Moderators

[andy1234]

Given your posting history I would expect you to understand "post not poster"

You would have had a point if you had challenged me on facts or questioned my position.......but uou didn't. Instead you, and others, ignored what I wrote and babbled about bias, imaginary agenda's , and conspiracies.

It is pretty simple

I did question your position, or should I say positions.
You also have the most glaring agenda of anyone on here, and I have questioned your position regarding interpretation of events many times.

Hint: saying someone who has an agenda, has an, erm, agenda, is not playing the man. It is simply stating a fact. Until you begin to demonstrate an ability to interpret events from a neutral standpoint, you will continue to be challenged on it.

When that challenge contravenes a forum rule, let the Mods deal with it.
Until then, suck it up.....

 

[ebandit]

deleted

where's mas? they seem to have been deleted with no explanition

as others have asked if a returning banned member is banninated why are their posts not automatically removed?

sure! it will disrupt the conversation but better to discourage banned members returning

thanks!
Mark L

 

[Race Radio]

I did question your position, or should I say positions.
You also have the most glaring agenda of anyone on here, .

Nah, you cried about agenda, bias, narrative and ignored the topic....which is why the mods told you to back off.

As for the most "Glaring agenda" prize.....There are several posters, like yourself, whose posts are primarily focus on insulting those that question the myth. Then there is BPC, whose agenda appears to be convincing his doctors to up his meds.

 

[ebandit]

me' n you

Out of interest, and for fun, (though I know you are banned atm so maybe someone else can have a go) who would be in "the hog group" and then which apostles form " the clinic 12"?

me of course............and yersel............jimmy fingers ventoux bear saxon uk
enacheV martin vickers del1962 froome19 taxus4a raceradio

all hoggys best friends.................heck! maybe even joachim will return to forward their best wishes

'tis a shame hoggy is not here to appreciate

Mark L

 

[andy1234]

Nah, you cried about agenda, bias, narrative and ignored the topic....which is why the mods told you to back off.

As for the most "Glaring agenda" prize.....There are several posters, like yourself, whose posts are primarily focus on insulting those that question the myth. Then there is BPC, whose agenda appears to be convincing his doctors to up his meds.

Firstly, I wasn't told to back off by the mods. If I wanted to pursue the conversation I would have done so.

To the bold, I question all the myths, including yours. Show me some balance, and I promise, you will get a balanced response.

Its also funny that you think someone questioning you is is somehow, insulting. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.....

Finally take up BPCs agenda with him. At least I address you directly, instead of using the "you are all alike" BS.

 

[The Hitch]

me of course............and yersel............jimmy fingers ventoux bear saxon uk
enacheV martin vickers del1962 froome19 taxus4a raceradio

Which group is that, the hog group? Cos it sure as **** aint the clinic 12

 

[EnacheV]

this forum mod team sucks

i see users banned but clowns like the sceptic doing just fine

maybe its time to let this forum die in annonimity, like the forum usage suggest lately.

i know im not gonna bother to much with it next

 

[red_flanders]

Firstly, I wasn't told to back off by the mods. If I wanted to pursue the conversation I would have done so.

To the bold, I question all the myths, including yours. Show me some balance, and I promise, you will get a balanced response.

Its also funny that you think someone questioning you is is somehow, insulting. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.....

Finally take up BPCs agenda with him. At least I address you directly, instead of using the "you are all alike" BS.

Rather than seeking balance, seek the truth. It's rarely balanced.

 

[LaFlorecita]

this forum mod team sucks

i see users banned but clowns like the sceptic doing just fine

maybe its time to let this forum die in annonimity, like the forum usage suggest lately.

i know im not gonna bother to much with it next

 

[Race Radio]

If I wanted to pursue the conversation I would have done so.
.

But you didn't, instead you focused on the poster and not the post. Instead of discussing the content of my posts you invented imaginary conflict.

 

[Hugh Januss]

this forum mod team sucks

i see users banned but clowns like the sceptic doing just fine

maybe its time to let this forum die in annonimity, like the forum usage suggest lately.

i know im not gonna bother to much with it next

Yes this is true, one has to look no further than the "Cleanest Peloton" thread where you are insulting all comers with no moderation for confirmation of that.

 

[ebandit]

suck

this forum mod team sucks

life sucks................you just gotta roll with it....................

Mark L

 

[Granville57]

Does anyone really think posters shouldn't be sanctioned if they re-post deleted material?

On the surface of it, no. It would seem appropriate to ban someone if they are reposting deleted material. But only in the context of the links you provided, where the content was deemed to be offensive (or otherwise against the accepted rules of conduct).

The situation with Dr Mas was indeed different though. I quoted his now-multi-deleted post just two pages back, just so everyone could see it. Nothing in there is against the rules whatsoever, and my quoting of his post has been left intact (at least as of the time of this post). Maserati's original post seemed entirely appropriate within this thread. I witnessed the little cat & mouse game between he and The Silent Hand. I don't think it was appropriate for Doc to repost it, repeatedly, within the Armstrong thread, but clearly he was doing so because it kept getting deleted here.

Vortexing aside (although I may get vortexed in the pursuit of a definition of that) it often seems that Dr Mas runs into trouble not for disrupting user-led discussions, but for getting into a spat with the mods themselves—and they have the delete/ban button on their side of the fence.

I fail to see why his original post wasn't simply left in place, in the mod thread. I also don't care for the cloaking device employed by the mod during their little volley. If a mod has the time to chase Dr Mas around in a game of whack-a-post, and then ban him, then they should own up to the actions, post a notification in the suspension thread, and put their name on it—immediately.

Not doing so only leads to unnecessary questions, accusations, and misinformation being cast about. As the Nike slogan says: Just Post It.

I'm still curious as to what the exact problem was to begin with.

 

[veganrob]

life sucks................you just gotta roll with it....................

Mark L

Mark, I am sure you don't mean at all about life sucks.

For some other posters, well maybe it does.

 

[Hugh Januss]

On the surface of it, no. It would seem appropriate to ban someone if they are reposting deleted material. But only in the context of the links you provided, where the content was deemed to be offensive (or otherwise against the accepted rules of conduct).

The situation with Dr Mas was indeed different though. I quoted his now-multi-deleted post just two pages back, just so everyone could see it. Nothing in there is against the rules whatsoever, and my quoting of his post has been left intact (at least as of the time of this post). Maserati's original post seemed entirely appropriate within this thread. I witnessed the little cat & mouse game between he and The Silent Hand. I don't think it was appropriate for Doc to repost it, repeatedly, within the Armstrong thread, but clearly he was doing so because it kept getting deleted here.

Vortexing aside (although I may get vortexed in the pursuit of a definition of that) it often seems that Dr Mas runs into trouble not for disrupting user-led discussions, but for getting into a spat with the mods themselves—and they have the delete/ban button on their side of the fence.

I fail to see why his original post wasn't simply left in place, in the mod thread. I also don't care for the cloaking device employed by the mod during their little volley. If a mod has the time to chase Dr Mas around in a game of whack-a-post, and then ban him, then they should own up to the actions, post a notification in the suspension thread, and put their name on it—immediately.

Not doing so only leads to unnecessary questions, accusations, and misinformation being cast about. As the Nike slogan says: Just Post It.

I'm still curious as to what the exact problem was to begin with.

So, in essence he was not banned for reposting something that fell outside of the bounds of posting etiquette, whatever that might be these days. He was banned for reposting something that showed the incompetence of the mods once again. I am shocked and surprised.

 

[northstar]

So, in essence he was not banned for reposting something that fell outside of the bounds of posting etiquette, whatever that might be these days. He was banned for reposting something that showed the incompetence of the mods once again. I am shocked and surprised.

Yup, it looked like Dr. Mas wanted to have a discussion about what to do with BPC’s posts. The mod shut down the discussion with no explanation or public warning. I assume he was given a private warning (Rule 303 no doubt) and then banned. Lazy moderation to say the least.

 

[Netserk]

On the surface of it, no. It would seem appropriate to ban someone if they are reposting deleted material. But only in the context of the links you provided, where the content was deemed to be offensive (or otherwise against the accepted rules of conduct).

The situation with Dr Mas was indeed different though. I quoted his now-multi-deleted post just two pages back, just so everyone could see it. Nothing in there is against the rules whatsoever, and my quoting of his post has been left intact (at least as of the time of this post). Maserati's original post seemed entirely appropriate within this thread. I witnessed the little cat & mouse game between he and The Silent Hand. I don't think it was appropriate for Doc to repost it, repeatedly, within the Armstrong thread, but clearly he was doing so because it kept getting deleted here.

Vortexing aside (although I may get vortexed in the pursuit of a definition of that) it often seems that Dr Mas runs into trouble not for disrupting user-led discussions, but for getting into a spat with the mods themselves—and they have the delete/ban button on their side of the fence.

I fail to see why his original post wasn't simply left in place, in the mod thread. I also don't care for the cloaking device employed by the mod during their little volley. If a mod has the time to chase Dr Mas around in a game of whack-a-post, and then ban him, then they should own up to the actions, post a notification in the suspension thread, and put their name on it—immediately.

Not doing so only leads to unnecessary questions, accusations, and misinformation being cast about. As the Nike slogan says: Just Post It.

I'm still curious as to what the exact problem was to begin with.

I haven't seen the content of the deleted post, but whatever it was, even if it was totally legit, which I'll trust you it was, continuously(or continually, some native please help me) reposting deleted material should never be done. It will lead to a ban. If one disagrees with something being deleted, one should take it up with the mods, instead of childishly insist to repost something one knows will get deleted. He pretty much forced their hand doing so, as the only other option was for the mods to give in and let something be posted, even though it had previously been deleted, which will never happen without proper dialogue.

 

[red_flanders]

Yup, it looked like Dr. Mas wanted to have a discussion about what to do with BPC’s posts. The mod shut down the discussion with no explanation or public warning. I assume he was given a private warning (Rule 303 no doubt) and then banned. Lazy moderation to say the least.

You can't possibly know that. Extremely unlikely that it played out that way from what I've seen.

Try not thinking the worst and putting yourself in the middle of situations about which you can't possibly know the whole story. Much better and much more accurate to assume good intention, and be sure there's a lot to it you don't know about.

 

[Granville57]

I haven't seen the content of the deleted post,

It's right here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1408632&postcount=6086

He pretty much forced their hand doing so

I'm in complete agreement with the point you're making, however it does have the appearance of a disagreement between two people, where one side had the ability to delete posts and ban the other, and the other side had no such "powers." Given the advantage that one side had (has), perhaps a bit more restraint might be applied. When treated like children, people will often respond childishly.

Try not thinking the worst and putting yourself in the middle of situations about which you can't possibly know the whole story.

Which goes to my point that if some pertinent info regarding the ban were provided by the mods right away, much of the speculation would likely not even occur in the first place.

 

[Hugh Januss]

It's right here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1408632&postcount=6086

I'm in complete agreement with the point you're making, however it does have the appearance of a disagreement between two people, where one side had the ability to delete posts and ban the other, and the other side had no such "powers." Given the advantage that one side had (has), perhaps a bit more restraint might be applied. When treated like children, people will often respond childishly.

Which goes to my point that if some pertinent info regarding the ban were provided by the mods right away, much of the speculation would likely not even occur in the first place.

If it really was that post then this place sucks even worse than I had imagined. Which Official Idiot banned him for that?

 

[Netserk]

It's right here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1408632&postcount=6086

I'm in complete agreement with the point you're making, however it does have the appearance of a disagreement between two people, where one side had the ability to delete posts and ban the other, and the other side had no such "powers." Given the advantage that one side had (has), perhaps a bit more restraint might be applied. When treated like children, people will often respond childishly.

Which goes to my point that if some pertinent info regarding the ban were provided by the mods right away, much of the speculation would likely not even occur in the first place.

Thanks for the link. Yes that post certainly seem 100% legit. So where was it deleted, and why is it now (still?!) up? I think I might be missing some of what happened, still :O

I more or less agree with you, but I think I need to be aware of the full picture before I can comment further.

 

[ebandit]

transparency

I more or less agree with you, but I think I need to be aware of the full picture before I can comment further.

aye! the hive deserves to know the truth

mods why? lack of transparency reason for mas ban

thanks!.........................in expectation

Mark L

 

[LaFlorecita]

If it really was that post then this place sucks even worse than I had imagined. Which Official Idiot banned him for that?

No matter the post, if you repost something a mod deleted you're asking for a ban.

 

[sittingbison]

puns moved to pun thread:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20651

 

[involution]

Oh dear. It has been talked about in PMs, DMs, and emails. The information is being passed to-and-fro. Many are aware of what is going on, and it is surfacing for all to see now. A corrupt governing body, backroom deals, protected posters, targeted scapegoats, and a legion of followers to attack anyone who questions the official story. The parallel is shocking. A Friedrich Nietzche quote seems apt. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster." Yes. The lead hater has hounded Armstrong for so long that he has taken on Armstrong's personality traits and methods.

Where is Walsh when you need him? Where is the CIRC to investigate how many members have been ordered not to respond to Race Radio or face banishment? How many have been exiled because they thought it unfair and responded anyway? How many people has he sicced the moderators on? It was only a few days ago that he let slip that andy1234, of all people, was his latest target.

It is amusing how complete the transformation is. The same person who led the charge against Armstrong's ex-girlfriend, Sheryl Crow, for standing by Armstrong stood by watching people attack the employees of Cycling News for stonewalling about Joe Papp, even though he told them he did not want anything done about Papp. The hypocrisy is staggering.