Moderators

[The Hitch]

Waaa. Do not be surprised that if when you bait, insult, and twist what others write that they do not respond to with warm fuzzies.

Interesting. And presumably you have some examples of where I baited and insulted you to back this up?

 

[hrotha]

I don't know about this particular instance and Dr Mas is certainly a very valuable forumer I usually agree with. But the Vortex is very real, and very annoying. It's not calling people out on their BS, it's nitpicking and arguing semantics in an attempt to frustrate the hell out of his opponent.

 

[aphronesis]

Interesting. And presumably you have some examples of where I baited and insulted you to back this up?

No, he doesn't. You'll note that in 90% of his posts (as above) there's not even an entire sentence typed in. Don't expect measured exchange.

What should be said instead of all the above whining in internet playground terms is that when you challenge his "informed opinion" don't be surprised if you're met with curt, if not derogatory responses. Everyone reading has seen that demonstrated time and again over the past several days.

 

[sittingbison]

Although thete is a bit of leeway on this thread for frank discussion, be aware its not open slather. Some posts are becoming derogatory in tone and skirting on insulting, it might be a good idea to dial it back a tad instead of giving into temptation. Lets try and remain civil towards each other.

Cheers
Bison

 

[the sceptic]

Interesting. And presumably you have some examples of where I baited and insulted you to back this up?

Anyone that disagrees with Race Radio is either a troll or insulting him. go figure.

 

[red_flanders]

Waaa. Do not be surprised that if when you bait, insult, and twist what others write that they do not respond to with warm fuzzies.

When you actually add something to the discussion let me know and I will do my best to respond

This is exactly the kind of nonsense you complain about (basically every third post at this point). Seems if anyone disagrees with you or even wants to engage in intelligent discussion as Hitch has, they're now a troll.

The Hitch is one of the best posters on the board IMO and clearly a very active, knowledgeable fan who watches all the races and provides a lot of great insight. The insults lobbed at his posts have been absurd.

 

[pedaling squares]

I don't know about this particular instance and Dr Mas is certainly a very valuable forumer I usually agree with. But the Vortex is very real, and very annoying. It's not calling people out on their BS, it's nitpicking and arguing semantics in an attempt to frustrate the hell out of his opponent.

Agree with every word of that. The doc's posts have traditionally been very intelligent and often very funny. Lately he seems to be more focused on twisting conversations into knots and getting in the last word. Our loss.

 

[Beech Mtn]

I don't know about this particular instance and Dr Mas is certainly a very valuable forumer I usually agree with. But the Vortex is very real, and very annoying. It's not calling people out on their BS, it's nitpicking and arguing semantics in an attempt to frustrate the hell out of his opponent.

Agree with every word of that. The doc's posts have traditionally been very intelligent and often very funny. Lately he seems to be more focused on twisting conversations into knots and getting in the last word. Our loss.

Agree with both of these. The thread Mas started on Verbruggen's company was an excellent contribution to the forum, and gave me hope that he was getting back to his good posts like in the old days. Please lets have more of that interesting, investigative, thoughtful stuff, and less vortex/bickering.

 

[darwin553]

Agree with both of these. The thread Mas started on Verbruggen's company was an excellent contribution to the forum, and gave me hope that he was getting back to his good posts like in the old days. Please lets have more of that interesting, investigative, thoughtful stuff, and less vortex/bickering.

Unless the bickering is on this thread

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting. And presumably you have some examples of where I baited and insulted you to back this up?

You certainly are not on the level of several others here but personally I do not like being called a liar.

Even though the overwhelming evidence supported me, I gave multiple links, and I explained multiple times here, and on twitter, the various numbers flying around that day you continued to ignore what I wrote to push the myth that I was lying when I was pointing out the obvious and had an opinion shared by multiple experts

That's simply not true and you know it. It's like your original tweet after ventoux were you had a false time for froome and declared it was good for the sport that froome did ventoux so slow. Now you continue with the tailwind myth even though the evidence points to froome having had a headwind just like Armstrong.

ps you are not fooling anyone

Video's, SRM's, Science in Sport, Maps, and weather stations supported my position but because it did not agree with you say I am lying. Multiple experts point to the Semnoz as a more accurate example, but If I do this I am trying to "Fool people"?

Don't be surprised if you respond to someone in a rude, condescending tone and call them a liar that they do not embrace you

 

[The Hitch]

I don't want to pollute this thread with who said what and semantics but you actually have just made a lot of that up and unfortunately for you since the forum keeps records, it's easy to prove.

I mean first of all that is not even the full post. You''ve literally edited out half a sentence and I can't help but notice it has a totally different meaning the way you presented it.

here is the actual second paragraph.
The bit you quoted is in italics

ps you are not fooling anyone everytime you talk in the first person plural to explain why semnoz was somehow worse than ventoux and ax3. It is far from the unanimous opinion you sell it as. The stages were froome destroyed the competition in a manner only Contador verbier has managed at the tour since Armstrong, were the ones everyone raised their eyebrows.

totally different context now.


Secondly, you have it all wrong with your dates.

here is the location of the post you quote.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1321581#post1321581

it is from the 23 d of august and is our second interaction, BEFORE you presented all the data you boast about. The discussion on wind had not yet taken place and it was actually this post that spawned the discussion about the wind on ventoux and the thread that came later.

see my post is dated august 23rd, while the wind on ventoux thread is from the 24th (or late 23 rd in the US)

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21320

You can also find a record of our interactions in my post history and see that the post you quote of.mine was right at the beginning of our conversation.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2548172&pp=25&page=15


So when you say

Even though the overwhelming evidence supported me, I gave multiple links, and I explained multiple times here, and on twitter, the various numbers flying around that day you continued to ignore what I wrote to push the myth that I was lying when I was pointing out the obvious and had an opinion shared by multiple experts

that is clearly false.

I did not "continue to ignore" you, I never even challenged any of your data points once you presented them except your constant use of the plural "riders" when you were only willing to provide 1 rider.

On the contrary I accepted the possibility that you are right about the wind on ventoux, which is why i did not make many further contributions to that discussion, and I made a post in the thread saying that the thread had allowed both sides to advance their arguments.

so in the future you may want to actually look through posts to see who said and did what rather than lazily guessing what they might have done.


Thirdly you have way overplayed your "you called me a liar" card by acting as if this was continous behaviour of mine when all you have to back that up is one example from our original interaction where I say " that's not true and you know it" which is a figure of speech and not quite the same as directly calling someone a liar.

But I suppose you know that which is why you added the " your not fooling anyone" bit at the end to make it look worse than it was.

And the claim that I "continued" to do this, is clearly not true.

Lastly and most importantly in no way do any of the things in the post you quoted come close to the things you accused me of:

bait, insult, and twist what others write

Which means your entire justification for the insults was false.

It also means you were lying when you accused me of these things.

If you want to continue to throw insults at me, mock me, dismiss me as a troll and all the other fun things, do what you want but don't you dare claim you have any justification for it other than just being a bully.

And in the same spirit when you don't have any arguments or rebuttal to someone's post, don't claim that they make no sense or that they have no quality or sarcastically ask the person to contact you when they have something valuable to say (got to hand it to you though, that bit was quite funny considering you had just complained about other people's behaviour)

Just admit that they made some good arguments and explain why it doesn't change your opinion..

 

[Race Radio]

I don't want to pollute this thread with who said what and semantics but you actually have just made a lot of that up and unfortunately for you since the forum keeps records, it's easy to prove.

I mean first of all that is not even the full post. You''ve literally edited out half a sentence and I can't help but notice it has a totally different meaning the way you presented it.

here is the actual second paragraph.
The bit you quoted is in italics



totally different context now.


Secondly, you have it all wrong with your dates.

here is the location of the post you quote.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=1321581#post1321581

it is from the 23 d of august and is our second interaction, BEFORE you presented all the data you boast about. The discussion on wind had not yet taken place and it was actually this post that spawned the discussion about the wind on ventoux and the thread that came later.

see my post is dated august 23rd, while the wind on ventoux thread is from the 24th (or late 23 rd in the US)

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21320

You can also find a record of our interactions in my post history and see that the post you quote of.mine was right at the beginning of our conversation.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/search.php?searchid=2548172&pp=25&page=15


So when you say that is clearly false.

I did not "continue to ignore" you, I never even challenged any of your data points once you presented them except your constant use of the plural "riders" when you were only willing to provide 1 rider.

On the contrary I accepted the possibility that you are right about the wind on ventoux, which is why i did not make many further contributions to that discussion, and I made a post in the thread saying that the thread had allowed both sides to advance their arguments.

so in the future you may want to actually look through posts to see who said and did what rather than lazily guessing what they might have done.


Thirdly you have way overplayed your "you called me a liar" card by acting as if this was continous behaviour of mine when all you have to back that up is one example from our original interaction where I say " that's not true and you know it" which is a figure of speech and not quite the same as directly calling someone a liar.

But I suppose you know that which is why you added the " your not fooling anyone" bit at the end to make it look worse than it was.

And the claim that I "continued" to do this, is clearly not true.

Lastly and most importantly in no way do any of the things in the post you quoted come close to the things you accused me of:



Which means your entire justification for the insults was false.

It also means you were lying when you accused me of these things.

If you want to continue to throw insults at me, mock me, dismiss me as a troll and all the other fun things, do what you want but don't you dare claim you have any justification for it other than just being a bully.

And in the same spirit when you don't have any arguments or rebuttal to someone's post, don't claim that they make no sense or that they have no quality or sarcastically ask the person to contact you when they have something valuable to say (got to hand it to you though, that bit was quite funny considering you had just complained about other people's behaviour)

Just admit that they made some good arguments and explain why it doesn't change your opinion..

Nice word dump....but it adds nothing to the discussion.

Pretending I selectively edited you is comical. I made it clear what you were referring to in my post.

Video's, SRM's, Science in Sport, Maps, and weather stations supported my position but because it did not agree with you say I am lying. Multiple experts point to the Semnoz as a more accurate example, but If I do this I am trying to "Fool people"?

It is also comical that you pretend I had not explained my reasoning yet....when I had already done this. Did you forget this or selectively edit it?

A few elements. It was longer then AX3, more controlled (No leadouts), No wind on the climb...... but the most important is it came at the end of a 3 week GT.

Here is a decent overview.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

Basically they put out more W/kg on a 15% longer climb in the 3rd week with no leadout or wind.

Even with this you claimed that I was intentionally not telling the truth when the fact is I had explored the multiple variables and come to the correct conclusion.

In the future if you do not want people to react negatively to you don't accuse them of lying just because they have a different opinion.

 

[sittingbison]

take it to PM if you must.

This is the thread where the mods get accused of lying twisting baiting trolling inconsistent arbitrary crass power crazed megalomania, its not about you.

 

[EnacheV]

user X : Wiggins is a no talent donkey
user Y : user X is a no talent donkey

one is a accepted the other not, why?

most likely the 2nd statement is true

 

[Netserk]

user X : Wiggins is a no talent donkey
user Y : user X is a no talent donkey

one is a accepted the other not, why?

most likely the 2nd statement is true

Because the 2nd statement is an attack on another poster (and therefore against the rules). The 1st isn't.

 

[coinneach]

Personally, I would like to see the "liar" word banned

It also irritates the hell out of me how certain posters can't say "sorry" or "maybe I was wrong there"

Whenever a factual innacuracy is pointed out, the usual response from the Trolls is "I'm still not buying it"

Could not the Mods step in at this stage? It might prevent some longwinded vortexs developing??

 

[gooner]

Personally, I would like to see the "liar" word banned

It also irritates the hell out of me how certain posters can't say "sorry" or "maybe I was wrong there"

Whenever a factual innacuracy is pointed out, the usual response from the Trolls is "I'm still not buying it"

Could not the Mods step in at this stage? It might prevent some longwinded vortexs developing??

Or when you say something in the clinic which some might disagree with, you are immediately either a troll or a fanboy of that said rider in the discussion.

Just look at BroDeal accusing me of being a Wiggins fanboy as a classic example of that nonsense last night.

 

[darwin553]

Personally, I would like to see the "liar" word banned

I still see a use for it if it's used in context. Of course, unless we are privy to CAS rulings or doping authorities' decisions we cannot speak with any definitive language. But failing the most outrageous allegations that should be downright condemned or mod modified, it should be okay for posters to rely on unofficial, journalistic sources to back up their arguments or make an argument using a series of known and undisputed facts and within the bounds of reason that can also include unfounded argument.

 

[The Hitch]

take it to PM if you must.

This is the thread where the mods get accused of lying twisting baiting trolling inconsistent arbitrary crass power crazed megalomania, its not about you.

If you don't want us to do it in this thread could you please direct me to a thread where we can continue the discussion.

If it were to go to pm's then there would be nothing to stop RR from resorting to the same insults and flames he was heavily reliant on before it became a mod issue.

RR is in my opinion distorting facts and outright lying about me to save face for his earlier behaviour.
In his opinion I am a serial liar baiter and troll.

The only way to resolve this is to have a discussion on it where other posters act as witnesses who can decide for themselves who they think has overstepped the lines.

That right there keeps the discussion in line as both of us know that if we resort to below the belt tactics we will get called out on it.

If we get pushed to pms there is nothing to stop the person who is in the wrong from insulting the other poster 10 x more heavily than on the forum, then ignoring them.

And that teaches bullies that if they are unpleasant to other posters soon enough the mods will push it to pms where they can then throw in some more insults and quit while they are ahead.

 

[Eshnar]

If you don't want us to do it in this thread could you please direct me to a thread where we can continue the discussion.

If it were to go to pm's then there would be nothing to stop RR from resorting to the same insults and flames he was heavily reliant on before it became a mod issue.

RR is in my opinion distorting facts and outright lying about me to save face for his earlier behaviour.
In his opinion I am a serial liar baiter and troll.

The only way to resolve this is to have a discussion on it where other posters act as witnesses who can decide for themselves who they think has overstepped the lines.

That right there keeps the discussion in line as both of us know that if we resort to below the belt tactics we will get called out on it.

If we get pushed to pms there is nothing to stop the person who is in the wrong from insulting the other poster 10 x more heavily than on the forum, then ignoring them.

And that teaches bullies that if they are unpleasant to other posters soon enough the mods will push it to pms where they can then throw in some more insults and quit while they are ahead.

PMs can be reported as well as any normal post...

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Or when you say something in the clinic which some might disagree with, you are immediately either a troll or a fanboy of that said rider in the discussion.

Just look at BroDeal accusing me of being a Wiggins fanboy as a classic example of that nonsense last night.

Agreed. He keeps telling me I am deluded about Froome being clean when I have made no such statement.

Imo it is looking more and more likely that BroDeal was a big fan of either someone that got caught doping (Landis seems a fair bet) and bought into him all the way down until he confessed (Perhaps even paid into the Floyd fund?).

This starts to explain why he constantly tries to bait people. It is clear he is actually angry at himself but tries to redirect it at others. You almost feel sorry for him. He constantly calls people SkyBots, trolls, etc... but he is often the first one to start a new thread on them or bring them into an existing, and unrelated, conversation.

Pulling a Wiggins
Wigans goes there. Cadence!
The Chris Squared Thread

(And those were just on the front page)

The more you read his posts the more obvious it becomes...

 

[King Boonen]

If you don't want us to do it in this thread could you please direct me to a thread where we can continue the discussion.

If it were to go to pm's then there would be nothing to stop RR from resorting to the same insults and flames he was heavily reliant on before it became a mod issue.

RR is in my opinion distorting facts and outright lying about me to save face for his earlier behaviour.
In his opinion I am a serial liar baiter and troll.

The only way to resolve this is to have a discussion on it where other posters act as witnesses who can decide for themselves who they think has overstepped the lines.

That right there keeps the discussion in line as both of us know that if we resort to below the belt tactics we will get called out on it.

If we get pushed to pms there is nothing to stop the person who is in the wrong from insulting the other poster 10 x more heavily than on the forum, then ignoring them.

And that teaches bullies that if they are unpleasant to other posters soon enough the mods will push it to pms where they can then throw in some more insults and quit while they are ahead.

Or, you know, be the bigger man and just drop it.

 

[del1962]

Agreed. He keeps telling me I am deluded about Froome being clean when I have made no such statement.

Imo it is looking more and more likely that BroDeal was a big fan of either someone that got caught doping (Landis seems a fair bet) and bought into him all the way down until he confessed (Perhaps even paid into the Floyd fund?).

This starts to explain why he constantly tries to bait people. It is clear he is actually angry at himself but tries to redirect it at others. You almost feel sorry for him. He constantly calls people SkyBots, trolls, etc... but he is often the first one to start a new thread on them or bring them into an existing, and unrelated, conversation.

Pulling a Wiggins
Wigans goes there. Cadence!
The Chris Squared Thread

(And those were just on the front page)

The more you read his posts the more obvious it becomes...

This +10

....

 

[Benotti69]

PMs can be reported as well as any normal post...

Why not open a thread in the 'About the forum' that gives a place for posters to air these complaints?

It will be long one but better than clogging up unrelated threads.

Call it 'the handbags' thread.

 

[Cyivel]

Lets all get along.