• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Bot logic thread

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
I don't wanna go Simon Cope on you ;), but I honestly don't know.
Could it be both..and..? Again though, I don't no.
It certainly wasn't a critique at you btw. I think you did well to appoint him at the time.
But let's discuss bot logic.
 
Re:

sniper said:
I don't wanna go Simon Cope on you ;), but I honestly don't know.
Could it be both..and..? Again though, I don't no.
Let's discuss bot logic.
I was discussing bot logic when I asked you a simple question that took a number of comments to finally get an answer, and if you don't mind, please leave the thread moderation to mods...
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
sniper said:
I don't wanna go Simon Cope on you ;), but I honestly don't know.
Could it be both..and..? Again though, I don't no.
Let's discuss bot logic.
I was discussing bot logic when I asked you a simple question that took a number of comments to finally get an answer, and if you don't mind, please leave the thread moderation to mods...
No need to antagonize, irondan.
You first post/question was unclear, as you bolded two statements that were unconnected.
Not my fault if "it took a number of comments to finally get an answer". That happens when questions are unclear to the recipient.
I also stand by my first post: I don't have much more to say about it tbh.
p.s. as I added to my last post ( shortly after you replied):
it certainly wasn't a critique at you. I think you did well to appoint him at the time.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
Irondan said:
sniper said:
I don't wanna go Simon Cope on you ;), but I honestly don't know.
Could it be both..and..? Again though, I don't no.
Let's discuss bot logic.
I was discussing bot logic when I asked you a simple question that took a number of comments to finally get an answer, and if you don't mind, please leave the thread moderation to mods...
No need to antagonize, irondan.
You first post/question was unclear, as you bolded two statements that were unconnected.
Not my fault if "it took a number of comments to finally get an answer". That happens when questions are unclear to the recipient.
I also stand by my first post: I don't have much more to say about it tbh.
p.s. as I added to my last post ( shortly after you replied):
it certainly wasn't a critique at you. I think you did well to appoint him at the time.
Sniper, chill.

This is the bot logic thread, not antagonise the mods thread. It's for making fun of bots, let's keep it that way.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
sniper said:
Irondan said:
sniper said:
I don't wanna go Simon Cope on you ;), but I honestly don't know.
Could it be both..and..? Again though, I don't no.
Let's discuss bot logic.
I was discussing bot logic when I asked you a simple question that took a number of comments to finally get an answer, and if you don't mind, please leave the thread moderation to mods...
No need to antagonize, irondan.
You first post/question was unclear, as you bolded two statements that were unconnected.
Not my fault if "it took a number of comments to finally get an answer". That happens when questions are unclear to the recipient.
I also stand by my first post: I don't have much more to say about it tbh.
p.s. as I added to my last post ( shortly after you replied):
it certainly wasn't a critique at you. I think you did well to appoint him at the time.
Sniper, chill.

This is the bot logic thread, not antagonise the mods thread. It's for making fun of bots, let's keep it that way.
Since when did you become so diplomatic!

Point taken hog.
 
There is a vast number of enthusiasts and participants in UK cycling who owe a massive amount to Brailsford. I agree with his analysis - wait for any facts to be properly established, then decide what to do. How else could you proceed? I think Team Sky and British Cycling are being pilloried in a rush to judgement by the Press. Brailsford is a winner and I believe a man of integrity. He should stick with it.
#botlogic
 
Re:

Irondan said:
There is a vast number of enthusiasts and participants in UK cycling who owe a massive amount to Brailsford. I agree with his analysis - wait for any facts to be properly established, then decide what to do. How else could you proceed? I think Team Sky and British Cycling are being pilloried in a rush to judgement by the Press. Brailsford is a winner and I believe a man of integrity. He should stick with it.
#botlogic
#botlogic x 1000 :lol:
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re:

Irondan said:
There is a vast number of enthusiasts and participants in UK cycling who owe a massive amount to Brailsford. I agree with his analysis - wait for any facts to be properly established, then decide what to do. How else could you proceed? I think Team Sky and British Cycling are being pilloried in a rush to judgement by the Press. Brailsford is a winner and I believe a man of integrity. He should stick with it.
#botlogic
That was written by Brailsford, Ali Campdell or Fran Millar or all 3.

Pure gold. :lol:
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Daniel Lloyd (ex UK pro) on the tweeterzone:

''Imagine how many Olympic medals BC could have got without 'dysfunctional leadership'''

Does that count as botlogic in a nutshell?
Or just a willingness to turn a blind eye to institutional bullying and sexism?
Maybe they're one and the same thing.
 
These guys mean business on Bikeradar, they are taking the Clinic down! :lol:

The food writer and campaigner Jack Monroe has won £24,000 in a libel case against Katie Hopkins, in a row over tweets which implied Monroe defaced or condoned the damage of a war memorial.

Law and Policy‏ @Law_and_policy 26m26 minutes ago
I understand the total costs to be claimed by @MxJackMonroe's lawyers from @KTHopkins will be in excess of £300k, in addition to £24 k.

KTHopkins is a Daily Mail editor :lol:

that's some peanuts. for a few tweets. imagine how many millions of USD for the millions of libelous posts in the clinic only.

i'm waiting for the big Trump vs Mail deal and hoping some cyclists follow suit. DailyMail is a cow that needs to be milked if possible.

the cyclistist should understand that they would be 2x richer if the press wouldn't sustain this fabricated athmosphere with libels presented as facts.

only o couple of publication needs to be made an example and the rest of dudes will calm down. (dudes=cycling 'journalists' and website editors)
 
thehog said:
These guys mean business on Bikeradar, they are taking the Clinic down! :lol:

The food writer and campaigner Jack Monroe has won £24,000 in a libel case against Katie Hopkins, in a row over tweets which implied Monroe defaced or condoned the damage of a war memorial.

Law and Policy‏ @Law_and_policy 26m26 minutes ago
I understand the total costs to be claimed by @MxJackMonroe's lawyers from @KTHopkins will be in excess of £300k, in addition to £24 k.

KTHopkins is a Daily Mail editor :lol:

that's some peanuts. for a few tweets. imagine how many millions of USD for the millions of libelous posts in the clinic only.

i'm waiting for the big Trump vs Mail deal and hoping some cyclists follow suit. DailyMail is a cow that needs to be milked if possible.

the cyclistist should understand that they would be 2x richer if the press wouldn't sustain this fabricated athmosphere with libels presented as facts.

only o couple of publication needs to be made an example and the rest of dudes will calm down. (dudes=cycling 'journalists' and website editors)
Mmmkay.... They seem really upset over there, isn't that site (bikeradar) owned by the same company, Immediate Media?

If I'm reading this right, the author of that comment is willing to sacrifice the very website that they commented on to see the clinic go down? It's not like Immediate has millions of dollars set aside for being sued for libel, no, to pay off a huge judgement they would either fold, or sell off assets.
 
Here's some #botlogic in defense of Usain Bolt.

Apparently having injuries and getting older is proof that he's clean. :confused:
Bolt is one of a kind, he is running fast since he was a 15 year old kid, and I don´t think he was doping at the age. Yeah, a lot of jamaican athletes were caught, but if you loke at the way the he is slowing down since 2009, and the injuries he sustained year after year I would say the he is more credible than most of athletes and cyclists, because you see him getting worse year after year, not like other atlhetes that are getting better after their 30´s. And, come on, don´t bring Cipollini to that conversation, because he was fun, but that dude is not credible at all.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
 
Re:

Irondan said:
Here's some #botlogic in defense of Usain Bolt.

Apparently having injuries and getting older is proof that he's clean. :confused:
Bolt is one of a kind, he is running fast since he was a 15 year old kid, and I don´t think he was doping at the age. Yeah, a lot of jamaican athletes were caught, but if you loke at the way the he is slowing down since 2009, and the injuries he sustained year after year I would say the he is more credible than most of athletes and cyclists, because you see him getting worse year after year, not like other atlhetes that are getting better after their 30´s. And, come on, don´t bring Cipollini to that conversation, because he was fun, but that dude is not credible at all.
That is awesome. More contradictions than a Walsh book! :cool:
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
It's a little more complex, in the UK you would need to demonstrate that there has been some form of loss from being defamed. The first bar to prove that the comments equaled actual defamation, the second bar that there was loss or lost income from the comments. Where it gets very messy is what constitutes 'opinion' and what is an intent to harm with the written word. In the UK and most of Europe those who take out a suit are responsible for their own costs until such point there is a settlement or a court finds in favour. That could be 3+ years and several tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. It should also be noted that there is no punitive damages in the UK, meaning one is highly unlikely to get any more than a few thousands pounds for the loss. There are no big money payouts like in the US.

The final part is pre-action protocol. The courts require you to make every attempt to settle the dispute prior to taking court action. In most cases, that would mean deleting the offending words and everyone moves on.

The ultimate defence to defamation is the truth, so you'd better not be lying if you take out our suit, as the defendant has every right to request documents to prove they are correct in their statements.

The very final part is "careful what you wish for"; in any civil suit, if you take action against one person they have every right to 'counterclaim' in and some cases have that counter heard at the same time. Meaning if Sky sued an individual, that individual could counterclaim and via the process of 'discovery' could ask the court to subpoena records relevant to their case.

Tort is by no means a lottery, it's a tightrope to walk. Most lawyers will tell you to write a letter, seek a basic remedy and move on. People don't get rich from tort, with he exception of the solicitor.

I would add from recent events there is enough evidence to suggest Sky are doping to some degree and would be very easy to prove with what is already in the public domain.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
Thanks.
That's a bit nuts innit. Immediate Media shouldn't be responsible for some crackpot poster.
Edit: just had a quick look and it appears they're not responsible, at least in US. The action is taken against the individual.
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34430

Back on topic, there's a lot of pretty disturbing botlogic going on on the tweeterzone. Sky marginal gains supporters with really quite nasty misogynistic views towards Jess Varnish. I'd post some but it's not amusing reading at all.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
Thanks.
That's a bit nuts innit. Immediate Media shouldn't be responsible for some crackpot poster.
Edit: just had a quick look and it appears they're not responsible, at least in US. The action is taken against the individual.
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34430

Back on topic, there's a lot of pretty disturbing botlogic going on on the tweeterzone. Sky marginal gains supporters with really quite nasty misogynistic views towards Jess Varnish. I'd post some but it's not amusing reading at all.
whenever i see marginal gains, i see syed, and i see the potential of how we can change the world, how we just may change the world, the grand rhetoric, changing the world, SDB can change the world, marginal gains can change the world.

completely serious.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
Thanks.
That's a bit nuts innit. Immediate Media shouldn't be responsible for some crackpot poster.
Edit: just had a quick look and it appears they're not responsible, at least in US. The action is taken against the individual.
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34430

Back on topic, there's a lot of pretty disturbing botlogic going on on the tweeterzone. Sky marginal gains supporters with really quite nasty misogynistic views towards Jess Varnish. I'd post some but it's not amusing reading at all.
Don't thank me, Hogs comment shows just how little I know about libel. :eek:

I want to thank The Hog for posting this very informative piece that I'll keep in the back of my mind from now on.

Cheers :)

thehog said:
Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
It's a little more complex, in the UK you would need to demonstrate that there has been some form of loss from being defamed. The first bar to prove that the comments equaled actual defamation, the second bar that there was loss or lost income from the comments. Where it gets very messy is what constitutes 'opinion' and what is an intent to harm with the written word. In the UK and most of Europe those who take out a suit are responsible for their own costs until such point there is a settlement or a court finds in favour. That could be 3+ years and several tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. It should also be noted that there is no punitive damages in the UK, meaning one is highly unlikely to get any more than a few thousands pounds for the loss. There are no big money payouts like in the US.

The final part is pre-action protocol. The courts require you to make every attempt to settle the dispute prior to taking court action. In most cases, that would mean deleting the offending words and everyone moves on.

The ultimate defence to defamation is the truth, so you'd better not be lying if you take out our suit, as the defendant has every right to request documents to prove they are correct in their statements.

The very final part is "careful what you wish for"; in any civil suit, if you take action against one person they have every right to 'counterclaim' in and some cases have that counter heard at the same time. Meaning if Sky sued an individual, that individual could counterclaim and via the process of 'discovery' could ask the court to subpoena records relevant to their case.

Tort is by no means a lottery, it's a tightrope to walk. Most lawyers will tell you to write a letter, seek a basic remedy and move on. People don't get rich from tort, with he exception of the solicitor.

I would add from recent events there is enough evidence to suggest Sky are doping to some degree and would be very easy to prove with what is already in the public domain.
 
And the botlogic continues:

It's got the feeling of an organisation almost deciding the only way they will stop people going on about an issue is to admit to wrongdoing even when there wasn't any, take the short term pain but hope that they can then get back to doing what they do.

I've said it before but Varnish was in the system for years with no apparent concerns of bullying and yet when she gets told she's no longer good enough suddenly sexism and bullying are rife.
 
@ Irondan - if anyone threatens they will sue; just point them to the Civil Procedure Rules for defamation and state you can't move forward until the following is provided, including their real name and address, generally you'll never hear from them again;

The Claimant should notify the Defendant of his/her claim in writing at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

3.2
The Letter of Claim should include the following information:-
name of Claimant;

sufficient details to identify the publication or broadcast which contained the words complained of;
the words complained of and, if known, the date of publication; where possible, a copy or transcript of the words complained of should be enclosed;
factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of; the Claimant should give a sufficient explanation to enable the Defendant to appreciate why the words are inaccurate or unsupportable;
the nature of the remedies sought by the Claimant.
Where relevant, the Letter of Claim should also include:-
any facts or matters which make the Claimant identifiable from the words complained of;
details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and/or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
Is Immediate Media responsible for libelous comments made by posters here?
Surely the action is taken against the individual?
I'm no expert but we have some very well versed members that can answer better than I.

I think that it depends a lot on the country that any suit is brought up in because here in the US the libel laws are a lot less strict than in the UK. Yes, Immediate Media could be held as a defendant in any libel case brought up for comments made in the clinic.
It's a little more complex, in the UK you would need to demonstrate that there has been some form of loss from being defamed. The first bar to prove that the comments equaled actual defamation, the second bar that there was loss or lost income from the comments. Where it gets very messy is what constitutes 'opinion' and what is an intent to harm with the written word. In the UK and most of Europe those who take out a suit are responsible for their own costs until such point there is a settlement or a court finds in favour. That could be 3+ years and several tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. It should also be noted that there is no punitive damages in the UK, meaning one is highly unlikely to get any more than a few thousands pounds for the loss. There are no big money payouts like in the US.

The final part is pre-action protocol. The courts require you to make every attempt to settle the dispute prior to taking court action. In most cases, that would mean deleting the offending words and everyone moves on.

The ultimate defence to defamation is the truth, so you'd better not be lying if you take out our suit, as the defendant has every right to request documents to prove they are correct in their statements.

The very final part is "careful what you wish for"; in any civil suit, if you take action against one person they have every right to 'counterclaim' in and some cases have that counter heard at the same time. Meaning if Sky sued an individual, that individual could counterclaim and via the process of 'discovery' could ask the court to subpoena records relevant to their case.

Tort is by no means a lottery, it's a tightrope to walk. Most lawyers will tell you to write a letter, seek a basic remedy and move on. People don't get rich from tort, with he exception of the solicitor.

I would add from recent events there is enough evidence to suggest Sky are doping to some degree and would be very easy to prove with what is already in the public domain.
Thanks Hog, really interesting post. I've often wondered what the situation was.

So our free speech on a forum like this is pretty well protected really. That's good to know.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts