180mmCrank said:
One thing I am very confident of is that there will always be people that post comments that are incorrect, irrelevant, irritating, ignorant ... we know that. The issue is how to respond (or not). We need to understand the difference between commenting on what is posted and who is doing the posting. It's justifiable to call comments drivel but not appropriate to call the poster an idiot - even if that's what we think.
People don't typically argue with themselves (unless they have stopped taking their medication ) - it takes at least two people to have an argument.
But people do post under more than one name to give the impression they have more support than is actually there. I point no fingers, but one person with multiple names who has been banned several times and is still allowed to post comes to mind.
I guess my problem with this whole PC "nobody should post things that are inflammatory" is that it is unrealistic and in my opinion a bit snobbish. Someone wading into a thread about some issue involving a specific cyclist who has a questionable past regarding doping, and thinks that thread will contain resplendent and scintillating conversation of a good natured quality with give and take has obviously not been around cycling forums too long. If you have concern with this subject, I have a few suggestions:*
I. Read the Forum Section Title carefully and:
a. If the title is "The Clinic" you can feel fairly certain that most threads will be a bit more lively than non-doping threads, and therefore will not be allowed to play the victim if you choose to enter.
b. If you don't like the adversarial nature of most doping topics and the Forum Section is titled "The Clinic," you can leave right then and save yourself a post filled with righteous indignation regarding the ruffians who engage in adolescent discourse.
II. If you choose to enter, pay close attention to the Thread Title and:
a. If the subject involves Lance Armstrong you can:
1. Open the thread with the knowledge that it will almost certainly contain a moderate to heavy amount of vitriol and caustic banter.
2. Choose not to open the thread and save yourself a post filled with righteous indignation regarding the ruffians who engage in adolescent discourse.
b. If the subject involves something else or someone else, you can:
1. Open the thread with the knowledge that someone will most likely bring up Lance Armstrong, and will therefore almost certainly contain a moderate to heavy amount of vitriol and caustic banter.
2. If Mr Armstrong's name is not present, rest assured that there are still many disagreements regarding the subject of doping in cycling that will cause otherwise rational people to engage in a moderate to heavy amount of vitriol and caustic banter.
3. Choose not to open the thread and save yourself a post filled with righteous indignation regarding the ruffians who engage in adolescent discourse.
Now that we have a logical and well thought out set of ground rules, I think we can all agree that everyone's enjoyment of the Cyclingnews Forum will increase exponentially, yes?
*Please read in the voice of the man who narrated all of those 1960's filmstrips about various school issues.