So who here posts on the Radio Shack forums?

[Anonymous]

I don't mean to be a jerk but what did you expect? It is like a Liverpool forum worshiping Steven Gerrard or a Colts forum worshiping Peyton Manning. They came together to support their guy and that is that.

+1

Dont like it, dont go there... I dont know why you are all wasting your energy on it..

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

The thing is, all the Haters on this site aren't actually applying the term "troll" correctly. And it's getting old, fast. I figure they must have seem somebody else use that term, then started using it themselves without actually understanding its use.

Basically any Pro-LA post gets labeled as a troll post. Yeah, way to go Haters! You have it all figured out!

They still refuse to believe that some fans out there:

don't judge Armstrong's love life
don't care about doping accusations
don't care about doping
don't care what he says about Contador
don't care what he says about journalists
don't care about the efficiency of Livestrong
don't care if he wears black

They care about his ability to podium, and his ability to win the same race 7 times in a row.

Does that sum it up? Did I use proper fifth-grade vocabulary so the Haters can understand it?

What the mods should be concerned about is:

how the Haters doping posts lack logic and authority (as in, you don't have a PhD, you don't open your mouth).

how many Haters could easily be sued for libel should Armstrong care about what these nobody keyboard warriors have to say.

I post pro-Lance stuff all the time. The difference is I don't go out of my way to bring it up, like so many others do. I read something and respond to it, but I do so with the knowledge that several other users will immediately question my response (Publicus, TFF, Race Radio-I'm looking at you ). We'll debate and argue until I grow tired of the same discussion or the workday ends (I rarely log in from home, normally out riding). To my knowledge, I've never been called a troll, at least not to my face.... or avatar.

Speaking of work.....

EDIT: The reason I engage them isn't to be antagonistic, it's because I want to learn more about the sport. I did the same thing in college. I played devils advocate in class to engage people in discussions on topics they were passionate about. I learn more through Socratic dialogue, than I ever could through a lecture or reading a book. I may disagree with much of what they say, but I alway learn something new because they often raise some good points (however irritating it might be at times). I was discussing Lance with another user and he mentioned re-examining your heros; maybe that's what I'm doing here. I see many reasons to like the guy, but there also many reasons to dislike him.

 

[guilder]

I post pro-Lance stuff all the time. The difference is I don't go out of my way to bring it up, like so many others do. I read something and respond to it, but I do so with the knowledge that several other users will immediately question my response (Publicus, TFF, Race Radio-I'm looking at you ). We'll debate and argue until I grow tired of the same discussion ...

The above mentioned posters use Lance hating as a vehicle to dominate the forum. Then they have the nerve to exaggerate without exception, any and all of Lance's completely harmless personality traits.

 

[Digger]

The thing is, all the Haters on this site aren't actually applying the term "troll" correctly. And it's getting old, fast. I figure they must have seem somebody else use that term, then started using it themselves without actually understanding its use.

Basically any Pro-LA post gets labeled as a troll post. Yeah, way to go Haters! You have it all figured out!

They still refuse to believe that some fans out there:

don't judge Armstrong's love life
don't care about doping accusations
don't care about doping
don't care what he says about Contador
don't care what he says about journalists
don't care about the efficiency of Livestrong
don't care if he wears black

They care about his ability to podium, and his ability to win the same race 7 times in a row.

Does that sum it up? Did I use proper fifth-grade vocabulary so the Haters can understand it?

What the mods should be concerned about is:

how the Haters doping posts lack logic and authority (as in, you don't have a PhD, you don't open your mouth).
how many Haters could easily be sued for libel should Armstrong care about what these nobody keyboard warriors have to say.

Is having a PHD a prerequisite for jury selection these days? Since when does one need a PHD to listen to witness testimonies?

So, in a court of law, when the prosecution's case is based heavily on DNA, does the jury have to have a PHD in that area?

 

[Race Radio]

The above mentioned posters use Lance hating as a vehicle to dominate the forum. Then they have the nerve to exaggerate without exception, any and all of Lance's completely harmless personality traits.

I have yet to see a post from you that contributes in any way to a discussion of the sport.

 

[Digger]

The above mentioned posters use Lance hating as a vehicle to dominate the forum. Then they have the nerve to exaggerate without exception, any and all of Lance's completely harmless personality traits.[/QUOTE]

Yes, lying, bullying and intimidation are harmless. What do you classify as being slightly harmful?

 

[Angliru]

I don't mean to be a jerk but what did you expect? It is like a Liverpool forum worshiping Steven Gerrard or a Colts forum worshiping Peyton Manning. They came together to support their guy and that is that.

It is technically the Team Radio Shack site, not the Lance Love Conquers All site. I could be a Horner fan and not an Armstrong fan. Additionally the "hater" term" is overused and applied a bit too often to posts that have nothing to do with "hate" and more to do with simply bringing up valid points that apparently seem to make certain folks so uncomfortable that they would prefer to silence the messenger rather than carry on a civil discussion.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The thing is, all the Haters on this site aren't actually applying the term "troll" correctly.

It might go a little further if you specifically defined the word "hater" more precisely, and applied it correctly. You're using the word as a preemptive defense weapon, and cutting a pretty wide swath with it.

I don't quite understand what you're saying Digger? Are you saying FPC, RR or another member is "lying, bullying and intimidating"? Or are you saying this about Lance? Clarify please.

 

[Snake Bite]

I post pro-Lance stuff all the time. The difference is I don't go out of my way to bring it up, like so many others do. I read something and respond to it, but I do so with the knowledge that several other users will immediately question my response (Publicus, TFF, Race Radio-I'm looking at you ). We'll debate and argue until I grow tired of the same discussion or the workday ends (I rarely log in from home, normally out riding). To my knowledge, I've never been called a troll, at least not to my face.... or avatar.

Speaking of work.....

EDIT: The reason I engage them isn't to be antagonistic, it's because I want to learn more about the sport. I did the same thing in college. I played devils advocate in class to engage people in discussions on topics they were passionate about. I learn more through Socratic dialogue, than I ever could through a lecture or reading a book. I may disagree with much of what they say, but I alway learn something new because they often raise some good points (however irritating it might be at times). I was discussing Lance with another user and he mentioned re-examining your heros; maybe that's what I'm doing here. I see many reasons to like the guy, but there also many reasons to dislike him.

Interesting. I've seen a few of your posts and they're filled with caveats and accept half the criticism of LA. You can just about get away with that, to a point. More importantly you don't really debate doping matters much - if you did then there is no doubt you would be termed a troll. A little cult has developed on the doping matters.

Doesn't anyone think it's a little bit suspicious that RaceRadio, and others who call me a troll, can't cite a single thing that is trolling over six months? They took great acception to a discussion with Betsy Andreu at the beginning of that six months, where I said she had more than one moral option than to testify against LA. This greatly offended RR who I think invited her on here to get a bunch of pat on the backs from the regulars, so was horrified that not everybody was sticking to the script. But I wasn't rude and did treat her respectfully.

But that was six months ago. Surely there would be thread after thread after thread after that point of something he could point to. But nothing. Not a single piece of trolling has ever been recorded. The only thing they can say his "he's been banned before".

It's interesting because the only post of mine that got deleted from my last account was one in this thread where I pointed out that RaceRadio, ThoughtforFood, and many others here, were banned from the RBR forum for trolling. Indeed, most of them are banned from most of the cycling sites on the internet. I think this is why they believe they own this site. Sort of ironic really that they use the same term that was used against them.

 

[Snake Bite]

It might go a little further if you specifically defined the word "hater" more precisely, and applied it correctly. You're using the word as a preemptive defense weapon, and cutting a pretty wide swath with it.

You mean like "troll" and "fanboy"

So tell me, Alpe, what was all that bull$hit about a week ago where you made a big deal of wanting to treat me fairly? Greg Johnson was going to be called and everything.

Then you do this sticky that appeared to condemn the bullying attacks on Rise From the Dead. So far so good - it looked like the mods were finally growing some balls. But then your very sticky thread was filled with more posts attacking Rise and me, and another pointless thread was set up to attack me. So what do you do? Do you ban or warn all the trouble makers? No, you ban me and Rise from the Dead.

As I said before, I don't mind you being biased as long as your honest about it. But you really shouldn't do all this bull$**** where you pretend you're out to be fair and just want everybody to stick to the rules. It's totally insincere. Either you're scared of these people or you agree with them.

 

[Snake Bite]

That said, one good thing about the controversy that has sounded me is it has got harder for the gang here to act as they did before. The stuff that users like ThoughtforFood used to be allowed to say, for instance, was off the charts. But some token condemnation of that has taken place now so he can't really make many contributions to the clinic anymore. All he did was be rude to people, talk about their spelling, their mental health and basically just fragrantly troll, but it's much harder for him to do his act now. Same for others.

That's something I'm proud about.

 

[Snake Bite]

Anyhow, nice to be able to get that follow up in. Don't suppose I'll be here for long.

 

[pedaling squares]

...the only post of mine that got deleted from my last account was one in this thread...

I think that mods could reduce some of the frustration by explaining what they hope to achieve by banning this poster. Is it meant to be a warning that allows him to return under a new name if he abides by the rules? Or is it an attempt to remove him from the CN site? If the latter, then an admission of being banned under another name should be enough to ban him. I keep hoping that, as the guy obviously wants to be on this site, he will heed these many warnings and change tack. But after what, nine or ten accounts, even I can get the point that this isn't going to happen.

Anyway, the guy does have one point. He is not the only person fueling the endless debate about nothing. Perhaps that is why he is allowed to return. I'm going to put him on ignore and if that doesn't work then I'll just leave the Clinic to those who want to fight.

 

[Race Radio]

I think that mods could reduce some of the frustration by explaining what they hope to achieve by banning this poster. Is it meant to be a warning that allows him to return under a new name if he abides by the rules? Or is it an attempt to remove him from the CN site? If the latter, then an admission of being banned under another name should be enough to ban him. I keep hoping that, as the guy obviously wants to be on this site, he will heed these many warnings and change tack. But after what, nine or ten accounts, even I can get the point that this isn't going to happen.

Anyway, the guy does have one point. He is not the only person fueling the endless debate about nothing. Perhaps that is why he is allowed to return. I'm going to put him on ignore and if that doesn't work then I'll just leave the Clinic to those who want to fight.

He is not allowed to return. He has taunted the mods in the past that he can get a new ip address in seconds. Once his IP address and username are banned he changes ip's and signs up a new username and starts trolling again.

His feeble attempts to bait other users into engaging him by inventing lies and pretending that he has done nothing wrong only reinforce that he is here to disrupt not contribute to the forum. The fact that he has been banned 10 times and had dozens of his trolling posts deleted has nothing to do with the persecution that he is dreaming up in whatever fantasy world he lives in.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Interesting. I've seen a few of your posts and they're filled with caveats and accept half the criticism of LA. You can just about get away with that, to a point. More importantly you don't really debate doping matters much - if you did then there is no doubt you would be termed a troll. A little cult has developed on the doping matters.

You're absolutely right. I do accept half the criticism of Lance because some of it's warranted: chasing down Simeoni in 04, tweeting criticisms of AC (or incessant tweets in general), etc. He's no saint. I like the guy, but, as I've said before, he's not above reproach.

The reason I don't discuss doping matters much is because I don't understand the science of doping enough to discuss it. I also loathe the doping aspect of the sport and choose not to dwell on it. Too much focus on it could potentially ruin the sport the was baseball was ruined for nearly a decade. That's the reason I despise people like Paul Kimmage and Bernard Kohl, they claim to love the sport, but seem so focused on destroying its credibility, whether it's the truth or not, but I digress. Besides all that, I've heard every argument in the book for Lance's alleged doping, and I still see no definitive proof.

To avoid the "troll" label, get involved in other discussion. I'm not calling you out, but I haven't seen many of your posts, unless I just missed them. I tend to see posts from users after we had a discussion going. EDIT: What other names have you posted under?

 

[Snake Bite]

I think that mods could reduce some of the frustration by explaining what they hope to achieve by banning this poster. Is it meant to be a warning that allows him to return under a new name if he abides by the rules? Or is it an attempt to remove him from the CN site? If the latter, then an admission of being banned under another name should be enough to ban him. I keep hoping that, as the guy obviously wants to be on this site, he will heed these many warnings and change tack. But after what, nine or ten accounts, even I can get the point that this isn't going to happen.

Anyway, the guy does have one point. He is not the only person fueling the endless debate about nothing. Perhaps that is why he is allowed to return. I'm going to put him on ignore and if that doesn't work then I'll just leave the Clinic to those who want to fight.

Surely a better question to ask is, why was his last account banned ? Was it because his last account before that was banned and his last account before that etc? You can see the circular logic.

That's not good enough. I want them to point to a post and say "this is the reason you were banned...this is not accepable". But they never do.

I hate talking about myself. Other people used to fill up threads saying I was being paid by a PR agency, that I'm working for Armstrong, that I'm ***, (lol) etc, and I used to PM them to say "cut it out". It didn't work.

They know if they can kick up enough disruption then I'll get blamed for it, not them, and thus they keep doing it.

What the mods should do, in a reasonable world, is ban the use of the word troll, and ban all discussion about posters rather than the topic. That would soon sort it out. But they won't.

I'm surprised I'm still here to be honest. The mods must be snowed in somewhere. I've got to dig out my drive now.

 

[badboygolf16v]

I despise people like Paul Kimmage and Bernard Kohl, they claim to love the sport, but seem so focused on destroying its credibility.

It's not Kimmage or Kohl who have destroyed the credibility of cycling, it's the riders, the DSes, the doctors and the UCI who have done this.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

I agree with you to an extent, but Kohl was a rider, and Kimmage seems to focus soley on the sport's negatives, never the positive. If he has, then I missed the article. Everything I've read of his is negative.

 

[pedaling squares]

It's not Kimmage or Kohl who have destroyed the credibility of cycling, it's the riders, the DSes, the doctors and the UCI who have done this.

+1.
A sport that hides its dirty secrets is not credible. And people, even former cheats, who seek or speak the truth do not destroy credibility, they restore it.

To address the original topic, I do not post on RS. I visited it today and thought it was filled with people who see what they want to see. Which is ok, you expect to find fans on a team site.

 

[Digger]

It might go a little further if you specifically defined the word "hater" more precisely, and applied it correctly. You're using the word as a preemptive defense weapon, and cutting a pretty wide swath with it.

I don't quite understand what you're saying Digger? Are you saying FPC, RR or another member is "lying, bullying and intimidating"? Or are you saying this about Lance? Clarify please.

About lance

 

[Hugh Januss]

I agree with you to an extent, but Kohl was a rider, and Kimmage seems to focus soley on the sport's negatives, never the positive. If he has, then I missed the article. Everything I've read of his is negative.

Uhm, Kimmage was a pro cyclist as well, admittedly before the Lance era, so you may not have known.
I'm hard pressed to see many positive sides to doping in cycling myself.

 

[Digger]

You're absolutely right. I do accept half the criticism of Lance because some of it's warranted: chasing down Simeoni in 04, tweeting criticisms of AC (or incessant tweets in general), etc. He's no saint. I like the guy, but, as I've said before, he's not above reproach.

The reason I don't discuss doping matters much is because I don't understand the science of doping enough to discuss it. I also loathe the doping aspect of the sport and choose not to dwell on it. Too much focus on it could potentially ruin the sport the was baseball was ruined for nearly a decade. That's the reason I despise people like Paul Kimmage and Bernard Kohl, they claim to love the sport, but seem so focused on destroying its credibility, whether it's the truth or not, but I digress. Besides all that, I've heard every argument in the book for Lance's alleged doping, and I still see no definitive proof.

To avoid the "troll" label, get involved in other discussion. I'm not calling you out, but I haven't seen many of your posts, unless I just missed them. I tend to see posts from users after we had a discussion going. EDIT: What other names have you posted under?

That line is hilarious. So if a person reports the truth, they are destroying its credibility. Brilliant. Lets all bury our heads in the sand and pretend the doping problem doesn't exist, and then when young men die, we can continue to lie, because to do otherwise, would be to damage its credibility.


And for the other poster below who has said he has not seen a positive piece from Kimmage on cycling, you are completely wrong. Phillipe Gilbert, Garmin, Christian Van DeVelde, Bob Stapleton, Greg Lemond, Bradley Wiggins, Bassons, David Millar, Jonathon Vaughters, Allen Lim, have all received positive press from Paul in the past 18 months. He wrote four articles in successive weeks from the 08 tour where he praised what he saw in terms of how true he felt the racing was. He said the highlight for him was the Alpe d'Huez stage where the main contenders nearly collapsed over the line - this he thought was how cycling was meant to be. Just because you don't bother actually reading his articles, don't say he doesn't say positive things.

 

[guilder]

I have yet to see a post from you that contributes in any way to a discussion of the sport.

That's a real constructive insight incite.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That's a real constructive insight incite.

But sadly, true.

 

[Publicus]

I post pro-Lance stuff all the time. The difference is I don't go out of my way to bring it up, like so many others do. I read something and respond to it, but I do so with the knowledge that several other users will immediately question my response (Publicus, TFF, Race Radio-I'm looking at you ). We'll debate and argue until I grow tired of the same discussion or the workday ends (I rarely log in from home, normally out riding). To my knowledge, I've never been called a troll, at least not to my face.... or avatar.

Speaking of work.....

EDIT: The reason I engage them isn't to be antagonistic, it's because I want to learn more about the sport. I did the same thing in college. I played devils advocate in class to engage people in discussions on topics they were passionate about. I learn more through Socratic dialogue, than I ever could through a lecture or reading a book. I may disagree with much of what they say, but I alway learn something new because they often raise some good points (however irritating it might be at times). I was discussing Lance with another user and he mentioned re-examining your heros; maybe that's what I'm doing here. I see many reasons to like the guy, but there also many reasons to dislike him.

I try to limit my responses to factually inaccuracies in your (or others) posts--if I haven't, it's not because I'm trying to attack or irritate you (or them).

I don't begrudge anyone have any opinion. As the saying goes, we are entitled to our own opinion, just not our own facts.