Moderators

[pedaling squares]

Settle down, Francis. I added the "sheesh" so no one would think I was serious. Oh ... and ... Neil Armstrong is related to cycling ... how?

Settle down, Francis? Come on Emperor, that's even more lame than your fly larva thread. You questioned the mods locking your thread and compared this crime to the completely inappropriate Neil Armstrong thread. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that you were serious, despite the all-encompassing disclaimer 'sheesh'. Anyway, I didn't suggest that the Neil thread is cycling-related, I was only suggesting a reason why yours was closed.

Francis.

 

[Elagabalus]

Note to self: next time write "what am I ... chopped liver?" instead of "sheesh".

 

[Barrus]

So that's what happened to the transfers thread last year.

If I am not mistaken that was my fault

 

[The Hitch]

If I am not mistaken that was my fault

You made it vanish out of the pure wickedness in your heart?

 

[hiero2]

Mods, I am not sure if this is the right place, but if you get it, it will be the right place.

RR created a thread in the Clinic "The Evidence". It was quickly suggested, by Botany Bay, to be evidence links and posts only. It has degraded way beyond that to, in my mind, an irretrievable point. It is a conversation, and a good one, so should not be closed, I think. However, the concept of a thread for evidence only has been put forward, gotten mod approval, and reader support.

If you agree, I think we should make a new thread, put the valid evidence and evidence links in it, and leave the conversations out. I will volunteer to do the work of researching the original thread to select the appropriate posts. My suggestions for the new thread name would be "The Evidence - the links", and a renaming of the old thread "The Evidence - the conversation". I originally made these suggestions in posts 334 and 351 in that thread (The Evidence).

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18295&page=36
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18295&page=34

I await your judgement.

 

[palmerq]

well make a new thread with links only :S i will not be stopping the general talk about things in the current evidence thread, people said lets make it for links and real evidence only but then the next day would just go back to the arguing and discussing of things, and it is race radios thread and he is posting things without links so that thread cant really be a links only thread when he posts things without links(even though they will probably turn out to be true)... therefore make your thread and we shall see how it goes

 

[ebandit]

the evidence

opening rr's thread the evidence i see nothing initially to say thread is links only?

deep in the thread i see notice from a mod ...........keep to evidence only
by which time general discussion has erupted

forgive me if i'm wrong here but i feel that posts from 'popular' members are accepted far too easily even when they seem at odds with the thread topic etc

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No, it's more like at some point there is such a landslide of postings that it is not worth going back to change things.

I will now open a thread for Evidence Links only, you all may fill it up.

With links only, of course.

Susan

 

[ebandit]

thanks

thanks susan

the new thread has what the initial threat lacked

clear instruction in title that thread is 'links only'

in fact the original thread did not have detail 'links only' until post 4 from a different member?

 

[hiero2]

well make a new thread with links only :S i will not be stopping the general talk about things in the current evidence thread, people said lets make it for links and real evidence only but then the next day would just go back to the arguing and discussing of things, and it is race radios thread and he is posting things without links so that thread cant really be a links only thread when he posts things without links(even though they will probably turn out to be true)... therefore make your thread and we shall see how it goes

Agree, and thank you. Personally, I think most of RR's posts were sufficiently germane that I would have left them in - but I will transfer just the posts with links - and the one or two that create a timeline for future posts to come (in other words, where RR says more is coming soon). I should have time to work on this tonight or late tomorrow. This morning I have rocks to lay in a wall, and the vuelta to follow - oh, and I forgot, got to take the trash to the dump today.

 

[hiero2]

No, it's more like at some point there is such a landslide of postings that it is not worth going back to change things.

I will now open a thread for Evidence Links only, you all may fill it up.

With links only, of course.

Susan

Thank you, Susan!

 

[ebandit]

clinic and armstrong?

of course armstrong v usada is hot news but the sheer number of new threads is making the situation impossible to track

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Well, when we have one thread, people complain because it is too long.

When we have more threads, then people complain because there are too many threads.

You can't please all the people all the time.

Susan

 

[ebandit]

thanks!

thanks i appreciate you taking time to post reply susan

alas there are 12 separate armstrong threads on the front page of the clinic
............this seems rather at odds with forum rules

 

[Caruut]

of course armstrong v usada is hot news but the sheer number of new threads is making the situation impossible to track

Aye, but huge threads make things so hard to track too.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Well, when we have one thread, people complain because it is too long.

When we have more threads, then people complain because there are too many threads.

You can't please all the people all the time.

Susan

A sub forum for LA is all that is needed.

We need more threads - one for each LA topic.

This place is now a leader in an emerging field, but it must be sharp, crisp, user friendly, and an easy reference.

Here is the chance for this forum to become the #1 site for all things PED in sports. Don't miss the chance.

 

[palmerq]

i dont think so, there are too many. there is still the usada one the evidence thread, the evidence links thread and now the general discussion, a new trhead is not need for every article that is written... the forum is about more than just lance... he now has 4 threads dedicated to him S:

 

[Anonymous]

i dont think so, there are too many. there is still the usada one the evidence thread, the evidence links thread and now the general discussion, a new trhead is not need for every article that is written... the forum is about more than just lance... he now has 4 threads dedicated to him S:

You would do well with 10 Lance threads.

Obstinance aside, do you really want to weed through an 1100 page thread?

Just delete it and start over.

There's a handfull of posters here that routinely feed your reporters info that later become headlines. Why **** them off?

 

[palmerq]

You would do well with 10 Lance threads.

Obstinance aside, do you really want to weed through an 1100 page thread?

Just delete it and start over.

There's a handfull of posters here that routinely feed your reporters info that later become headlines. Why **** them off?

there i the evidence thread for that. which race radio seemed quite happy with... why have so many threads for things that are not important or have already been discussed? I already said any new thread that has some importance will remain, i dont see the problem

 

[Anonymous]

there i the evidence thread for that. which race radio seemed quite happy with... why have so many threads for things that are not important or have already been discussed? I already said any new thread that has some importance will remain, i dont see the problem

Alrighty then. You don't see a problem there must not be one.

 

[palmerq]

well lets also start a thread for interesting links then. it's better than have so many other threads..

 

[dadane]

i dont think so, there are too many. there is still the usada one the evidence thread, the evidence links thread and now the general discussion, a new trhead is not need for every article that is written... the forum is about more than just lance... he now has 4 threads dedicated to him S:

Agreed a new thread is not required for each article, and there has been some of that, but there are plenty of discussions on geniune sub-topics, whose subject matter is partly but not entirely Lance related, one of which, I see, has been deleted today. Not everything falls neatly into USADA or evidence or LA or not.

Yes, it may need moderating and managing, but it has to be allowed to breathe. I came back here because I suddenly discovered it had changed into a fantastic forum, so different from what it once was.

Why not start a Lance sub-forum, it is rather big news. It can always be closed and merged back into the clinic later when the dust has settled a bit and leave the clinic proper clear for normal business in the meantime.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Banned the mods

 

[JRTinMA]

i dont think so, there are too many. there is still the usada one the evidence thread, the evidence links thread and now the general discussion, a new trhead is not need for every article that is written... the forum is about more than just lance... he now has 4 threads dedicated to him S:

THIS is exactly why you need a sub-forum for Lance.

 

[Race Radio]

The mods are welcome to put everything into one massive, unreadable, troll filled thread......it will just insure that fewer people will use the forum.

There is no need to have a subforum for lance. As we have seen the news ebbs and flows.

As there are specific topics that occasionally pop up why not combining THOSE threads? For example the topic of Armstrong's drug use causing his cancer. This is a very valid topic that has been discussed multiple times. Instead of dumping it into some massive thread just resurrect the old thread and combine the new posts into it.