Moderators

[sittingbison]

i thought it was a phrase used by hoggy et al to describe clinic reaction

to performances... 100 pages a day in the clinic froome thread / excessive

posting in prr section causing forum meltdown

Mark L

hoggy et al know to never go full ***

 

[ElChingon]

hoggy et al know to never go full ***

Hence the bans

Unless its the mods going there

 

[hiero2]

Source, link, post?

You're still here, right? You're #1, remember that. 'Nuff said.

And thus the last spark of life in this message board was snuffed out. Now the gear forum has dwindled down to about nothing. The Cafe is pretty much reserved for Democrat loyalists to attack Scott. And Hiero is warning people for "attacks" when sentences like, "I call BS" are used. Give yourself a pat on the back.

I was gonna ignore this, but nah, I figure to toss it a little. As usual, Bro, you are exaggerating the case. And ignoring pertinent, available, data. As for "BS", I don't particularly care one way or the other about it's use. It is a flag when a poster claims bs from another poster. And, when it is combined with other aspects of a rhetological fallacy - i.e. personal attack - well - we all know the rules, right?

hoggy et al know to never go full ***

Hence the bans

. . .

Yup - given the skill with which more than a few of our regular posters push the envelope, I wish they were less skillful at avoiding full *** mode.

Life's a beach. Let's go for a swim.

 

[pedaling squares]

As a forum, reports of our death are greatly overstated.

As for why that would need to be deleted? I'm repeating myself, but
1. we don't read everything, thus some things slip past.
2. in the interest of "open" discussion, if we don't see a fight, we don't call it. Thus, the context of the quoted, and the participants at that point MIGHT be important.
3. (this is important) ANY time a poster says "YOU ARE A (fill in the blank) it is or should be a red flag of an attack. Would you call a stranger in a bar a moron? Or an idiot? Under ANY circumstances? You'd be looking to collect your teeth, or hoist yourself out of the gutter when the barman tosses you out, right? And if it is a friend, which it usually isn't, how is the mod to know? The analogy to bar/pub has been made many times. It works.

Agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't fit my response to kingjr.

 

[BroDeal]

I was gonna ignore this, but nah, I figure to toss it a little. As usual, Bro, you are exaggerating the case.

Really? There used to be a decent amount of traffic in the gear forum. Same goes for the Cafe. Not so much the "general cycling," but this message board is not as interesting as it used to be.

And ignoring pertinent, available, data. As for "BS", I don't particularly care one way or the other about it's use. It is a flag when a poster claims bs from another poster. And, when it is combined with other aspects of a rhetological fallacy - i.e. personal attack - well - we all know the rules, right?

Actually we don't all know the rules because they are no consistent and one mod is on a crusade to tamp down lively discussion. I have not yet bothered to respond in the thread, but check out the "brake" thread for a ridiculous example.

 

[hiero2]

Agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't fit my response to kingjr.

It doesn't? It was a response to both you and kingjr - but as I recall, you said you didn't see why what kingjr quoted would get deleted. And I answered by pointing out why it would or should get deleted or an infraction. If I said "you are a moron if you can't see THAT", that would be an attack, no? Sure fits every definition of attack I know. So I won't say it. And no, I'm not implying it, either. I don't think you are a moron.

Now, did I miss something?

 

[hiero2]

Really? There used to be a decent amount of traffic in the gear forum. Same goes for the Cafe. Not so much the "general cycling," but this message board is not as interesting as it used to be.



Actually we don't all know the rules because they are no consistent and one mod is on a crusade to tamp down lively discussion. I have not yet bothered to respond in the thread, but check out the "brake" thread for a ridiculous example.

Interesting - you mention the parts of this forum with the lightest moderation as examples of how modding has dampened the discussion?

And, as an example, I think you refer to the same thread as before? Re: the warning about BS? Well, here it is, linked properly, so the reader can make up their own mind:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21114&page=3

One could term an MMA octagon fight an "interesting conversation". It is certainly a form of conversation, albeit mostly non-verbal. And it can be interesting. That doesn't make it appropriate here. If your definition of "interesting" means you want to see more blood, I'll send you some links to youtube vids for MMA.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Fair enough, it's no particularly pleasant.

Agreed, 'Full ***' is a particularly crass term, whether doping in connotation or not it should be removed.

 

[spetsa]

Interesting - you mention the parts of this forum with the lightest moderation as examples of how modding has dampened the discussion?

And, as an example, I think you refer to the same thread as before? Re: the warning about BS? Well, here it is, linked properly, so the reader can make up their own mind:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21114&page=3

One could term an MMA octagon fight an "interesting conversation". It is certainly a form of conversation, albeit mostly non-verbal. And it can be interesting. That doesn't make it appropriate here. If your definition of "interesting" means you want to see more blood, I'll send you some links to youtube vids for MMA.

Save us the lessons from that which you know nothing. Maybe you were thinking about communication.

 

[hiero2]

Save us the lessons from that which you know nothing. Maybe you were thinking about communication.

You are correct in that I misused "conversation", it should have been "communication". You are incorrect in the further assumption you drew from that misuse.

I'm still working on perfection. Give me another day or two.

 

[hiero2]

Agreed, 'Full ***' is a particularly crass term, whether doping in connotation or not it should be removed.

Hmmm - sorry, I don't see this. I see "full ***" as having entered the slang lexicon as a generally moderate way to indicate a full effort or "over the top" behavior.

If you think this is wrong, I WOULD appreciate seeing supporting evidence of why.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Hmmm - sorry, I don't see this. I see "full ***" as having entered the slang lexicon as a generally moderate way to indicate a full effort or "over the top" behavior.

If you think this is wrong, I WOULD appreciate seeing supporting evidence of why.

I find it an offensive term which insults and devalues people with mental disabilities, other terms such as ****** are no longer tolerated, why should this common insult still be tolerated?

 

[hiero2]

I find it an offensive term which insults and devalues people with mental disabilities, other terms such as ****** are no longer tolerated, why should this common insult still be tolerated?

Because, in it's current usage, so far as I can tell, it is not an insult. I see what you are saying, because it uses "***" in it's construction, but it refers to a humorous use of both words, and the one does not stand on it's own. Nor does it any longer truly refer to persons of limited intelligence or ability. Since it takes into account the humanity of people "with mental disabilities", I still don't agree that it is even an insult. Use of "***" by itself would still be just as offensive as "moron" or "idiot", but "full ***" has entered the lexicon from a comedy sketch, and is usually used in a similar manner.

 

[BroDeal]

Agreed, 'Full ***' is a particularly crass term, whether doping in connotation or not it should be removed.

Oh, Big Brother. Straight from the Ministry of Truth, let's modify the language to make it difficult to express ideas we don't like. Let's also pretend we are doing it to make the world a better place.

 

[darwin553]

I find it an offensive term which insults and devalues people with mental disabilities, other terms such as ****** are no longer tolerated, why should this common insult still be tolerated?

I am with you on this one.

How about 'full alien' instead? They seemingly don't exist so no-one can take offense

 

[Cyivel]

I am with you on this one.

How about 'full alien' instead? They seemingly don't exist so no-one can take offense

I'm surprised you didn't accuse Dar and Dharmasena of going full *** last week

 

[sittingbison]

...How about 'full alien' instead?...

Dawg objected to this at the presser, said he was more than happy with full ***.

Sir Dave even offered to use a Geiger counter to prove Dawg could have gone thermonuclear ***


BTW on a serious note, I understand the objections, but the reality is as already pointed out the term "go full ***"is now part of the lexicon, and has no conotation at all with mental issues

 

[darwin553]

Dawg objected to this at the presser, said he was more than happy with full ***.

Sir Dave even offered to use a Geiger counter to prove Dawg could have gone thermonuclear ***


BTW on a serious note, I understand the objections, but the reality is as already pointed out the term "go full ***"is now part of the lexicon, and has no conotation at all with mental issues

What a part of 'cyclingnews' lexicon? And who decides that? Is it by popular usage?

 

[spetsa]

What a part of 'cyclingnews' lexicon? And who decides that? Is it by popular usage?

***, retardo=slow

Full ***=not slow

End of debate? Please.

 

[sittingbison]

...Is it by popular usage?

Yes

...End of debate? Please.

Correct

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Because, in it's current usage, so far as I can tell, it is not an insult. I see what you are saying, because it uses "***" in it's construction, but it refers to a humorous use of both words, and the one does not stand on it's own. Nor does it any longer truly refer to persons of limited intelligence or ability. Since it takes into account the humanity of people "with mental disabilities", I still don't agree that it is even an insult. Use of "***" by itself would still be just as offensive as "moron" or "idiot", but "full ***" has entered the lexicon from a comedy sketch, and is usually used in a similar manner.

Well I don’t agree with that (humorous use of ***?) but then I’m not American or currently living in America, nor have I watched these sketches.

I can see however by the response of some that I’m in danger of descending down a tunnel of their paranoia and hysteria and obviously I have no wish to impinge on someone’s insecure grasp of the English language.

 

[Christian]

Oh, Big Brother. Straight from the Ministry of Truth, let's modify the language to make it difficult to express ideas we don't like. Let's also pretend we are doing it to make the world a better place.

+1. All those ******s and ****s and ******s should just HTFU! Number 1 rule on the internet!!

Re: Full ***. To me it is a reference to the movie "Tropic Thunder" with Ben Stiller and Jack Black. In that movie, Ben Stiller plays an actor, who played the protagonist in a highly unsuccessful movie called "Simple Jack", a movie about a young man with a mental disability. Needless to say it all was grossly offensive, but so over the top that you couldn't take it seriously.

Anywho, another actor played by Robert Downey Jr. then explains Stiller's character why his movie was unsuccessful: "Never go full ***". He lists a bunch of movies about people with mental disabilities, but shows how none of them portrayed them as "full ***", such as Rain Man or Forrest Gump ("the guy won a ping pong tournament"). Therefore these movies were successful, and the fictional movie "Simple Jack" wasn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y3FzVQi-R8

/edit: Why are all those words cencored?? Big Brother Ministry of Truth at it again, limiting my right to express myself however I ****ing please!!!

 

[ebandit]

level

Really? There used to be a decent amount of traffic in the gear forum. Same goes for the Cafe. Not so much the "general cycling," but this message board is not as interesting as it used to be.

level of interest is determined by members posting...............if quality falls short look to those members posting the most

Mark L

 

[darwin553]

Well I don’t agree with that (humorous use of ***?) but then I’m not American or currently living in America, nor have I watched these sketches.

I can see however by the response of some that I’m in danger of descending down a tunnel of their paranoia and hysteria and obviously I have no wish to impinge on someone’s insecure grasp of the English language.

Yep I agree. No point continuing on when a moderator has decided what the standard of decency and respect for the mentally ill to be taken during debates on here.

 

[Scott SoCal]

+1. All those ******s and ****s and ******s should just HTFU! Number 1 rule on the internet!!

Re: Full ***. To me it is a reference to the movie "Tropic Thunder" with Ben Stiller and Jack Black. In that movie, Ben Stiller plays an actor, who played the protagonist in a highly unsuccessful movie called "Simple Jack", a movie about a young man with a mental disability. Needless to say it all was grossly offensive, but so over the top that you couldn't take it seriously.

Anywho, another actor played by Robert Downey Jr. then explains Stiller's character why his movie was unsuccessful: "Never go full ***". He lists a bunch of movies about people with mental disabilities, but shows how none of them portrayed them as "full ***", such as Rain Man or Forrest Gump ("the guy won a ping pong tournament"). Therefore these movies were successful, and the fictional movie "Simple Jack" wasn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y3FzVQi-R8

/edit: Why are all those words cencored?? Big Brother Ministry of Truth at it again, limiting my right to express myself however I ****ing please!!!

I giggle my *** off every time I see that clip.