• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is it safe in Here??

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Amsterhammer said:
I have never been pro-censorship, Dr.! What I am for, based on my almost 10 years experience of posting, moderating and administering forums, is effective moderation together with some basic rules that actually get enforced.

The first big mistake here was to 'appoint' as moderators people whose only connection is to CN as a place of work, and who show little or no interest in what goes on here. Moderators need to be (regular) users of the forum.

As far as the extremes here go, I beg to differ. The people I label as 'hateboys' - you all know who they are - are so extreme in their views and in the abuse they deal out to anyone who joins up and dares to post anything at all pro-Lance, that there really is no possibility of dialog. They do not play by usual forum rules. The people whom they call 'fanboys', include everyone from the first time poster who says the wrong thing (for their ears) to people like myself and many others who clearly are older, wiser and have some passing interest and love for the sport. I certainly don't consider myself a 'fanboy'. I just don't hate LA with an absurd passion, and occasionally get provoked enough to reply to another barrage of hate and abuse.

The abuse on this board starts with the haters; what abuse ever comes back from the other side is as nothing by comparison. 'Hate' should have no place on a forum, and if only this place was effectively moderated, we could all enjoy normal, civilized discussions about the sport without being subjected to daily attacks of bitterness, rancor and hate. Now wouldn't that be nice?

Firstly Amster - my original comment about censorship was not attributed to you but the poster above that post (lean,green,mean)- if you take a moment to look at the post that is quite obvious as I only referred to you on the second paragraph.

Again my remarks about both sides was not attributed to you- as I said both sides are well able to stoke up petty and personal comments.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Firstly Amster - my original comment about censorship was not attributed to you but the poster above that post (lean,green,mean)- if you take a moment to look at the post that is quite obvious as I only referred to you on the second paragraph.

Again my remarks about both sides was not attributed to you- as I said both sides are well able to stoke up petty and personal comments.

I didn't consider myself 'attacked' by you at all! I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I was just adding my point of view. ;)

lean said:
I think it's official, it's not safe in here anymore

Yup.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Amsterhammer said:
I didn't consider myself 'attacked' by you at all! I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I was just adding my point of view. ;)

Yup.
Likewise - apologies if I read too much in to your post - and your point of view is always appreciated.

And sadly - I agree with your second point!
 
Some comments.

First, I think Shawn's article has a lot of merit, but I have been on websites in the same field (video production that show otherwise. Just two by example, DVXUser and DVinvo. Neither have much any flaming at all. The first one is very open, and most people are quite helpful and friendly. A few real names, but mostly screen names and avatars. No one seems to care. The latter is very controlling, you must use your real name, and the forum is heavily moderated. Posts are frequently deleted at the first sign of anything, which drives a lot of people away, and keeps a lot of people around.

Which is better? Depends on what you prefer I guess.

cody_57 said:
1) if you're new and 2) if you disagree with a regular contributor, namecalling and insults will follow.

I don't think this is true. I think what happens is this. It's like being at a social gathering. Let's say 10 of us have been here for two hours, and we've been discussing John Doe's death. We've talked about how he died, about his children, about how his finances. We exchange a lot of info, hammer a lot of things out, argue some, and educate each other in the process. An hour after this, another person comes in and asks what we think of John Doe being murdered. Well, we tell them we've already been talking about it, gone over all the evidence and that it wasn't a murder. After hammering that out, we've got some disagreements, but are going along okay. Another hour goes by, and the same thing happens. We are weary, but we explain it, and move on. A few hours later, ten other people show up and proceed to let us know that John Doe was not only dead, but had to have been poisoned. And well, we get sick of repeating it, and react accordingly.

I bring this up because I have posted countless times on any number of topics, many of them controversial in cycling, in many threads. I've included many links, many cut and paste info, etc. So when someone comes in here and spits out a bunch of nonsense that's been refuted dozens of times, it's really grating and annoying. It gets even more annoying and I refuse to answer, so I get labeled a "hater".

Martin318is said:
I personally am very disappointed in this as it means that an opportunity for a good cycling forum has been pretty much wasted. Yes it is worth having a look now and then but really most threads don't last 2 pages before being ruined.

I have two comments on this. One ties into the other.

This place was actually quite civil and informative IMO for some time. I believe the forum got started in early March, and for the next several weeks things were good. There was soon too much talk on doping, but we were doing okay, and most of those discussions were civil.

I would now say that half of the membership on this forum joined in either June or July. And an awful lot of those people, not all, but many, came in and we ended up with the problem I listed above.

Amsterhammer said:
The abuse on this board starts with the haters; what abuse ever comes back from the other side is as nothing by comparison. 'Hate' should have no place on a forum...
Who is going to determine just exactly what "hate" is? You mention "sides" which sides are these? Do you really see it being a coin? One side or the other?
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Some comments.

First, I think Shawn's article has a lot of merit, but I have been on websites in the same field (video production that show otherwise. Just two by example, DVXUser and DVinvo. Neither have much any flaming at all. The first one is very open, and most people are quite helpful and friendly. A few real names, but mostly screen names and avatars. No one seems to care. The latter is very controlling, you must use your real name, and the forum is heavily moderated. Posts are frequently deleted at the first sign of anything, which drives a lot of people away, and keeps a lot of people around.

Which is better? Depends on what you prefer I guess.



I don't think this is true. I think what happens is this. It's like being at a social gathering. Let's say 10 of us have been here for two hours, and we've been discussing John Doe's death. We've talked about how he died, about his children, about how his finances. We exchange a lot of info, hammer a lot of things out, argue some, and educate each other in the process. An hour after this, another person comes in and asks what we think of John Doe being murdered. Well, we tell them we've already been talking about it, gone over all the evidence and that it wasn't a murder. After hammering that out, we've got some disagreements, but are going along okay. Another hour goes by, and the same thing happens. We are weary, but we explain it, and move on. A few hours later, ten other people show up and proceed to let us know that John Doe was not only dead, but had to have been poisoned. And well, we get sick of repeating it, and react accordingly.

I bring this up because I have posted countless times on any number of topics, many of them controversial in cycling, in many threads. I've included many links, many cut and paste info, etc. So when someone comes in here and spits out a bunch of nonsense that's been refuted dozens of times, it's really grating and annoying. It gets even more annoying and I refuse to answer, so I get labeled a "hater".



I have two comments on this. One ties into the other.

This place was actually quite civil and informative IMO for some time. I believe the forum got started in early March, and for the next several weeks things were good. There was soon too much talk on doping, but we were doing okay, and most of those discussions were civil.

I would now say that half of the membership on this forum joined in either June or July. And an awful lot of those people, not all, but many, came in and we ended up with the problem I listed above.


Who is going to determine just exactly what "hate" is? You mention "sides" which sides are these? Do you really see it being a coin? One side or the other?

Some very good points here. I would also not want censorship, just personal accountability. You can go back and cite me by name for anything I have posted in this and other forums. In the process of advancing a career or my books, this may come back to bite me, but I was given a plaque by Joe Bianculli (raced in northern Cali and then owned a bike shop in Oregon somewhere) and it states simply "Write Hard, Die Free" and I always assumed that no matter what I write, and whether anyone likes it or takes umbrage to it, my name needs to be on it or I might otherwise just let the Dear Leader of North Korea tell me what to write and think. That's just how seriously I take free speech. Others will want anonymity for personal security reasons, and that's fine, but I would always hope the moniker is just that and not seen as a license for irresponsible and destructive snark.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
The Twilight Zone

Are any of you familiar with the classic TV show "The Twilight Zone"?

There's one episode that will stick with me forever. . . It's called "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street". . . . and this forum is just another reminder of human behavior . . . even in the cyberworld.

Here's the description from Wikipedia:

Opening narration:
“ Maple Street, USA. Late Summer. A tree-lined little world of front porch gliders, barbecues, the laughter of children, and the bell of an ice cream vendor. At the sound of the roar and a flash of light, it will be precisely 6:43 PM on Maple Street. ”
“ This is Maple Street on a late Saturday afternoon. Maple Street, in the last calm and reflective moments...before the monsters came. ”


Synopsis:
The episode begins in late summer; the street is full of playing children and adults talking. A shadow passes overhead and a loud roar is heard, accompanied by a flash of light. Later, after it has gone dark, the residents of Maple Street find that their machines no longer work, and there is no power. They gather together in the street to discuss the matter. One of them, Pete Van Horn, volunteers to walk out of the neighborhood to discover the extent of the problem.

Another resident, Steve Brand, wants to go into town but Tommy, a boy from the neighborhood, tells him not to. Tommy had read in his comic/action hero books that an alien invasion is taking place, and that Steve will not be allowed to leave. Furthermore - as part of this invasion - the aliens have insidiously placed within the neighborhood a family that appears human. The power outage is meant to isolate and contain the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, another resident, Les Goodman, tries unsuccessfully to start his car. He gets out and begins to walk back towards the other residents when the car starts all by itself. The bizarre behavior of his car makes Les the object of immediate suspicion. One woman begins to discuss his late nights spent standing in the garden looking up at the sky. Les claims to be an insomniac. Later that night, Steve tries to defuse the situation and prevent it from becoming a witch-hunt. Charlie, one of the loudest and most aggressive residents, pressures Steve about his hobby building a radio that no one has ever seen. Suspicion falls on Steve when he sarcastically remarks that he talks to monsters from outer space on his radio.

The panic builds when a shadowy figure is seen walking towards them. Charlie, caught in the panic, grabs a shotgun and shoots the shadow, thinking it to be the alleged monster. When the crowd reaches the fallen figure, they realize that it is Pete Van Horn returning from his scouting mission.

Suddenly the lights in Charlie's house come on and he panics as the crowd begins accusing him of being both a murderer and the monster responsible for the power being out. He makes a run for his house while the other residents chase after him, throwing stones. Terrified, Charlie attempts to deflect suspicion onto Tommy, the boy who originally brought up the idea of alien infiltration. Lights begin flashing on and off in houses throughout the neighborhood; lawn mowers and cars start up for no apparent reason. The mob becomes hysterical, with terrified residents smashing windows, and taking up weapons, devolving into an all out riot.

The film cuts to a nearby hilltop, where it is revealed that the mysterious "meteor" that had flown overhead is an alien spaceship. Its inhabitants, two alien observers, are watching the riot on Maple Street while using a device to manipulate the neighborhood's power. They comment on how easy it was to create paranoia and panic, concluding that the easiest way to conquer the Earth is to let the people of the Earth destroy themselves, one "Maple Street" at a time.

Closing narration:
“The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices. To be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the frightened, thoughtless search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own: for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things can not be confined to the Twilight Zone.”

 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
I think that we've both agreed and disagreed on a number of things, Alpe. Though I would technically group you in with the 'hateboys' (as meaningless a catchphrase as 'fanboys'), you are certainly not one of those who immediately descends into name-calling and abuse. That's what I really can't stand and that's what annoys me so much. For the sake of simplicity I will continue to refer to 'your lot' and 'my lot', with no offense intended.

A successful forum has to balance between too much or too little moderation. On the whole, I am against censorship and for minimal moderation, except when it's desperately needed, as has been the case every day since I joined in June.

I take your point about the frustration for established posters of new posters coming on mainly for the Tour, a lot of whom do post rubbish. But, it really is disingenuous of you to claim that the standard reaction of your lot has been anything other than abuse, ridicule and vilification. That is not supposed to happen on moderated forums, but that is what I found here when i joined up, and it still goes on today. Your lot also make the arrogant and entirely false assumption that every new poster (on a reasonably new forum) is a 'three-week fanboy', and that all these 'fanboys' know nothing about cycling. This assumption is generally made on the basis of one or two posts.

Your lot also wrongly believe that you have a monopoly on the 'truth', that every single negative thing you all believe about LA is the gospel truth, and that anyone who questions your assumptions is an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about.

This might be a good time to remind your lot that your view of LA as intrinsically evil in all respects, etc. is the view of a very small minority amongst posters on certain internet forums. What this represents as a percentage of people in the world at large who follow cycling or are fans of the sport, is difficult to say. But I think it's pretty clear that the extreme hateboy views expressed by a few posters here represent a tiny minority view. That does not, of course, mean that the view is necessarily wrong or has no merit, it just means that it's a tiny minority view. What is wrong by any acceptable standards of behavior though, is the venomous way in which these tiny minority views are expressed, and the personal abuse showered on those who happen not to agree. This abuse goes far beyond anything acceptable as friendly ribbing or normal forum banter.

I am a reasonable, older guy. I didn't join up here for a fight. I couldn't believe what I saw, and the names I was called because I was immediately identified as a 'three-week fanboy, tea-bagger' etc. I do not have, and have never had, any difficulty carrying on discourse and debate with people who hold views different to my own. With the exception of a few complete idiots, most of the other fanboys appear to me to fall into that category too - reasonable people who are prepared to carry on reasonable debate - some of whom (and yes, I've been guilty too) eventually react in kind to the barrage of abuse and derision that's heaped on them by a few. You know this is true.

To conclude with the 'hate' thing. I don't imagine anyone would ever have used the term hateboy were it not for the overkill use of fanboy. Just as there are nuances of 'liking' amongst fanboys, there are nuances of 'hating' amongst the hateboys. Neither side should tar all those on the other side with the same brush. But we all tend to. However, you cannot deny that certain posters from your side really do spew unmitigated hatred at people simply because they disagree with their view. There isn't any unmitigated love on this board from the other side, so there is no balance. Negativity dominates.

Just look at the general comments after today's race. I made the point that virtually no one had bothered to express any praise or appreciation for the winner and Tony Martin - it was all moaning about what a poor Tour it's been, what a disappointment the Ventoux was, and so on. The comments were generally negative in tone, like so much on this board, and that bothers me. So many positive aspects might have been highlighted, but virtually no one from your side posted anything other than negative points. Which leads me to my final point (I'm sorry, I've already gone on far longer than I intended).

Again, the hate - which blinds your side so badly that no one dares to publicly acknowledge what any 'normal', average fan or viewer anywhere would - namely, that LA rode a good race today, and that given all the circumstances, finishing third in this Tour was an achievement worthy of some respect. You don't have to be a fanboy or LA lover to see and acknowledge that. You just have to be a reasonable and honest person. How many from your side have we seen do that? None that I can think of - all we've had is sour grapes.

I have no personal issue with you, Alpe, and this was in no way intended as a personal attack on you. Just explaining where I'm coming from. Again, I have no issue with differing opinions, but those who hold extremist anti-LA opinions have become used to being able to shout down other views, due to lack of moderation. That's got to change, or lots of good and interesting posters will disappear and many other good ones will never even join because they're so put off by the vehemence of some of the hate opinions. Anyone should be free to express a reasonable opinion without getting flamed for it.
 
LOL again. Amster continues with this ridiculous sham of portraying himself as a reasonable man fighting off the hateboys. If you want the situation to improve, a good idea would be to improve yourself. You can start by not classifying people into "my lot" and "your lot." Your continued insulting of everyone who you do not place in "my lot" is a big part of what is responsible for the strife in the forum.

You have deliberately fostered an us against them attitude that has set the tone of the forum. Before you showed up and began blasting all those on your personal enemies list, the forum was reasonably nice. There were issues with individuals like Jack and sometimes things got out of hand, but overall it was a better place than it is today.

A large number of your posts have been like this one you made today's stage thread:

"They can't, because their hatred is so pathologically deep and bitter - and yes, I fear it'll be even more than a month's worth of endless moaning and complaining about what they think 'would have' happened 'if only' this, that, or the other, had been different. It's an utterly pointless exercise, but it will provide the hateboys with an ongoing 'issue' with which to continue LA bashing ad nauseum."

Note that this is not a response to the content of another person's post, and it contains no debate of someone else's points about today's stage. It is a needless attack on those you place in "your lot." Your posting of this same type of crap over and over and over again has set the forum's atmosphere. There is an ignore feature. Maybe you should look into using it.

Here you are in this thread pretending to be an older and wiser gentleman who only responds occasionally on to others when he is unjustly provoked and it is the night of a blue moon, the planets have aligned, you saw a black swan, and your boss fired you. You are posting a deliberate pack of lies designed to make yourself look better. There is more than enough blame to go around. You putting up this facade of innocence makes it obvious that you are very far from the reasonable person you claim to be. If you were reasonable then you would be able to man up and admit your own role instead of minimizing the large part you have played.

Again you make a false claim of not wanting any censorship. Yet a goodly portion of your posts have been complaints about other people's posts--not the content of the posts but the fact that someone dared to express an opinion that you don't like.

Ironically, in the very post where you claim to be against censorship you start b!tching about people complaining about the quality of the stage they just watched in today's stage thread. Perhaps they should have PMed you before posting to make sure their opinions were suitable for being posted.

Sorry to clue you in on this about today's stage; but after three weeks of an excruciatingly boring Tour, there are people who wanted to discuss how disappointed they were in the stage. After waiting three weeks for the fireworks that were supposed to go off on Ventoux and make up for the previous two weeks, we got almost bupkis. Some members think that is something worthy of discussion. A lot of those posters are Americans who woke up early on a Saturday morning to watch. The aussies stayed up late. The stage did not pay off. Yet you act surprised that people might express their disappointment. If you did not want to read about peoples' disappointment then maybe you should have just skimmed over those posts. Posting your usual whinging about other people's posts certainly did not help fix the "negativity" you have spent weeks moaning about. If you don't like what someone is posting then simply skim over it and refrain from complaining about the right of others to express their thoughts.

All cycling boards have problems during July. The three week fans come in and disrupt the communities. Many are clueless. Some are outright trolls. Most do not take the time to figure out the rules, written or unwritten, that are being followed by the established community. Some just don't think they should have to abide by agreements that have been collectively reached by the group. For example, they make multiple posts on the same subject and tell anyone who mentions the agreed upon conventions to F off. After the July "fans" go away, things will improve some--well, maybe they will improve if you can stop from fomenting a war between "my lot" and "your lot."
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
Some comments.

First, I think Shawn's article has a lot of merit, but I have been on websites in the same field (video production that show otherwise. Just two by example, DVXUser and DVinvo. Neither have much any flaming at all. The first one is very open, and most people are quite helpful and friendly. A few real names, but mostly screen names and avatars. No one seems to care. The latter is very controlling, you must use your real name, and the forum is heavily moderated. Posts are frequently deleted at the first sign of anything, which drives a lot of people away, and keeps a lot of people around.

Which is better? Depends on what you prefer I guess.



I don't think this is true. I think what happens is this. It's like being at a social gathering. Let's say 10 of us have been here for two hours, and we've been discussing John Doe's death. We've talked about how he died, about his children, about how his finances. We exchange a lot of info, hammer a lot of things out, argue some, and educate each other in the process. An hour after this, another person comes in and asks what we think of John Doe being murdered. Well, we tell them we've already been talking about it, gone over all the evidence and that it wasn't a murder. After hammering that out, we've got some disagreements, but are going along okay. Another hour goes by, and the same thing happens. We are weary, but we explain it, and move on. A few hours later, ten other people show up and proceed to let us know that John Doe was not only dead, but had to have been poisoned. And well, we get sick of repeating it, and react accordingly.

I bring this up because I have posted countless times on any number of topics, many of them controversial in cycling, in many threads. I've included many links, many cut and paste info, etc. So when someone comes in here and spits out a bunch of nonsense that's been refuted dozens of times, it's really grating and annoying. It gets even more annoying and I refuse to answer, so I get labeled a "hater".



I have two comments on this. One ties into the other.

This place was actually quite civil and informative IMO for some time. I believe the forum got started in early March, and for the next several weeks things were good. There was soon too much talk on doping, but we were doing okay, and most of those discussions were civil.

I would now say that half of the membership on this forum joined in either June or July. And an awful lot of those people, not all, but many, came in and we ended up with the problem I listed above.


Who is going to determine just exactly what "hate" is? You mention "sides" which sides are these? Do you really see it being a coin? One side or the other?

What you call the problem could maybe be solved by simply not feeling like you have to respond every time a new poster comes on and asks the same question/makes the same statement, that you feel you have already responded to enough. If you think you've already solved it then just let it go and move on to another tread, or maybe go ride your bike.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
I agree with Alpe 100%.

Amsterhammer, I understand what you are saying but you are describing a select few posters and then painting us all with the same brush. Yes, they may be small in number but they are very vocal and prolific. I would say the vast majority of our posts do not involve insults, claims of superiority because of post counts, mention of "three week fans", or are poorly informed or debated.

Personally, I despise the "lover" and "hater" terminology. The vast majority of us have opinions on the likes of Armstrong which fall between such emotive extremes as love and hate, but these opinions are founded on facts and media reports. And we can discuss and present our side of the argument rationally. A hater or a lover is someone with blind devotion that cannot think critically, evaluate the available information, and resort to insults etc because they have no other basis to debate their side of the argument.

Shawn - I admire you for using your own name. I would be happy to use my own name because I have no problems standing by what I write in my posts, but I don't because of privacy issues such as personality theft and online fraud.
 
elapid said:
I agree with Alpe 100%.

Amsterhammer, I understand what you are saying but you are describing a select few posters and then painting us all with the same brush. Yes, they may be small in number but they are very vocal and prolific. I would say the vast majority of our posts do not involve insults, claims of superiority because of post counts, mention of "three week fans", or are poorly informed or debated.

Personally, I despise the "lover" and "hater" terminology. The vast majority of us have opinions on the likes of Armstrong but these opinions are founded on facts and media reports. And we can discuss and present our side of the argument rationally. A hater or a lover is someone with blind devotion that cannot think critically, evaluate the available information, and resort to insults etc because they have no other basis to debate their side of the argument.

Shawn - I admire you for using your own name. I would be happy to use my own name because I have no problems standing by what I write in my posts, but I don't because of privacy issues such as personality theft and online fraud.

I use my own name at my own peril. I have worked in information security for twenty five years and know the dangers more so than most people, but I also know how to fight back legally and effectively, so I use my real name. Your use of a secure moniker is a wise and judicious decision in this climate.
 
Amsterhammer said:
I think that we've both agreed and disagreed on a number of things, Alpe. Though I would technically group you in with the 'hateboys'...
I'm actually a little surprised, maybe upset is the word. I found your post condescending, even demeaning, and anything but an objective evaluation of everything I've posted on here over the last few months.

Nothing much more to say.

Hugh Januss said:
What you call the problem could maybe be solved by simply not feeling like you have to respond every time a new poster comes on and asks the same question/makes the same statement, that you feel you have already responded to enough...
In many ways I have done just that. I have never once posted in the "Lance Armstrong" thread, and rarely posted in any of the others on him, Contador, or the debates about Astana over the last few weeks or so.

Thank you Elapid, for saying what I couldn't.

I would use my own name, but it invites confusion. But I have stated my location, my vocation, my background in cycling and otherwise numerous times, and said if anyone wants to know me more directly, they can PM me.
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
LOL again. Amster continues with this ridiculous sham of portraying himself as a reasonable man fighting off the hateboys. If you want the situation to improve, a good idea would be to improve yourself. You can start by not classifying people into "my lot" and "your lot." Your continued insulting of everyone who you do not place in "my lot" is a big part of what is responsible for the strife in the forum.

You have deliberately fostered an us against them attitude that has set the tone of the forum. Before you showed up and began blasting all those on your personal enemies list, the forum was reasonably nice. There were issues with individuals like Jack and sometimes things got out of hand, but overall it was a better place than it is today.

A large number of your posts have been like this one you made today's stage thread:

"They can't, because their hatred is so pathologically deep and bitter - and yes, I fear it'll be even more than a month's worth of endless moaning and complaining about what they think 'would have' happened 'if only' this, that, or the other, had been different. It's an utterly pointless exercise, but it will provide the hateboys with an ongoing 'issue' with which to continue LA bashing ad nauseum."

Note that this is not a response to the content of another person's post, and it contains no debate of someone else's points about today's stage. It is a needless attack on those you place in "your lot." Your posting of this same type of crap over and over and over again has set the forum's atmosphere. There is an ignore feature. Maybe you should look into using it.

Here you are in this thread pretending to be an older and wiser gentleman who only responds occasionally on to others when he is unjustly provoked and it is the night of a blue moon, the planets have aligned, you saw a black swan, and your boss fired you. You are posting a deliberate pack of lies designed to make yourself look better. There is more than enough blame to go around. You putting up this facade of innocence makes it obvious that you are very far from the reasonable person you claim to be. If you were reasonable then you would be able to man up and admit your own role instead of minimizing the large part you have played.

Again you make a false claim of not wanting any censorship. Yet a goodly portion of your posts have been complaints about other people's posts--not the content of the posts but the fact that someone dared to express an opinion that you don't like.

Ironically, in the very post where you claim to be against censorship you start b!tching about people complaining about the quality of the stage they just watched in today's stage thread. Perhaps they should have PMed you before posting to make sure their opinions were suitable for being posted.

Sorry to clue you in on this about today's stage; but after three weeks of an excruciatingly boring Tour, there are people who wanted to discuss how disappointed they were in the stage. After waiting three weeks for the fireworks that were supposed to go off on Ventoux and make up for the previous two weeks, we got almost bupkis. Some members think that is something worthy of discussion. A lot of those posters are Americans who woke up early on a Saturday morning to watch. The aussies stayed up late. The stage did not pay off. Yet you act surprised that people might express their disappointment. If you did not want to read about peoples' disappointment then maybe you should have just skimmed over those posts. Posting your usual whinging about other people's posts certainly did not help fix the "negativity" you have spent weeks moaning about. If you don't like what someone is posting then simply skim over it and refrain from complaining about the right of others to express their thoughts.

All cycling boards have problems during July. The three week fans come in and disrupt the communities. Many are clueless. Some are outright trolls. Most do not take the time to figure out the rules, written or unwritten, that are being followed by the established community. Some just don't think they should have to abide by agreements that have been collectively reached by the group. For example, they make multiple posts on the same subject and tell anyone who mentions the agreed upon conventions to F off. After the July "fans" go away, things will improve some--well, maybe they will improve if you can stop from fomenting a war between "my lot" and "your lot."

LOl Bro you are a classic and this is a classically objective Brodeal post which you posted today. It is only your opinion and of course you are quite entitled to it. I have given some analysis of what I think of it on the forum in which it was posted, but really it stands alone for what it portrays about your mentality:

Originally Posted by BroDeal
"You don't understand. This was all part of Bruyneel's master plan. The tweets, the interviews, the badmouthing of each other (well, the bad mouthing of Contador by Armstrong and his posse; Contador stayed a gentleman), the hyping of Armstrong's conditioning that turned out to be a bunch of lies, it was all part of Bruyneel's super secret scheme to fool us all. The man is a genius. How can you fall for the simple and obvious view that it was all the work of a delusional old fossil who was not willing to accept his physical limitations and saw a chance to have his ego stroked as long as he could keep the charade going?"


How anyone can post garbage like this and have any credibility in a serious cycling discussion forum is beyond me...but hey thats just my viewpoint;)

I just wish that as a "delusional old fossil" myself that I could ride Frank Schleck off my wheel like a certain other "delusional old fossil" with no conditioning did today!
 
Bagster said:
LOl Bro you are a classic and this is a classically objective Brodeal post which you posted today. It is only your opinion and of course you are quite entitled to it. I have given some analysis of what I think of it on the forum in which it was posted, but really it stands alone for what it portrays about your mentality:

It is sarcasm. Look it up sometime. There is a big difference between that and the typical Amsterhammer post, which does not address the content of another member's post but attacks him or this new classification he now rails againts, the "hateboy community." Apparently anyone who has an opinion that Amster does not agree with is a member of this imaginary classification of his. Also I am certainly not claiming to be reasonable about Armstrong.

You are hardly one to talk. Are you sure you are not a sock puppet of Amster? :p
 

Bagster

BANNED
Jun 23, 2009
290
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
It is sarcasm. Look it up sometime. There is a big difference between that and the typical Amsterhammer post, which does not address the content of another member's post but attacks him or this new classification he now rails againts, the "hateboy community." Apparently anyone who has an opinion that Amster does not agree with is a member of this imaginary classification of his.

You are hardly one to talk. All you do is post trolls complaining about others. The way you whinge, you could very well be a sock puppet of Amster.

At least I try to be reasonably objective in my posts and I don't troll I just illuminate the ridiculousness of arguments of people like yourself:). Your last comment is the pot calling the kettle black, or maybe you are just the sock puppet of Thoughtforfood!
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm actually a little surprised, maybe upset is the word. I found your post condescending, even demeaning, and anything but an objective evaluation of everything I've posted on here over the last few months.

Nothing much more to say.

I did not set out to give an 'objective evaluation' of 'everything' that you have posted over months. How could I? That is simply not possible. I thought I made it clear that I was generalizing for the sake of simplicity by using the terms 'fanboys' and 'hateboys', neither of which I coined. I also used 'your lot' and 'my lot' for the sake of simplification. I also pointed out that both sides tend to wrongly tar all members of the opposing view with the same brush. It was never my intention to offend or demean you personally since you are indeed a rational and articulate member with an opposing view, but it would have been impossible to simply keep listing posters by user names, so I generalized for convenience . Please accept my apology. (Incidentally, an apology of any kind is something that I have never seen offered to anyone by any of the haters except TFF.)

I'm glad that someone else already pointed out the hypocritical insanity of Bro blaming me for the state of affairs. :D

The state of affairs about which I complain was going on here on a daily basis before I ever joined. Bro and his crew were abusing and intimidating (new) posters left and right. The only difference is that I decided to talk back and not simply accept (or ignore) the worst of the hateboy bullsh!t.

It's very simple, Bro. You are the initiator of many of the 'bad vibes' on this site. You constantly provoke and seek to intimidate, then just like a typical bully, you cry foul if anyone responds to your provocation by claiming it was only 'sarcasm' or 'irony'. Start behaving like a responsible adult forum user without resorting to personal abuse and maybe we can still salvage this forum.

I'd also like to point out how the whole tone of this topic has changed since you appeared. Trying to make me out to be the 'bad guy' around here is really too funny for further comment
 
Amsterhammer said:
It's very simple, Bro. You are the initiator of many of the 'bad vibes' on this site. You constantly provoke and seek to intimidate, then just like a typical bully, you cry foul if anyone responds to your provocation by claiming it was only 'sarcasm' or 'irony'. Start behaving like a responsible adult forum user without resorting to personal abuse and maybe we can still salvage this forum.

There you go again. You are just a poor innocent guy who never does anything wrong, except occasionally when provoked. :rolleyes: Your problem is that you confuse people's opinions, especially when they are about Armstrong, as a personal affront, as though the poster had insulted your mother. In you mind, posting anything negative about Armstrong is a personal insult to you. For a textbook case of this in action and the rseponse of you and your "fanboys" check out the "dirty laundry" thread in the pro cycling forum.

Let's review some of your posts today to the "dirty laundry" thread:

After Animal said that a post by a "my lot" poster calling TFF a turd was over line, you defended the "turd" post with this:

"Typical of you to scoff, possibly because of the rather unusual user name, but the point he's actually making is spot on. Yet again proving that the hateboy community just loves to dish it out, but can't take it if anything comes back."

That was followed immediately in the thread by this (apparently about me, who had never even mentioned you or any of "my lot" in the thread):

"He can't, his lenses are implanted. There is no point in attempting any rational discourse with him, all you get is derision and abuse if you dare to disagree with his warped view."

Note that no one insulted Amster in the thread. He just lashes out, insulting people who post opinions he does agree with, rather than addressing their actual posts. And here he has the gall to tell other people to start, and I quote, "behaving like a responsible adult forum user without resorting to personal abuse." Smells like hypocrisy to me.

Even as you make these ridiculous posts to this thread claiming that you sit on the high ground, you continue to post your abuse in other threads. You have zero credibility.
 

Daniel Benson

Administrator
Moderator
Mar 2, 2009
683
0
0
www.cyclingnews.com
Bonjour from le Tour,

There are some really good points here about self-moderation and abuse within forums. I've used this analogy before but I see a forum like a big bar or pub, in which everyone can come in and meet and chat with like-minded individuals. Sometimes the chat can become passionate, but what isn't accepted is any level of abuse towards another forumite, as well as hijacking threads. Suffice to say, if you wouldn't say it to someone's face then it doesn't deserve to be posted. Off course I'm assuming that the most forumites are sensible and considerate. There are boundaries of acceptability but I myself accept that these haven't been enforced strenuously enough since the first few weeks of the forum's creation.

Over the coming couple of weeks we'll be appointing some forumites as moderators - we already have a few people in mind - and we'll look to them to help us police any infractions that occur.

Until then please keep the chat amicable and if you have reason to drop the moderators a line please do and we'll act as swiftly as we can. In fact I'm about to go through a backlog now.

Cheers

Daniel
 
Daniel Benson said:
Bonjour from le Tour,

There are some really good points here about self-moderation and abuse within forums. I've used this analogy before but I see a forum like a big bar or pub, in which everyone can come in and meet and chat with like-minded individuals. Sometimes the chat can become passionate, but what isn't accepted is any level of abuse towards another forumite, as well as hijacking threads. Suffice to say, if you wouldn't say it to someone's face then it doesn't deserve to be posted. Off course I'm assuming that the most forumites are sensible and considerate. There are boundaries of acceptability but I myself accept that these haven't been enforced strenuously enough since the first few weeks of the forum's creation.

Over the coming couple of weeks we'll be appointing some forumites as moderators - we already have a few people in mind - and we'll look to them to help us police any infractions that occur.

Until then please keep the chat amicable and if you have reason to drop the moderators a line please do and we'll act as swiftly as we can. In fact I'm about to go through a backlog now.

Cheers

Daniel

Maybe we could designate a special Cage Fight thread so that whenever folks begin to get heated and insulting they have to take it over there. At that point they can just have at it and others can either join in, tune in to watch for entertainment (kind of like how you have to look when driving past a bad accident) or ignore it altogether.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I guess all I can say in reply to Amster's comments is that while he sees two sides, I see, or at least try to - and I think our posting styles reflect this - more of a tetrahedron. Or just no sides at all.

I'm out.

how about a warm fuzzy happy safe circle of life;):D:):cool:

officially safe again, for the time being
 
Jun 29, 2009
117
2
0
Visit site
Seriously? That's your example to indict Bro? There's nothing wrong with that quote. LOL! :p
Bagster said:
LOl Bro you are a classic and this is a classically objective Brodeal post which you posted today. It is only your opinion and of course you are quite entitled to it. I have given some analysis of what I think of it on the forum in which it was posted, but really it stands alone for what it portrays about your mentality:

Originally Posted by BroDeal
"You don't understand. This was all part of Bruyneel's master plan. The tweets, the interviews, the badmouthing of each other (well, the bad mouthing of Contador by Armstrong and his posse; Contador stayed a gentleman), the hyping of Armstrong's conditioning that turned out to be a bunch of lies, it was all part of Bruyneel's super secret scheme to fool us all. The man is a genius. How can you fall for the simple and obvious view that it was all the work of a delusional old fossil who was not willing to accept his physical limitations and saw a chance to have his ego stroked as long as he could keep the charade going?"

How anyone can post garbage like this and have any credibility in a serious cycling discussion forum is beyond me...but hey thats just my viewpoint;)

I just wish that as a "delusional old fossil" myself that I could ride Frank Schleck off my wheel like a certain other "delusional old fossil" with no conditioning did today!
 
Jun 29, 2009
117
2
0
Visit site
Well, it will be interesting to see which posters you selected as moderators. To be frank, moderation often kills forums than no moderation at all as the perspective of appointed moderator trumps all other perspectives. As a result, threads close, posters banished, and the forum becomes one huge clique. The entire premise of a forum is to exchange ideas. Moderation always stifles open discourse. As previous posters have suggested, as long as thread don't threaten physical violence, readers ought to develop thick skins.
Daniel Benson said:
Bonjour from le Tour,

There are some really good points here about self-moderation and abuse within forums. I've used this analogy before but I see a forum like a big bar or pub, in which everyone can come in and meet and chat with like-minded individuals. Sometimes the chat can become passionate, but what isn't accepted is any level of abuse towards another forumite, as well as hijacking threads. Suffice to say, if you wouldn't say it to someone's face then it doesn't deserve to be posted. Off course I'm assuming that the most forumites are sensible and considerate. There are boundaries of acceptability but I myself accept that these haven't been enforced strenuously enough since the first few weeks of the forum's creation.

Over the coming couple of weeks we'll be appointing some forumites as moderators - we already have a few people in mind - and we'll look to them to help us police any infractions that occur.

Until then please keep the chat amicable and if you have reason to drop the moderators a line please do and we'll act as swiftly as we can. In fact I'm about to go through a backlog now.

Cheers

Daniel