The reason for so many trolls?

[Alpe d'Huez]

And since when do i have to contribute to an exisiting thread and not shout my opinion if I feel strongly about it and I want to?

You don't have to, no. But when you come out with guns blazing, don't be surprised if everyone you're aiming at shoots back.

If someone is tired of that opinion....don't read it and don't respond to it.

But isn't that what some of your posts are doing? Preemptively responding to what you view is a preponderance of "haters" on this forum? Thus, if you don't like what people are saying on this forum, don't read it, and don't respond to it.

 

[Chapeau]

5. I have just checked and the thread that I linked to has since been deleted - see point 4. The highlights I was trying to show you were:
* Username - TROLLS
* Topic - A LeMond hate fest (cant remember exact wording but it was blatant)
* Content - several paragraphs of knowingly factually incorrect summaries of events posing as a valid listing of legal facts with the clear purpose of creating a major argument on the forum (which it did - it ran to several pages of troll abuse).
Note that I dont say the purpose was to discuss LeMond in any way at all. How do I know? the user is a single post member who has disappeared within 5mins of posting that thread. they signed up, wrote it, and left in that time.
regards,
Martin

Right.

Now, give me your insight into this thread; Will Lance get the top bunk in prison?, with regards to #5 of your previous post.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9334


I look forward to your response.

 

[Chapeau]

But isn't that what some of your posts are doing? Preemptively responding to what you view is a preponderance of "haters" on this forum? Thus, if you don't like what people are saying on this forum, don't read it, and don't respond to it.

Another one.

Can I have your response to the; Will Lance get the top bunk in prison.


You see, you don't get it do you.

Your letting the Anti-Lemond guys read the Anti-Armstrong posts, but you ban & delete the posts referencing anything which goes against LeMond.

 

[Chapeau]

But isn't that what some of your posts are doing? Preemptively responding to what you view is a preponderance of "haters" on this forum? Thus, if you don't like what people are saying on this forum, don't read it, and don't respond to it.

Another one.

Can I have your response to the; Will Lance get the top bunk in prison thread.


You see, you don't get it.

Your letting the Anti-Lemond guys read the Anti-Armstrong posts, but you ban & delete the posts referencing anything which goes against LeMond.

 

[straydog]

Martin, firstly....have a good nights sleep...you wrote that all at 2.30am?

I admire your commitment to the cause....honestly.

And please don't for one second worry that I have taken offence personally at anything you have said....This is the internet....I don't know you personally and vice versa....I disagree with what you have written....but it does not offend me.

I honestly don't want this to go back and forth so ....briefly as possible....

factually incorrect summaries of events....yes we should ban all of those

You continue to refer back to my usage of the word 'dumb'. This strikes me as you being rather agressive and trying to score points on me....actually I just thought it was a rather inflammatory and might i suggest "aggressive" term for a moderator to be using

I believe it has been said that freedom of speech is the last refuge of the forum troll....can i put that as my signature? I will reference you of course....and you can use this one....calling someone a troll cos they say they admire LA is the last refuge of the forum troll

whilst in some countries freedom of speech is paramount, in others it is less so....thank you for confirming that

CAse in point is a thread earlier today asking which prison bunk Lance would get and talking about who would be the 'daddy' needless to say this type of discussion completely oversteps decency and so we chose not to host it.....but "joking" about someone making up their cancer....or "joking" about another user's sexuality....doesn't?

To ignore a moderator implies you must have a serious grievance with that individual....or it could just imply that in other threads to this, I find their opinion on certain cycling related matters devoid of reason or logic and so therefore don't want to read them...as i said I was asking a genuine question....not trying to provoke.

And why did you close the top bunk thread?....that was actually pretty funny...and anyway.....everyone knows it would be neither of them....Floyd would be up there already, saying, "either of you tell me to move and i email the governor!"

And finally....anyone who sends you hatemail is a fool....they could have just sent it to me....i could have ignored it for you.

Sleep well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.

A quick search will show there are plenty of threads on LeMond throughout the forums.

And the thread you referenced was closed.

 

[straydog]

You don't have to, no. But when you come out with guns blazing, don't be surprised if everyone you're aiming at shoots back.

But isn't that what some of your posts are doing? Preemptively responding to what you view is a preponderance of "haters" on this forum? Thus, if you don't like what people are saying on this forum, don't read it, and don't respond to it.

Sorry...didn't see this before i responded to Martin

I wasn't surprised....I was amused....and i was giving them advance warning that they might end up proving themselves as an example of what I was talking about

I was preemptively responding to people i see as "haters"...yes...I also think that I was adding another voice from the other side as a much needed level of balance on this forum.

And listen, I really am not whining about the name calling....troll slurs....LA employee accusations....without them, my point wouldn't have been made quite so easily.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sorry...didn't see this before i responded to Martin

I wasn't surprised....I was amused....and i was giving them advance warning that they might end up proving themselves as an example of what I was talking about

I was preemptively responding to people i see as "haters"...yes...I also think that I was adding another voice from the other side as a much needed level of balance on this forum.

And listen, I really am not whining about the name calling....troll slurs....LA employee accusations....without them, my point wouldn't have been made quite so easily.

No - you were not, you labeled anyone that did not agree with your view as 'haters'.
Some quotes from your very first post:

But the haters say "without dope he was just average"....
and frankly have never been even slightly inclined to post or get into any kind of debate with the self styled moral arbiters or doping experts who seem to have an extraordinary amount of free time on their hands
...."everyone knows it was sponsored by selling bikes on ebay or children into forced labour or dirty bombs to Al Qaeda"...or whatever the latest conspiracy it is that their fevered little minds can come up with...

When your post was deliberatley designed to inflame - I dont see why you can be smug in claiming "without them my point wouldn't have been made quite so easily".

 

[Parbar]

I was amused....

Classic troll behavior. Step 3: "... Have fun with it, when someone counter-attacks, get playful with them--nothing ****es off someone in a rage than when you joke around with them."

http://www.ehow.com/how_2064125_become-internet-troll.html

Even if you're not intending to be a troll, if you act like one, you're gonna get treated like one.

 

[Race Radio]

Classic troll behavior. Step 3: "... Have fun with it, when someone counter-attacks, get playful with them--nothing ****es off someone in a rage than when you joke around with them."

http://www.ehow.com/how_2064125_become-internet-troll.html

Even if you're not intending to be a troll, if you act like one, you're gonna get treated like one.

No surprise that that info is from Demand Media

 

[Race Radio]

A quick search will show there are plenty of threads on LeMond throughout the forums.

And the thread you referenced was closed.

Don't think he knows how to use the search function. Otherwise he would not have sent me that ridiculous PM filled with garbage that had been refuted many times here.

 

[Martin318is]

Right.

Now, give me your insight into this thread; Will Lance get the top bunk in prison?, with regards to #5 of your previous post.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9334


I look forward to your response.

what the problem? firstly, post #5 is the LEAST offensive of the lot inthe thread. Secondly, if you had bothered to read post #50 you would see that I locked it with the intent of deleting it the following day, which I have done.