Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[the sceptic]

You do make me laugh ....

thanks martin.

 

[42x16ss]

Hey hey hey guys guys guys. If we could not nearly break this website everytime Froome and Contador ride somewhere at the same time that would be awesome. I was just beginning to think this place was pretty cool, but I've never been around for the mud flinging contests...

This is nothing - wait until July!!!

The Skyborg vs Realists debate is only just starting

 

[ebandit]

bait

appreciate the banning of ventoux boar. good job mods.

various members ( including your good self ) jump in baiting ventoux and

the ban is good?

Mark L

 

[nhowson]

This is nothing - wait until July!!!

The Skyborg vs Realists debate is only just starting

I won't care in July because it's 1000x more relevant. And it's actually not the clinic that annoys me, the "normal" road section just goes nuts to the detriment of conversation about the classics that are actually just around the corner.

 

[42x16ss]

I won't care in July because it's 1000x more relevant. And it's actually not the clinic that annoys me, the "normal" road section just goes nuts to the detriment of conversation about the classics that are actually just around the corner.

That is true, the classics talk doesn't usually start until Het Nieuwsblad. The thing is with San Luis/Andalucia/Oman starting before the classics, it makes sense that the stage racers get a bit more attention no?

 

[the sceptic]

various members ( including your good self ) jump in baiting ventoux and

the ban is good?

Mark L

No one baited him. He trolled and got what he deserved.

No great loss to the forum, as he never contributed anything worthwile anyway.

 

[Netserk]

Why is thehog banned?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Dunno. At a quick glance, I only count 21.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1609419&postcount=423

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1592051&postcount=418

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1568621&postcount=412

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1557208&postcount=408

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1542681&postcount=397

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1531632&postcount=394

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1430872&postcount=377

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1418664&postcount=369

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1393889&postcount=361

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1386433&postcount=357

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1359812&postcount=344

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1331241&postcount=333

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1323063&postcount=328

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1297077&postcount=316

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1125350&postcount=277

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1103046&postcount=269

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=859311&postcount=173

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=733318&postcount=137

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=536433&postcount=82

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=490900&postcount=66

The earliest one is perhaps my favorite.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=389624&postcount=15

To be fair though, it would appear that Ryo is running a close 2nd place.

Did I miss one in between or is it "just" No 22 now?
Holy cow, 6 months... he will miss the clinic TdF meltdown.

 

[TheSpud]

Did I miss one in between or is it "just" No 22 now?
Holy cow, 6 months... he will miss the clinic TdF meltdown.

6 months - ouch

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

6 months - ouch

I guess a personal best. Just hope he did it clean...

 

[the sceptic]

I wonder who whined to Benson about getting him banned. My money is on chewbecca or one of the other crybabies in the Lance thread

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I would say it wasnt about whining from some one. I mean 6 months, 6 months baby... There must have been something serious happened.

 

[Merckx index]

I would say it wasnt about whining from some one. I mean 6 months, 6 months baby... There must have been something serious happened.

I?m afraid I started this?or you could blame RR from the grave, so to speak.

I quoted something from RR?s blog that seemed to contradict hog?s long-promoted view that LA might have actually made more money investing the SCA payout than he would lose when forced to pay it back. RR, who no longer posts here apparently, and hog had argued over this in the past, and both were banned as a result of this. The result this time, though, was some very interesting discussion, particularly I thought some posts from DQd.

Unless there was something else going on in some other thread that I missed, hog?s part in this discussion is what got him banned. Very unfair, IMHO. In the first place, as just noted, hog didn?t revive this old discussion, I did, he simply responded to my quote of RR. Nothing against the rules in that. Nor were there any insults thrown around that I'm aware of.

I think hog was considered to be trolling because he repeated the same points he had made before, which had been proven factually incorrect. Except that he made what I thought were some new points, and unless I?m really dumb and out of it, no one proved convincingly that he was wrong. I think he probably is wrong, and DQ pointed out that hog made some mis-interpretations or over-generalizations about taxes, but nothing I saw that was absolutely fatal to his entire argument. But beyond who was right and who was wrong, it was a very interesting discussion, it wasn?t interfering with anything else that urgently needed to be discussed in that thread, and I would wager that the mod who banned him, if forced to explain exactly why hog?s posts were factually incorrect, would not be able to do so.

What really bothers me about this (assuming this is why hog was banned) is that in other parts of the forum, people are allowed to post views that are far more obviously incorrect than anything hog has ever posted. E.g., in the religion thread, there are posters who believe the Bible is literally true, that dinosaurs never existed, that carbon dating is false, and that gays are deviant individuals who can be refused service in public businesses on the grounds of religious views.

If views like these are tolerated on the basis of freedom of speech, why is such tolerance not extended to hog? Is it because he keeps raising the same issue again and again? But to repeat, he didn't start it this time. And if the literalists on the religion thread don't repeat their views as often as hog does, it's probably only because most people don't find these views even worth responding to.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well, the chef himself banned Hog. So I guess there was more than the discussion in the LA thread (which I find by your description not against rules. TBH, I didnt read the LA thread at all since a couple of months). Maybe something happened with PMs to mods...

 

[MarkvW]

Hoggie was always taking the piss, but for the past several months he/she was always polite.

Dr. Maserati has been chased out. Now theHog. Really sucks. People can't take a joke.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Hoggie was always taking the piss, but for the past several months he/she was always polite.

Dr. Maserati has been chased out. Now theHog. Really sucks. People can't take a joke.

There was no joke... That's the issue. Hog was banned because his trolling was crap. Had it been even mildly entertaining he'd still be here. It really is that simple.

 

[Scott SoCal]

I wonder who whined to Benson about getting him banned. My money is on chewbecca or one of the other crybabies in the Lance thread

Huh. Trolling the suspension thread. Novel. Risky - but novel.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I wonder who whined to Benson about getting him banned. My money is on chewbecca or one of the other crybabies in the Lance thread

How about you go **** yourself. I was a little too busy, but I will say that I feel all warm and fuzzy that it happened.

As for you, well, I'll just consider the source and go clean things from under my toenails.

EDIT: Learn to spell my name correctly, and when you write it, give a salute to my superiority, because people like you should always recognize their place in life.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The hog got what he deserved. His posts were a useless pile of dung scrapings, devoid of any truly legitimate point. It was a long time coming.

 

[Hugh Januss]

How about you go **** yourself. I was a little too busy, but I will say that I feel all warm and fuzzy that it happened.

As for you, well, I'll just consider the source and go clean things from under my toenails.

Hoggie is a ****** who posts contradictory (sometimes to his previous one) posts but I don't like that he was banned for 6 months. This forum needs less of that and more figuring out why ? keep showing up in the middle of posts.
Good luck with the toenails.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I wonder who whined to Benson about getting him banned. My money is on chewbecca or one of the other crybabies in the Lance thread

Dunno but someone had to have done some reporting or crying.

Somehow I doubt it was chewie. He does not strike me as the type to report. If you take the time to read his posts.

Don't look now but Scott is calling you a troll.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I?m afraid I started this?or you could blame RR from the grave, so to speak.

I quoted something from RR?s blog that seemed to contradict hog?s long-promoted view that LA might have actually made more money investing the SCA payout than he would lose when forced to pay it back. RR, who no longer posts here apparently, and hog had argued over this in the past, and both were banned as a result of this. The result this time, though, was some very interesting discussion, particularly I thought some posts from DQd.

Unless there was something else going on in some other thread that I missed, hog?s part in this discussion is what got him banned. Very unfair, IMHO. In the first place, as just noted, hog didn?t revive this old discussion, I did, he simply responded to my quote of RR. Nothing against the rules in that. Nor were there any insults thrown around that I'm aware of.

I think hog was considered to be trolling because he repeated the same points he had made before, which had been proven factually incorrect. Except that he made what I thought were some new points, and unless I?m really dumb and out of it, no one proved convincingly that he was wrong. I think he probably is wrong, and DQ pointed out that hog made some mis-interpretations or over-generalizations about taxes, but nothing I saw that was absolutely fatal to his entire argument. But beyond who was right and who was wrong, it was a very interesting discussion, it wasn?t interfering with anything else that urgently needed to be discussed in that thread, and I would wager that the mod who banned him, if forced to explain exactly why hog?s posts were factually incorrect, would not be able to do so.

What really bothers me about this (assuming this is why hog was banned) is that in other parts of the forum, people are allowed to post views that are far more obviously incorrect than anything hog has ever posted. E.g., in the religion thread, there are posters who believe the Bible is literally true, that dinosaurs never existed, that carbon dating is false, and that gays are deviant individuals who can be refused service in public businesses on the grounds of religious views.

If views like these are tolerated on the basis of freedom of speech, why is such tolerance not extended to hog? Is it because he keeps raising the same issue again and again? But to repeat, he didn't start it this time. And if the literalists on the religion thread don't repeat their views as often as hog does, it's probably only because most people don't find these views even worth responding to.

Great post. I get the impression someone reported daHog. I don't think it was anything other than that.

Scott came in here and trolled this place with is accusations of trollcraft by others. This type of stuff happens all the time. I don't think there is any reason to ban for that but others mileage may vary.

 

[ebandit]

thinking

Great post. I get the impression someone reported daHog. I don't think it was anything other than that.

me thinks that many reported hoggy posts................hoggy themself would be proud of mods doing the job that was required

i saw more than one mod request in threads for hoggy to stop trolling.......
how many other members get such a warning?.........................

for most the 1st thing that is seen is the ban hammer

Mark L

 

[Scott SoCal]

Great post. I get the impression someone reported daHog. I don't think it was anything other than that.

Scott came in here and trolled this place with is accusations of trollcraft by others. This type of stuff happens all the time. I don't think there is any reason to ban for that but others mileage may vary.

Sceptic whines about hogban then (speculatively) calls out Chewie. I'm sure that was innocent and he was just, ya know, thinking out loud.

But I was trolling... Okay.

 

[D-Queued]

I?m afraid I started this?or you could blame RR from the grave, so to speak.

I quoted something from RR?s blog that seemed to contradict hog?s long-promoted view that LA might have actually made more money investing the SCA payout than he would lose when forced to pay it back. RR, who no longer posts here apparently, and hog had argued over this in the past, and both were banned as a result of this. The result this time, though, was some very interesting discussion, particularly I thought some posts from DQd.

Unless there was something else going on in some other thread that I missed, hog?s part in this discussion is what got him banned. Very unfair, IMHO. In the first place, as just noted, hog didn?t revive this old discussion, I did, he simply responded to my quote of RR. Nothing against the rules in that. Nor were there any insults thrown around that I'm aware of.

I think hog was considered to be trolling because he repeated the same points he had made before, which had been proven factually incorrect. Except that he made what I thought were some new points, and unless I?m really dumb and out of it, no one proved convincingly that he was wrong. I think he probably is wrong, and DQ pointed out that hog made some mis-interpretations or over-generalizations about taxes, but nothing I saw that was absolutely fatal to his entire argument. But beyond who was right and who was wrong, it was a very interesting discussion, it wasn?t interfering with anything else that urgently needed to be discussed in that thread, and I would wager that the mod who banned him, if forced to explain exactly why hog?s posts were factually incorrect, would not be able to do so.

What really bothers me about this (assuming this is why hog was banned) is that in other parts of the forum, people are allowed to post views that are far more obviously incorrect than anything hog has ever posted. E.g., in the religion thread, there are posters who believe the Bible is literally true, that dinosaurs never existed, that carbon dating is false, and that gays are deviant individuals who can be refused service in public businesses on the grounds of religious views.

If views like these are tolerated on the basis of freedom of speech, why is such tolerance not extended to hog? Is it because he keeps raising the same issue again and again? But to repeat, he didn't start it this time. And if the literalists on the religion thread don't repeat their views as often as hog does, it's probably only because most people don't find these views even worth responding to.

I finally put thehog on ignore, so missed the news that he was MIA.

However, to your points above, first of all thank you. Collectively we seem much better at tearing each other to shreds.

Though the conclusion is clearly in the eye of the reader, and your interpretation is thus stronger than my arguments, I had thought that I had actually carefully and completely debunked just about every possible argument one could use to reasonably support or substantiate thehog's argument about a "pot of gold".

However, even though I tried to be as civilized and even as I could, when presented with fact after fact that showed his IRS statements were completely incorrect, and calculation after calculation that underscored 1+1=2, thehog refused to acknowledge any of it.

The last post of his I read before putting him on ignore, he repeated the irrational argument that taking the $5m knowing you had to repay $10 was a smart, low risk move.

The reality, as demonstrated, is that you would need the certainty of close to an average 20% return, or better, to justify that decision. Please allow me to re-emphasize 'certainty' and an 'average return' as opposed to occasional or rare spikes. Not even factoring in for risk, you would need to be certain that your return over a long period of time would be at or above 20%.

Frankly, that is and was crazy. And, obviously so.

Even junk bond rates haven't come close to approaching the levels that would be required to justify that decision. While junk bond yields actually did exceed 20% during this timeframe, it was only for a few days, twice, between November 2008 and March 2009. Otherwise, they have been more typically at or below 7.5% and are currently under 6%. More importantly, at the time of the Feb 2006 settlement with SCA, junk bond yields were under 8%. Who in their right mind would have expected a guaranteed greater than 20% return over nine years?

Reference: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2EY

But, we don't need much in the way of actual data or proofs on this subject.

thehog was blowing smoke, unrelentingly. He was doing so purposefully. He was putting forward a flawed argument that could justify Lance's lying. That sure seems like baiting.

It was a complete waste of forum bandwidth and an ongoing insult to everyone trying to participate.

When one forwards an obviously fallacious argument, over and over, without taking heed of information and comments from fellow posters, well isn't that trolling personified?

Dave.