Moderators

[BigMac]

Errr... What? I would have a massive problem with that if I saw it.

You have not read the God and Religion thread, I assume. Point is, what Echoes wrote was not offencive at all, nor is it what people here are trying to make it be.

 

[the sceptic]

So just having read the JTL thread. Really great moderation, guys. Just let people repeatedly make stuff up and when they are caught just let it go.
Spineless.


Good post Pedro.

what is spineless and sad is to see a group of posters gang up on one poster to try and score points and "win" a discussion that happened months ago.

 

[The Hitch]

Please read this in a friendly tone: Did he not write something along the lines of ''Jews can be very violent''?

No, he wrote, as you would know if you read the thread-

They're usually very violent.

So all your assumptions are invalid.

 

[King Boonen]

You have not read the God and Religion thread, I assume. Point is, what Echoes wrote was not offencive at all, nor is it what people here are trying to make it be.

I've been in it, but would tend to stay away from such conversations as they never end well.

I'm not sure it's up to one poster to decide what everyone else should find offensive or not. I've not read the original thread so I'm hesitant to comment, but if what The Hitch quoted is accurate then I'd find it very offensive, no matter what had preceded it.

There is a difference between discussing the religion and discussing the people. It's akin to the old saying, attack the post, not the poster.

 

[King Boonen]

I am well aware of this. Thank you for taking the time to point it out for the others reading here. If you are hoping to prevent me from asking such questions, you will always fail.

Always.



I am asking a question of the mods, in the Moderators thread, to be answered by a mod.

You're welcome.

Honestly, it just reads like you want to put a marker down so you can say "yeah, I called it" at a later date. I have asked similar questions in the past, but it was done through PM with a mod and I got a fast courteous answer and all was well in the world.


I wasn't aware that only mods were allowed to answer questions to them in this thread and no other members were allowed to give advice/opinions. I hope you go through and make the a similar statement to everyone who has disregarded this...

 

[the sceptic]

You have not read the God and Religion thread, I assume. Point is, what Echoes wrote was not offencive at all, nor is it what people here are trying to make it be.

well, certainly not as offensive as denying the holocaust.

 

[the sceptic]

why do my posts get deleted? what rule did I break?

 

[BigMac]

No, he wrote, as you would know if you read the thread-


So all your assumptions are invalid.

No, they're not invalid, as I clearly wrote ''either way'', meaning even if what you say was what he wrote I still would not find it offencive. As I said, the God and Religion thread is full of similar (and worse, if this is considered to be bad) posts which no one cares about.

I've been in it, but would tend to stay away from such conversations as they never end well.

I'm not sure it's up to one poster to decide what everyone else should find offensive or not. I've not read the original thread so I'm hesitant to comment, but if what The Hitch quoted is accurate then I'd find it very offensive, no matter what had preceded it.

There is a difference between discussing the religion and discussing the people. It's akin to the old saying, attack the post, not the poster.

Not quite. Once you're discussing the religion, at least the way it was sometimes done in that thread (God and Religion), you're referring to the followers too. For instance, to say that Christianity is bad and teaches bad values and violence, and that it is a perverse source of morality, it is to say that those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, be it Believers or Christian Atheists, are definitely immoral and likely to be violent people. As time passes by, my feeling that people seek things to be offended with grows.

 

[thehog]

So just having read the JTL thread. Really great moderation, guys. Just let people repeatedly make stuff up and when they are caught just let it go.

Spineless.

Good post Pedro.

I guess is similar to the Armstrong thread, yes?

Or is that different?

I don't think it's spineless. I think if your spend all your time trying to get one specific poster banned by any means possible then perhaps some might characterize that as "spineless", yes?

Or when you went on a vigil against me on the Froome TUE when I said it was his "Armstrong cortisone moment" and you claimed I said different for at least 25 posts until you realised you made a mistake. I didn't lambast you for that, or hound you. I moved on.

You do realise that's nobody is perfect on this forum? Yourself included.

 

[Afrank]

why do my posts get deleted? what rule did I break?

It was baiting Bigmac. The issue it brought up is done and passed, there's no point in revisiting it.

 

[the sceptic]

It was baiting Bigmac. The issue it brought up is done and passed, there's no point in revisiting it.

I think its relevant because people deserve to know his history when this kind of debate gets brought up again.

but whatever.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Honestly, it just reads like you want to put a marker down so you can say "yeah, I called it" at a later date.

It's not. But so what if it was? Are you jelly that I am going to win the Internets?

I have asked similar questions in the past, but it was done through PM with a mod and I got a fast courteous answer and all was well in the world.

Guess what? We're different. Imagine that.

Not sure what the bolded little dig is about?

I am asking a question of the mods, in the Moderators thread, to be answered by a mod.

I wasn't aware that only mods were allowed to answer questions to them in this thread and no other members were allowed to give advice/opinions.

And I wasn't aware that once a poster has voiced their opinion that a response could not suggest the original question asker looked forward to a response from someone who would be offering factual information, not opinion.

I hope you go through and make the a similar statement to everyone who has disregarded this...

Nope. It's the response I will give to anyone who tries to tell me not to post, how to post, or where to post.

Been real funs chattin with ya and all.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You have not read the God and Religion thread, I assume. Point is, what Echoes wrote was not offencive at all, nor is it what people here are trying to make it be.

Given your previous ban that was overturned, are you really sure it's a good idea to start discussing with people on what they are allowed to consider anti-Semitic comments?

If Echoes had written what you imply, nobody would have raised any questions. The word "usually" suggests a natural predilection on the part of the Jews as a general rule toward violence. With a politically charged situation in Gaza right now, it is perhaps a topic of conversation that is always destined for arguments and flame wars.

 

[sittingbison]

Given your previous ban that was overturned, are you really sure it's a good idea to start discussing with people on what they are allowed to consider anti-Semitic comments?

If Echoes had written what you imply, nobody would have raised any questions. The word "usually" suggests a natural predilection on the part of the Jews as a general rule toward violence. With a politically charged situation in Gaza right now, it is perhaps a topic of conversation that is always destined for arguments and flame wars.

good post LS

BigMac, I would let Echoes fight their own wars if I was you

Capiche?

cheers
bison

 

[BigMac]

Given your previous ban that was overturned, are you really sure it's a good idea to start discussing with people on what they are allowed to consider anti-Semitic comments?

If Echoes had written what you imply, nobody would have raised any questions. The word "usually" suggests a natural predilection on the part of the Jews as a general rule toward violence. With a politically charged situation in Gaza right now, it is perhaps a topic of conversation that is always destined for arguments and flame wars.

Look, I should have written here after I came from my ban to clear some things up. Some important and grave things. I did not do so because I was advised not to touch the topic again. I wrote two letters to the moderators presenting a case, not for them to have pitty on me, but to explain how things really were and have me back because it was a mistake to ban me in the first place. What most of you know, or think you know, is nothing to what was discussed mainly between me and sittingbison, who I will always be thankful too, but the word of some misinformed, judgemental persons and bullies. I shut up when I came back and risked having my 'persona' marked and tainted, but to clear things up, I'd be delighted if any of the moderators would post my letters for everyone to see. But at the end of the day, I do think I was admited back for something else than 'innocence' being attributed to me, which is quite sad. So I think 'that previous ban that was overturned' is irrelevant as to where I am allowed or should comment on the subject or not. Hope this doesn't get deleted.

good post LS

BigMac, I would let Echoes fight their own wars if I was you

Capiche?

cheers
bison

I do capiche, and, unfortunately, will. Don't worry. What's happening to Echoes, I have experienced it before. Just saying. Have a good time. Cheers to you too.

 

[hrotha]

Lol, you let him back? Great job. He served, what, a 20-minute ban?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I don't think it's spineless. I think if your spend all your time trying to get one specific poster banned by any means possible then perhaps some might characterize that as "spineless", yes?

I actually agree... We are talking about you going after RR, right?

I guess is similar to the Armstrong thread, yes?

Or is that different?

...

Or when you went on a vigil against me on the Froome TUE when I said it was his "Armstrong cortisone moment" and you claimed I said different for at least 25 posts until you realised you made a mistake. I didn't lambast you for that, or hound you. I moved on.

One was expressed as opinion and one as fact. But that 'subtle' point is lost on you. And I believe you did go down the whole Skybot thing as usual. btw Still waiting for your proof of Wiggins is 100% working with Ferrari?

The only reason I can think that the mods are giving it a wide berth is you are apparently on your last chance. People have been banned for much less recently.

 

[The Hitch]

Good post LS.

 

[sittingbison]

Lol, you let him back? Great job. He served, what, a 20-minute ban?

BigMac? it was more than two months and missed Giro and TdF. And I will not go into further discussion

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

The only reason I can think that the mods are giving it a wide berth is you are apparently on your last chance. People have been banned for much less recently.

Looks like SB is applying some common sense to that thread (at last).

 

[the sceptic]

Looks like SB is applying some common sense to that thread (at last).

do you have a point with all this? you think hog should be banned?

do you feel like the hog prevents you from posting what I am sure is well reasoned posts in said thread?

dont be a coward. Just say it like it is.

 

[hrotha]

BigMac? it was more than two months and missed Giro and TdF. And I will not go into further discussion

Barely a slap on the wrist.

 

[thehog]

I actually agree... We are talking about you going after RR, right?


One was expressed as opinion and one as fact. But that 'subtle' point is lost on you. And I believe you did go down the whole Skybot thing as usual. btw Still waiting for your proof of Wiggins is 100% working with Ferrari?

The only reason I can think that the mods are giving it a wide berth is you are apparently on your last chance. People have been banned for much less recently.

I can safely say I've never requested another member to be banned or campaigned as such. Can you or RR say the same? It's ok you don't need to respond to that.

Who said anything about SkyBot? I didn't.


The Mods can moderate to balance. Why others feel that need to constantly critise them when the real aim is to ban one specific poster?

I've always said it's a hard job, I rarely report posts and never call anyone a troll.

It's gets me in trouble sometimes but I don't complain about. I respect their decision and move on.

Try it.

 

[sittingbison]

Barely a slap on the wrist.

unless you know the constraints

..And I will not go into further discussion

good post hog

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not throwing this in to be smart.

It is clear by now being smart is not your goal.