Lance Blooming Armstrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

paxington

Love him or hate him Lance certainly made his presence felt. On a spectrum running from mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler I think he's probably somewhere well to the left of the center line .

ai_1

paxington wrote:

Love him or hate him Lance certainly made his presence felt. On a spectrum running from mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler I think he's probably somewhere well to the left of the center line .

Depends how you define that spectrum:
1. ethical=left, unethical=right
2. socialist=left, capitalist=right
3. contribution to general good=left, contribution to general misery=right
4. egalitarian humanist=left, bigotted fundamentalist=right

1. I'd put him right of centre (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler far right)
2. I'd put him right of centre (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler on the right)
3. I'd put him left of centre (Mother Teresa on the left, Hitler far right)
4. I don't know enough about him but I suspect he's not on the far left. (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler far right)

paxington

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

bompington

paxington wrote:

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

And Hitler ran some lovely charitable initiatives too.

There, I've Godwinnned it, can we stop now?

paxington

bompington wrote:

paxington wrote:

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

And Hitler ran some lovely charitable initiatives too.

There, I've Godwinnned it, can we stop now?

You could just abstain ? No need to "take the ball home" so no one else can play... as far as I'm aware Lancey boy hasn't gotten into ethnic cleansing or world domination.

bompington

paxington wrote:

bompington wrote:

paxington wrote:

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

And Hitler ran some lovely charitable initiatives too.

There, I've Godwinnned it, can we stop now?

You could just abstain ? No need to "take the ball home" so no one else can play... as far as I'm aware Lancey boy hasn't gotten into ethnic cleansing or world domination.

No, he hasn't, but perhaps you could report back to us when you've read the >300 page thread in the appropriate forum, and see if you're any more aware then.

ai_1

paxington wrote:

bompington wrote:

paxington wrote:

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

And Hitler ran some lovely charitable initiatives too.

There, I've Godwinnned it, can we stop now?

You could just abstain ? No need to "take the ball home" so no one else can play... as far as I'm aware Lancey boy hasn't gotten into ethnic cleansing or world domination.

He's attempted world domination of cycling. Does that count?

paxington

bompington wrote:

paxington wrote:

bompington wrote:

paxington wrote:

I guess I was thinking more just a spectrum of Good to Bad. On Philanthropy alone I reckon you could argue that Livestrong puts him nearer to Mother Teresa than most of us.

And Hitler ran some lovely charitable initiatives too.

There, I've Godwinnned it, can we stop now?

You could just abstain ? No need to "take the ball home" so no one else can play... as far as I'm aware Lancey boy hasn't gotten into ethnic cleansing or world domination.

No, he hasn't, but perhaps you could report back to us when you've read the >300 page thread in the appropriate forum, and see if you're any more aware then.

As indeed could you. You've certainly not added much to this one, apart from illustrating rather nicely how quick you are to take things personally and attempt to make things personal.

bompington

If you actually read my post, I merely cited an example to point out that supporting a charity does not necessarily make one a good person. Not quite sure how that is "making things personal".
Then I went on to direct you to a thread where this has been discussed exhaustively, including, if I may say so, several very positive contributions from myself - because believe it or not, I have, if you haven't worked this out by now, read it already! So the same old LA-justifying arguments that we have seen any number of times before, they just rile me a bit, and believe me, I'm a very mellow, hard-to-rile sort of person. Good day to you.

gozzy

Ai_1 wrote:

paxington wrote:

Love him or hate him Lance certainly made his presence felt. On a spectrum running from mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler I think he's probably somewhere well to the left of the center line .

Depends how you define that spectrum:
1. ethical=left, unethical=right
2. socialist=left, capitalist=right
3. contribution to general good=left, contribution to general misery=right
4. egalitarian humanist=left, bigotted fundamentalist=right

1. I'd put him right of centre (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler far right)
2. I'd put him right of centre (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler on the right)
3. I'd put him left of centre (Mother Teresa on the left, Hitler far right)
4. I don't know enough about him but I suspect he's not on the far left. (Mother Teresa towards the left, Hitler far right)

Mother Teresa the hardline conservative Catholic? I think she might have to move right in some of those categories.

paxington

bompington wrote:

If you actually read my post, I merely cited an example to point out that supporting a charity does not necessarily make one a good person. Not quite sure how that is "making things personal".
Then I went on to direct you to a thread where this has been discussed exhaustively, including, if I may say so, several very positive contributions from myself - because believe it or not, I have, if you haven't worked this out by now, read it already! So the same old LA-justifying arguments that we have seen any number of times before, they just rile me a bit, and believe me, I'm a very mellow, hard-to-rile sort of person. Good day to you.

Perhaps you'll point out to be where i said I though LA was a "good person". I think what I actually said ( in case you' haven't worked this out yet)was that it could be argued that he had done more for his fellow man than most of us by dint of his cancer charity. In case you haven't worked it out yet I haven't justified anything.
Anyway Bompy old boy it's only banter and I'm glad you remain un-riled as riling you wasn't my aim. As I said before feel free to abstain from this thread and please respect the right of other's to contribute to this thread despite the other thread and your "positive" contributions therein.
Or maybe you're suggesting that as it's been discussed "exhaustively" (and no doubt "authoritatively") by others, including your goodself on a previous occassion, that anyone else now should refrain from discussing the topic elsewhere lest they irritate or even (God forbid) fail to agree with you? These are rhetorical questions as I think you replying would only take this thread further off topic. Lovely Colley by the way. Even Adolf was a dog lover so you could argue that even he wasn't ALL bad. He liked German Sheperds, my favourite breed.
So, back to Lance........