Moderators

[Race Radio]

Clearly the changes that were made to the sign up process a few months ago has already dimmed people's memories of what this forum was like pre this year's Tour.

One minute everybody cries for the mods to fix the place so that he can't ever come back because he is completely ruining the place and now that he can't, suddenly he was just simply misunderstood? Ridiculous.

As an asside, let me point out that each incarnation of BPC generally comes with associated PM barrages and that these PMs whilst not seen by most of you are on their own grounds for not letting a person that says things like that back onto this site.

As discussed earlier, BPC had all the offerings of second and NINTH chances that have been suggested above and in every single instance, HE blew it. Not the mods, not the other members. BPC.

He will not be allowed to come back in any form under any conditions and should he sneak in, he shall be immediately expelled. End of dicussion.

You should take this as a sign of progress. Things have improved greatly.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Snap. I am baffled where you get the impression from that long and permanent bans have had no positive impact on the place.

They may not be perfect solutions (or watertight ones - although even this is getting better). But there are a lot less people stomping off because they cannot handle the place's atmosphere caused by a handful of persistent offenders.

I admire your willingness to find one solution that fixes all failures and works for all people.

But are you not getting bogged down in fixing details and rare incidents, and missing the general impact of the measure in general?

Simply because an airbag fails occasionally doesn't mean we should see the airbag-in-car measure as a failing one.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's fairly easy to ignore flicker and Polish because they don't post repetitively and their comments are more satirical than inflammatory. If it enrages you, it's still possible to bite your tongue.

On the other hand, BPC would sit in a thread, make quadruple posts, end up with 40% of the thread post count with more and more misinformation "Lance's haemoglobin rose on the rest day because he forgot to drink and became dehydrated".

Maybe such conduct would be tolerable if it was someone posturing something ridiculous once or twice a day, but not intentionally doing it 50+ times a day only causes chaos.

That was it in a nutshell he seemed to have both the time and inclination to continue posting until everyone he was disagreeing with either went away or went crazy.
It wasn't hard to figure out when he came back as no one else ever posted 50 times in a twelve hour period on the first day they registered.

 

[Hugh Januss]

One minute everybody cries for the mods to fix the place so that he can't ever come back because he is completely ruining the place and now that he can't, suddenly he was just simply misunderstood? Ridiculous.

See this is one problem with making generalizations, I don't believe the everybodys who are saying he was just misunderstood are the same everybodys who were calling for his banning before.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Oh by the way.Set Buckwheat free.

 

[Martin318is]

See this is one problem with making generalizations, I don't believe the everybodys who are saying he was just misunderstood are the same everybodys who were calling for his banning before.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was being sarcastic out of exasperation with the circular debate.

Anyway, 97% of generalizations are correct - just like 67% of statistics are made up.

 

[straydog]

Oh by the way.Set Buckwheat free.

Seriously....don't

Have just had a look at his twitter activity of late....dude is not in a good way....kind of scary.

As for the mods....well despite my reservations about the general direction of their interactions....and my belief in the lack of balance in their make up....ultimately it matters little. Internet Forums are rarely unbiased and are more like political parties, a place for more or less like minded people to congregate. I think it being so one sided makes it a little boring and puts people off, but I don't really see how you avoid it unless the moderators are randomly selected or paid rather than chosen by other mods. And ultimately if this place ends up as ten like minded folk having a circle j*rk about doping fiends, then they are welcome to it.

One thing I will say is that BPC really seems to have given you guys the horn though....only you know who gets more mentions on here it seems.

On that note, just to put it out there....It never fails to make me laugh that some people accuse BPC or others of de railing threads by spouting something spurious or irrelevant, but see no irony in constantly referencing someone's air miles or business interests or parenting skills or womanising to "prove" their points in a cycling forum. You know. Just saying.

 

[Francois the Postman]

As for the mods....well despite my reservations about the general direction of their interactions....and my belief in the lack of balance in their make up....ultimately it matters little. Internet Forums are rarely unbiased and are more like political parties, a place for more or less like minded people to congregate. I think it being so one sided makes it a little boring and puts people off, but I don't really see how you avoid it unless the moderators are randomly selected or paid rather than chosen by other mods. And ultimately if this place ends up as ten like minded folk having a circle j*rk about doping fiends, then they are welcome to it.

Can you elaborate a bit on your perception of the lack of balance and "it" being so one-sided and boring?

 

[Elagabalus]

His tweets, all within the span of a single hour.

And somewhere between those, these tweet of Laura took place:


So he was asked to take it out of the public eye and was even pointed to the fact that she was not a moderator and yet he continued

(god, I spent more time on twitter in the last 24 hours than ever before)

Censoring somebody for transgressions that took place on another website ain't Cricket-ever.

Whilst upon my soap box I would also like to say that CN's policy of deleting post, warning people to stay on topic and the like, and insisting that we should always air our grievances in a nice clean PM, IMO, creates an unnecessary "Stanford prison experiment" vibe to the whole place.

Much of this would disappear if we could actually read what was said before you delete it all. And I believe it would actually lessen your work load.

 

[straydog]

Can you elaborate a bit on your perception of the lack of balance and "it" being so one-sided and boring?

Of course....apologies for not providing too many specifics...but I am a bit tired and heading for bed....so I will try and elaborate further another time....

But essentially....I think most would agree that there is a general air or "mood" of opinion on this site of late, with regards to the clinic. Yes, like me, there are still a few dissenting voices, but honestly our number is shrinking. Why? I think that a lot of people who share some of our opinions are scared or bored away from here by the mob "attacks" that seem to go unchecked when a newer member posts an unpopular opinion. As I have said before, that isn't really a forum, it is more like a cult. If you read the opinions of this forum on other forums, that is a fairly common view. Listen, one thing I can safely say is I would never do what you do (i.e be a mod) so I aint gonna whine too much. And actually I think Joe Papp hits the nail on the head when he says that unless posters use their real names there is always going to be an fairly unsightly tendency in certain threads. However, I think it is a pretty sad testament to this forum, and honestly, and i know this sounds a bit harsh, but also to the moderators, that JV and others like him, don't post here anymore.

 

[Race Radio]

Of course....apologies for not providing too many specifics...but I am a bit tired and heading for bed....so I will try and elaborate further another time....

But essentially....I think most would agree that there is a general air or "mood" of opinion on this site of late, with regards to the clinic. Yes, like me, there are still a few dissenting voices, but honestly our number is shrinking. Why? I think that a lot of people who share some of our opinions are scared or bored away from here by the mob "attacks" that seem to go unchecked when a newer member posts an unpopular opinion. As I have said before, that isn't really a forum, it is more like a cult. If you read the opinions of this forum on other forums, that is a fairly common view. Listen, one thing I can safely say is I would never do what you do (i.e be a mod) so I aint gonna whine too much. And actually I think Joe Papp hits the nail on the head when he says that unless posters use their real names there is always going to be an fairly unsightly tendency in certain threads. However, I think it is a pretty sad testament to this forum, and honestly, and i know this sounds a bit harsh, but also to the moderators, that JV and others like him, don't post here anymore.

What valid opinion do you feel is missing? Would you prefer that we spend more time talking about Cancer research? Nike shoes?

You are under the mistaken assumption that both sides of the discussion have equivalency with their arguments, they do not. Repeating Higgins press releases, passages from "It's not about the bike", and quotes from Phil and Paul add little to the discussion.

While Chris E's delivery was terrible he did ask very good questions that were valid and should be addressed. It is unfortunate that nobody has been able to deliver anything a rational, concise manner as it would make this place much more interesting.....instead we are stuck with a few posters who every few weeks pop up and write "You Guys Suck!", some who live on pretzel logic and dodge any attempt at a constructive discussion, and a few others where comedy is their sole goal.

If you feel a topic has not been given a fair shake then by all means start a new thread and present your position.

 

[Martin318is]

sorry Straydog,
I am really struggling to follow your linkage of the general "opinion" of this site to the moderation style being implemented.

Continually people float this point and yet they have never once successfully presented a post that was edited/deleted/whatever by a moderator for any other reason that breach of a specific rule such as language/insulting members/etc.

They also fail to present specific evidence of a post by someone that has breached a rule AND been reported (because it is aknowledged that mods dont get to read everything) that hasn't been effectively dealt with by a moderator. Generally when a member attempts to make this link it is either pointed out that an action was taken, or the moderator immediately reacted by dealing with the post.

The fact is that the success or failure of those that consider themselves on the "other side" of the key arguments is entirely down to them, their debating skill, and the strength of the evidence they are able to present.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Look, I just read the first 3 pages of this thread. Overall I think the mods do a pretty good job. But there are some ppl here who need to take ownership of the stuff they put in writing. If you get caught speeding 65 in a 55 and get fined, but the next guy passing you at 70 doesn't get caught, all I can say is you were still speeding. So stop complaining, stand up, and be accountable. I can't wait for the season to start so we have something more meaningful to discuss.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Censoring somebody for transgressions that took place on another website ain't Cricket-ever.

Whilst upon my soap box I would also like to say that CN's policy of deleting post, warning people to stay on topic and the like, and insisting that we should always air our grievances in a nice clean PM, IMO, creates an unnecessary "Stanford prison experiment" vibe to the whole place.

Or a place where people on the whole are able to vent any viewpoint they have regarding cycling, and challenge any cycling related viewpoint as they see fit, as long as they address fellow posters in a respectful tone.

I accept we behave with authority, and certainly more to some individuals than others. We are mods, and some people cause the need for intervention. We usually start to act after posters without that authority have already publicly appealed for reason, and were ignored.

If your characterisation is that mod-behaviour this place resembles even vaguely what went on in that experiment, you and I disagree. None of enjoys being sadistic, for starters, and we actually go out of our way to avoid actual punishment. I really have better things to do than waste my free time editing posts of others, getting involved in things that don't interest me, mediating, and warning folk and PM-ing them, etc. Really.

If you mean that the atmosphere here is so stifling that posters are becoming passive and accepting their fate, than we might have a discussion, if you define "accept their fate". Feedback is genuinely welcome. This whole forum area exists to empower you guys, and have a say. It is taken on board and debated.

Much of this would disappear if we could actually read what was said before you delete it all. And I believe it would actually lessen your work load.

Experience suggests otherwise. Modding became more heavy-handed after your approach was becoming too much to deal with, whilst simultaneously creating a negative effect on the overall experience here for more people than was judged acceptable.

Modding certainly has become more heavy handed at one point than it had been before, in my time on the board at least (well before I became a mod).

It has made a noticeable difference on the overall atmosphere, certainly on a poster to poster interaction level. Most of it is welcome, some of it we probably regret too, but is simply a consequence of many people with different expectations of "normal and acceptable", and needing one mold that fits most, and especially those that "we would like to have this site for".

It will have an impact on the content too.

I accept all that. And I am sure the other mods are aware of that too. It's why we try to find the best balance. (One that never will be perfect for al).

If your accusation is that the mods are removing content they don't agree with, and we also agree on what content is permissible and which isn't, I'm willing to have that discussion.

If your accusation is that the modding is stopping some posters from giving their opinion to start with, again, that is something we can discuss.

If your accusation is that the mods are protecting people they agree with and clamp down on people they disagree with, I am willing to have that discussion here too.

Or any other angle that you have.

But if you look at what we do allow here, pov and actual behaviour, if you characterise that as "Stanford prison like", or "Orwellian" (a word not used by you but one that I see from time to time too), I think your scale might needs some calibrating, as I am curious how you would characterise things when they get really excessive.

All we all can hope for is that you get mods who, on the whole, will make sound judgements, and who have a capacity to put bias, bad days, and personal hang-ups aside as much as humanly possible.

If you have concerns, by all means, make them known. It is what this feedback bit is created for.

My POV? Given how hands-off Cycling News is, and how freely points of view can be aired here without intervention of any type, as long as it remains on topic in a thread, and people behave respectfully towards each other, I think, on balance, this place is doing rather well. Certainly when you compare it to what else is out there. I am not complacent, and I am always for ideas to make it better. All the more now I am a mod and have taken on duty of care with it.

Now, if this forum is people's idea of Orwellian or Stanford Prisons, I honestly think people have probably had comfortable lives they don't quite appreciate as much as they could.

I do get you were overstating for clarity, but if you make your points without doing that, I would still listen.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Of course....apologies for not providing too many specifics...but I am a bit tired and heading for bed....so I will try and elaborate further another time....

.

No prob, about to do the same.

But essentially....I think most would agree that there is a general air or "mood" of opinion on this site of late, with regards to the clinic. Yes, like me, there are still a few dissenting voices, but honestly our number is shrinking. Why? I think that a lot of people who share some of our opinions are scared or bored away from here by the mob "attacks" that seem to go unchecked when a newer member posts an unpopular opinion.

I can only speak for myself on this one, but I would argue I have been doing the exact opposite of what you state here, especially when it came to low-count posters being laid into.

Also, if you a have seen heavy handed interventions of new-ish posters, it could well be that the intervention wasn't triggered by the content of the post, but the actual identity of the poster in question. Who would not have been a new poster, in that case, but someone who wasn't supposed to be there for starters.

As I have said before, that isn't really a forum, it is more like a cult. If you read the opinions of this forum on other forums, that is a fairly common view.

I disagree, but am familiar with the allegation. When I read the discussions, all sides are being argued, and I also see opinions externally that acknowledge that. We certainly have some active advocates for certain positions, and maybe a certain pov is more common than others. I give you that.

But cult?

Maybe it is simply a side-effect for us allowing those pov to stand in public, when other forums ban them? I can think of numerous forums where these type of comments are not accepted. Which would then make an abundance of that type of pov here a side-effect of being more permissive.

Listen, one thing I can safely say is I would never do what you do (i.e be a mod) so I aint gonna whine too much.

I can take criticism and feedback not lose fact of that sentiment, that you appreciate and disagree at the same time. Respectful discourse tends to improve things and lead to better pov. Whine away

And actually I think Joe Papp hits the nail on the head when he says that unless posters use their real names there is always going to be an fairly unsightly tendency in certain threads.

Yes, but the flip-side is that this is the internet and there are countless reasons why using real names is not a good idea for other people, depending on your situation. Maybe some people would indeed bite their tongue a bit more, but the immediate pay-off is that other folk would simply not participate, or look for ways to bypass the system. Real names only is not a win-win proposal, but tackling one problem by creating another.

However, I think it is a pretty sad testament to this forum, and honestly, and i know this sounds a bit harsh, but also to the moderators, that JV and others like him, don't post here anymore.

Have you asked JV why he decided not to? Was it because of the lack of moderation here? Or too much? Agenda driven moderation?

I can think of a 1000 reasons why he isn't posting here (and others like him) that have little to do with the moderation, and more to do with the actual posts and (individual) posters.

This last comment highlights the tricky balancing act that is taking place. If they didn't like what they encountered, it would probably take interventions to change that. At the same time, you say that our interventions should be more hands off.

We are all after ideals that are competing and conflicting.

Again, speaking for myself, all I can try to help to create an environment that is welcoming and appealing to genuine opinions that encourage constructive debate, provide insightful insights, alert us to interesting developments, and bring interesting povs to the table.

It is in my own interest to have opposing pov participating, so when you start to insinuate that I encourage the opposite, or take mod positions based on personal preference to what sits comfortable with my own pov, I both disagree and am curious why you feel that way.

I couldn't care less what you say, but I do care how people say it.

 

[Francois the Postman]

While Chris E's delivery was terrible he did ask very good questions that were valid and should be addressed. It is unfortunate that nobody has been able to deliver anything a rational, concise manner as it would make this place much more interesting.....

(Generalising) And this is exactly why moderators regret that we lose opinions like that, simply because a user keeps doing other stuff that is not acceptable.

And why we try to communicate with them so they can stay on the board.

Some people here have bigger friends within the mod crew than they appear to realize.

I can see why some mods find it frustrating to see that their efforts and actions then somehow become "you are trying to ban opinion that you disagree with". When they have been trying to be utterly reasonable, sometimes well beyond the call of duty. And often totally ignored by the person you are trying to get through to.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm not sure why someone has gone back and deleted previous accounts and posts in old topics? All this means that now there is no public record. I've always wondered why CN physically deletes accounts and all posts - surely banning and just removing the offending posts is sufficient.

The person in question is now accusing me of lying. I thought maybe there was some truth when they were suggesting that RR and others were making things up with regards to what this person said, but now I know that that wouldn't be the case. Proud to join the club of those accused of mistruths from this admirable person.

P.S. I still found some good ones residing in quoted posts.

doubt he would have been dehydrated on the rest day, but it's safe to assume his intake of fluids dropped dramatically from the previous day given he was not involved in a long stage. This may well have had an effect.

The change is not big enough and comes on a rest day when the levels often bounce around a little

In response to a 16.7% rise in HcT during a GT

Perfectly normal for someone coming from a low base.

Forgot about this one:

His body would have been under a lot more stress during the Giro due to coming back from the collarbone injury, so it makes sense it would take more out of him.

It's impossible to get fitter from doing a moutain stage at altitude a few days before?

Old school WonderLance gem (when she was more discrete):

I'll add to this list: Getting dropped on a climb is evidence of doping.

Again, alone all these posts may be ok. They would also be ok if the person was genuinely interested in enhancing the discussion. There is a huge difference between asking the more educated forum members "would it be possible that fluid intake on a rest day may change, which could impact blood values?" than saying "It's probable that one would hydrate less on a rest day, have diahorrea or be tested in the morning - therefore there is a low certainty that an autologous transfusion took place (of course I'm only speculating here)".

It's fine to speculate in order to evolve discussion - what is unacceptable is consistently "speculating" in order to enhance a member's own argument. Even devil's advocates are fine, but once again this is a whole new level. Any frequent poster who relies on wild speculation as the basis for their argument (as opposed to wild speculation in order to flesh out discussion - there is copious amounts of this on any forum) is troublesome, IMO. It's fairly clear to see when one's motives are with good intentions or otherwise (i.e. creating disruption).

 

[Martin318is]

The decision to delete his posts was intended to give him absolultely no reason to come back and no reward for putting in the effort to get another account on the site and write even a single post. At one time he would have up to 5 accounts in a day and post madly using them and then add to those conversations when he created a new account to get around the latest ban.

By deleting his posts his entire effort would get binned - often within 10 minutes.

 

[Barrus]

Oh by the way.Set Buckwheat free.

I'm saying this publicly: If he comes back, I'm gone

Also @ straydog:

One suggestion....why not set up some kind of email account where banned members can contact the mods and receive an official statement regarding their ban or appeal? I know it might get kind of inundated...and not least regarding my whole "posting porn" debacle....but maybe it might lead some of the "offenders" to acceptance.

On the main site there is a list with contacts to the staff members of the website, if you have a problem on the forum, the best one you could sent a polite e-mail to, is Susan, as she does the most on the forum

 

[Ferminal]

The decision to delete his posts was intended to give him absolultely no reason to come back and no reward for putting in the effort to get another account on the site and write even a single post. At one time he would have up to 5 accounts in a day and post madly using them and then add to those conversations when he created a new account to get around the latest ban.

By deleting his posts his entire effort would get binned - often within 10 minutes.

I understand that much, but I'm not sure why historical posts from the likes of The Arbiter and BPC were deleted, when only a few months ago they were still there

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Martin 381is has given me a warning. Does anyone else think I insulted Barrus? I respect him quite a bit as a matter of fact. That wasn't clear?

Martin has also now decided that it's time to change my signature. Why now and not a few weeks ago when I made it? Has it all of a sudden become offensive or does it have something more to do with having a head full of steam?

I have a request too: cancel my membership.

 

[Barrus]

Martin 381is has given me a warning. Does anyone else think I insulted Barrus? I respect him quite a bit as a matter of fact. That wasn't clear?

Martin has also now decided that it's time to change my signature. Why now and not a few weeks ago when I made it? Has it all of a sudden become offensive or does it have something more to do with having a head full of steam?

I have a request too: cancel my membership.

It's probably this part:

Making certain innocuous subjects taboo on other websites for CN forum members is Orwellian, not to mention quite lame. What time does school get out?

For which it's probably too harsh, however it has to do with why buckwheat was originally banned and perhaps that's why he overreacted a bit. Your statement seems to imply that I was being childish. But it's just because we are a bit on edge due to the stuff that has been happening here the last few days that overreactions can happen. Just to be clear I myself did not really found it too insulting and will see what the reasoning by Martin is, it will likely be resolved quite quickly one way or another

However the signature problem still stands, I had not yet really read it up 'till now, but the last word should be taken out, it would have been filtered by the word filter, yet you purposely circumvented it.

 

[Anonymous]

But essentially....I think most would agree that there is a general air or "mood" of opinion on this site of late, with regards to the clinic. Yes, like me, there are still a few dissenting voices, but honestly our number is shrinking. Why? I think that a lot of people who share some of our opinions are scared or bored away from here by the mob "attacks" that seem to go unchecked when a newer member posts an unpopular opinion. .

Agreed. This forum is turning very one sided, the ones who dont agree with the majority are graually dissapearing. Either scared away or banned. Reminds me of the situation with Al Capone. Up to no good but taken to court of technicallities.

Whilst upon my soap box I would also like to say that CN's policy of deleting post, warning people to stay on topic and the like, and insisting that we should always air our grievances in a nice clean PM, IMO, creates an unnecessary "Stanford prison experiment" vibe to the whole place.
.

Agreed. I long argued for a troll hole., A section of them forum where "trolling" posts were moved to rather than deleting. That request fell on death ears. Removing posts removes all evidence of arguments so that what actually happened becomes purely hearsay rather than hard fact.

That was a classic. He also said it rose because they had crossed the Galibier the day before and that the 20 minutes at altitude was the same as altitude training. .

And this is my point, when people think someone is talking crap they attack them with the troll argument. AS said before, talking crap is not against the forum rules, if it was we would all be banned.

Im not deliberately causing trouble on this one. Yes BPC is a pain in the ****, yes, Buckwheat did it would seam overstep the line, but not everyone here is an innocent party. There are those that goad, and encourage the "trolls" knowing a ban will result. There are those that when faced with things they do not agree with, insult and goad until the person in question is written off as a troll. And the mods largely seem to fall in line with the bulk of the posters.


This forum is rapidly becoming very one sided and sanitised.

One thing I would add in relation to Buck is this: I haven't been posting for a while due to work commitments, but when I had a quick look in last night I was amazed at Buck's apparent spiral in regards to the whole JV thing....then I saw he was banned....

In my opinion, buckwheat should have been either suspended a lot earlier, OR the thread that caused the problem should have been closed a lot earlier, as some people myself, the hog and a couple of others requested. If that had happened I beleive things would have died down. I think the mods acted far too late and by then the whole thing had spiralled out of control.

Not laying the blame at the mods, buckwheat was responsible for his own actions, but there were several members who saw it coming and requested action. That action was a long time coming. But hindsight is a very wonderful thing.

Nobody got any thoughts on this one?

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Not childish: paternalistic. I presumed the reference to Orwell would've made that clear. I cannot respect poor judgement any more than I can self-importance (for which I'm covinced drives many of the mods' decisions - Barrus just confirmed it by admitting that Martin 318is probably overreacted.)

This allusion was made before I learnt that Buck had insulted Barrus with the Nazi reference, for which I agree was the tipping point.

Yet now things are becoming muddled again; was Buck permanently banned for engaging Laura on a public forum (which has been confirmed) or because of this slander (which is starting to become the official if somewhat personal reason.)

I'm tired of the vapid justifications on both sides and have lost confidence in the moderation of these forums. I cannot emphasise that enough. I've requested my membership be cancelled via PM and I reiterate it again here. I could merely refrain from posting, but I want to make a minor stand on principle.

It's been fun, at times, guys and informative as well. Thank you to BroDeal, Hugh Januss, Buckwheat and racerralph who befriended me. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that.

You can check my IP, I won't be back. I'm not grandstanding.

 

[Barrus]

You do realize he was banned, before he was banned a second time and later permanently banned. He came back and almost immediately misbehaved again. Next to that he was given many, many warnings before his first ban

Agreed. I long argued for a troll hole., A section of them forum where "trolling" posts were moved to rather than deleting. That request fell on death ears. Removing posts removes all evidence of arguments so that what actually happened becomes purely hearsay rather than hard fact.

You do realize the extra work this would give us moderators? We are already short staffed as it is. Also such a part of the forum would have absolutely no purpose and would only encourage more trolling


@Cyclo:

Yet now things are becoming muddled again; was Buck permanently banned for engaging Laura on a public forum (which has been confirmed) or because of this slander (which is starting to become the official if somewhat personal reason.)

He was permantly banned for pestering Laura. However had he not been banned and I would have read those statements against myself, I would have permanently banned him, this is what I tried to get across in my earlier post, perhaps not too clear.