Should there be a Lance Armstrong sub-forum?

[Ninety5rpm]

So now my reasons are suspect because you don't agree with with them? I think our conversation ends here.

Huh? Whether I or anyone else agrees with these reasons, or any other ones, is irrelevant. That's just a matter of opinion.

What matters is whether the reasons in question hold up under scrutiny.

Apparently, these particular reasons cannot be defended against simple refutations. That is, like I said, they don't hold up to scrutiny.

I don't know about you, but I favor arguments based on reasons that hold up under scrutiny over those that are based on reasons that don't hold up.

If someone in a discussion forms his or her opinion in line with arguments based on reasons that don't hold up to scrutiny, you're right, the conversation must end, for reasonable discourse with someone like that is not possible.

 

[Anonymous]

My worry is that if there are forums:

Professional cycling
General
Lance Armstrong

it is almost admitting the fact that Lance is as important as the rest of pro cycling..

I would almost rather ride it out until lance is gone.. If ridiculous threads are opened, then close them.;.

The other problem is the future.. what happens in a few years when lance is out of cycling and not talked about quiete so much, and the main forum is full of 500 contador threads, or 300 Peter Kannaugh Threads, or 900 Tommy D threads, then what do we do.. create another section, and what do we do with the lance section?

I see your point, and i understand you reasoning, but i dont think the problem is so much Lance, but trolls and idiots opening new threads every time the guy breaks wind.. That ones a job for the moderating team, and if there arent enough of them, the forum has been around a year now, there are plenty of reliable and responsible (well a few) members that other members respect that can help out with the housekeeping....

Id rather see what moderation can do before heading down the lance section route..

But as i say, i see your point, i am as pi**ed off with it as everyone else..

 

[Mellow Velo]

I wouldn't read too much into the polling. A lot of people tend to vote, without perhaps making any comment. Initially, this is what I did.

However, it's a pity this poll followed so quickly on the heels of the "catch all" thread. I'd guess in a week or so, more posters would have seen it as folly.

This thread is generating far more comments than the "official" thread, which seems to be getting a lot of visits, but few posts.
Not exactly a glowing endorsement.

There currently seems to be more discord about how things should get done around here, than the machinations within pro racing.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

If a Lance subforum must exist it should be in Clinic with all doping affairs.

By that reasoning all discussions regarding any pro rider "should be in Clinic with all doping affairs".

 

[Anonymous]

This thread is generating far more comments than the "official" thread, which seems to be getting a lot of visits, but few posts.
Not exactly a glowing endorsement.

well by the same token, there are no new lance threads..

So no discussion in the general lance thread, and no new lance threads...

THANK THE LORD THERE IS A GOD

Oh and discount two of the Aye's... was sherwen and ligget coming on the forum and trying to make lance even more powerful...

It would actually be interesting to see the breakdown.. I would hazard a guess the yes's are the fanboys who want an entire lance section to fawn over him, and the no's are the anti lance brigade who refuse to bow to him taking over the forum..

Crap.. i voted yes

 

[Ninety5rpm]

My worry is that if there are forums:

Professional cycling
General
Lance Armstrong

it is almost admitting the fact that Lance is as important as the rest of pro cycling..

No, I'm proposing "Lance Armstrong" be a sub-forum of this forum, "Professional Road racing". I thought that was obvious.

So we would have:

Cafe
--General

Road
--Professional Road Racing
-- -- Lance Armstrong
--General
--The Clinic

MTB
--General

(etc.)

I would almost rather ride it out until lance is gone.. If ridiculous threads are opened, then close them.;.

Well, ridiculous threads can and should be closed either way. The problem is the volume of threads and posts about LA that are not ridiculous.

The other problem is the future.. what happens in a few years when lance is out of cycling and not talked about quiete so much, and the main forum is full of 500 contador threads, or 300 Peter Kannaugh Threads, or 900 Tommy D threads, then what do we do.. create another section, and what do we do with the lance section?

Once the hysteria dies down, all the (old/dead) threads in "Lance Armstrong" could be moved back up to this forum and "Lance Armstrong" deleted.

Perhaps at that time it will be appropriate to make sub-forums about other riders, if the corresponding thread/post volume numbers suggest.

It's not rocket science, guys.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I wouldn't read too much into the polling. A lot of people tend to vote, without perhaps making any comment. Initially, this is what I did.

However, it's a pity this poll followed so quickly on the heels of the "catch all" thread. I'd guess in a week or so, more posters would have seen it as folly.

This thread is generating far more comments than the "official" thread, which seems to be getting a lot of visits, but few posts.
Not exactly a glowing endorsement.

There currently seems to be more discord about how things should get done around here, than the machinations within pro racing.

That's just where the focus happens to be right now. A week from now, much less 6 months from now, it will not be the case, almost certainly, just as it was not a week ago.

The only question is whether all the threads and posts about LA will be dominating and disrupting this forum, or neatly separated by being in a sub-forum.

 

[bianchigirl]

If Armstrong competed all season long and had astonishing results then why not? The fact is, he rides sparingly, will not register any significant wins (I mean, Tour of Gila? Come on) and really doesn't deserve a forum to himself devoted to his cycling exploits.

Now, in the clinic, that would be an entirely different matter

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I kind of hate to even suggest this, but I think we might need a separate poll, for at least three reasons:

1) Apparently at least some folks voted without giving it a lot of thought.
2) The poll shouldn't be anonymous to reduce the likelihood of sockpuppet ballot-stuffing.
3) To be clear that the proposal is to make a sub-forum of this "CyclingNews forum > Road > Professional road racing" forum:
... "CyclingNews forum > Road > Professional road racing > Lance Armstrong".

 

[Ninety5rpm]

If Armstrong competed all season long and had astonishing results then why not? The fact is, he rides sparingly, will not register any significant wins (I mean, Tour of Gila? Come on) and really doesn't deserve a forum to himself devoted to his cycling exploits.

Now, in the clinic, that would be an entirely different matter

Sheesh. Another specious "does not deserve" argument? I thought I dispensed with this a page or two back, rather effectively I might add:

The only factor that should determine whether a given topic should have a sub-forum is volume of threads and posts about that topic.

A subjective opinion about whether a particular topic "deserves" a sub-forum, or "would be a worth a sub-forum", is irrelevant.

Try to be objective about this. The only objective criteria available for making a sub-forum creation decision is thread and post counts.

I have not seen an objection to this reasoning. Did I miss something?

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds a bit like Zimbabwe's government... You dont like the first result so we have another one..

Not that i am in any way comparing you to Mugabe..

Has anyone else noticed how my health has improved, Ive started capitalising the first word of each sentance... Im still however.. Doing the annoying... "..." thing.. :/ I think my brain is coming back..

 

[auscyclefan94]

Sounds a bit like Zimbabwe's government... You dont like the first result so we have another one..

Not that i am in any way comparing you to Mugabe..

Has anyone else noticed how my health has improved, Ive started capitalising the first word of each sentance... Im still however.. Doing the annoying... "..." thing.. :/ I think my brain is coming back..

This may be a stupid question what was wrong with you in the first place?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Sounds a bit like Zimbabwe's government... You dont like the first result so we have another one..

Not that i am in any way comparing you to Mugabe..

Has anyone else noticed how my health has improved, Ive started capitalising the first word of each sentance... Im still however.. Doing the annoying... "..." thing.. :/ I think my brain is coming back..

I know you're joking, but I don't deny that I think a sub-forum is a good idea. And I think I've clearly explained the reasons that support this opinion.

I've also explained why the reasons given for it not being a good idea are specious, and the reasons why I think we should have a second poll. I'm puzzled as to the reasons for the apparent continued resistance to the idea.

 

[Anonymous]

I know you're joking, but I don't deny that I think a sub-forum is a good idea. And I think I've clearly explained the reasons that support this opinion.

I've also explained why the reasons given for it not being a good idea are specious, and the reasons why I think we should have a second poll. I'm puzzled as to the reasons for the apparent continued resistance to the idea.

Because some people like chaos, they like disorganisation, and they like causing ****.. It may not be a vote in favour of a lance section, it may merely be a vote in favour of chaos.. And they are not neccesarily the fanboys..

Certain people around here will vote whichever way causes the most trouble and allows the chaos to continue..

If there was a seperate lance forum, what would the moaners have to moan about... There are some people have never been the same since the clinic was formed.. They do not get nearly so much out of sharing their opinions with likeminded people; ramming their opinions down the throat of those that dont want to hear it was much more their style..

It is probably not the sensible people voting against, it is those who wish turmoil upon us and have something to gain from it..

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Because some people like chaos, they like disorganisation, and they like causing ****.. It may not be a vote in favour of a lance section, it may merely be a vote in favour of chaos..

Perhaps votes for a position only supported by easily dismissed arguments should not count. In this poll that seems to apply to all of the No votes, since no argument has been presented in support of a No vote that has not been easily refuted.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps votes for a position only supported by easily dismissed arguments should not count. In this poll that seems to apply to all of the No votes, since no argument has been presented in support of a No vote that has not been easily refuted.

I assume you have four walls in your room.. its up to you which one you bang your head against..

 

[Ninety5rpm]

27 opposed??? Really???

(shakes his head in disbelief)

 

[Hugh Januss]

I assume you have four walls in your room.. its up to you which one you bang your head against..

Sometimes I think the walls in his room are padded.
You can't have a yes/no poll and then discount all the no votes because you didn't like the explanations for voting that way.
Lance gets too much mention here already, no way he should have his own sub-forum. I'd rather make a rule that any thread that mentions his name is instantly deleted.
The single thread for all things Lance is also bad, I vote we go back to what it was before, anarchy. Somebody wants to open a thread called "I love Lance's black socks" fine. If you want to get involved in a deep discussion on that, let 'er rip. If you think it's too stupid for words then don't post on it, if you think that but can't help yourself then post how stupid it is and be secure in the knowledge that you are part of the problem.

 

[dgodave]

27 opposed??? Really???

(shakes his head in disbelief)

28.
.
Unless there's a special race category for Lance.
.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Sometimes I think the walls in his room are padded.
You can't have a yes/no poll and then discount all the no votes because you didn't like the explanations for voting that way.
Lance gets too much mention here already, no way he should have his own sub-forum. I'd rather make a rule that any thread that mentions his name is instantly deleted.
The single thread for all things Lance is also bad, I vote we go back to what it was before, anarchy. Somebody wants to open a thread called "I love Lance's black socks" fine. If you want to get involved in a deep discussion on that, let 'er rip. If you think it's too stupid for words then don't post on it, if you think that but can't help yourself then post how stupid it is and be secure in the knowledge that you are part of the problem.

Are you serious?

The reason to have a sub-forum of this forum for Lance is precisely because Lance gets too much mention here [in this forum] already!

How is "Lance gets too much mention here already" a reason to NOT have a sub-forum for Lance topics??? Do you think a sub-forum would create more discussion about Lance? And even if it did create more discussion about Lance, why would you care? All of the discussion about Lance, including any possible additional discussion, wouldn't be here in this forum, but in a sub-forum, that's easily ignored!

Come on guys, I'm starting to think a lot of you (a few more than half, apparently) are a little light in the logic processing department...

 

[Anonymous]

Thing is, at 25-28 i think it would take 50 unanswered votes in favour to even democrattically make it happen..

Youve fought a good campaign, on a very meagre budget and with little support, but its time to accept its over..

 

[B.Rasmussen]

Are you serious?

The reason to have a sub-forum of this forum for Lance is precisely because Lance gets too much mention here [in this forum] already!

How is "Lance gets too much mention here already" a reason to NOT have a sub-forum for Lance topics??? Do you think a sub-forum would create more discussion about Lance? And even if it did create more discussion about Lance, why would you care? All of the discussion about Lance, including any possible additional discussion, wouldn't be here in this forum, but in a sub-forum, that's easily ignored!

Come on guys, I'm starting to think a lot of you (a few more than half, apparently) are a little light in the logic processing department...

Yeah, it's everybody else, not you. Keep telling yourself that.

So now we need a new vote since my, and the other no votes don't really count, because we're obviously not capable of forming an opinion worth taking into account. You really aren't doing yourself any favours here.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Are you serious?

The reason to have a sub-forum of this forum for Lance is precisely because Lance gets too much mention here [in this forum] already!

How is "Lance gets too much mention here already" a reason to NOT have a sub-forum for Lance topics??? Do you think a sub-forum would create more discussion about Lance? And even if it did create more discussion about Lance, why would you care? All of the discussion about Lance, including any possible additional discussion, wouldn't be here in this forum, but in a sub-forum, that's easily ignored!

Come on guys, I'm starting to think a lot of you (a few more than half, apparently) are a little light in the logic processing department...

I understand what you are saying I just don't agree with it. In my mind seperating the clinic from the racing is already bad enough, a discussion of racing can often turn to questions of doping just as a conversation about Evans or Contador can turn to Armstrong. Making more boundaries just acts to inhibit discussion.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Yeah, it's everybody else, not you. Keep telling yourself that.

So now we need a new vote since my, and the other no votes don't really count, because we're obviously not capable of forming an opinion worth taking into account. You really aren't doing yourself any favours here.

I don't know what you or anyone else is capable of, and I have not made any comments about that.

However, no one can honestly claim that there has been even one argument in favor of the "No" position presented here that has not been soundly refuted.

It does make me wonder how you folks form your opinions.

EDIT: I made the above statement before I saw Hugh's argument presented immediately above this post; therefore any references to what had been presented here only applies to everything prior to Hugh's post.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I understand what you are saying I just don't agree with it. In my mind seperating the clinic from the racing is already bad enough, a discussion of racing can often turn to questions of doping just as a conversation about Evans or Contador can turn to Armstrong. Making more boundaries just acts to inhibit discussion.

Now, there's a real argument. Finally.

I can respect this position (in an agree-to-disagree manner).

Is that what this is about for all the other "No" votes? If so, it's curious that no one has even hinted (unless I missed it), until now, that this is the reason - sub-forums inhibit discussion - for opposing. In fact, others have argued that a sub-forum would encourage more discussion, and that's why it should be opposed.