Moderators

[Taxus4a]

Did Spalco#s baiting post really warrant a ban, it seems no more baiting that quite a lot of Clinic posts, certainly a lot less than most of BroDeal's.

But hey ho Benson's mods have their reasons

They baned me to lie a thing I could prove it is not a lie, so...and they could say now I am lying and bye bye... I respect their work, but, if you say I lie, wait for my answer or prove I lie, other way is totalitarism.

But I hope that dont happens again, if I deserve a ban, no problem, but prove first people deserve, that way you could ban who you wants.

It is just an opinion, and I am sad to dont read people as Spalco, I hope he deserved his ban...people lying there are a lot in the clinic, and people baiting as well.

 

[python]

here's my 5 cents re rr vs the hog....

my rather poorly informed contribution (coz i had not followed the spat live) but still my personal insight may have validity...

it was not about lies or truths, but egos. about their individual claims re.'mine is bigger and longer'

whilst i consider rr's contributions light years ahead of the hog's in terms of value-added content, he, too, was not immune from posing ('i have this many followers on twitter') , as the hoggie was certainly displaying the propencity too ('you noob, stfu, I have a gazillion posts on cn').


eventually, most spats are about egos. little else.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

here's my 5 cents re rr vs the hog....

my rather poorly informed contribution (coz i had not followed the spat live) but still my personal insight may have validity...

it was not about lies or truths, but egos. about their individual claims re.'mine is bigger and longer'

whilst i consider rr's contributions light years ahead of the hog's in terms of value-added content, he, too, was not immune from posing ('i have this many followers on twitter') , as the hoggie was certainly displaying the propencity too ('you noob, stfu, I have a gazillion posts on cn').


eventually, most spats are about egos. little else.

While it may eventually have come down to ego - it was about lies & truth.

TheHog would have had so many breaking news stories if he was a little bit quicker posting and it hadn't appeared minutes earlier on twitter or pinged on google news alert.

Since much of the LA stuff is no longer 'news' TheHogs trolling is more noticeable and their efforts to pretend to have an inside line have nearly all spectacularly failed.

So when RR mentioned that they had met, ridden & had lunch with Porte it got TheHog upset.
Which would seem a strange reaction for a guy who also claims connections.

 

[JRTinMA]

my rather poorly informed contribution

You should begin every post this way. Although its understood at this point.

 

[python]

You should begin every post

....

sure. you, the self-proven Armstrong doper apologist and cowardly fanboy should begin every post by setting your own record straight. the truth about you lives and is recorded multiple times.

- cowardly attacks on betsy by calling her 'married to a doper'
- insulting mike Anderson by calling him 'armstrong drug mule' and then lying about the fact
you need to finally appreciate the fact that your infatuation is defunct and i and the the cn mods have little role concern with that.

 

[sittingbison]

They baned me to lie a thing I could prove it is not a lie, so...and they could say now I am lying and bye bye....

you were banned for a month for lying about why you received a short ban, which I discussed at some length with Christian on this thread in your absence.

At best you could have been considered disingenuous, you most certainly cannot prove its not a lie, so I think you should let sleeping dogs lie and enjoy posting on the forum instead of carrying on like a two bob watch and risking "bye bye"

 

[sittingbison]

How can a banned member contact the mods? Where can they find the email addresses?

you can also try me on twitter LaFlorecita, I'm not on much but get emails when PMs received

 

[sittingbison]

Did Spalco#s baiting post really warrant a ban, it seems no more baiting that quite a lot of Clinic posts, certainly a lot less than most of BroDeal's.

But hey ho Benson's mods have their reasons

Correct, we have our reasons.

And yes it DID really warrant a ban, spalco is experienced and clever enough to know better.

And also yes, there are "quite a lot of clinic posts" that are baiting... they all run the risk of receiving a ban, especially when they cause trouble

 

[Dr. Maserati]

you were banned for a month for lying about why you received a short ban, which I discussed at some length with Christian on this thread in your absence.

At best you could have been considered disingenuous, you most certainly cannot prove its not a lie, so I think you should let sleeping dogs lie and enjoy posting on the forum instead of carrying on like a two bob watch and risking "bye bye"

This is the mod thread.
This is where we the members are allowed discuss the moderators of this forum.

You may not like having your decisions questioned - well, tough.
You are also a member here too - the only difference is that you can threaten to ban those who question your decisions.

 

[BroDeal]

Did Spalco#s baiting post really warrant a ban, it seems no more baiting that quite a lot of Clinic posts, certainly a lot less than most of BroDeal's.

But hey ho Benson's mods have their reasons

Baiting? I am mystified how you can tell the difference between my "baiting" and others' earnest idiocy. July saw an overload of the latter.

 

[sittingbison]

This is the mod thread.
This is where we the members are allowed discuss the moderators of this forum.

You may not like having your decisions questioned - well, tough.
You are also a member here too - the only difference is that you can threaten to ban those who question your decisions.

Perhaps this will help:

you were banned for a month for lying about why you received a short ban, which I discussed at some length with Christian on this thread in your absence....

My decision was questioned, and answered.

And to be clear, I don't "threaten to ban those who question my decisions". Taxus4a is on the brink of blatantly lying again, if he wants to continue down that road on his own head be it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Perhaps this will help:


My decision was questioned, and answered.

And to be clear, I don't "threaten to ban those who question my decisions". The fact is Taxus4a is once again bordering on the brink of blatantly lying, if he wants to continue down that road on his own head be it.

Yes, we got your side to the story. Now its there turn.
I dont think you are in a position to judge what is or is not blatant lying.

 

[sittingbison]

...I dont think you are in a position to judge what is or is not blatant lying.

And there you would be wrong

Yes, we got your side to the story. Now its there turn....

And there you would be wrong again. Questioned and answered

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1319396&postcount=4540

For the final time Taxus4a was banned for ignoring a clear warning to stop clogging several threads with wind direction and decade old ITT times. He then claimed he was banned for a series of statements listed in the above summation, but never a mention of the actual reason.

 

[Taxus4a]

you were banned for a month for lying about why you received a short ban, which I discussed at some length with Christian on this thread in your absence.

At best you could have been considered disingenuous, you most certainly cannot prove its not a lie, so I think you should let sleeping dogs lie and enjoy posting on the forum instead of carrying on like a two bob watch and risking "bye bye"

In my abscence I cant read the forum, so I didnt read that, and I didnt give my opinion, so discuss with me, not with others, or you think that we read all the forum?



No more to say, it is the past for me, but I needed to give my opinion.

And just one thing, if I give an opinion, it is my opinion, nor a lie or a truth, if you are not agree disscus it, but you chose the easy way. the opinions are not facts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And there you would be wrong



And there you would be wrong again. Questioned and answered

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1319396&postcount=4540

For the final time Taxus4a was banned for ignoring a clear warning to stop clogging several threads with wind direction and decade old ITT times. He then claimed he was banned for a series of statements listed in the above summation, but never a mention of the actual reason.

Why the need to highlight the word final?

Also, while you were adding more to your post I was reading the exchange between yourself and Christian - including this post:

Nice summation Christian. I agree with your thoughts about Taxus4a position on Froome, and his holistic approach. I also agree there is a possibility or even probability his first ban was unfortunate, although as I stated he read the thread's enough to post multiple times, many of them responces to others. It is for this reason he was only banned for a week.

My issue with the second ban is Taxus4a raised his ban in this thread but then posted the "offending" statement in another. It is my belief he was being disingenuous at best and certainly assumed a martyr-like position to further his own position on the other thread, all the while knowing the exact reason he was banned in the first place. I believe he bought it upon himself by "over egging" his position.

Hopefully he will realise thisand learn from it so he can remain a valuable ccontributor on this forum.

Knowing the reason and questioning it are 2 different things.
Particularly when you acknowledge that the first ban was unfortunate.

 

[skidmark]

Baiting? I am mystified how you can tell the difference between my "baiting" and others' earnest idiocy. July saw an overload of the latter.

I'm also mystified how anyone can tell the difference between your baiting and earnest idiocy.

 

[BroDeal]

I'm also mystified how anyone can tell the difference between your baiting and earnest idiocy.

Having extensive first hand familiarity with the latter, I am sure you will manage.

 

[sittingbison]

In my abscence I cant read the forum, so I didnt read that...

you can still read the forum in your abscence

...if I give an opinion, it is my opinion, nor a lie or a truth...the opinions are not facts.

you did not give your opinion, you categorically stated:

They baned me to lie a thing I could prove it is not a lie....

Which is bordering on lying again as you can prove no such thing. You quite clearly stated you were banned because you defended Chris Froome:

...I was banned for repeat arguments to this statements, so there is censure here...

when it has been clearly stated numerous times you were banned for ignoring a warning to stop clogging threads with wind direction and ITT times.

Taxus4a is banninated for a week for rabbiting on again about Mont Venteux time trial times and tailwind's , after a warning to stop

BS you were banned for carrying on like a pork chop after clearly being instructed to desist...several times.

and to demonsatrate you read these, you quoted the actual ban:

sittingbison sittingbison is offline
Administrator

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 1,152
Default
Taxus4a is banninated for a week for rabbiting on again about Mont Venteux time trial times and tailwind's , after a warning to stop.

First of all I didnt read anything about stop... I dont read all the forum, and there is not a warning when you are quoted, so, please, before been banned, send a private if something is wrong. ...

Here is the warning:

...Now for the warning:
Gentle(wo)men, the next person to mention wind direction or allude to the ITT times up Mont Venteux will enjoy a holiday. This has already been discussed as nauseum.

cheers
bison

 

[sittingbison]

...No more to say, it is the past for me, but I needed to give my opinion.....

Best advice all day

 

[darwin553]

Can I quickly clarify something: so the reason Taxus4a was banned was not because the subject of his posts weren't off-topic or considered to be baiting or personally offensive but because they were "as nauseum" or in other words had been repeated often - is that even a legitimate reason to punish him?

 

[sittingbison]

Can I quickly clarify something: so the reason Taxus4a was banned was not because the subject of his posts weren't off-topic or considered to be baiting or personally offensive but because they were "as nauseum" or in other words had been repeated often - is that even a legitimate reason to punish him?

the operative part is bolded:

Taxus4a is banninated for a week for rabbiting on again about Mont Venteux time trial times and tailwind's , after a warning to stop

Which is a legitimate reason to punish him. No need to roll eyes (sarcastic)

 

[PeteTheSpinner]

This is hilarious:
An advice
and epilogue.
So it's true.
Goats are looking after cabbage here.

 

[RownhamHill]

Best advice all day

This is certainly the truth.

But, no offence SittingBison, judging by the post you made immediately before this one, it's possibly advice you could apply to your own posting as well?

I know being a moderator is a difficult, thankless job, but maybe sometimes taking a more moderate tone and moving on, rather than line by line rebuttals, threats and attempts to prove yourself the winner, might help lubricate the gears of the forum?

Anyway, I'm probably now guilty of ignoring the above advice, so no need to respond, just offering an opinion!

 

[darwin553]

Which is a legitimate reason to punish him. No need to roll eyes (sarcastic)

Well that depends whether the warning was justified in the first place, doesn't it?

I mean if he keeps going in the direction that you don't want him to go then of course you have already put your foot down so he has to be punished, right?

Meh, I guess that comes down to your prerogative as moderator and where you want to take the site...

 

[Netserk]

It's quite simple. When a mod tells you to stop, you stop.