spetsa said:
If you are going to let Mountainman return from his ban and instantly start to clog a thread with nonsense, then at least open up the "This Forum Blows" thread in exchange.
Spetsa. I put a post relevant to Ferrari on a thread about ferrari, saying in my view he was not sidestepping questions with weasel word answers in an interview. And also noting he intends "court" action - which leads to interesting speculation as to why he said "court" not "arbitration" That is a relevant post to that thread - even if it contains speculation why he said "court".
You may dislike it, if so challenge it with the alternative and why - not abuse the one who said it..
A variety of views are what forums are for.
I respect your view , even though I may disagree with it. I certainly do not challenge your right to hold it or express it, as you appear to challenge mine. I do challenge your right to insult as a response or attempts to try to silence my view as witness your post above.
On the other side of the very same coin - I dislike the stream of ad hominem attacks and flaming that occur because others disagree with the arguments. That is Lance Armstrong modus operandi, to attack the person who states a view, rather than challenge the view - and all in cycling should condemn that approach. Most of the posts in the clinic are abusive responses to posters whose view happens to disagree with the mob view.
The word "troll" on most forums means a poster who writes in order to incite argument - and I can state I have never done that. On here the word "troll" has been redefined to mean anyone who holds an opposing view.
I write because cycling has one more chance to clean up its act - and the usual "scapegoat a few, featherbed a few, call dissenters liars, then business as usual" vintage McQuaid fashion" does not cut it any more.
At least my posts contain some content.
The clinic is generally too long on negative opinion against the accused, and too short on actual facts or posts with content.
When I read it, I want to find out stuff I did not know, or areas worth looking at, or reasons that challenge the views that I hold. I often change views in response to reasoned argument - never in response to speculation, abuse or cat calling. It makes unpleasant and relatively useless reading to see personal attacks against posters and pure speculation against accused riders which in the main is what the clinic contains.
It is remiscinent of how Dickens " a tale of two cities" portrays those who watched knitting at the guillotine, speculating on who would be next for the chop.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram