Moderators

[Susan Westemeyer]

We do not give detailed explanations as to why someone has been banned.

That decision is not one that is made easily or lightly, and never made alone. And we (I) have repeatedly said that all viewpoints are allowed in this forum, but the manner of delivery is what matters.

When the manner of delivery does not meet the forum standards (as pointed out here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14953 , then the mods will take action.

And, as has been pointed out, a number of Armstrong supporters, yourself included, are still active members.

Susan

 

[ChrisE]

We do not give detailed explanations as to why someone has been banned.

That decision is not one that is made easily or lightly, and never made alone. And we (I) have repeatedly said that all viewpoints are allowed in this forum, but the manner of delivery is what matters.

When the manner of delivery does not meet the forum standards (as pointed out here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14953 , then the mods will take action.

And, as has been pointed out, a number of Armstrong supporters, yourself included, are still active members.

Susan

To clarify: I am not a "Armstrong supporter". My posts usually diverge from the majority in here when I find their level of hatred and assinine inconsistently logical posting starts going over the ledge. You will not find a post of mine disagreeing with any of the hate crowd when it comes to the basic accusations against LA.

This is the line of "attack" that Louison was taking, ie people in here are unhinged, and that Aprhonesis is taking now. He got a public warning from you about it. Pretty pathetic. I know you gotta throw a bone to the TFF supporters now but that was pretty blatant.

Why don't you just admit that Louison was ****ing off the regulars and be done with it? That level of honesty would be welcome, instead of hiding behind the cloak of secrecy when discussing these "long lists of reasons". It's not like you are hiding the nuclear codes or something.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We do not give detailed explanations as to why someone has been banned.

That decision is not one that is made easily or lightly, and never made alone. And we (I) have repeatedly said that all viewpoints are allowed in this forum, but the manner of delivery is what matters.

When the manner of delivery does not meet the forum standards (as pointed out here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=14953 , then the mods will take action.

And, as has been pointed out, a number of Armstrong supporters, yourself included, are still active members.

Susan

I am sorry, this answer is highly unsatisfactory.
How are people like ChrisE meant to push things to the absolute limit and troll the hell out of the board if you do not give specific detailed information on why people were banned.

Besides being a sockpuppet, the baiting, trolling, inflaming, making stuff up, repeated accusations, ignoring warnings etc etc what specifically did the poster get banned for.
You would think that you had some authority on this forum or something.

 

[palmerq]

but I know you volunteer here so I understand if it is too much work to defend what you do.

thanks for being understanding, I appreciate it mate

 

[Cobblestoned]

Cool, then why would the mod team be averse to listing some of these reasons?

It's a tough situation right now.
Multiple persons close to the investigation stated, that the mods just found out and got confirmed, what was speculated for quiet some time now.
All those paid pr-trolls, fanboy- and sockpuppett accounts....they were all paid or created by Dr.M himself.
He obviously needs them to win the internets on daily basis. Dominate it.
On every cost.
And of course he is always one step ahead. A genius plan to reach world domination.

Btw, be aware that Dr.M is still hesitating and close to sorry, but is on his way to kill your point. Another point.
You would be the icing I guess. Or that peppermint leaf. Don't disappoint me, Chris. You are stronger than the money.


Shocking news.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

You would think that you had some authority on this forum or something.

It would look that way, wouldn't it.

Cobbled: cool story. When did you take up writing fiction?

Susan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's a tough situation right now.
Multiple persons close to the investigation stated, that the mods just found out and got confirmed, what was speculated for quiet some time now.
All those paid pr-trolls, fanboy- and sockpuppett accounts....they were all paid or created by Dr.M himself.
He obviously needs them to win the internets on daily basis. Dominate it.
On every cost.
And of course he is always one step ahead. A genius plan to reach world domination.

Btw, be aware that Dr.M is still hesitating and close to sorry, but is on his way to kill your point. Another point.
You would be the icing I guess. Or that peppermint leaf. Don't disappoint me, Chris. You are stronger than the money.


Shocking news.

My apologies Cobbles -I did not mean to exclude you from the "contrary" Armstrong opinion even though you are a Jan fan (although, it is another nail in ChrisEs point)

Also - be careful accusing people of being paid PR trolls, as that upsets ChrisE and he will probably report you.
And no - unlike some here I do not have or need to create sockpuppet or other accounts.

 

[180mmCrank]

I am sorry, this answer is highly unsatisfactory.

Besides being a sockpuppet, the baiting, trolling, inflaming, making stuff up, repeated accusations, ignoring warnings etc etc what specifically did the poster get banned for.
.

Just be clear we also take a very dim view of people who wear tank-tops; step on the cracks in paving; don't like apples; put the milk in after the tea; drive with the window down; put gravy on their chips; shake the petrol/gas hose to get the last drop out of the pump; french people (obviously); read on the toilet; collect rocks; speak to their plants; park outside someone elses house; look funny; watch rugby league; late night shoppers...

we will be ameding the Forum rules to reflect and clarify our policy

 

[ChrisE]

thanks for being understanding, I appreciate it mate

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

When will post 10332 be deleted, so we can be "consistent"?

You guys are bunch of clowns.

 

[180mmCrank]

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

When will post 10332 be deleted, so we can be "consistent"?

You guys are bunch of clowns.

What are you on about?

 

[Anonymous]

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

When will post 10332 be deleted, so we can be "consistent"?

You guys are bunch of clowns.

And you are the second most successful troll on this forum. Or first loser if you prefer.

 

[180mmCrank]

And you are the second most successful troll on this forum. Or first loser if you prefer.

How does this rate on the juvenile ranking scale

 

[Anonymous]

How does this rate on the juvenile ranking scale

Perhaps immature.

But the truth doesn't alway have to be mature.

But I am very mature, as is my signature.

 

[180mmCrank]

Perhaps immature.

But the truth doesn't alway have to be mature.

But I am very mature, as is my signature.

Like the signature.

Is immature the same as juvanile?

 

[Anonymous]

Like the signature.

Is immature the same as juvanile?

Clearly not.

One can be immature as an adult, but not juvenile by definition

But I am very mature. I am 47 and as such could never be juvenile. I could be immature but it would more likely be that my personality allows for me being fun. Some say immature. I say not boring.

 

[boomcie]

Clearly not.

One can be immature as an adult, but not juvenile by definition

You sure about that Scott? Cause I was under the impression that adults could be juvenile as well, as long as they behave in a sufficiently juvenile manner...

But heck, you're the native speaker. I guess that makes you more likely to be right

 

[Anonymous]

You sure about that Scott? Cause I was under the impression that adults could be juvenile as well, as long as they behave in a sufficiently juvenile manner...

But heck, you're the native speaker. I guess that makes you more likely to be right

Adults can act in a juvenile way, but can't be juvenile.

Immaturity, however, can be life-long.

 

[boomcie]

Adults can act in a juvenile way, but can't be juvenile.

Immaturity, however, can be life-long.

Sounds about right. I can live with that.

 

[ElChingon]

Sounds about right. I can live with that.

Lets just not go infantile

 

[180mmCrank]

Lets just not go infantile

Now that's a whole different scale!

T

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

To clarify: I am not a "Armstrong supporter". My posts usually diverge from the majority in here when I find their level of hatred and assinine inconsistently logical posting starts going over the ledge. You will not find a post of mine disagreeing with any of the hate crowd when it comes to the basic accusations against LA.

This is the line of "attack" that Louison was taking, ie people in here are unhinged, and that Aprhonesis is taking now. He got a public warning from you about it. Pretty pathetic. I know you gotta throw a bone to the TFF supporters now but that was pretty blatant.

Why don't you just admit that Louison was ****ing off the regulars and be done with it? That level of honesty would be welcome, instead of hiding behind the cloak of secrecy when discussing these "long lists of reasons". It's not like you are hiding the nuclear codes or something.

I'm not an Armstrong supporter either but the level of group think based on hear say particularly from 'The Hog' and Race 'I'm an Insider' Radio is shocking.

 

[BroDeal]

It's sock puppet a-go go.

Now is ze time on Sprockets vhen ve dance.

 

[Ulle Relaxes]

I'm glad to be living in more enlightened times than Bro 'Guilt by Association' Deal.

 

[Ferminal]

This is the Mod thread and not the pick on one another thread. Stay on topic, or take your personal spat to PMs.

Susan

Repeating this for the 132nd time.

 

[Granville57]

Repeating this for the 132nd time.

And I'm repeating this for the 3rd time:


Click here -------> Why hasn't this resulted in a ban?

I realize that Francois has put in for early retirement, and that Martin may have been delayed by a Customs "search & seizure" in Colombia <it's a joke> but...

Why has no one responded to this issue? It's been a week. I've been patient. Others have also publicly asked why there has been no response. I've gotten PMs from other members wondering if I had received any messages from the mods in regards to this. I have not heard a word.

Why do I dwell on this? Because if the malicious posting of one's personal information, including mailing addresses, does not constitute an immediate ban (I would like to think that 4 months minimum would be a good place to start) than the rest of the rules enforced around here are pretty much a complete and total joke.

So...WTF?!?!