Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

Page 98 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D-Queued said:
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?
I think that describes thehog's behavior on several threads over the last few months and years.

He seemed to have moved into taking whatever position would cause an argument. Pure trolling.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
i dont know if banning thehog for this long is fair...

what i do know is that since very early in the board existence, after reading his numerous posts and attempting to figure if i learned anything or if he was contributing a genuine content, i quickly established he was not, and i simply kept automatically skipping his posts when reviewing any threads he posted in. (i dont put anyone on the ignore list b/c i can easily ignore from experience).

i've arrived at that conclusion b/c he seemed to post whatever it took to attain him the board status, relevance, attention.

thus i think he's become an ultimate attention wHore. not much different from the motivation of many folks who post regularly. the difference was in scale and volume.

did it amount to trolling ? i can't say b/c i stopped reading his crap years ago.

those who had spoken here so forcefully against his posting probably didn't....
 
D-Queued said:
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.
+1

No more to say on this ...
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
unfair

python said:
i dont know if banning thehog for this long is fair...
............completely unfair.............if i had posted half the crap that hoggy did

/ back tracked on numerous promises to mods............i woulda been

perma banned...............

Mark L
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
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.
It was patently obvious the last time he threatened to report me due to my "repeated trolling", when in fact I've had two minor infractions (one private warning and one ban for insulting a poster) (a BPC sock puppet) in the 6 years I've been here, the most recent in 2010.

Rich, coming from a dude (chick, whatever) with over 20 bans to their name.

ETA: I really hope there's some sock puppetry on the way, because a permaban would make my nipples hard. There's ZERO chance that guy can stay away for 6 months...
 
Aug 9, 2009
640
0
0
MacRoadie said:
... There's ZERO chance that guy can stay away for 6 months...
There is a minuscule chance (estimates range from one in 2.17 billion to one in a 6.557 gazillion) that his mum will force him out of the basement, cut off his internet access, and demand that he get a real life.

While those chances are, admittedly, numerically microscopic, they are not zero. Thus, sir, I refute the basis of your post.
 
D-Queued said:
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".
No way am I going to open this can of worms again. I?ll accept your points, and just reiterate:

Why is hog banned for posting what is considered false facts and false analysis, while in other parts of the forum people do this all the time? I mentioned the religion thread before, and since then another post has appeared there that further illustrates my point. The poster claims that the Talmud anticipates important scientific discoveries, and makes the case by:

1) not understanding how a major zoological phylum is defined;
2) multiplying a series of numbers and coming up with the wrong result, by several orders of magnitude;
3) not pointing out the enormous uncertainty and disagreement in a scientific number he cites;
4) not distinguishing between empirical observations and making wild guesses based on multiplying numbers that have no relevance whatsoever to the issue at hand;
5) mis-stating by nearly 50% the number of galaxies in our local group;
6) conflating the ancients? well-known love for hierarchy with modern fractal analysis

I really don?t care if someone posts stuff like this. Ignorance is its own punishment. But as I said before, what hog is accused of doing pales in comparison. If he constantly posted, unprompted, his view that LA could have made money by investing his SCA payout, then I could understand banning him for trolling. But when he only does it in response to someone else, he?s only guilty of being wrong, and of refusing to try to see that he?s wrong. By that standard, an awful lot of people who aren?t being banned should be. Probably including myself from time to time.
 
Merckx index said:
... The poster claims that the Talmud anticipates important scientific discoveries, and makes the case by:

1) not understanding how a major zoological phylum is defined;
2) multiplying a series of numbers and coming up with the wrong result, by several orders of magnitude;
3) not pointing out the enormous uncertainty and disagreement in a scientific number he cites;
4) not distinguishing between empirical observations and making wild guesses based on multiplying numbers that have no relevance whatsoever to the issue at hand;
5) mis-stating by nearly 50% the number of galaxies in our local group;
6) conflating the ancients? well-known love for hierarchy with modern fractal analysis

...

By that standard, an awful lot of people who aren?t being banned should be. Probably including myself from time to time.
Thank god ;) I missed that thread!

I'd go crazy.

My 2 cents on thehog is that he has fallen from grace and landed on his noggin so many times he appears to have PCS. His posts unfortunately quickly devolve to where he is truly disruptive to any thread he gets involved in.

I still have this unshakable memory that I used to enjoy most of his posts, and am not sure when he turned that corner.

Perhaps you, or I, could have done something worthy of being banned. But, my guess is that you, and hopefully me, would have learned from it. I do know that my one demerit point still gnaws at me.

But banned 20+ times??? When is enough enough? Not for him, but for the rest of us that have to put up with it?

Maybe a rubber room can be set up somewhere where the disruptive and slow learning class can go play and try and learn how to be constructive in order to rejoin the crowd.

Dave.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
D-Queued said:
But banned 20+ times??? When is enough enough? Not for him, but for the rest of us that have to put up with it?
To be fair: 20+ bans is a high number. But I dont think he is the most banned-per-post member. What I mean: The more you post, the higher the risk of getting banned; There is so much baiting and personal attacks going on, that many bad posts might come from frustation of being tangeld up in a in-fight with another poster...
 
May 13, 2011
651
0
0
Thanks God. The thread may be remotely readable soon. The immediate picking up of new lance talking points and then derailing any meaningful conversation was either pure PR strategy, amazing troll kraft dinner or both
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
ChewbaccaD said:
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.
I liked the humourous element to Hoggie. Important for getting by in life.

6 months is too long IMO.

This is cycling, a barrel of dung scrapings.........;) Hoggie merely reflected that.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Benotti69 said:
I liked the humourous element to Hoggie. Important for getting by in life.

6 months is too long IMO.

This is cycling, a barrel of dung scrapings.........;) Hoggie merely reflected that.
the Lance thread can't deal with anyone posting oustide the accepted circle jerk agenda so it's no surprise they'd get upset and whine to the mods to get rid of hog.

6 months is obviously a joke. They just banned the biggest sky troll for the 50th time and he only got a week.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
ChewbaccaD said:
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.
If you (and other regulars) say Hog is trolling the Lance thread, I am in no position to argue with that, so I'll take your word for it. (Much of the legal and financial debate going on there is above my pay grade)
But I'm honestly curious to hear why you think theHog is so persistently trolling the Lance thread.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
sniper said:
If you (and other regulars) say Hog is trolling the Lance thread, I am in no position to argue with that, so I'll take your word for it. (Much of the legal and financial debate going on there is above my pay grade)
But I'm honestly curious to hear why you think theHog is so persistently trolling the Lance thread.
He contradicted himself continually, pushed theories that had no basis in actual law or economics, and he did so intentionally. See his continued recitation of the abjectly false premise that the arbitration dissent centered on SCA illegally selling insurance in Texas. It was demonstrably false, was shown to him to be false by many different posters, and not only that, it was a complete fabrication that the dissent centered on that point. That point was ancillary to the actual reasoning...yet for two days, almost every post continued to refer to these dishonest, demonstrably false points. This pattern was repeated for weeks by him, on varying points, none of which were legitimate.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
the sceptic said:
the Lance thread can't deal with anyone posting oustide the accepted circle jerk agenda so it's no surprise they'd get upset and whine to the mods to get rid of hog.

6 months is obviously a joke. They just banned the biggest sky troll for the 50th time and he only got a week.
If you're too much of a moron to understand that it wasn't about posting "outside" anything, then I'd just quit posting here about it. He wasn't making legitimate points, intentionally.

And nobody whined. Thehog gained the attention of the moderators all by himself. Looks like you'll have to try to remain relevant without being a sidekick to anyone else. Me, I don't think you're going to be able to pull it off, as you're content lacks intelligence and thoroughness, but maybe thehog will create a sock puppet to help you along in your quest.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
oh dear

sniper said:
If you (and other regulars)
But I'm honestly curious to hear why you think theHog is so persistently trolling the Lance thread.
to myself the problem was not just posting crap............but not listening
to the majority ( and better versed + mods) who pointed out what was crap

and then proceeding to tell the majority that they were wrong

and it was not just the lance thread............hoggy was provoking in other threads posting contrary view

.....all without humour

Mark L
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
If you're too much of a moron to understand that it wasn't about posting "outside" anything, then I'd just quit posting here about it. He wasn't making legitimate points, intentionally.

And nobody whined. Thehog gained the attention of the moderators all by himself. Looks like you'll have to try to remain relevant without being a sidekick to anyone else. Me, I don't think you're going to be able to pull it off, as you're content lacks intelligence and thoroughness, but maybe thehog will create a sock puppet to help you along in your quest.
true, you never whine.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
the sceptic said:
true, you never whine.
You never post anything of substance. You rely on people with more intelligence to make substantive points. Probably means you're self actualized, so you've got that going for you.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Never contradict with the anti - Armstrong - obsessed loonies on here and you will be fine.

Too bad Nobody Benson is a uniballer too.

SIX months, yeah, good thing the doc Maserati is back, people will go to biketard if it wasnt for him.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
You never post anything of substance. You rely on people with more intelligence to make substantive points. Probably means you're self actualized, so you've got that going for you.
good point, I think i'll become a lawyer and take the internet super seriously so I can feel better about myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS