Armchair Cyclist
Moderator
Can I ask what happened?Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.
It clarifies what the thread is all about.Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.
The word "Men's" was added to the 23 thread.Can I ask what happened?
No, it was sending a rather spiky message to another forum member, and trying to make her point invalid after the event.It clarifies what the thread is all about.
PM between members isn't allowed.No, it was sending a rather spiky message to another forum member, and trying to make her point invalid after the event.
Changing thread titles to try to prove others wrong is not the thing to do.
I have always tried to maintain a distinction between the fact of a protest, and the cause of the protestors. I do not believe that I have removed anything that simply tried to defend the right of peaceful protest. If you think I have, please PM me.Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever
Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever
"Get these clowns off the race course, I want a sporting result" - Cycling talkKinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever
Absolutely shocking that we're dissuaded from promoting hindering races on a cycling forum.Kinda wack that we can't discuss politics and thus that we're barred from defending the protests but people are still allowed to say the protestors are lunatics or whatever
The point is not that you've removed any posts defending the protests, the point is we know any posts that discussed the crux of the matter would be against the rules so people are not making those posts in the first place. But people are allowed to lambast the protestors, as per the rules. It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.I have always tried to maintain a distinction between the fact of a protest, and the cause of the protestors. I do not believe that I have removed anything that simply tried to defend the right of peaceful protest. If you think I have, please PM me.
Arguably the latter two, but not the first.It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.
I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much politicalArguably the latter two, but not the first.
And as I have already stated, I would not have acted on a post that simply said that the poster would defend their right to peaceful protest (although this might have, marginally, gone beyond being that.) IIRC there was an observation made that there was whistling of IPT at the team presentation, but whoever made that observation did not either applaud or criticise that, so no action was taken.The point is not that you've removed any posts defending the protests, the point is we know any posts that discussed the crux of the matter would be against the rules so people are not making those posts in the first place. But people are allowed to lambast the protestors, as per the rules. It's hypocritical, unfair and unbalanced - not you, not the mods, but the rules and the forum itself.
I would dispute that. I strongly suspect that there are those criticising the protest who would in no way want to defend the recent actions of the Israeli government. But I am not going to invite them to state that here: if they want to PM me, I will be able to confirm that it is the case.I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much political
Not wanting the race I’m watching to be completely disrupted is political?I'd say it's hypocritical because the stance being allowed in the forum is still very much political
Might be possible to do, but saying "We do not recognise the Russian Cycling Federation (or whatever they may be called), therefore no registration by them of a team is valid" is rather different from saying "We will decide who your organisation takes money from and what they choose to call themselves."This would've been avoided if state owned sponsors and state promoting cycling teams wasn't allowed. It's s easy to make a rule like that as is was banning Gazprom.
So would Matt Rendell be banned? https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racin...ana-and-why-mid-race-flights-should-be-banned
or what about Devil's Elbow's thread openers with all the info on places and people?
Is yesterday's event history today?Pretty sure Matt Rendell isn't a forum member, and also pretty sure that if he was/is, his opinions stated elsewhere would have no relevance here.
And DE's thread openers aren't - as far as I'm aware - political.
BTW, the politics we aren't allowed to discuss are current ones? Right? Historical events are okay?
Politics is tied up with almost everything, more so with history than with most other things, and the line between the two becomes increasingly blurred the more recent history becomes. Thus, a rule against talking politics (which is absolutely needed in some form or another on the main board) is in practice a rule against getting overly political, and thus said rule inherently involves a lot of grey area.And DE's thread openers aren't - as far as I'm aware - political.
BTW, the politics we aren't allowed to discuss are current ones? Right? Historical events are okay?