JV reaches out to anonymous critic.

[NashbarShorts]

The people at USPS did a great interview about this some years ago. They considered the entire undertaking a success. Doping had no impact..

Umm from '99-'05 there was 7 jerseys but no 'doping' other than whisper and innuendo.

I think the RS top brass might beg to differ your stated premise!

 

[BotanyBay]

Umm from '99-'05 there was 7 jerseys but no 'doping' other than whisper and innuendo.

I think the RS top brass might beg to differ your stated premise!

I meant that doping did not impact the USPS decision to end the relationship. They hit their goal and moved to tackle other goals.

 

[buckwheat]

I'd like to make a motion that we end this thread. If JV ever responds to BW, I'm sure we'll all hear about it.

Yeah, I second that. Pages and pages of squabbling about a private message is not really in the spirit of a public message board about doping. If there was a point to be made about whether or not JV's non-continuance of a personal correspondence with a random internet person was the straw that broke our backs in the opinion as to whether he's part of the omerta, then it's been made long, long before the last 100 posts talking about when the was the last time he logged on.

You ask for the thread to be closed and then jump right back in.

One way you could kill this thread is to stop posting in it.

Scott, I was getting hit from all sides about the nothingness, asked a mod for the thread to be closed, and didn't get a reply.

It's been a circular agrument for some time now... surely we can all agree on that?

Oh ok.


I have no power on this.

If it stays open......

You'll be blamed then!

You asked at a moment when I wasn't really online, afterwards which you continued debating in this topic. So that it is still open is largely due to yourself, also debate still continues and does not really violate any guidelines or anything, so there is no real reason to close this thread

Um, no....

anyone that posts in this thread after THIS post can be blamed for keeping the thread open.

As Barrus said, discussion continues and doesn't breach forum rules, so if you want it to die out then stop posting in it, period.

Rule 11

baiting....

 

[Martin318is]

Rule 11

baiting....

There was no baiting in evidence anywhere in that group of quotes.

As has been stated earlier, the thread is not going to be locked because it is a valid ongoing conversation. If you don't want the conversation to continue then you need to stop posting in the thread and bringing it back to the top of the first page.

 

[skidmark]

Rule 11

baiting....

Whoa, seriously?

Buckwheat, I'm sorry if you feel people were targeting you alone. I've enjoyed your candour in these topics, and the quote you put of mine was just summarizing what I thought was a phenomenon of more than one person in this thread (Maserati, etc were mixing it up with you and others). And yet you put that in a list of quotes that you imply broke forum rules by particularly baiting you?

That's not the intent of the post of mine you quoted, for sure. Furthermore, I feel it's way more of a case of 'baiting' if you take someone's direct quote and (erroneously) insinuate they're breaking forum rules, than if you make a general post saying 'hey, things are getting crazy in here', which is essentially what I did. I'm pretty peeved to see your post, which is the only reason I really care enough to respond.

More on topic, I feel like what this thread has become is essentially damning proof as to why I would never want to interact with anyone here if I were involved with pro cycling, especially in as high a level as Jonathan Vaughters. To 'reach out to an anonymous critic', as this post's title suggests, and be repaid with impatience, angry judgement, and a constant display of aggressive attitude just because he has other things to do than log into his account here, would be so not worth my time if I were him.

Okay, I've had my say, so I'm out on this topic.

 

[buckwheat]

Jumping to conclusions, assuming

There was no baiting in evidence anywhere in that group of quotes..

Where did I say there was any evidence of baiting in that group of quotes?

As has been stated earlier, the thread is not going to be locked because it is a valid ongoing conversation. If you don't want the conversation to continue then you need to stop posting in the thread and bringing it back to the top of the first page.

I believe it's not going to be locked because that's not the way a lot of you people who have the power to lock it, operate. Plain and simple.

Had I not suggested it be locked, in addition to the others, it may have been locked. Spite.

Whoa, seriously?

Buckwheat, I'm sorry if you feel people were targeting you alone. I've enjoyed your candour in these topics, and the quote you put of mine was just summarizing what I thought was a phenomenon of more than one person in this thread (Maserati, etc were mixing it up with you and others). And yet you put that in a list of quotes that you imply broke forum rules by particularly baiting you?

That's not the intent of the post of mine you quoted, for sure. Furthermore, I feel it's way more of a case of 'baiting' if you take someone's direct quote and (erroneously) insinuate they're breaking forum rules, than if you make a general post saying 'hey, things are getting crazy in here', which is essentially what I did. I'm pretty peeved to see your post, which is the only reason I really care enough to respond.

More on topic, I feel like what this thread has become is essentially damning proof as to why I would never want to interact with anyone here if I were involved with pro cycling, especially in as high a level as Jonathan Vaughters. To 'reach out to an anonymous critic', as this post's title suggests, and be repaid with impatience, angry judgement, and a constant display of aggressive attitude just because he has other things to do than log into his account here, would be so not worth my time if I were him.

Okay, I've had my say, so I'm out on this topic.

Don't be defensive.

I agreed with you that it should be closed. I don't believe that I alone was targeted.

You're making assumptions.

You should have stopped there though.

The point was that many think it should be closed because of o/t baiting.

I joined them. Therefore the powers that be will cut off their noses to spite their faces....

CN has continually been PM ing me about violations, suspensions, relaxing etc....

I've answered back and evidently rattled some cages.

Whatever.....

 

[Barrus]

Since you appear to want to make it public, here is the major reason why you get infractions and threats of suspensions:
You keep bringing up politics in threads that have nothing to do with politics. It is annoying, it clogs up threads, it leads to off-topic debates and it leads often times to heated and sometimes vicious debate. This is not a politics forum, go to one of those if you want to keep bringing that up.
Well, that and your aggressive style of posting.

And had you suggested it and stayed out of the topic, perhaps the thread would have died a natural death, such as most topics do. It was mainly you who kept the thread alive.

Anyway, I would not be surprised that JV, even if he came online and saw these and other threads about him, would not answer at all and would not get on this forum in a recognizable form again. Frankly, I would've done that

 

[Runitout]

This entire thread has disappeared up its own fundament. Its sole premise is navel gazing; it has added several more layers of the same since.

That's fine, it's what Internet fora are for- just don't get upset when others don't want to play.

I don't think anything I've read on this forum in the last six months has added to my knowledge about whether or not JV is running or wants to run a clean team. As a cycling fan, and as a cyclist, I'd really like to have a team I could look at and know, Koechli-style, 'they're clean'. Garmin is as close as I can see in the current climate, but i've seen too much in the last fifteen years to be easily convinced.

But I won't be churlish enough to expect people to do my bidding or prove themselves to me. Life doesn't give pat answers. Why should cycling?

 

[Anonymous]

This entire thread has disappeared up its own fundament. Its sole premise is navel gazing; it has added several more layers of the same since.

That's fine, it's what Internet fora are for- just don't get upset when others don't want to play.

I don't think anything I've read on this forum in the last six months has added to my knowledge about whether or not JV is running or wants to run a clean team. As a cycling fan, and as a cyclist, I'd really like to have a team I could look at and know, Koechli-style, 'they're clean'. Garmin is as close as I can see in the current climate, but i've seen too much in the last fifteen years to be easily convinced.

But I won't be churlish enough to expect people to do my bidding or prove themselves to me. Life doesn't give pat answers. Why should cycling?

Bingo. Brilliant post, and a great ending point.

 

[buckwheat]

Since you appear to want to make it public, here is the major reason why you get infractions and threats of suspensions:
You keep bringing up politics in threads that have nothing to do with politics.

Everytime there are relations between two or more people, politics become involved. I'm sorry you can't see that.

It is annoying, it clogs up threads, it leads to off-topic debates and it leads often times to heated and sometimes vicious debate..

Ok, there are no politics involved.

Why won't JV answer direct questions in a straitforward manner?

Take a guess what the answer is.

This is not a politics forum, go to one of those if you want to keep bringing that up.

Tell me, who is the major figure in the current doping scandals? How has he so far evaded prosecution for his trespasses?

Why do we see him cozying up to just about every major political figure in the world?

Tell me about the relations between the governing and policing bodies of cycling.

Well, that and your aggressive style of posting..

I'll quote Pulp Fiction again.

"If you don't like frightening answers, you should cease asking scary questions."

Aggressive? Maybe you should pop your head out into the real world and see the employment and housing situations of people who've been gone after aggressively and viciously. Here it's just sticks and stones and it really hasn't even gone that far.

And had you suggested it and stayed out of the topic, perhaps the thread would have died a natural death, such as most topics do. It was mainly you who kept the thread alive.

It was mainly me who was being judged as to be the subject of litigation, dishonesty, and nefarious motives. I'm going to defend myself from that. You'd have people bait me and then I sit quietly.

Anyway, I would not be surprised that JV, even if he came online and saw these and other threads about him, would not answer at all and would not get on this forum in a recognizable form again. Frankly, I would've done that

I think many of us have made up our minds about where JV stands on clinic related issues. At the very least, he's a master of the political aspect of it.

Even though Armstrong is a crook, I have a lot more respect for his direct approach to things.

To have the truth and be afraid to wield it is a sad commentary....

Now, if someone wants to keep this going, have at it....

 

[buckwheat]

This entire thread has disappeared up its own fundament. Its sole premise is navel gazing; it has added several more layers of the same since.

That's fine, it's what Internet fora are for- just don't get upset when others don't want to play.

I don't think anything I've read on this forum in the last six months has added to my knowledge about whether or not JV is running or wants to run a clean team. As a cycling fan, and as a cyclist, I'd really like to have a team I could look at and know, Koechli-style, 'they're clean'. Garmin is as close as I can see in the current climate, but i've seen too much in the last fifteen years to be easily convinced.

But I won't be churlish enough to expect people to do my bidding or prove themselves to me. Life doesn't give pat answers. Why should cycling?

And a member of these forums, JV1973 is the sole person who can answer that.

CyclingNews forums to JV, Hello??????

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

CyclingNews forums to JV, Hello??????

No. Buckwheat to JV. You speak only for yourself, not for the Forums.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Everytime there are relations between two or more people, politics become involved. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Ok, there are no politics involved.

Why won't JV answer direct questions in a straitforward manner?

Take a guess what the answer is.

Tell me, who is the major figure in the current doping scandals? How has he so far evaded prosecution for his trespasses?

Why do we see him cozying up to just about every major political figure in the world?

Tell me about the relations between the governing and policing bodies of cycling.



I'll quote Pulp Fiction again.

"If you don't like frightening answers, you should cease asking scary questions."

Aggressive? Maybe you should pop your head out into the real world and see the employment and housing situations of people who've been gone after aggressively and viciously. Here it's just sticks and stones and it really hasn't even gone that far.

It was mainly me who was being judged as to be the subject of litigation, dishonesty, and nefarious motives. I'm going to defend myself from that. You'd have people bait me and then I sit quietly.

I think many of us have made up our minds about where JV stands on clinic related issues. At the very least, he's a master of the political aspect of it.

Even though Armstrong is a crook, I have a lot more respect for his direct approach to things.

To have the truth and be afraid to wield it is a sad commentary....

Now, if someone wants to keep this going, have at it....

When people bait you, ignore them. Why give them what they want?

Also, stop arguing with the mods. Those are the rules of this forum, and you must abide by them just like everyone else.

This is an official warning. Next violation will bring a suspension.

Susan

 

[Anonymous]

just shut this thread someone before it perambulates any further into the stinking hole its dug for itself.

 

[Darryl Webster]

When people bait you, ignore them. Why give them what they want?

Also, stop arguing with the mods. Those are the rules of this forum, and you must abide by them just like everyone else.

This is an official warning. Next violation will bring a suspension.

Susan

So its not a democracy then?...thats somat cleared up.
Arguing is debate..its rowing your confusing it with.
While I think this forum has some excellent , informed posters and is a rich source of info of the 3 forums I post on regulerly its by far the most heavily censored.
Any specific reason why?.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Who on earth ever said this forum is a democracy?

Susan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

just shut this thread someone before it perambulates any further into the stinking hole its dug for itself.

So Buckwheat want JV to reach out for him - but also wants the thread closed?! Is it so that JV cannot respond and BW can claim that JV is a bad bad man for not contacting him (as the page will quickly fall off the first page?).


I am always against closing or locking threads. It means that if a thread is not to someones liking then they can use this template to get it colsed down.
I understand its tricky for the mods - so locking it with an explanation as offending posts are removed is perhaps a way around that.

 

[buckwheat]

When people bait you, ignore them.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9547

11. Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

Why give them what they want? Also, stop arguing with the mods. Those are the rules of this forum, and you must abide by them just like everyone else.

But you wrote:

When people bait you, ignore them.

Which means, when people bait me, ie. break the rules, I'm to ignore them?

What happened to not tolerating baiting?

Then you say this:

This is an official warning. Next violation will bring a suspension..

Aye aye.......

Susan

10/4, copy that......

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The existence of this entire thread is bait now. Precisely why it should be closed. Now people are getting suspended and banned over issues of free speech. Let's end this and talk about bike racing, ok?

So, to maintain 'free speech' the thread should be closed???

I don't like that BW got banned - but first he accused others of baiting, then withdrew it - but brought it back up again, to bait others (including mods).
Then ignored a warning.


In post 436 BW wrote:

Rule 11
baiting....

And then in their next post says:

Where did I say there was any evidence of baiting in that group of quotes?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Back on to the topic of JV. Now.

If you want to discuss the mod's decision or moderating in general, go to the appropriate sub-forum.

Anyone posting further off-topic comments in this thread will be given a suspension. Final warning.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Stop it now or be suspended.

Susan

 

[Elagabalus]

Could you kindly direct me to the appropriate sub thread? Is that the one that's locked? Help me out here.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

You can open a thread in the About the Forum sub-forum. http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

All forum users of course have the right to be in contact with the mods. However when you want to challenge their decisions, and have been told not to do it publicly, please do so via PM.

Discussion is always possible, but it must not always be public.

Susan

 

[BotanyBay]

Ironically, JV has recently logged-in (responding to a PM I sent him), and now Buckwheat can't receive PM's if JV were to attempt it (being that he's suspended).