Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Red Rick]

It's a shame that people can't just be banned from the clinic. His posts in the gear section were very useful and I was having a pretty good discussion regarding good road to cycle on for the John 'O Groats to Lands End trip I'm planning next year.

This could be a pretty good idea

 

[King Boonen]

This could be a pretty good idea

Maybe, but I don't think they should really have to be banned from different sections. It's on the user to control themselves.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe, but I don't think they should really have to be banned from different sections. It's on the user to control themselves.

I think he was commenting on your john o gorats- lands end, plan

 

[Race Radio]

I was having a pretty good discussion regarding good road to cycle on for the John 'O Groats to Lands End trip I'm planning next year.
.

Didn't we used to have a thread or this kind of stuff? Would be interested topic for lots of folks here

 

[King Boonen]

I think he was commenting on your john o gorats- lands end, plan

Didn't we used to have a thread or this kind of stuff? Would be interested topic for lots of folks here

Ah ok, sorry about that.


I actually think a sub-forum for routes and ride planning wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I can safely say I've never requested another member to be banned or campaigned as such. Can you or RR say the same? It's ok you don't need to respond to that.

Who said anything about SkyBot? I didn't.

And don't worry I'm sure the links on Moncoutie doping are just around the corner. Along with Crowe being a criminal conspirator.

(I'm not throwing this in to be smart, just to say it's not one way traffic).


Try it.

Sure you didn't...

Wasn't even a factual error. I was drawing parallel comparisons between the two events.

Alas I think it went over Pedro's head and he just went into Skybot mode.

Sad because he might be able to contribute something. Or not.

And all very interesting Hoggy but why so personal? I think you need to take a step back.

The Mods can moderate to balance. Why others feel that need to constantly critise them when the real aim is to ban one specific poster?

I've always said it's a hard job, I rarely report posts and never call anyone a troll.

It's gets me in trouble sometimes but I don't complain about. I respect their decision and move on.

Try it.

Now why not respect the mods decision in the JTL thread.

 

[thehog]

All very interesting Hoggy but why so personal? I think you need to take a step back.

Now why not respect the mods decision in the JTL thread.

Thanks. It was personal, the idea was to appeal to your human side. I thought maybe you'd let go a little. Sadly it didn't get through.

I have respected the mods decision. I stepped away. Done a long time ago when Afrik stepped in and offered for TWH to PM me. Martin Vickers and I straightened out our differences this way and you would have noted he and I rarely butted heads. I stood up for him on a few occasions and liked his ballsy approach.

Like MeloVelo. Excellent poster and wish he'd post here more often. But he gets on my tits a lot. Because he's right most of the time. Need more like him.

I'm not as bad as you make me out to be. Think of the Walsh thread. Who else would have bought that book and posted some it's contents here? I did. And thought the forum was better for it.

I've started several threads which have multiple pages and don't revolve around Sky or Lance. Perhaps you could try the same rather than going after me?

Everyone is welcome to post here.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Thanks. It was personal, the idea was to appeal to your human side. I thought maybe you'd let go a little. Sadly it didn't get through.

I did not let the fact that you lied again go, no. You are quite correct.

I'm not as bad as you make me out to be. Think of the Walsh thread. Who else would have bought that book and posted some it's contents here? I did. And thought the forum was better for it.

You mean where you said that no mention of the Zig-zag incident and then it was pointed out that it was.

I've started several threads which have multiple pages and don't revolve around Sky or Lance. Perhaps you could try the same rather than going after me?

Stop making stuff up then.

If you want to address this further you best PM me.

 

[thehog]

I did not let the fact that you lied again go, no. You are quite correct.

You mean where you said that no mention of the Zig-zag incident and then it was pointed out that it was.

Stop making stuff up then.

If you want to address this further you best PM me.

Perhaps you should let it go, I'm not sure what you believe but I forgave you without hounding you for accusing me on the Froome thread. Try the same. There really isn't any point in holding on to anger.

What's the Zig-Zag incident? No idea what you"re talking about. Sorry.

I'll PM you

 

[Cal_Joe]

what is spineless and sad is to see a group of posters gang up on one poster to try and score points and "win" a discussion that happened months ago.

Admittedly, that would be sad if there was no extended history of a poster possibly fabricating "facts" from his "inside sources".

Frankly, I cannot remember if theHog has such a history. But if he did, and if it was such a long list of fabrications that he became an object of derision in the forums to the point where any post of his that did not include links was immediately suspect, well yes, I would hope that such a poster would make every effort to dispel any perception that he was again passing off his wish list as "facts". Links are much better than repeated refusals to back up one's "claims".

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Perhaps you should let it go, I'm not sure what you believe but I forgave you without hounding you for accusing me on the Froome thread. Try the same. There really isn't any point in holding on to anger.

For someone that let it go you seem to keep bringing it up. Sounds like you are clinging to the past?

What's the Zig-Zag incident? No idea what you"re talking about. Sorry.

Just for you Hoggy.

Nothing on San Luca sadly. The infamous zig zag is left out

Yes, he did mention it and used the words "zig zag" too.

And it has been mentioned on this threadas well.

Still, I look forward to you addressing the JTL thread (If you have not already). After all, you have posted three times as many posts as anyone else. Why would you stop now?

And, now I really must get back to work. If I had to point out all your fabrications I would be here some time, no?

 

[thehog]

For someone that let it go you seem to keep bringing it up. Sounds like you are clinging to the past?

Just for you Hoggy

And it has been mentioned on this threadas well.

Still, I look forward to you addressing the JTL thread (If you have not already). After all, you have posted three times as many posts as anyone else. Why would you stop now?

And, now I really must get back to work. If I had to point out all your fabrications I would be here some time, no?

Oh the zig zag! Now I get it.

As I admitted at the time, I wasn't reading the book cover to cover. I'd read sections, find lies in Walsh's writing and post it.

Because I missed a section does that meant I lied?

Seriously, that's your standard? And you still remember this? Tell me you're joking? As soon as someone else found it in the book, good to go. No harm done and I acknowledged it. Talk about not letting go! Is that what you guys get angry about? That I missed something in a Walsh book? No way, you're kidding me? Please say it's not.

If it helps, I've climbed San Luca several times personally. It's steep.

JTL thread? Tell you what, why don't you venture in there and respond to my question on how the UKAD came up with the 10-14 days usage from blood draw estimation. Go on, that would be a positive contribution rather than just getting angry and reporting posts all day and hanging on to things I posted 10 months ago.

Show that it can be done. Go on. Contribute.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oh the zig zag! Now I get it.

As I admitted at the time, I wasn't reading the book cover to cover. I'd read sections, find lies in Walsh's writing and post it.

Because I missed a section does that meant I lied?

Seriously, that's your standard? And you still remember this? Tell me you're joking? As soon as someone else found it in the book, good to go. No harm done and I acknowledged it. Talk about not letting go! Is that what you guys get angry about? That I missed something in a Walsh book? No way, you're kidding me? Please say it's not.

If it helps, I've climbed San Luca several times personally. It's steep.

JTL thread? Tell you what, why don't you venture in there and respond to my question on how the UKAD came up with the 10-14 days usage from blood draw estimation. Go on, that would be a positive contribution rather than just getting angry and reporting posts all day and hanging on to things I posted 10 months ago.

Show that it can be done. Go on. Contribute.

If you had said you have not read all of the book then no one would have said anything but you specifically said it was left out.

You are just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[gooner]

If you had said you have not read all of the book then no one would have said anything but you specifically said it was left out.

You are just embarrassing yourself now.

Yeah, that's true. I pointed it out at the time.

He said initially it wasn't in the book.

EDIT: Just seen previous page where you referred to it.

 

[thehog]

If you had said you have not read all of the book then no one would have said anything but you specifically said it was left out.

You are just embarrassing yourself now.

What I said was, I wasn't reading cover to cover. That's not embarrassing. That's being honest. I was zig zagging through the book.

No one cared because I was printing exact excepts from the book. It appears only you have this odd hang up about it and have carried it on months after the event.

What is embarrassing, was Walsh & Froome and the manner in which they wrote the book and the lies told. That book was a total embarrassment. Perhaps project your anger/frustration towards them?

Not being funny or anything but this is fairly deep level haterd you're hanging on to here. I missed a passage in the book, it was cleared up and everyone moved on within 2 posts. This keeps you up at night? I suggest finding a new hobby.

 

[the sceptic]

Yeah, that's true. I pointed it out at the time.

He said initially it wasn't in the book.

EDIT: Just seen previous page where you referred to it.

outrageous.

have the cyclingnews shareholders been informed?

 

[kingjr]

What I said was, I wasn't reading cover to cover. That's not embarrassing.

Embarrassing is saying something was left out instead of saying, like any honest person would that you haven't read it completely and might have missed it. That's you in a nutshell right there.

 

[thehog]

Embarrassing is saying something was left out instead of saying, like any honest person would that you haven't read it completely and might have missed it. That's you in a nutshell right there.

I don't disagree. Which I did two posts later;

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1483584&postcount=420

At the time the book was six days on the market and I never claimed I'd read it cover to cover.

I was reading what interested me and where I found the lies, the contradictions and misrepresentations on behalf of Walsh and Froome.

I can safely say now I've read the entire book. Its still terrible and full of lies, contradictions and misrepresentations.

That's embarrassing.

 

[kingjr]

I don't disagree. Which I did two posts later;

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1483584&postcount=420

After gooner pointed out that it was BS, yeah.

The question is, why say something has been left out, when you have only read parts of the book?

 

[thehog]

After gooner pointed out that it was BS, yeah.

The question is, why say something has been left out, when you have only read parts of the book?

Good question, I'm glad you asked.

Because I had an electronic version and I was able to search for key words, like "asthma", which incidentally doesn't appear in the book.

The string for the "zig-zag" moment I typed didn't bring a "match", perhaps I was searching for words like "hack", "sideways", "slow" etc.

You see, no grand conspiracy or concealment. Fairly straightforward stuff which I was upfront at the time about.

Question now is why you can't apply the same level of standards to Walsh and his writings? He gets paid to do it! I'm just long guy with a keyboard.

Maybe you're looking at me trying to find fault as a way of not wanting to address Walsh? Perhaps there's something in that, yes?

The really isn't any great conspiracy here that you think there is. You're chasing shadows in the dark.

 

[kingjr]

Good question, I'm glad you asked.

The string for the "zig-zag" moment I typed didn't bring a "match", perhaps I was searching for words like "hack", "sideways", "slow" etc.

Fairly straightforward stuff which I was upfront at the time about.

You say good question, but you don't answer it. Again, an honest person would have said he hasn't found anything on that issue yet. You chose not to. Why is that?

The really isn't any great conspiracy here that you think there is. You're chasing shadows in the dark.

There is no 'great conspiracy'. It's just you being you.

Maybe you're looking at me trying to find fault as a way of not wanting to address Walsh? Maybe there's something in that, yes?

I'm sure that would make sense in your mind, but no there's absolutely nothing in that.

 

[Netserk]

You say good question, but you don't answer it. Again, an honest person would have said he hasn't found anything on that issue yet. You chose not to. Why is that?

Why wouldn't an honest person say something wasn't in the book when it didn't show in the search?

 

[thehog]

You say good question, but you don't answer it. Again, an honest person would have said he hasn't found anything on that issue yet. You chose not to. Why is that?

There is no 'great conspiracy'. It's just you being you.



I'm sure that would make sense in your mind, but no there's absolutely nothing in that.

But what's your problem here? Why not report it to the mods? If you feel I was attempting to conceal and disrupt the Walsh book thread with fabrications? Surely that would be the best course of action? Why not take that option?

Bringing up a 3 month old issue and repeatedly throwing it back sounds to me like you're looking for something else? A reaction?

Considering I was printing large portions of the book in the thread and allowing other to comment I think its a stretch to suggest I was attempting some form of dishonest sleight of hand. I was promoting discussion. Many thanked me at the time for purchasing the book and replicating some of the passages in full.

Most here haven't read the book. I have. Apparently you have a problem with that?

I am flattered though. That you would go to all this trouble to nitpick out one post, which was explained at the time and I've had no issues extrapolating further now. You must really dislike me to go to those types of lengths.

Alas, you honestly need a better hobby. Sorry.

 

[kingjr]

Why wouldn't an honest person say something wasn't in the book when it didn't show in the search?

Because the thing with word-search is you have to search for the right word of course, otherwise you miss it. Which is what happened.

 

[kingjr]

But what's your problem here? Why not report it to the mods? If you feel I was attempting to conceal and disrupt the Walsh book thread with fabrications?

I don't know what you're attempting to do or not. That's why I'm asking you, but you fail to answer, for whatever reason