Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I don't understand how you can simultaneously reject what someone posts and admit to not having read it.

[Criptfeind]

I did not reject it.

[GlyphGryph]

I think the problem was not that you didn't read it (we all skip or skim or just plain miss things sometimes). It was that you response was that you didn't read it, rather than withdrawing your previous disagreement with the statement that fast food is more addictive than LSD (and request for studies of such) or attempting to comment on the content of the post.

Also, thanks for the link G-Flex. I wish I could read more than the abstract though. Stupid... journals.

[Andir]

RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

[Criptfeind]

The idea I have have to withdraw a statement I make after it has been firmly refuted is something I find odd.

You proved me wrong, we all know it. What point is there in me stating the obvious?

[Phmcw]

Now, an aspect we have not discussed is the war on drugs as a tool : It destabilize a lot of countries and allow for a sever repression of a whole part of the population. A policy that throw one per cent of US population in prison may be intended to act that way. I cannot help but notice that it was instigated as a tool of repression against the hippy movement, too.

It is, Imo, the most important aspect of the war on drug : a powerful tool of oppression for the right-wing establishment.

[Criptfeind]

Cript, I provided you with two. What's your problem, exactly?

I don't actually read your posts when I am not interested in them.

How mature.

Seriously? It's like you don't even pretend to want to understand what I said.

[MonkeyHead]

Cript, I provided you with two. What's your problem, exactly?

I don't actually read your posts when I am not interested in them.

How mature.

Now, an aspect we have not discussed is the war on drugs as a tool : It destabilize a lot of countries and allow for a sever repression of a whole part of the population. A policy that throw one per cent of US population in prison may be intended to act that way. I cannot help but notice that it was instigated as a tool of repression against the hippy movement, too.

It is, Imo, the most important aspect of the war on drug : a powerful tool of oppression for the right-wing establishment.

The war on drugs served a "good purpose" as bad guy of the moment when communism stopped being a threat before "terror" had reared its multifaced head.

Edit: BTW, care to continue the disagreement in PM? I mean, come on guys. Please.

[Phmcw]

Seriously? It's like you don't even pretend to want to understand what I said.

Because I did, actually, not understand your post, sorry.

@Gflex : What he said was that he missed the post refuting his point while quickly reading the thread. I know it doesn't look like it at all but re read his last four posts.

[G-Flex]

Seriously? It's like you don't even pretend to want to understand what I said.

It's obvious at this point that most of us think you were being kind of a jerk, so why not clarify what you did mean instead of coming off like one?

[Criptfeind]

That post was acknowledgement without a rebuttal against a post that was in disagreement with me. I can only disagree or agree with something, and if I disagree I would rebuttal it. Thus the lack of rebuttal was a agreement with the post. That is what I meant.

It was also a statement of "why" and/or a apology for the lack of earlier acknowledgement, both stating that I did not see it and saying why I did not see it.

[RedKing]

RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

Except that sports are absolutely nothing like this forum. We're not in competition (most of the time) for who can make the best post. Toady doesn't stand to make money based on how many people come to read our dick-waving in the forums. He also doesn't pay us large sums of money to post. Really, there is almost no way in which your analogy makes sense.

[Andir]

I'm increasingly amazed at the arguments that spring from this thread in regards to someone "taking back" something they said.  It's as if the world is going to end if the person does not comply with some argumentative standard instead of just moving on.

The thread gets hung up on one statement and people can't let it go...

RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

Except that sports are absolutely nothing like this forum. We're not in competition (most of the time) for who can make the best post. Toady doesn't stand to make money based on how many people come to read our dick-waving in the forums. He also doesn't pay us large sums of money to post. Really, there is almost no way in which your analogy makes sense.

Eh, it's not about the competition and more in line with the "property" aspect.  If the owners don't want it, they can always ban the players... it's that simple.  If the owners are allowing it and you don't approve, don't buy the merchandise and fight to remove all funding from taxes.

[palsch]

The problem is that the study was published in a scholarly journal, and those typically don't allow access to full text anyway. The study appears to be this one, though.

The good news is that scientists traditionally ignore journal restrictions.

A copy of the paper.

[RedKing]

I'm increasingly amazed at the arguments that spring from this thread in regards to someone "taking back" something they said.  It's as if the world is going to end if the person does not comply with some argumentative standard instead of just moving on.

The thread gets hung up on one statement and people can't let it go...

RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

Except that sports are absolutely nothing like this forum. We're not in competition (most of the time) for who can make the best post. Toady doesn't stand to make money based on how many people come to read our dick-waving in the forums. He also doesn't pay us large sums of money to post. Really, there is almost no way in which your analogy makes sense.

Eh, it's not about the competition and more in line with the "property" aspect.  If the owners don't want it, they can always ban the players... it's that simple.  If the owners are allowing it and you don't approve, don't buy the merchandise and fight to remove all funding from taxes.

But what you're ignoring is the inherent conflict of interest that arises from having the owners and players self-police. It's in the self-interest of owners to look the other way if it means more productive players, hence more wins, larger fanbase, higher merchandise sales, and ultimately more money.

It's in the self-interest of players to juice up if it means better individual performance and a higher contract. And even for those who don't, it's a classic prisoner's dilemma. If Player A abstains from performance-enhancing drugs, and Player B doesn't (and isn't caught), then Player B has a higher chance of beating Player A on the field, which hurts Player A's earning potential and career.

It's not as easy as just saying "the owners can fire a steroid-using player" if that player is the #1 reason fans are attending games. And it's certainly not as easy as saying "regulators (not even sure who you're referring to here) can remove a team from the lineup". Sports franchises are multi-million dollar enterprises. You can't just say "Oh, three Oakland players all tested positive for banned susbstances, so the entire Raiders franchise is banned from the NFL this season."