The reason for so many trolls?

May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
I don't see the anti dopers in here as a problem.

Yep the sport (and there in every sport) has cheating.

Before EPO, if you are a cycling fan, you would understand that GT winners would still win GTs with whatever they took and non GT winners could not win GTs with whatever they took. EPO changed that and made those who could get the best EPO program and took the most risks with it and turn them into 7 time TdF winners, even if they prior to EPO would never win a GT.

There in is the crux in the clinic. EPO. It changed the field of play.Coppi, Anquetil, Bartoli and Merckx might never have been the successful cyclists they became if others had EOP'd. But they were GT winners, they had that natural ability. Indurain, Riis, Pantani, Armstrong and probably Contador are not GT winners.

As for being fans of the sport. There is more to cycling than doping and now is probably the best time to be a fan as it appears it is trying to go clean with the full backing of most fans, not LA supporters who cant name another TdF winner apart from Contador for obvious reasons, who demand the sport cleans up.

By posters trying to justify LA and his use of dope by saying it is not proven, is untrue, and that they all did it and that he has done too much good for too many people is not acceptable as the overwhelming evidence points to LA as a doper and using the sport with his own cancer smeared all over it to enrich himself and his backers (Weisel, Och, Carmichael) and not his fellow team mates who helped him achieve those wins.

The clinic is a place to discuss doping in the sport. When people come on here with statements purporting that LA did not dope, well it reduces the discussion to a slagging match, which can be fun, depending on the poster, but in the end is wearisome as it becomes like a stuck record as in the paragraph above.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
Stupidity and the inability or unwillingness to think critically lies at the heart of our frustrations.

It just gets so tiring to see the same old repudiated "spin" soiling the forum on an hourly basis by people whose ignorance of cycling directly corresponds to the fervour of their belief in the illogical.

As with many areas of life's rich tapestry, why should the opinions of vapid simians who soil the forum with their presence be given equal respect to those of us who have been involved in bike racing for years and have a thirst for knowledge, tempered by our experiences of the less salubrious side of the sport?
 
andy1234 said:
If some of the more senior members took off their anti doping, anti Armstrong\LeMond (you choose), anti whoever hat for two minutes and listened before posting, they may just see that there are some valid points to be made.

Let us know when you decide to make one.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Any chance that this kind of thread could be opened in the "about the forum" section, not the clinic?

I can't possible be the only person here who is so OVER this debate.
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Stupidity and the inability or unwillingness to think critically lies at the heart of our frustrations.

It just gets so tiring to see the same old repudiated "spin" soiling the forum on an hourly basis by people whose ignorance of cycling directly corresponds to the fervour of their belief in the illogical.

As with many areas of life's rich tapestry, why should the opinions of vapid simians who soil the forum with their presence be given equal respect to those of us who have been involved in bike racing for years and have a thirst for knowledge, tempered by our experiences of the less salubrious side of the sport?

When someone describes someone as "vapid simians who soil the forum with their presence" your kind of proving my point. Its fuels to the Trolls and damages the Forum.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
andy1234 said:
When someone describes someone as "vapid simians who soil the forum with their presence" your kind of proving my point. Its fuels to the Trolls and damages the Forum.

Replace "forum" with "earth" and its a nice quote from The Satanic Scriptures by Peter Gilmore, which is a wonderful rant against conformity and stupidity.
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Stupidity and the inability or unwillingness to think critically lies at the heart of our frustrations.

It just gets so tiring to see the same old repudiated "spin" soiling the forum on an hourly basis by people whose ignorance of cycling directly corresponds to the fervour of their belief in the illogical.

As with many areas of life's rich tapestry, why should the opinions of vapid simians who soil the forum with their presence be given equal respect to those of us who have been involved in bike racing for years and have a thirst for knowledge, tempered by our experiences of the less salubrious side of the sport?

I honestly don't know which "trolls" you thought you were ridiculing with this statement, so I won't presume to decide for you, but actually I think what you have said is a pretty eloquent definition....

One thing....despite myself "being involved in bike racing for many years" and also having a fair amount of experience "of the less salubrious side of the sport", I don't think that anyone who has less experience isn't entitled to their opinion. I may feel smug that they are in need of educating, or are ignorant, or blinkered, or simplistic, or misguided, or biased....but they are entitled to their opinion....and i am entitled to feel smug. This is after all a "forum", a dedicated space for public "discussion"....but a lot of people here, it seems, want to defy argument ....they only want to hear one opinion....one set of mantras endlessly repeated without any access to reasoning or questioning...and that doesn't sound like a forum....that sounds like a cult

I for one, am happy to raise my voice, lone or otherwise, against the idiocy I hear coming from the fundamentalists who belong to the cult of "hate".

"the term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement"....those black and white arguments....dopers evil....it all started with LA....he probably invented cancer....without the dope he wouldn't even have made it it as a Pro....whatever "fact" you choose to cling onto, to fuel your hate is fine with me if it works for you.

Do you know what will never go away though? Even now your bad guy, the devil, has retired?

Your hate....it will remain....eating you up....and when you have run out of scapegoats and targets to direct it at....there will only be that angry little face staring back at you from the mirror. And that my friends is why the world will always need therapists.


And one other thing MW.....my "experience" does tell me this....I can spot a fake a mile off....a legend in their own lunchtime....some of the postings you have made regarding doping and athletic performance need a little bit more googling if you don't want to appear really ignorant. And no matter how much you google, it won't make you something you are not.
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
straydog said:
I honestly don't know which "trolls" you thought you were ridiculing with this statement, so I won't presume to decide for you, but actually I think what you have said is a pretty eloquent definition....

One thing....despite myself "being involved in bike racing for many years" and also having a fair amount of experience "of the less salubrious side of the sport", I don't think that anyone who has less experience isn't entitled to their opinion. I may feel smug that they are in need of educating, or are ignorant, or blinkered, or simplistic, or misguided, or biased....but they are entitled to their opinion....and i am entitled to feel smug. This is after all a "forum", a dedicated space for public "discussion"....but a lot of people here, it seems, want to defy argument ....they only want to hear one opinion....one set of mantras endlessly repeated without any access to reasoning or questioning...and that doesn't sound like a forum....that sounds like a cult



I for one, am happy to raise my voice, lone or otherwise, against the idiocy I hear coming from the fundamentalists who belong the cult of "hate".

"the term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement"....those black and white arguments....dopers evil....it all started with LA....he probably invented cancer....without the dope he wouldn't even have made it it as a Pro....whatever "fact" you choose to cling onto, to fuel your hate is fine with me if it works for you.

Do you know what will never go away though? Even now your bad guy, the devil, has retired?

Your hate....it will remain....eating you up....and when you have run out of scapegoats and targets to direct it at....there will only be that angry little face staring back at you from the mirror. And that my friends is why the world will always need therapists.

Yes I do hate immorality, corruption, dishonesty, bigotry and all the other joys that sociopaths and the ignorant bring to our species. And I thirst for knowledge, facts, theories, evidence on an objective basis, not for emotional reassurance.

But your post seems to imply that my objections to what is demonstrably wrong makes me a miserable hater in need of therapy. Imagine if noone in the world had ever stood up for knowledge, truth, freedom and fairness etc.

The more people there are who are angry about injustice, the more chance we have to remedy such wrongs. Switching off our anger for an easier emotional life allows such corruption to flourish. Worse still is the nonsensical "each opinion is of equal worth" idiocy that means the point of view of a simpleton must carry equal weight to an expert. Take that doctrine to extremes and we wouldn't even have bike racing....

Imagine also that this is a forum where many biologists discuss events in evolutionary biology. Let's say that hundreds of people who know way less than us come to this forum to bait and provoke with proven incorrect and illogical theories in defence of the religious charlatans who spout their preferred brand of nonsense.

Is it wrong to get frustrated?
 
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Yes I do hate immorality, corruption, dishonesty, bigotry and all the other joys that sociopaths and the ignorant bring to our species. And I thirst for knowledge, facts, theories, evidence on an objective basis, not for emotional reassurance.

But your post seems to imply that my objections to what is demonstrably wrong makes me a miserable hater in need of therapy. Imagine if noone in the world had ever stood up for knowledge, truth, freedom and fairness etc.

The more people there are who are angry about injustice, the more chance we have to remedy such wrongs. Switching off our anger for an easier emotional life allows such corruption to flourish. Worse still is the nonsensical "each opinion is of equal worth" idiocy that means the point of view of a simpleton must carry equal weight to an expert. Take that doctrine to extremes and we wouldn't even have bike racing....

Imagine also that this is a forum where many biologists discuss events in evolutionary biology. Let's say that hundreds of people who know way less than us come to this forum to bait and provoke with proven incorrect and illogical theories in defence of the religious charlatans who spout their preferred brand of nonsense.

Is it wrong to get frustrated?

Great, intelligent post.
But if someone decides that they are the expert, and everyone elses viewpoint is inferior, that makes them as blinkered and idiotic as the novice.
You patently have a place for reasonable debate, some of your "expert" peers do not.
 
Jul 6, 2010
99
0
0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Worse still is the nonsensical "each opinion is of equal worth" idiocy that means the point of view of a simpleton must carry equal weight to an expert. Take that doctrine to extremes and we wouldn't even have bike racing....

Imagine also that this is a forum where many biologists discuss events in evolutionary biology. Let's say that hundreds of people who know way less than us come to this forum to bait and provoke with proven incorrect and illogical theories in defence of the religious charlatans who spout their preferred brand of nonsense.

Is it wrong to get frustrated?
I think this is the perfect analogy. And frustration is exactly what it is...
 
May 28, 2010
54
0
0
andy1234 said:
The reason for so many trolls?

Since so many peple on these forums are tired of the Trolling that goes on, let me give my thoughts on why the problem here is so bad.

Anyone making a statement or asking a question on here, that isnt a popular view, immediately gets aggressive questioning on motives behind a post and often patronised at the same time... Its so incrediblly easy to start a fight here because many members are so easily inflamed. Its such a black and white environment, it leaves no room for discussion.

Yeah, I didn't toe the clinic line to the T in my first post and someone welcomed me by saying "welcome back", implying that I was that BMC dude or whatever their nick is.

Talk about trigger happy; I simply ignored it and they recanted by deleting their message. That was case in point for me and from there I question whether it is worth even discussing anything here.

Obviously I still have hope.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fact is, some of you are taking yourselves WAY too seriously. In case you guys have not noticed, this is a forum...it has about as much importance as melba toast in reality. Lighten up Frances!

Righteous crusaders against the injustice of "haters." (Hey look, a rhyme!) Okay, if you find that to be something worthy of pursuit, go for it I guess....
 
Thoughtforfood said:
Fact is, some of you are taking yourselves WAY too seriously. In case you guys have not noticed, this is a forum...it has about as much importance as melba toast in reality. Lighten up Frances

You soooo know that quote is going to come back to haunt you :D
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Fact is, some of you are taking yourselves WAY too seriously. In case you guys have not noticed, this is a forum...it has about as much importance as melba toast in reality. Lighten up Frances!

Righteous crusaders against the injustice of "haters." (Hey look, a rhyme!) Okay, if you find that to be something worthy of pursuit, go for it I guess....

".....melba toast in reality".Very well put.

However, I don't see myself as righteous...or a crusader...I just have another day off, and honestly, today....nothing better to do than to spend some time being amused by some people's "thinking".

I stand by the cult comments....one hundred percent....bored or not.

And MW....I editied my earlier post especially for you, my "expert" friend.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
I've moved this as it has little to do with the clinic.

While I am here though, I will say that I actually agree with a lot of what the original poster said. When a completely unkonwn new member comes here and posts for the first time - IF they are dumb enough to post on one of the big trigger topics, then a lot of guys here will jump straight down their throat with all the anti-fanboy, or bpc, or public strategies, etc ,etc allegations. They completely ignore any valid points in the post that was made in much the same manner that BroDeal has done above. (sorry BroDeal but its an obvious comparison)

The newbie defends themselves and then if they choose their words badly they then get flamed for supposedly intentionally being a troll.

From what I saw moderating the forums in the last month, I PERSONALLY thought that about 1 in 4 or even 1 in 5 people who were accused of trolling actually were trolls. The rest were the wrong guy in the wrong place at teh wrong time.

Just sayin...
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
We have the BPC nut job signing up 10 new usernames a day and flooding my inbox with PM's. We also have some other guy starting 2-3 new "Lemond sucks" threads per day.

It is easy to see how long term posters would be a bit touchy with the same garbage being produced daily.
 
Jul 27, 2010
620
0
0
Martin318is said:
I've moved this as it has little to do with the clinic.

While I am here though, I will say that I actually agree with a lot of what the original poster said. When a completely unkonwn new member comes here and posts for the first time - IF they are dumb enough to post on one of the big trigger topics, then a lot of guys here will jump straight down their throat with all the anti-fanboy, or bpc, or public strategies, etc ,etc allegations. They completely ignore any valid points in the post that was made in much the same manner that BroDeal has done above. (sorry BroDeal but its an obvious comparison)

The newbie defends themselves and then if they choose their words badly they then get flamed for supposedly intentionally being a troll.

From what I saw moderating the forums in the last month, I PERSONALLY thought that about 1 in 4 or even 1 in 5 people who were accused of trolling actually were trolls. The rest were the wrong guy in the wrong place at teh wrong time.

Just sayin...

"IF they are dumb enough"...."if they choose their words badly"....I know you were trying to agree with the OP....but these comments hardly seem "moderate"

I can assure you I am not dumb....did i want to provoke some sensible debate on what i know to be a contentious issue and debunk some myths? You bet.

And I choose my words very, very, carefully....if those words annoy some....it doesn't make them badly chosen.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
andy1234 said:
The reason for so many trolls?

Since so many people on these forums are tired of the Trolling that goes on, let me give my thoughts on why the problem here is so bad.

Anyone making a statement or asking a question on here, that isn't a popular view, immediately gets aggressive questioning on motives behind a post and often patronised at the same time.
Anyone coming in here with an open mind, very quickly has to choose sides or risk being overwhelmed by this attitude. Its fight or give up.

Now, other forums I have been a member of, allow for a fair amount of debate on a subject with each poster being given some room to breath, as long as they can present themselves and their views rationally and politely. If not, they are ignored.
This really is not the case here.

I would imagine that the more senior members of the forum will claim that the attitude taken towards posters is as a result of all the Trolling that has taken place previously.

I personally think that its the attitude of some of the senior posters that creates such an easy environment for Trolls to act. Its so incrediblly easy to start a fight here because many members are so easily inflamed. Its such a black and white environment, it leaves no room for discussion.

I think that a lot of the posters who shield themselves beneath the anti doping umbrella, actually thrive in an environment that allows them to display their rightous indignation so frequently. Why would they chose to follow a sport that has such a tradition of doping (or publicity of). The vociferous support of anti doping provides a platform to demonstrate time and time again what an upstanding individual they are.

Getting back to the Trolling problem...
If some of the more senior members took off their anti doping, anti Armstrong\LeMond (you choose), anti whoever hat for two minutes and listened before posting, they may just see that there are some valid points to be made. They may also be able to identify more clearly those who are just out to enflame and in doing so nip some of the Trolling in the bud.

Andy

You do raise a good point in that many get 'trigger happy' - but this is because lots are awaiting todays visit from BPC, which is unfair on innocent new users.

However on all your other points you are painting with a broad brush, "senior members", or those from the "anti-doping" brigade - either you are talking about trolling from all members or sides or not.

Yesterday you asked a fair and reasonable question in the LeMond thread - and it was answered in a fair and reasonable manner, but then you changed the terms of what information you were looking for which appeared to suit a preconceived notion- it is not unreasonable for other posters to then question your motives.
Nor does it help that your very first post was to start the thread, "Why do you dislike Armstrong?" - but then make the remark, , but it doesn't bring me to hate the guy." - when you ask an inflammatory question, expect an inflammatory response.


You want to debate or argue a point - then stick on the point, not the posters.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,035
0
0
straydog said:
"IF they are dumb enough"...."if they choose their words badly"....I know you were trying to agree with the OP....but these comments hardly seem "moderate"

I can assure you I am not dumb....did i want to provoke some sensible debate on what i know to be a contentious issue and debunk some myths? You bet.

And I choose my words very, very, carefully....if those words annoy some....it doesn't make them badly chosen.

Dumb enough is entirely appropriate.

To get to the decision to write that first post, someone had to come into the site and either

1) start a thread completely blindly without even bothering to read what has already been written on the topic, (thereby setting themselves up for a huge fall), or

2) have conciously read a lot of the posts on the topic, through which they should have clearly got an idea of the arguments for and against and frankly seen the moods that conversation engenders - and STILL decided to write a thread with a title something like "why dont you like LeMond/Armstrong/Floyd/Cheddar Cheese"

either way, its dumb.

as to 'chooses words badly' then again I am referring to the difference between saying 'hey I didnt realise, can you point me to where I should be reading' and 'get lost you arrogant cancer lover'. One is clearly a poor choice of words if someone wishes to enjoy their time here.

I'm sorry if my usage of the term without this further applification causes offense to those new members that have not done one of those two things but clearly (now I have expained it) I am not talking about that type of new user.

But again, the thrust of my post was that I agree that the senior membership really should try to back off and give new users a little more space. The option exists to report a post as trolling or whatever. t would be great if people did so rather than going head to head with people and making a bad situation worse.

As RR, etc have said though - its not like they dont have history to back them up here that they have been repeatedly been provoked
 
Dr. Maserati said:
You do raise a good point in that many get 'trigger happy' - but this is because lots are awaiting todays visit from BPC, which is unfair on innocent new users.

However on all your other points you are painting with a broad brush, "senior members", or those from the "anti-doping" brigade - either you are talking about trolling from all members or sides or not.

Yesterday you asked a fair and reasonable question in the LeMond thread - and it was answered in a fair and reasonable manner, but then you changed the terms of what information you were looking for which appeared to suit a preconceived notion- it is not unreasonable for other posters to then question your motives.
Nor does it help that your very first post was to start the thread, "Why do you dislike Armstrong?" - but then make the remark, , but it doesn't bring me to hate the guy." - when you ask an inflammatory question, expect an inflammatory response.


You want to debate or argue a point - then stick on the point, not the posters.

I am sticking to the post, not the posters. Thats why I posted this seperately.

On the LeMond front. Right from the beginning, I asked for evidence of LeMonds "crusades" against doping previous to Armstrong being a target. I was making the point that LeMond showed minimal interest in drug abuse in cycling before it infringed on his status as the best US rider ever.
Crusade indicates a strong stance, dont you think?

I was presented with a couple of articles, all of them non commital to say the least. One of the articles even stated that LeMond was not available to comment!!!

I asked for evidence and didnt get it.

I then changed my description from "crusade" to "aggressive", as it was clear that some people did not understand what I was asking for.
I'm still waiting for a breakthrough.
I will state again, that I am willing to change my mind.

On the Armstrong front, I have realised that there is NO way to discuss him without it becoming an inflammatory remark. Skirting around his Lanceness, or smacking people in the face with him, It all invokes the same response. So no apologies for my first post (although I didnt know this at the time)

Andy
 
straydog said:
those black and white arguments....dopers evil....it all started with LA....he probably invented cancer....without the dope he wouldn't even have made it it as a Pro....whatever "fact" you choose to cling onto, to fuel your hate is fine with me if it works for you.

And one other thing MW.....my "experience" does tell me this....I can spot a fake a mile off....a legend in their own lunchtime....some of the postings you have made regarding doping and athletic performance need a little bit more googling if you don't want to appear really ignorant. And no matter how much you google, it won't make you something you are not.

straydog said:
And I choose my words very, very, carefully....if those words annoy some....it doesn't make them badly chosen.

First of all your list of "facts" is pathetic, no one has ever advanced either the idea that Lance invented cancer or the idea that he wasn't a very good classics/single day type pro in any sort of serious way.

I note that you have chosen to place your "experience" inside quotes, that is where it belongs as I would be willing to bet it is mostly real only in your mind.

Finally, isn't "carefully choosing words to annoy" the definition of troll?