0 -
What do you mean? I copied directly from your post, I only missed out the "I" at the beginning accidentally, and it doesn't alter the meaning.greasedscotsman wrote:neeb wrote:I can accept reasonable disagreement, but not blatant distortion of what I am saying.
Have you corrected your post on the previous page where you misquoted me yet?0 -
The argument and attitude you were putting forward was uneducated, that's what I was responding to - if you are indeed "an LSE boy" then you should know better.the playing mantis wrote:hmm, uneducated, eh neeb, well im an LSE boy, dare say im a tad more educated than you, if we want to go down that pathetic route...
as for my syntax, well as i have a job and at work, and my time is actually quite valuable to me, i don't have the time or inclination to proof read or make sure spelling is correct on what i type. the classic lets go down that route of critcising spelling/grammar, cos our argument sucks. yawn.
you have come on a public forum, to show how very 'moral' you are. either just do it and be happy and self satisfied with what you have done without letting everyone know how right on you are, or just dont be so ridiculous. maybe i shud sell my beemer cos they made aircraft engines for the luftwaffe, or stop buying anything associated with anything bad, and walk around starving and naked...
I agree it would be completely pathetic, but PM me if you really want to know.dare say im a tad more educated than you, if we want to go down that pathetic route...
Nope, just to discuss a pretty obvious moral issue, and to be taken aback by the complete inability of anyone else to even engage with it.you have come on a public forum, to show how very 'moral' you are.0 -
neeb wrote:What do you mean? I copied directly from your post, I only missed out the "I" at the beginning accidentally, and it doesn't alter the meaning.
It's not the meaning or missing the "I", it's who said it.0 -
No it's not. But it's pretty pathetic that no-one cares whether or not major sponsors openly support doping. I agree that it now appears as if that's not what Oakley are doing, but that's not how it appeared when I started the thread.hipshot wrote:It is a pathetic route and you went down it.0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:neeb wrote:What do you mean? I copied directly from your post, I only missed out the "I" at the beginning accidentally, and it doesn't alter the meaning.
It's not the meaning or missing the "I", it's who said it.
Oh, Ok. My mistake, I apologise. It's not easy to keep track of posts when you are in a minority of one in a hostile thread.
<edit - quote attribution on previous page corrected>0 -
neeb wrote:greasedscotsman wrote:neeb wrote:What do you mean? I copied directly from your post, I only missed out the "I" at the beginning accidentally, and it doesn't alter the meaning.
It's not the meaning or missing the "I", it's who said it.
Oh, Ok. My mistake, I apologise. It's not easy to keep track of posts when you are in a minority of one in a hostile thread.
OK, no worries. It wasn't really that important TBH. Seriously though, I wouldn't worry about it so much. You can't expect everyone to agree with you. It is just the internet after all!0 -
greasedscotsman wrote:OK, no worries. It wasn't really that important TBH. Seriously though, I wouldn't worry about it so much. You can't expect everyone to agree with you. It is just the internet after all!
I wouldn't have started the thread if I thought it was going to deteriorate into a slanging match, I really thought that there would be other people who would have the same issues. If there are, I guess they are keeping their heads down, can't say I blame them..
The internet is weird sometimes, I think things often end up more polarized than anyone really intends.0 -
Superb entertainment for a dull Friday afternoon!
Seriously though, if you really are making a moral judgement on your bike gear based on the antics of riders who wear, or are sponsored by said gear, then you may as well just give up otherwise you'll be riding round on a Pashley in your bitrhday suit.0 -
Hopefully I can say this for the last time...Maverick54 wrote:Superb entertainment for a dull Friday afternoon!
Seriously though, if you really are making a moral judgement on your bike gear based on the antics of riders who wear, or are sponsored by said gear, then you may as well just give up otherwise you'll be riding round on a Pashley in your bitrhday suit.
It's not (or wasn't) about who wears what or who is sponsored by whom...
It's about the public stance of major companies on the issue of doping in cycling. If Oakley had continued, long term, to support LA and portray him as a sporting hero after the USADA ruling, that would be pretty extremely reprehensible to anyone who cares at all about the issue - no? Does anyone seriously disagree with that?0 -
Any douchebags that want to get rid of any Oakleys (and Trek bikes, Nike products for that matter), please PM me.
Saying that...I don't think I can wear a product that was once associated with somebody as pathetic as the person who wants to get rid of a pair of glasses because they are made by a company who are standing by a guy who was once a little bit naughty while riding his bicycle.0 -
cmon chaps, everyones entitled to an opinion now we've got outrage on top of outrage, i refuse to deal with certain companies because of they way they behave either ethically or towards me as a customer, wouldn't expect anyone to agree with me about my issues, I certainly won't mention it on here after reading reaction to neeb, have a big man hug drink beer and forget.. eh
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Sod the Oakleys, what am I going to do about this:
0 -
ShutUpLegs wrote:Sod the Oakleys, what am I going to do about this:
I don't think they are oakleys
Seriously though Livestrong is a great cause well done for that fella
Ps - you a fugly mo fo
One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
Just seen this, my take; get a grip and don't be so f*cking stupid !Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
I have several pairs, some for cycling, a pair in each car. I love em, they are great glasses and have no problem wearing them now or in the future.
I also have a black '28' jersey and love that too, and will continue to do so.
b*lox to those who think otherwise 0
