Moderators

[palmerq]

ack not this again... I am pretty sure people are allowed to post different viewpoints on the internets, I'll check again though.. You fellows need to lighten up it's just an internet forum and people who are breaking the rules find themselves in trouble. So come on now just discuss the topic with people you disagree with or ignore them or you guys will also find yourself in trouble..


also to discuss/complain about the moderators please post here or I will just move any posts there :S

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7152&page=206

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

So those who constantly post absolute obfuscation in the 2 biggest threads are allowed to do so in the name of freedom of speech?

Yes.

Susan

 

[Berzin]

You know, your response is maddening. That type of post has been posted HUNDREDS of times not quite word for word, but there is NOTHING distinguishing it from the hundreds of others, and the moderators here once again act like there is nothing to see here. You guys cannot be that clueless. You can't. He just happens to find his way to The Clinic, and then posts in the "I am not an Armstrong fan, but you guys, blah, blah, blah" and you open with the "everyone deserves a voice" thing?

Diplomacy has its place, but if you think that was the place, you're kidding yourself.

This point drives me up the wall also, and your post deserves merit.

But keep in mind this site has had Livestrong and Michelob as advertisers, which is probably one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why the mods allow obvious pro-Armstrong trolls to live the Ultra Life here in the Clinic, with almost no rules to restrict their activities.

As for the issue of free speech, the premise has been severely devalued in our society and as such has found currency surrounding the polarizing character of Armstrong.

The idea of free speech was never meant to give agenda-driven bottom-feeders an orchestra seat to a topic of discussion they purposely attempt to derail at every turn with disingenuous and cynical commentary resembling more a political debate than an actual discussion based on the facts and their respective merits.

When Greg Lemond first made his feelings known about Armstrong's relationship with Dr. Ferarri, the pro-Lance crowd wanted censorship, not debate and free expression of ideas. Neither did Armstrong, who did his best to make sure Lemond's business relationship with Trek suffered an acrimonious termination.

The pro-Armstrong camp disallowed any dissenting voice that did not run in lockstep with their prevailing fantasies of Armstrong as Athletic and Corporate All-American Superman, doing battle on our behalf against the evil and morally flaccid and corrupt French culture who collectively bristled at his domination of their home race.

But here in the Clinic those rabid Livestrong Branch Davidians must have their voices heard, despite the fact that the worst offenders are small enough in number to be able to ban without the quality of the conversations suffering one bit.

On the contrary, people will be able to disseminate the facts from the needless bickering and constant bantering back and forth with posters whose sole purpose on this site is to disrupt and make a mockery of the topic at hand.

Letting this go on is pointless, and can be effectively stopped without the quality of the forum suffering one bit. No offense to you, Susan Westmeyer, but please. Defending the rights of these two or three obvious trolls and calling it the right to free speech is sort of like having street walkers define the virtues of physical intimacy for the rest of society.

Trolling is the internet version of prostitution, and the trolls have their street corner right here in the Clinic.

 

[Anonymous]

Why is this a problem for you?

Susan

Because you guys ban people for doing this. If it isn't a problem, why was BPC ever banned in the first place? That you even ask this question shows a level of disingenuous discourse I would not have expected from you. Sure I disagree with some of your moderation decisions in the past, but I never questioned honesty.

Funny, I don't remember freedom of speech being so high on your list on several moderating decisions you have made. But now you wrap yourself in the flag and proclaim freedom for all?

 

[Anonymous]

Why was that person's post removed from the thread? I thought everyone had freedom of speech? Why was my response to Polish removed from the other thread? I thought everyone had freedom of speech? Oh, I get it! My post was JUST LIKE that other guy's post and we both got deleted because FREEDOM OF SPEECH RULES HERE AT CN!!!!

 

[Benotti69]

that this discourse has been moved out of the clinic is just what the pro armstrong people love, where people who wander into the clinic via search engines never get to read honest pieces calling the spades what they are, that is spades and instead get to read wannabe lawyers, michelbob addicts and yella bracelet devotees spouting their pro armstrong text word for word on a loop.

+1 to Berzin and TFFs posts.

 

[ChrisE]

I just want to express my appreciation to Susan and the moderating staff.

 

[Ferminal]

But keep in mind this site has had Livestrong and Michelob as advertisers, which is probably one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why the mods allow obvious pro-Armstrong trolls to live the Ultra Life here in the Clinic, with almost no rules to restrict their activities.

Serious? Where is my carton of Michelob then?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

But keep in mind this site has had Livestrong and Michelob as advertisers, which is probably one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why the mods allow obvious pro-Armstrong trolls to live the Ultra Life here in the Clinic, with almost no rules to restrict their activities.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Simply because a user posts a "contrary" opinion is no reason to ban them. The language used and so on are the grounds for that decision. But not the fact that they disagree with the majority.

A lot of this is coming across as "waahh, he disagreed with me, ban him for that!"

Susan

 

[ChrisE]

Simply because a user posts a "contrary" opinion is no reason to ban them. The language used and so on are the grounds for that decision. But not the fact that they disagree with the majority.

A lot of this is coming across as "waahh, he disagreed with me, ban him for that!"

Susan

Ding Ding! We have a winner.

Maybe a new rule should be instigated where people are immediately banned if they come in with "I'm not an Armstrong fan and I think he doped, but..." and then that new poster proceeds to point out the mental issues of the clinic hate crowd. Get that mirror out of here lol.

 

[Louison]

The amazing, but not surprising thing, is that the people in question can't see that they aren't simply innocent people. They can't see how they troll, flame, insult and personally attacks people simply because they do not agree with everything thing they say and every thought they have about Armstrong. Notice how this doesn't go on in threads about other riders. Notice how it happens to people who claim Armstrong is innocent and people who say he doped but aren't willing to go to the great lengths of hate that those guys are. Now they are blaming the mods as i they are doing something to them. They can't see the forest for the trees and it's the same people who have been doing it on all the major cycling forums for years.

 

[Anonymous]

Simply because a user posts a "contrary" opinion is no reason to ban them. The language used and so on are the grounds for that decision. But not the fact that they disagree with the majority.

A lot of this is coming across as "waahh, he disagreed with me, ban him for that!"

Susan

Then you can't read.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This point drives me up the wall also, and your post deserves merit.

But keep in mind this site has had Livestrong and Michelob as advertisers, which is probably one of the reasons (if not the main reason) why the mods allow obvious pro-Armstrong trolls to live the Ultra Life here in the Clinic, with almost no rules to restrict their activities.

As for the issue of free speech, the premise has been severely devalued in our society and as such has found currency surrounding the polarizing character of Armstrong.

The idea of free speech was never meant to give agenda-driven bottom-feeders an orchestra seat to a topic of discussion they purposely attempt to derail at every turn with disingenuous and cynical commentary resembling more a political debate than an actual discussion based on the facts and their respective merits.

When Greg Lemond first made his feelings known about Armstrong's relationship with Dr. Ferarri, the pro-Lance crowd wanted censorship, not debate and free expression of ideas. Neither did Armstrong, who did his best to make sure Lemond's business relationship with Trek suffered an acrimonious termination.

The pro-Armstrong camp disallowed any dissenting voice that did not run in lockstep with their prevailing fantasies of Armstrong as Athletic and Corporate All-American Superman, doing battle on our behalf against the evil and morally flaccid and corrupt French culture who collectively bristled at his domination of their home race.

While true this has nothing to do with CN or Freedom of Speech, for your point to relate to CN it would have to show where the Pro side were not allowed to 'speak'.

That point merely highlights the hypocrisy of some (not all) Armstrong fans.

But here in the Clinic those rabid Livestrong Branch Davidians must have their voices heard, despite the fact that the worst offenders are small enough in number to be able to ban without the quality of the conversations suffering one bit.

What is wrong with them being heard?
Their arguments are often ridiculous and/or inconsistent, leave it there for all to see.

On the contrary, people will be able to disseminate the facts from the needless bickering and constant bantering back and forth with posters whose sole purpose on this site is to disrupt and make a mockery of the topic at hand.

Letting this go on is pointless, and can be effectively stopped without the quality of the forum suffering one bit. No offense to you, Susan Westmeyer, but please. Defending the rights of these two or three obvious trolls and calling it the right to free speech is sort of like having street walkers define the virtues of physical intimacy for the rest of society.

Trolling is the internet version of prostitution, and the trolls have their street corner right here in the Clinic.

I understand what you are saying here (& no who are you are talking about ) - but that is a moderation issue, as the poster rarely is abusive their trolling is not obvious or reported.

 

[Anonymous]

The amazing, but not surprising thing, is that the people in question can't see that they aren't simply innocent people. They can't see how they troll, flame, insult and personally attacks people simply because they do not agree with everything thing they say and every thought they have about Armstrong. Notice how this doesn't go on in threads about other riders. Notice how it happens to people who claim Armstrong is innocent and people who say he doped but aren't willing to go to the great lengths of hate that those guys are. Now they are blaming the mods as i they are doing something to them. They can't see the forest for the trees and it's the same people who have been doing it on all the major cycling forums for years.

8 posts in and already you're an expert...imagine...

Please also note that my issue isn't really your ability to post. You won't be posting much anymore anyway if the history of this forum is any indication. You came in with an agenda, posted the same post hundreds of others with the same agenda have, and will be on your merry way only to return under another name some time in the future. Noting new really, and I don't really care one way or the other about what you do. Your only contribution so far has been: You Armstrong haters are sad, etc, etc, etc. We already have ChrisE for that, but if you want to be unoriginal, by all means, post away.

My real issue is Susan swooping to defend you in the manner she did. I guess she feels a kinship with you?

 

[Anonymous]

Ding Ding! We have a winner.

Maybe a new rule should be instigated where people are immediately banned if they come in with "I'm not an Armstrong fan and I think he doped, but..." and then that new poster proceeds to point out the mental issues of the clinic hate crowd. Get that mirror out of here lol.

Maybe you should take your own advice. That you consider yourself to be above the fray is amusing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The amazing, but not surprising thing, is that the people in question can't see that they aren't simply innocent people. They can't see how they troll, flame, insult and personally attacks people simply because they do not agree with everything thing they say and every thought they have about Armstrong. Notice how this doesn't go on in threads about other riders. Notice how it happens to people who claim Armstrong is innocent and people who say he doped but aren't willing to go to the great lengths of hate that those guys are. Now they are blaming the mods as i they are doing something to them. They can't see the forest for the trees and it's the same people who have been doing it on all the major cycling forums for years.

Right on cue.

The main reason your posts have inflamed discussion is because they are short on detail and make accusations against people you do not name.

Who are you addressing? Who are these people and what other forums do they visit? Don't worry about naming and shaming them, your freedom of speech is allowed.
Who were the people that call LA evil - which was the basis for your first post in the Clinic.

 

[Louison]

8 posts in and already you're an expert...imagine...

8 posts by me on this forum and you are already in attack mode because I have said something you don't like because it is the truth about you. Of course we all know that when a person joins and starts posting that means they never read the forum before, or read or posted in other forums...right?

Please also note that my issue isn't really your ability to post.

Of course not, your issue is that you and your buddies are not being allowed to personally attack and insult me since I don't my views don't jibe 100% with everything you post. You guys get off on that here and in other forums and it ****es you off if you can't do it.

You won't be posting much anymore anyway if the history of this forum is any indication. You came in with an agenda, posted the same post hundreds of others with the same agenda have, and will be on your merry way only to return under another name some time in the future. Noting new really, and I don't really care one way or the other about what you do.

If all of this is true then why does it bother you so much? If it was just the same thing said hundreds of times and I will be banned soon, then it shouldn't bother you...unless you know it is correct.

Your only contribution so far has been: You Armstrong haters are sad, etc, etc, etc. We already have ChrisE for that, but if you want to be unoriginal, by all means, post away.

Interestingly 3 of my 8 posts, before this one, had nothing to do with doping or Armstrong. Of course that didn't stop one of the people I was talking about to create a connection from those other posts to "prove" that I am pro-Armstrong.

How original are you? All your posts are in The Clinic, anti-Armstrong and attacking and insulting anyone who does not agree 100% with you. We have plenty of people who can do that. You really need to look in the mirror.

My real issue is Susan swooping to defend you in the manner she did. I guess she feels a kinship with you?

Actually, based on some things she has said and done I would say she dislikes me. Of course you can't see the forest for the trees so you just see everyone picking on innocent little TFF and his buddies instead of the reality of what is occurring.

 

[Anonymous]

8 posts by me on this forum and you are already in attack mode because I have said something you don't like because it is the truth about you. Of course we all know that when a person joins and starts posting that means they never read the forum before, or read or posted in other forums...right?



Of course not, your issue is that you and your buddies are not being allowed to personally attack and insult me since I don't my views don't jibe 100% with everything you post. You guys get off on that here and in other forums and it ****es you off if you can't do it.



If all of this is true then why does it bother you so much? If it was just the same thing said hundreds of times and I will be banned soon, then it shouldn't bother you...unless you know it is correct.



Interestingly 3 of my 8 posts, before this one, had nothing to do with doping or Armstrong. Of course that didn't stop one of the people I was talking about to create a connection from those other posts to "prove" that I am pro-Armstrong.

How original are you? All your posts are in The Clinic, anti-Armstrong and attacking and insulting anyone who does not agree 100% with you. We have plenty of people who can do that. You really need to look in the mirror.



Actually, based on some things she has said and done I would say she dislikes me. Of course you can't see the forest for the trees so you just see everyone picking on innocent little TFF and his buddies instead of the reality of what is occurring.

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

 

[Race Radio]

snip

You wrote a blanket attack on other posters that was not based in reality and expect it not to be questioned? really?

 

[Louison]

Right on cue.

The main reason your posts have inflamed discussion is because they are short on detail and make accusations against people you do not name.

Who are you addressing? Who are these people and what other forums do they visit? Don't worry about naming and shaming them, your freedom of speech is allowed.
Who were the people that call LA evil - which was the basis for your first post in the Clinic.

Right on cue one of the people I was talking about comes in to go on the attack.

I don's name specific people, because it's obvious to all who I am talking about and, if anyone doesn't know, your angry responses make it pretty clear. It's funny watching you guys get worked up because it's like you are a junior high school boys club that thinks anyone not in it are losers and the principal can't do anything to them.

When it comes to the evil thing it's pretty clear based on the comments made about anything and everything you guys say about Armstrong. If someone mentions him visiting a little girl who has cancer, you guys come up with reasons why he is a jerk for doing it or why it was the wrong thing to do. You guys cant see the forest for the trees. But the best part is that you guys chose to focus on one word and not mention the rest of what I said. That speak volumes.

 

[Louison]

Get off the cross, we need the wood.

Yep, same old TFF, when faced with facts and logic he goes for the insult.

 

[Anonymous]

Right on cue one of the people I was talking about comes in to go on the attack.

I don's name specific people, because it's obvious to all who I am talking about and, if anyone doesn't know, your angry responses make it pretty clear. It's funny watching you guys get worked up because it's like you are a junior high school boys club that thinks anyone not in it are losers and the principal can't do anything to them.

When it comes to the evil thing it's pretty clear based on the comments made about anything and everything you guys say about Armstrong. If someone mentions him visiting a little girl who has cancer, you guys come up with reasons why he is a jerk for doing it or why it was the wrong thing to do. You guys cant see the forest for the trees. But the best part is that you guys chose to focus on one word and not mention the rest of what I said. That speak volumes.

That music you hear is the smallest violin in the world, and it is playing your song.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep, same old TFF, when faced with facts and logic he goes for the insult.

Hey, are you they guy who threatened my life and said you were going to come rape my wife? I love that guy. Good times, good times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Right on cue one of the people I was talking about comes in to go on the attack.

Sorry, where did I ever 'attack' you?

I respectfully asked you to name people who you are making claims about.

I don's name specific people, because it's obvious to all who I am talking about and, if anyone doesn't know, your angry responses make it pretty clear. It's funny watching you guys get worked up because it's like you are a junior high school boys club that thinks anyone not in it are losers and the principal can't do anything to them.

Well, it is not obvious to me - who are these people?

When it comes to the evil thing it's pretty clear based on the comments made about anything and everything you guys say about Armstrong. If someone mentions him visiting a little girl who has cancer, you guys come up with reasons why he is a jerk for doing it or why it was the wrong thing to do. You guys cant see the forest for the trees. But the best part is that you guys chose to focus on one word and not mention the rest of what I said. That speak volumes.

You are quick to put me in to this category of 'you people'.
I have never made any reference to LA visiting sick people, nor do I post on any other forum.

You are not being queried on what you say about Armstrong, you are being questioned on what you say about the posters here.