• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

So who here posts on the Radio Shack forums?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Visit site
Publicus said:
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.

That's why I respect you. I never feel attacked with responses from either of the users I mentioned.
 
Hugh Januss said:
But sadly, true.

It's ok, he's just another one like fpcyclingn who can't actually contribute to any discussion on some sort of semi-intellectual level. Therefore every single post is anti-"Haters". Of course they get called out every time and never return to respond to a post.

They are much worse than The Arbiter but less disruptive (as indicated by their post counts).
 
Ferminal said:
It's ok, he's just another one like fpcyclingn who can't actually contribute to any discussion on some sort of semi-intellectual level. Therefore every single post is anti-"Haters". Of course they get called out every time and never return to respond to a post.

They are much worse than The Arbiter but less disruptive (as indicated by their post counts).

I wouldn't say worse, just less entertaining. Less disruptive for sure, as they post less in a month than BPC etal. did in a day.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
Visit site
theswordsman said:
I've got a New Year's resolution not to use the f..b.. term this year - I'm grouping them into minions or zealots on a case by case basis.

Never posted at Paceline.

Have not gone to the Shack for posting either.

Love the idea of minions and zealots, though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
blackcat said:
man, I hope Vadar comes back, and starts posting on the Shack forums. That was hilarious.

Drinking yak's milk on the Kazakh steppe and toying with fanboiz and fangalz. Starting new Let Levi Ride campaigns.

Jeff Vader is the most intelligent man on the planet. His yacks were the stuff of legend. I only wish he would return...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ferminal said:
I think it's more the fact that on every forums I've ever visited, if they ban someone, making a new account doesn't mean they are unbanned.

So it doesn't matter if you just register and post in the general forum talking about your favourite types of cheese, the logical policy is to ban subsequent accounts. Content means nothing if someone is already banned.

If your argument had any substance, this member would be banned -

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/member.php?u=8592

And if the world were a fair place, they would have put bars around the entire circumference of Australia. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ImmaculateKadence said:
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.

You post opinion without insult, and you post intelligently.

I would be willing to bet that if you look at the flaming posts I make, over 90% are in response to someone flaming me. I have always said that I will meet like with like. That is how I am in cyberworld and my actual life. Just go to the Beatles thread and look at who I actually flamed, and then work it back. You will find that I addressed certain posters in a derogatory manner only after being insulted. The funny part to me is that 90% of the time, the people who flame me also decry my posting because I insult. I find absolutely no reason to back down from that. Recently, I just get tired and put them on ignore because most of them just are not worth it.

Now, I will say that on the Obama thread, I flamed the living craaap out of Big Boat and Brodeal for their comments about teaching. BB didn't address me in any way. Bro wrote something intentionally inflammatory and I responded That happens from time to time. Sometimes I just express a counter opinion in that way, especially when it comes to something like that.

I use the ignore function liberally, anyone like Ferminal who doesn't want to read my posts, feel free to do the same. I have never had a beef with you that I can remember, but hey, if you want one...

BTW, I don't post at RS forums, and I won't. I had my fun on Paceline, and I see no reason to relive that experience. Let them have their land of denial.
 
Sep 27, 2009
117
0
0
Visit site
Ferminal said:
It's ok, he's just another one like fpcyclingn who can't actually contribute to any discussion on some sort of semi-intellectual level. Therefore every single post is anti-"Haters". Of course they get called out every time and never return to respond to a post.

They are much worse than The Arbiter but less disruptive (as indicated by their post counts).

Are you questioning my intellect because I point out that the haters control and exploit this forum through anti-Lance rhetoric?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
guilder said:
Are you questioning my intellect because I point out that the haters control and exploit this forum through anti-Lance rhetoric?

Look, just because you cannot logically counter the evidence that strongly suggests Lance is a doping freak does not mean anyone dominates anything. Generally, when one recognizes an argument they cannot counter, they pout and throw a fit.

I swear, there is a handbook they give you guys before posting, and there must be a couple of rules that state:
1. Never examine your own motives or actions, just attack the motives or actions of others. Its what propaganda is all about.

2. Irony does not exist, don't worry about it.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
geez we 'ad some good times at the Paceline TFF eh? With Vader, and kicking back with a freshly drawn luke warm cup'o' Yak's milk.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
blackcat said:
geez we 'ad some good times at the Paceline TFF eh? With Vader, and kicking back with a freshly drawn luke warm cup'o' Yak's milk.

Once in a lifetime opportunity that was. I almost felt sorry for them...almost.
 
Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Visit site
It's pretty obvious that the antipathy between the Lance fans and the "haters" is not about whether or not Lance dopes (or Contador, etc). It's about a perceived lack of respect for Lance: The fans believe he deserves respect and admiration irrespective of doping, and they think this forum of full of hyperbolic, irrational haters who credit Armstrong with no talent beyond pharmacy. The underlying argument of all Lance's defenders is "who cares, he's still the best"..
 
What bothers me more is the way that almost EVERY thread, and EVERY conversation turns to Lance for some people.

The guy barely raced last year, didn't win anything of substance, barely did anything on the bike really. And yet, he was by far the #1 conversation topic.
 
May 6, 2009
8,522
1
0
Visit site
Alpe d'Huez said:
What bothers me more is the way that almost EVERY thread, and EVERY conversation turns to Lance for some people.

The guy barely raced last year, didn't win anything of substance, barely did anything on the bike really. And yet, he was by far the #1 conversation topic.

And as a result you will get live coverage of the RVV, Amstel Gold, and L-B-L.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
What bothers me more is the way that almost EVERY thread, and EVERY conversation turns to Lance for some people.

The guy barely raced last year, didn't win anything of substance, barely did anything on the bike really. And yet, he was by far the #1 conversation topic.

But there were numerous incidents where people could point the finger and say "more on the mountain of evidence?". Where people say that, Armstrong supporters are going to be offended that he's in question and naturally it breaks down into 1999, Cancer, Ferrari, World Champion etc etc.

Now I don't think any other rider would get that kind of automated response when their cleanliness is questioned. Evans and Wiggins to a lesser extent I guess.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
What bothers me more is the way that almost EVERY thread, and EVERY conversation turns to Lance for some people.

The guy barely raced last year, didn't win anything of substance, barely did anything on the bike really. And yet, he was by far the #1 conversation topic.

Than again, one man's frustration is another man's entertainment. Sucks to be one of those men.
 
guilder said:
Are you questioning my intellect because I point out that the haters control and exploit this forum through anti-Lance rhetoric?


No, he's simply giving you the blueprint on how to respond to haters. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. You needn't question the truth - only the lies.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
SpeedWay said:
No, he's simply giving you the blueprint on how to respond to haters. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. You needn't question the truth - only the lies.

I have yet to see a post from you or guilder that questions anything, just insults.

Haters
 
Sep 27, 2009
117
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I have yet to see a post from you or guilder that questions anything, just insults.

Haters

ok.
Why was this topic about the RS forum started in The Clinic where it shouldn't be?
Is it because anything is game in The Clinic?

So if anything is game in The Clinic, people in glass houses...
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
guilder said:
ok.
Why was this topic about the RS forum started in The Clinic where it shouldn't be?
Is it because anything is game in The Clinic?

So if anything is game in The Clinic, people in glass houses...

Thanks for proving my point
 
Race Radio said:
I have yet to see a post from you or guilder that questions anything, just insults.

Haters

Originally Posted by guilder
Are you questioning my intellect because I point out that the haters control and exploit this forum through anti-Lance rhetoric?


No problem. The bolded character above by definition makes the sentence a question. Got it or has the hate blinded you from the obvious?
 

TRENDING THREADS