Moderators

[Race Radio]

The nickname you used on another member while amusing is similar in intent to mine. How about we put that one aside?

Certainly. My intention was to point out how absurd it was the the mods had sanctioned the insulting of another poster

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Certainly. My intention was to point out how absurd it was the the mods had sanctioned the insulting of another poster

Thanks Racist.
I was thinking we were on the same wavelength.
Over and out.

 

[thrawn]

The last 3 days of this thread have been awesome. I was ****ing myself laughing.

 

[red_flanders]

It is about time the Mods come up with an approved list of ad hominem attacks.

They have made it clear that it is OK to shout "Vortex" whenever you disagree with Dr. Maserati. This is great for some as it is so much easier for them to insult a fellow poster then address the topic.

We also see that it is OK to taunt a fellow posters with an insulting nickname for actually paying for and reading an article. It is much easier to not pay to read it but toss insults at those who do and invent what you think might have been in the article.

Can we add a few more to this list? Surely a poster who clogs the forum with baiting, insults and graphic language deserves a good nickname?

I agree with you that is absurd that the name-calling has been allowed and in fact endorsed by one moderator.

That said, to make the assertion that "it is OK to taunt fellow posters with an insulting nickname for paying for and reading an article", is also absurd. It is revisionism as to the source of the nickname. As is your repeated call to have other posters get nicknames. You now troll as often and equally as those about whom you complain.

Everyone gets your point. But you can't really complain about trolling when you're doing as much trolling as anyone on the site. Or are you special?

 

[Race Radio]

I agree with you that is absurd that the name-calling has been allowed and in fact endorsed by one moderator.

That said, to make the assertion that "it is OK to taunt fellow posters with an insulting nickname for paying for and reading an article", is also absurd. It is revisionism as to the source of the nickname. As is your repeated call to have other posters get nicknames. You now troll as often and equally as those about whom you complain.

Everyone gets your point. But you can't really complain about trolling when you're doing as much trolling as anyone on the site. Or are you special?

You are welcome to pretend my 2-3 posts are the equivalent of months of their nonsense but we both know this is not the case. It is clear to most here that those posts are intended to draw attention to the issue

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree with you that is absurd that the name-calling has been allowed and in fact endorsed by one moderator.

That said, to make the assertion that "it is OK to taunt fellow posters with an insulting nickname for paying for and reading an article", is also absurd. It is revisionism as to the source of the nickname. As is your repeated call to have other posters get nicknames. You now troll as often and equally as those about whom you complain.

Everyone gets your point. But you can't really complain about trolling when you're doing as much trolling as anyone on the site. Or are you special?

Hold on.
Do not blame the forum members for not adhering to 'rules' or guidelines that are not enforced. The complaints are not new, and where mod intervention was sought to tackle it some of them have become ringleaders.

Also the nickname RR was referring to was Dr. MasterCard. Which was actually excellent and again I have no problem with but it has to do with the context which it was done.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Believe you me, I appreciate your post and do see all your points and again apologize that good points get lost in an apparent vortex.

To the highlighted - bingo. IMO thats it and also the dilemma.

The Walsh thread is interesting - while "Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon" might seem a legitimate question and worthy discussion, in reality it is a thread to bash him because a few believe that he is not writing an expose on Sky doping that they know is happening and must obviously be aware of.
IMO the thread would have failed to reach 5 pages except that there is a determined effort to repeat things as fact, ignore responses and a refusal to back up their claims.

The amusing part is I disagree with Walsh, but believe he is genuine - but again, it is easier to dismiss my views as fanboyism when I actually want to tease out a legitimate discussion.


Moreso - after a recent ban for 'failing to adhere to a mods instructions" I decided to change my approach. This time when a member posted in the JV thread an opinion which I felt was inaccurate on a vague interpretation of something they had read but not time to link.
So, I decided (at my own expense) to seek the article I believed they were talking about. I found one that appeared to fit but whose content was at odds with the other posters interpretation. So I offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article.
This, in my mind would have stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread.

With stunning speed a mod arrived on scene and asked me to back up my claim and link to my opinion. They did so publicly on that thread - my responses were deleted and ultimately I received another ban for ignoring a 'mod warning".
To make it more interesting - another mod recently only found that exchange here and I was told to publicly to STFU.
Amazingly the mods seem to have found the ability to delete that and the responses in swift time.
For what its worth - the original post which I believe to be inaccurate in the JV thread is still there and was not challenged or exposed.

Thanks for the response Dr.M. I wish you had just quoted some pertinent snippets from your article so we could all see what JV actually said. Especially if it's something older or from behind a paywall, many posters may not have read it, so it might have been enlightening.

I think the easiest thing might have been to just say, in some kind of non-confrontational way, 'I remember it this way instead.' Here are these quotes/source, ask the other person to link their source, and just leave it to the individual readers to decide who made a better case. It may be that the other person honestly mis-remembered or misinterpreted what they read. It may be that they picked it up secondhand and were misinformed. Or it may be that different things were said at different times/different context, changed his tune, etc. If we had both sources, we could decide for ourselves. And if the person is truly spinning/trolling/lying, that will likely show up.

It sounds like you had some mod intervention before you got to post your source. Maybe in the future, especially with the posters where you know there's a good chance of going off into bickering back and forth - instead go straight to quoting your own evidence so if an argument does ensue, it remains content-centered? That might be more likely to convince readers of the solidity of your position. Once a couple guys start accusing each other of trolling, it kinda goes off the rails. Don't use the word "troll," just show the holes in the other guys argument, and leave it to the reader to decide who made a more substantive case.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the polite and thoughtful discussion in this thread. It can't be easy to sit around and read/talk to folks about your own posting habits and what they like or don't like, but kudos for being open to the conversation. It has not gone unnoticed, I'm sure by many folks.

 

[the sceptic]

The last 3 days of this thread have been awesome. I was ****ing myself laughing.

My sources tell me that Mini Walsh going to war to protect dr Maserati's feelings from getting hurt while spouting off much worse nicknames himself and calling everyone that disagree with him trolls was the best part of the thread.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My sources tell me that Mini Walsh going to war to protect dr Maserati's feelings from getting hurt while spouting off much worse nicknames himself and calling everyone that disagree with him trolls was the best part of the thread.

I am quite thick skinned, and have no problem going toe to toe with anyone - however, I also see that as being destructive and not being in the best interests of the forum.

So I have no problem admitting I was wrong, and apologize for my actions.

 

[pmcg76]

Thanks for the response Dr.M. I wish you had just quoted some pertinent snippets from your article so we could all see what JV actually said. Especially if it's something older or from behind a paywall, many posters may not have read it, so it might have been enlightening.

I think the easiest thing might have been to just say, in some kind of non-confrontational way, 'I remember it this way instead.' Here are these quotes/source, ask the other person to link their source, and just leave it to the individual readers to decide who made a better case. It may be that the other person honestly mis-remembered or misinterpreted what they read. It may be that they picked it up secondhand and were misinformed. Or it may be that different things were said at different times/different context, changed his tune, etc. If we had both sources, we could decide for ourselves. And if the person is truly spinning/trolling/lying, that will likely show up.

It sounds like you had some mod intervention before you got to post your source. Maybe in the future, especially with the posters where you know there's a good chance of going off into bickering back and forth - instead go straight to quoting your own evidence so if an argument does ensue, it remains content-centered? That might be more likely to convince readers of the solidity of your position. Once a couple guys start accusing each other of trolling, it kinda goes off the rails. Don't use the word "troll," just show the holes in the other guys argument, and leave it to the reader to decide who made a more substantive case.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the polite and thoughtful discussion in this thread. It can't be easy to sit around and read/talk to folks about your own posting habits and what they like or don't like, but kudos for being open to the conversation. It has not gone unnoticed, I'm sure by many folks.

But this is exactly the problem here, the poster in question has a very notable record of deliberate misquoting, distortion and pure invention of nonsense. Almost every day, said poster says something that is complete distortion or just completely untrue, they were at it again today and other posters called them on it, but there is a pattern now of said poster retracting claims/lies feigning innocence but will then undoubtedly post the same claims/lies somewhere else at a later date.

To me it is pure unadulterated trolling and in the past I have called them on it numerous times but cannot be bothered anymore as the mods refuse to do anything about it. If a poster needs to be corrected on things everyday, either they are trolling or so ill-informed they shouldn't post or both. I think most poster's would agree the poster in question is a troll, full-stop as their post count is massive so how could they be so ill-informed.

I think Dr.Mas is a balanced poster but overdose it with the pedantic stuff and I too have been sucked into his circular arguments. However, if the mods were more strict on people just making up random stuff, there would also be less of the pedantic Dr.Mas, but the mods somehow refuse to see both sides and are trying to shift all blame onto Dr.Mas.

 

[Race Radio]

But this is exactly the problem here, the poster in question has a very notable record of deliberate misquoting, distortion and pure invention of nonsense. Almost every day, said poster says something that is complete distortion or just completely untrue, they were at it again today and other posters called them on it, but there is a pattern now of said poster retracting claims/lies feigning innocence but will then undoubtedly post the same claims/lies somewhere else at a later date.

To me it is pure unadulterated trolling and in the past I have called them on it numerous times but cannot be bothered anymore as the mods refuse to do anything about it. If a poster needs to be corrected on things everyday, either they are trolling or so ill-informed they shouldn't post or both. I think most poster's would agree the poster in question is a troll, full-stop as their post count is massive so how could they be so ill-informed.

I think Dr.Mas is a balanced poster but overdose it with the pedantic stuff and I too have been sucked into his circular arguments. However, if the mods were more strict on people just making up random stuff, there would also be less of the pedantic Dr.Mas, but the mods somehow refuse to see both sides and are trying to shift all blame onto Dr.Mas.

Good post, but be careful Mini-BPC is very thin skinned. Hates it when you point out the obvious

 

[gooner]

My sources tell me that Mini Walsh going to war to protect dr Maserati's feelings from getting hurt while spouting off much worse nicknames himself and calling everyone that disagree with him trolls was the best part of the thread.

This post sounds familiar. Oh it rings a bell now.

I suppose someone has to take up the hog's mantle of posting endless BS while he's away.

 

[Eshnar]

people, let's remember that baits and flames are not allowed, not even in this thread, which some of you seem to think it's a free-for-all.

RR, choose where do you want to address the issue of the name-calling. Here or via PM doesn't matter, but choose one. We've been talking about this all the day and then you re-address the issue here totally ignoring what I've been saying. Not really encouraging to continue...

 

[Race Radio]

people, let's remember that baits and flames are not allowed, not even in this thread, which some of you seem to think it's a free-for-all.

RR, choose where do you want to address the issue of the name-calling. Here or via PM doesn't matter, but choose one. We've been talking about this all the day and then you re-address the issue here totally ignoring what I've been saying. Not really encouraging to continue...

I am ignoring? Reported it hours ago, Sent a DM, zero response to either.

 

[pmcg76]

people, let's remember that baits and flames are not allowed, not even in this thread, which some of you seem to think it's a free-for-all.

RR, choose where do you want to address the issue of the name-calling. Here or via PM doesn't matter, but choose one. We've been talking about this all the day and then you re-address the issue here totally ignoring what I've been saying. Not really encouraging to continue...

Here is an idea Eshnar, how bout dealing with some of the very obvious trolls in this place.

 

[Eshnar]

I am ignoring? Reported it hours ago, Sent a DM, zero response to either.

You're ignoring the content of the whole discussion we have, when you claim this

They have made it clear that it is OK to shout "Vortex" whenever you disagree with Dr. Maserati. This is great for some as it is so much easier for them to insult a fellow poster then address the topic.

which is pretty much the opposite of what I've been saying. That is, of the words I've totally wasted today. Good to know. Don't expect to have other answers to the topic from me. Look for another mod. Or just Dan.

PS:
I'm on my mobile and it's already painful to write a message, I certainly won't look at the reports, so I have no clue what you're talking about, sorry.

 

[Eshnar]

Here is an idea Eshnar, how bout dealing with some of the very obvious trolls in this place.

generally it's what we try to do

 

[pmcg76]

generally it's what we try to do

Clearly not very well then, the clinic could actually be a good place for discussion but there are literally a handful of poster's who have made it unbearable for most.

 

[sittingbison]

...So, I decided (at my own expense) to seek the article I believed they were talking about. I found one that appeared to fit but whose content was at odds with the other posters interpretation. So I offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article.
This, in my mind would have stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread....

DrMas, this is the root of the problem with the "vortex"*. Sniper had not posted a link...but neither did you.

Its admirable you wanted to ensure that what was being discussed was true and correct, and you went to some trouble and expense with that. The process broke down when you "offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article".

You had gone to that trouble and expense to get an article that appeared to support your opinion that sniper was wrong. Why didn't you just post the article you researched, point out why you thought sniper was either misinterpreting, misconstruing or misreporting, and let him respond...or not. WHich would clarify snipers position...or lack of.

You asked a rhetorical question and didn't post your article, which didn't really offer sniper an opportunity to "amend, clarify or correct you if you had a different article." This approach ensured the opposite of "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread".

* this term describes the circular form of discussion that can be undertaken by anybody, not specifically DrMas

 

[Cyivel]

He had an opportunity to read the article if he paid for it, if somebody who paid for something doesn't want to give others access to it for free, frankly I don't blame them. If you don't know what the article said don't discuss it, if you're that interested in it's content then make sure you have read it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

DrMas, this is the root of the problem with the "vortex"*. Sniper had not posted a link...but neither did you.

Ok, so the root of the Vortex is someone not posting a link.

Well I will do that in the future.... oh wait, I always do that.

Its admirable you wanted to ensure that what was being discussed was true and correct, and you went to some trouble and expense with that. The process broke down when you "offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article".

You had gone to that trouble and expense to get an article that appeared to support your opinion that sniper was wrong. Why didn't you just post the article you researched, point out why you thought sniper was either misinterpreting, misconstruing or misreporting, and let him respond...or not. WHich would clarify snipers position...or lack of.

You asked a rhetorical question and didn't post your article, which didn't really offer sniper an opportunity to "amend, clarify or correct you if you had a different article." This approach ensured the opposite of "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread".

* this term describes the circular form of discussion that can be undertaken by anybody, not specifically DrMas

Why didn't you clowns await their reply?
That would have clarified it, simple.

If they claimed they could not or would not find it, I would have happily posted the relevant paragraph.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

DrMas, this is the root of the problem with the "vortex"*. Sniper had not posted a link...but neither did you.

I remember asking you to post a link to clarify something you claimed Wiggins had alluded to. I got told to use Google to find it. When I could not find it I posted this and was told that, in effect, that was my problem. The Vortex then chimed in calling me a troll (Dr Mas, you have a habit of claiming that about a great many people yet I have seen more arguments derailed because of you then by most people).

The long and short of it is that it ended up with you (SB) telling me that the quotes/articles has probably been deleted by Sky.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I remember asking you to post a link to clarify something you claimed Wiggins had alluded to. I got told to use Google to find it. When I could not find it I posted this and was told that, in effect, that was my problem. The Vortex then chimed in calling me a troll (Dr Mas, you have a habit of claiming that about a great many people yet I have seen more arguments derailed because of you then by most people).

The long and short of it is that it ended up with you (SB) telling me that the quotes/articles has probably been deleted by Sky.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

If I think someone is being a troll, yes, I have certainly said it. Although it is an exaggeration to suggest it is many people.
Have I also trolled - I am sure I have.

Not sure what the point is, sorry.

 

[MarkvW]

DrMas, this is the root of the problem with the "vortex"*. Sniper had not posted a link...but neither did you.

Its admirable you wanted to ensure that what was being discussed was true and correct, and you went to some trouble and expense with that. The process broke down when you "offered them the opportunity to amend, clarify their interpretation or even correct me if I they had a different article".

You had gone to that trouble and expense to get an article that appeared to support your opinion that sniper was wrong. Why didn't you just post the article you researched, point out why you thought sniper was either misinterpreting, misconstruing or misreporting, and let him respond...or not. WHich would clarify snipers position...or lack of.

You asked a rhetorical question and didn't post your article, which didn't really offer sniper an opportunity to "amend, clarify or correct you if you had a different article." This approach ensured the opposite of "stopped any further clogging or derailing of the thread".

* this term describes the circular form of discussion that can be undertaken by anybody, not specifically DrMas

If he had to go through a paywall to get to the copyrighted material. It would be like, illegal (and prob against forum policy) for him to cut and paste the document in this forum.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If he had to go through a paywall to get to the copyrighted material. It would be like, illegal (and prob against forum policy) for him to cut and paste the document in this forum.

I must admit - I had not thought of the copyrighted material part.

I know it is rightly against the rules to post a full article as many sites need the clicks. But for a subscription site it could be in breach of their copyright even to snip the relevant paragraph which I was prepared to do.