Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Parker]

if you believe it, it must be true

That's the first law of internet forums.

 

[TailWindHome]

Thanks for the link to that thread.
Lots of LOLs

 

[Benotti69]

You'll be disappointed. thehog is not noted for his truthfulness and this more exaggerated nonsense I'm afraid.

humble pie..................

 

[sublimit]

It's not a coincidence that 99% of sky believers are british.

patriotism is a scary thing.

Of course, Americans are never patriotic are they?

 

[The Hitch]

And of course the posts by Hog, Hitch and sniper prove my point.

Where oh where did I mention anything about SKY fans, yet that is the automatic assumption that I was inferring. Completely wrong. It is like people cannot see beyond the obsession with SKY.

Eh, you said that the clinic has been homogenized and that there is only 1 pov accepted. What is this pov if not that sky dope? I can't think of any other issue that everyone is in agreement unless it's something like - that Armstrong doped in which case I wouldn't understand why you are complaining.

 

[thehog]

Eh, you said that the clinic has been homogenized and that there is only 1 pov accepted. What is this pov if not that sky dope? I can't think of any other issue that everyone is in agreement unless it's something like - that Armstrong doped in which case I wouldn't understand why you are complaining.

The bots could start a thread called "Why I think Sky are clean" rather than block the current 58 Sky threads.

 

[King Boonen]

It's simple logic, KB.

Maybe too simple, but it is simple logic...

So many people these days just don't seem to be able to put their hands up and say "fair cop, I was wrong. Apologies".

I think they worry that admitting they're wrong on one point invalidates any argument they could ever make...

 

[TheSpud]

The bots could start a thread called "Why I think Sky are clean" rather than block the current 58 Sky threads.

Why don't we do what I suggested in the Sky thread (and to a number of people privately, including you) - have a sticky thread where all the 'evidence' is supported / debunked. Newbies could be pointed to this for discussions that had already happened so the longer term members don't have to (a) point it all out again (b) get annoyed (c) throw accusations around.

It may take a bit of effort to organise - i.e. I think there should be a for / against for each bit of evidence, but in my view at least it could stop many threads being derailed. It would have to be evidence / proper argument not just silly comments (either way).

Personally I think it would help.

 

[Parker]

So many people these days just don't seem to be able to put their hands up and say "fair cop, I was wrong. Apologies".

I think they worry that admitting they're wrong on one point invalidates any argument they could ever make...

Maybe you should show they are wrong first then. No-one is going to accept they are wrong just because you say they are. What if they think you're stupid?

May I remind you of this:

If my premise is easily disprovable rubbish then maybe you should have started there. Try it now. The floor is yours.

 

[red_flanders]

Why don't we do what I suggested in the Sky thread (and to a number of people privately, including you) - have a sticky thread where all the 'evidence' is supported / debunked. Newbies could be pointed to this for discussions that had already happened so the longer term members don't have to (a) point it all out again (b) get annoyed (c) throw accusations around.

It may take a bit of effort to organise - i.e. I think there should be a for / against for each bit of evidence, but in my view at least it could stop many threads being derailed. It would have to be evidence / proper argument not just silly comments (either way).

Personally I think it would help.

Maybe you could start it? And we could include the definition of evidence so you don't have to put it in quotes. Here, let me help.

ev·i·dence
noun
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

or

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

 

[Benotti69]

Maybe you could start it? And we could include the definition of evidence so you don't have to put it in quotes. Here, let me help.

Stange how a guy who claimed to be a legal eagle doesn't understand the true definition of 'evidence'..........

 

[King Boonen]

Maybe you should show they are wrong first then. No-one is going to accept they are wrong just because you say they are. What if they think you're stupid?

May I remind you of this:

You did it yourself, see post #2120 and go and check the start dates. Then re-read the post where you say a new thread is started every week.

I really don't care if someone on the internet thinks I'm stupid, my posts stand for themselves and you can read them or not. For clarity, with yours I choose the latter after our initial exchange here.

 

[the sceptic]

Maybe you could start it? And we could include the definition of evidence so you don't have to put it in quotes. Here, let me help.

It would be interesting to see skyfans lay out the evidence that makes them believe sky are cleans.

Or how they came to the conclusion they are not sure.

 

[Parker]

It would be interesting to see skyfans lay out the evidence that makes them believe sky are cleans.

Or how they came to the conclusion they are not sure.

If you don't think that something has happened or that something doesn't exist, it's not because there is evidence that it doesn't exist but because of the lack of evidence that it does.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If you don't think that something has happened or that something doesn't exist, it's not because there is evidence that it doesn't exist but because of the lack of evidence that it does.

So if the emperor is not cold, he is in fact wearing new clothes?

 

[Parker]

So if the emperor is not cold, he is in fact wearing new clothes?

Maybe, maybe not. It might just be warm conditions. Are nudists and porn stars always cold?

Being cold is not evidence of being naked. And neither is not being cold evidence of wearing clothes.

 

[The Hitch]

It would be interesting to see skyfans lay out the evidence that makes them believe sky are cleans.

Or how they came to the conclusion they are not sure.

Or more specifically maybe they could explain why all the doctors who say that once Bilharzia is removed from the body, it is removed from the body are wrong, and give some evidence to back up the idea that in froome's case it was magically able to reappear in his body weeks after the 2011 Vuelta, before which it was cured.

---- crickets----

 

[Netserk]

Maybe, maybe not. It might just be warm conditions. Are nudists and porn stars always cold?

Being cold is not evidence of being naked. And neither is not being cold evidence of wearing clothes.

Yes it is. It's weak, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If you can prove correlation (which I'd think is quite easy in this case) then you can use it as evidence. Weak correlation makes it weak evidence. Strong correlation makes it better evidence.

As an example (with made up numbers): If 1% of all humans are currently naked, but 1.5% of all humans who are cold are naked, then being naked increases the chance that the person is naked and therefore supports the assertion that the person is naked. But it's very weak.

 

[Parker]

Or more specifically maybe they could explain why all the doctors who say that once Bilharzia is removed from the body, it is removed from the body are wrong, and give some evidence to back up the idea that in froome's case it was magically able to reappear in his body weeks after the 2011 Vuelta, before which it was cured.

---- crickets----

The problem is in your understanding, as a lay person with no medical training, of the word 'removed'. The treatment is unlikely to be 100% effective 100% of the time. It will do the job pretty effectively - 99% effective 99% of the time maybe, but the possibility of trace amounts lingering is not insignificant. I don't think he claim to have full blown bilharzia second time around, just trace amounts requiring precautionary medicine.

 

[Parker]

Yes it is. It's weak, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If you can prove correlation (which I'd think is quite easy in this case) then you can use it as evidence. Weak correlation makes it weak evidence. Strong correlation makes it better evidence.

The nudist analogy has been stretched beyond sense, so I'll leave it.

Here's another example. You are boarding a plane and the man in front of you is a muslim who is carrying a backpack and seems nervous. He is muttering something to himself. This would probably at least pick concerns in any of us.

But it is objectively it is very weak evidence of any wrong doing. It doesn't mean his isn't a terrorist, but it is far, far more likely he is not (probably a nervous flyer)

Subjectively though, the strength of the evidence is also dependent of the beholder, and will depend on factors independent of the evidence itself - for example, prejudice towards muslims or proximity to an actual terror attack, either geographically or temporally. Confirmation bias is very powerful (and doesn't favour sides). Also if debate is stifled, weak evidence is allowed to grow strong.

And that is the context you have with the Clinic.

 

[Merckx index]

The problem is in your understanding, as a lay person with no medical training, of the word 'removed'. The treatment is unlikely to be 100% effective 100% of the time. It will do the job pretty effectively - 99% effective 99% of the time maybe, but the possibility of trace amounts lingering is not insignificant. I don't think he claim to have full blown bilharzia second time around, just trace amounts requiring precautionary medicine.

Trace amounts requiring not one, not two, not three, but FOUR ADDITIONAL (FIVE TOTAL) treatments with PZQ?

But don’t take my word for it:

Dr Alan Fenwick, director of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative at Imperial College, London, said: ‘I can’t believe he would still be infected after four treatments when he was at that age. Hardly anybody I know has had eggs in their stool and in their urine after three treatments when they haven’t been reinfected — and it’s hard to imagine he’d be reinfected when he’s a first-class athlete who knows about schistosomiasis.’

The nudist analogy has been stretched beyond sense, so I'll leave it.

Here's another example. You are boarding a plane and the man in front of you is a muslim who is carrying a backpack and seems nervous. He is muttering something to himself. This would probably at least pick concerns in any of us.

But it is objectively it is very weak evidence of any wrong doing. It doesn't mean his isn't a terrorist, but it is far, far more likely he is not (probably a nervous flyer)

Subjectively though, the strength of the evidence is also dependent of the beholder, and will depend on factors independent of the evidence itself - for example, prejudice towards muslims or proximity to an actual terror attack, either geographically or temporally. Confirmation bias is very powerful (and doesn't favour sides). Also if debate is stifled, weak evidence is allowed to grow strong.

And that is the context you have with the Clinic.

Here are some more examples of basing conclusions on weak evidence.

1) Pick out a heavily discussed subject in the Clinic in which some of the posters make claims that can’t be fully backed up with evidence. Jump from this to the conclusion that the entire Clinic operates on weak evidence, ignoring reams of highly informative threads on subjects other than Sky, and reams of highly informative posts on Sky as well as other subjects.

2) When a subject is discussed in detail and with evidence, refuse to engage the poster because his post is “too long”, though it contains fewer words than the sum total of words in all your posts during the same time period (and far, far less repetition of the same theme). Use this as a way of restricting the discussion only to posts that can be stretched to fill your definition of using weak evidence.

3) When a poster calls you on a glaring error in your post—your misreading of the actual text in a doping appeal document—ignore him. Again, restrict the discussion as much as possible to posts that support your highly selective view of the Clinic.

This is the context we have with poster Parker.

 

[Parker]

Trace amounts requiring not one, not two, not three, but FOUR ADDITIONAL (FIVE TOTAL) treatments with PZQ?

But don’t take my word for it:


Here are some more examples of basing conclusions on weak evidence.

1) Pick out a heavily discussed subject in the Clinic in which some of the posters make claims that can’t be fully backed up with evidence. Jump from this to the conclusion that the entire Clinic operates on weak evidence, ignoring reams of highly informative threads on subjects other than Sky, and reams of highly informative posts on Sky as well as other subjects.

2) When a subject is discussed in detail and with evidence, refuse to engage the poster because his post is “too long”, though it contains fewer words than the sum total of words in all your posts during the same time period (and far, far less repetition of the same theme). Use this as a way of restricting the discussion only to posts that can be stretched to fill your definition of using weak evidence.

3) When a poster calls you on a glaring error in your post—your misreading of the actual text in a doping appeal document—ignore him. Again, restrict the discussion as much as possible to posts that support your highly selective view of the Clinic.

This is the context we have with poster Parker.

First of all for the bilharzia. So if, as you think, he is lying about it all (as opposed to bad reporting) - what does that show? It doesn't excuse anything. Just bad form, which doesn't need an excuse.

Now your three points.

1) Where's this strong evidence then. Leinders is decent evidence but getting weaker by the day. But other than that 'insider' bobbins's list only offered up some ex employees who doped a decade ago and a TUE - it's not exactly Puerto or Festina. "Highly informative" is very subjective.

2) Some good advice for everyone. If you want to make a point keep it short and concise. tl;dr isn't internet slang by accident. If you can't make you point in 50-100 words, you're not making a strong point.

3) Maybe when I 'ignore' someone, I've actually just gone off and done something else with my life. I don't live here.

So in summary get to the point and don't expect me to be at your beck and call.

 

[sittingbison]

okey doke gentle(wo)men,
the debate is lively and interesting, but please refrain from getting a tad too personal. Its now crossing the border (and its tit for tat)

cheers
bison

 

[thehog]

Why don't we do what I suggested in the Sky thread (and to a number of people privately, including you) - have a sticky thread where all the 'evidence' is supported / debunked. Newbies could be pointed to this for discussions that had already happened so the longer term members don't have to (a) point it all out again (b) get annoyed (c) throw accusations around.

It may take a bit of effort to organise - i.e. I think there should be a for / against for each bit of evidence, but in my view at least it could stop many threads being derailed. It would have to be evidence / proper argument not just silly comments (either way).

Personally I think it would help.

Maybe ask Martin to start the thread?

 

[Netserk]

The nudist analogy has been stretched beyond sense, so I'll leave it.

Here's another example. You are boarding a plane and the man in front of you is a muslim who is carrying a backpack and seems nervous. He is muttering something to himself. This would probably at least pick concerns in any of us.

But it is objectively it is very weak evidence of any wrong doing. It doesn't mean his isn't a terrorist, but it is far, far more likely he is not (probably a nervous flyer)

Subjectively though, the strength of the evidence is also dependent of the beholder, and will depend on factors independent of the evidence itself - for example, prejudice towards muslims or proximity to an actual terror attack, either geographically or temporally. Confirmation bias is very powerful (and doesn't favour sides). Also if debate is stifled, weak evidence is allowed to grow strong.

And that is the context you have with the Clinic.

Okay, so now you agree that it's (very weak) evidence.

The strength of evidence doesn't depend on the beholder. Only the perceived strength of evidence does that, but the actual strength is objective.

But I think we both agree that it doesn't make sense to make a conclusion on little and weak evidence alone. However everything adds up, even the smallest drips, and I think that the large amount of evidence (in varying degrees of strength) together makes a pretty strong case to make a conclusion on (in the case of Froome as an example). A conclusion on your personal opinion, not a conclusion as in proof obviously.