Us against Them: The "Victim" Thread

[DirtyWorks]

There are a couple of fundamental issues I read.

1. Stubbornly defending ridiculous views. The entire thread is a mess of failed ideas, most of which have been rebutted already. The Moncoutie thread is still going strong because people either don't know or won't accept the basics of a logical argument.


2. Post seeking capitulation from the anti-doping crowd. Different than #1 in that the point is to get anti-doping to give up a specific reasonable position to give the doping apologists a fulcrum point in the ongoing discussion of doping. These posts are looking for some kind of minor acknowledgement in order to get the tenor of the doping discussion to look more favorably on cheaters.

There was one joker who wouldn't accept inference as a method to define whether Moncoutie doped or not. If you give that kind of crazy any oxygen, then The Clinic is open to all kinds of rhetorical abuse including legitimately portraying Pharmstrong as dope-free.

It sounds to me you would prefer to give some of these crazies an honorable way out, but then you open the forum up to something called the ratchet effect. It gives them space to maintain their kind of crazy and pollute discussion with no end in site.

http://smithbowen.net/linfame/stopme/chapter02.html

 

[Yeahright]

There are a couple of fundamental issues I read.

1. Stubbornly defending ridiculous views. The entire thread is a mess of failed ideas, most of which have been rebutted already. The Moncoutie thread is still going strong because people either don't know or won't accept the basics of a logical argument.


2. Post seeking capitulation from the anti-doping crowd. Different than #1 in that the point is to get anti-doping to give up a specific reasonable position to give the doping apologists a fulcrum point in the ongoing discussion of doping. These posts are looking for some kind of minor acknowledgement in order to get the tenor of the doping discussion to look more favorably on cheaters.

There was one joker who wouldn't accept inference as a method to define whether Moncoutie doped or not. If you give that kind of crazy any oxygen, then The Clinic is open to all kinds of rhetorical abuse including legitimately portraying Pharmstrong as dope-free.

It sounds to me you would prefer to give some of these crazies an honorable way out, but then you open the forum up to something called the ratchet effect. It gives them space to maintain their kind of crazy and pollute discussion with no end in site.

http://smithbowen.net/linfame/stopme/chapter02.html

Actually it seems to me that he (Granville) is trying to take a moderate line in allowing "crazies" (your term) from both ends of the spectrum a place to vent their spleen.

From the tenor of your post I get the impression that you define "pollution" as an opinion which varies from your own on a topic. The Gilbert thread previously mentioned is a classic. Start off the post with an assertion of fact: "Gilbert must be doped" (paraphrasing), present no empirical evidence at all other than to win two races in a row is apparently not possible once you have reached 28. Then if anyone has the temerity suggest otherwise, flame them with the old hoary chestnut: "if he hasn't tested positive it must mean he is a protected rider'. Of course that is pretty much fait accompli, pretty hard to mount a logical argument against that.

Unfortunately that is about the extent of the proof that some people deliver on these forums. And no I am not a fanboy of anyone in particular and no I am not naive enough to think that there is not doping prevalent in the pro peloton. I just do not think that it is systemic.

I guess having that view qualifies me as a troll by default so this must be the thread for me!

 

[JA.Tri]

concur

I guess this stuff is still rattling around inside my skull.

Here are excerpts from some recent exchanges in the "Gilbert" clinic thread that illustrate what I'm talking about.












There often seems to be another issues simmering just beneath the surface that never really gets fully addressed. As a result, it always seems to come up. In the example above it didn't derail the thread, but those same questions always return. And let's be honest, none of the above posts are really about Gilbert. This is the same cycle that gets repeated over and over again.

Of course I could've just started a thread in The Clinic about this topic on my own, but I bring it here for a reason. I think it would be helpful to the overall discussion if instead of sometimes slamming the door on objections to the topic itself (as Barrus was doing, perhaps with good reason, in the above) why not let that opposing discussion (about the nature of the topic, as opposed to the details of it) develop on its own, in a different thread but still within the confines of The Clinic?

Mods would have to come to some agreement on this, like with the use of the "Lance," "Floyd" and "Contador" threads.

Here's another title suggestion:

Clinical or Cynical: What's in play here?

Reading that same thread with similar thoughts.

Certainly the original title prompted furore. I inferred that many of the posts contained an element of "revenge" and "tit for tat" or were not specifically about PG (and were more suited to "All pros are doped" or "Are there any clean riders in the Pro Tour").

Therefore I agree... :

If not on point... go either:
.to another thread where you would be on point or
.to where you can gripe/complain/constructively criticize.

Unfortunately:

.the self discipline required of posters is a bridge too far or
.the demand on moderators is way too high.

 

[python]

i guess it's time for me to add some thoughts though i resisted the idea for a while...

a perfect example of what granville is talking about just happened in the "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" thread. brief summary:

rhubroma posted that gazzetta dello sport had some interesting news this morning. another poster asked for a link and if it was an accurate story. a discussion ensured and soon after a link from cyclingnews.com about the same story was posted.

out of nowhere, instead of adding or discussing the news, a well known poster appears and starts handing out 'hater' tags and ad hominems.

needless to mention, the news discussion took a quick nosedive and got buried under a bunch of posts that were ether unnecessary self defence or more offtopic.

i don't know if the suggestion by gran is the right one, perhaps it is, but i sure as hell know that the intentional off-topic about 'us against them' is not necessary and should be moderated.

i can understand gran's and others frustration. and i don't really visit those threads often.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Actually it seems to me that he (Granville) is trying to take a moderate line in allowing "crazies" (your term) from both ends of the spectrum a place to vent their spleen.

People crying foul are, to a one, using cheap rhetoric to defend their position.
Enough venting happens in the forum. There's no need to start a h3ll hole where the worst logic is allowed to flourish. Which, I'm pretty sure is what's being discussed.

From the tenor of your post I get the impression that you define "pollution" as an opinion which varies from your own on a topic. ..

Nonsense. If you dig through my history you'll find times when I've been plain wrong and acknowledged it and moved on. Other issues where there's a difference of a well-grounded opinion that cannot be bridged, I agree to disagree.

What I don't tolerate is an opinion that is a total denial of a reasoned view of the world. There are many of those in the clinic and they have earned being slighted despite their protests. That's completely different than running my own Right Brigade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwMV7REkKVA
For those who can't make the lyrics out:
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/b/bad_brains/right_brigade.html

 

[Cobblestoned]

i guess it's time for me to add some thoughts though i resisted the idea for a while...

a perfect example of what granville is talking about just happened in the "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" thread. brief summary:

rhubroma posted that gazzetta dello sport had some interesting news this morning. another poster asked for a link and if it was an accurate story. a discussion ensured and soon after a link from cyclingnews.com about the same story was posted.

out of nowhere, instead of adding or discussing the news, a well known poster appears and starts handing out 'hater' tags and ad hominems.

needless to mention, the news discussion took a quick nosedive and got buried under a bunch of posts that were ether unnecessary self defence or more offtopic.

i don't know if the suggestion by gran is the right one, perhaps it is, but i sure as hell know that the intentional off-topic about 'us against them' is not necessary and should be moderated.

i can understand gran's and others frustration. and i don't really visit those threads often.

I guess it's time to remind you of that saying about stones and glasshouses.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=447143&postcount=50

That was not first and last time you were trolling.
Must be hard for you that you didn't become a mod.
Ban the trolls, yeah, ban them all.

Amusing to see that haters don't consider themselfes as trollish and always play the unguilty victims-card, even when they are handled with kid gloves here - compared to other trolls.
I mean, Polish and Flicker got recently 14 day ban for doing nothing different than few haters, that get some alibi-bans - if they ever got a ban.

 

[patricknd]

i guess it's time for me to add some thoughts though i resisted the idea for a while...

a perfect example of what granville is talking about just happened in the "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" thread. brief summary:

rhubroma posted that gazzetta dello sport had some interesting news this morning. another poster asked for a link and if it was an accurate story. a discussion ensured and soon after a link from cyclingnews.com about the same story was posted.

out of nowhere, instead of adding or discussing the news, a well known poster appears and starts handing out 'hater' tags and ad hominems.

needless to mention, the news discussion took a quick nosedive and got buried under a bunch of posts that were ether unnecessary self defence or more offtopic.

i don't know if the suggestion by gran is the right one, perhaps it is, but i sure as hell know that the intentional off-topic about 'us against them' is not necessary and should be moderated.

i can understand gran's and others frustration. and i don't really visit those threads often.

i think everyone is free to ignore those well known poster's and simply not respond. of course that would require self discipline......

 

[DirtyWorks]

i guess it's time for me to add some thoughts though i resisted the idea for a while...

a perfect example of what granville is talking about just happened in the "another interesting piece I found on Lance Armstrong" thread. brief summary:

rhubroma posted that gazzetta dello sport had some interesting news this morning. another poster asked for a link and if it was an accurate story. a discussion ensured and soon after a link from cyclingnews.com about the same story was posted.

out of nowhere, instead of adding or discussing the news, a well known poster appears and starts handing out 'hater' tags and ad hominems.
....

This roughly illustrates my point. As I read it if Granville's wish becomes a reality, the name caller gets shuttled off to some fail thread where they get to feel victimized by their bad behavior. This is an extreme example, but pretty good. It's bad behavior to launch the ad hominem. Treat it as such. Don't permit the behavior.

Shuttling bad reasoning off to a fail thread where all the other failures can encourage each other ends badly. See here: http://creationmuseum.org/

 

[python]

This roughly illustrates my point. As I read it if Granville's wish becomes a reality, the name caller gets shuttled off to some fail thread where they get to feel victimized by their bad behavior.

yes. either the choice of a separate thread or an outright moderation of the troll's posts. in this case the troll didn't whine as much he tried and did derail the thread. as i said, a civil conversation about the news was rudely invaded by ad hominems, haterism tags, simply attacking people in stead of their messages.

below are more examples of the posters reactions to the troll’s attempts to derail the thread. thankfully, the mods interfered eventually and redacted the most egregious cases.

Cobblestoned, do you ever add anything to the discussion or do you just post to deride those who do?

The latter.

However, I enjoy seeing them post (though I rarely read them) as it shows how the event has struck a nerve.
The more they just troll and mention rrrraceradio is a good indicator of how large an impact it has on the investigation - obviously todays news was a direct hit.

anyone is welcome to review the facts starting with post #996.

 

[Cobblestoned]

yes. either the choice of a separate thread or an outright moderation of the troll's posts. in this case the troll didn't whine as much he tried and did derail the thread. as i said, a civil conversation about the news was rudely invaded by ad hominems, haterism tags, simply attacking people in stead of their messages.

below are more examples of the posters reactions to the troll’s attempts to derail the thread. thankfully, the mods interfered eventually and redacted the most egregious cases.





anyone is welcome to review the facts starting with post #996.

Bringing in 2 posters with such an agenda and fixed opinion is quiet a clever move, not even starting to talk about my relation to them.

I really enjoy discussing with those people in the professional racing forum, cause they seem somehow helpless there without their "Lance is bad, a doper and so we are always right"-card, and I think they and others unfortunately are too rare guests there.

You for example, dear snake, you should think about your "ratio" and judging me.
If you would leave the clinic more often, you would notice that you can have good discussions with me, and that you might not always be right and genius in principle.
When in the clinic, I often try it nice and somehow serious - to then get same reactions, by usual suspects, even when I post something like 1+1=2.
GO away troll, you know nothing cause you don't hate Lance.

So I figured out, that it doesn't matter whether I troll sometimes (while others don't even notice and admit that they are trollish too) or whether I am serious and add something to discussion.

You guys, called haters, handle one of the most clever and unique internetposters, talking about Polish, like an idiot and even do the usual polishistroll-propaganda. That is somehow understandable because he always puts you in danger and lets you look like fools, in his own, unique but accurate style.
Of course you will never admit that, while I think that some are just overwhelmed with his messages.

What I will never get, are those people who built themselfes up and think they are great and achieved whatever, just because they hate Lance, hunt him 24/7, and know that he is a doper.
They come over as genius making the world better - abo on truth and always beeing right included.
Dramaqueens and background like Walter Sobchak.

So people, its always actio=reactio. Its really easy to understand.

You can't expect me beeing serious when I come to the clinic and see someone linking Lance's water consumption for his ranch in 2008, to the terrible fires in Texas going on now.
You can't expect me beeing serious when I come to the clinic and see you guys freaking out, because of some tax news, shortly followed by you guys hugging each other and putting something like a big sigh in the air.
You can't expect me always beeing serious when I see some of your club just trolling and insulting around. I remind you that some of their posts were also reported, deleted because of pure trolling and insulting.

And its all about the glass house and stones again. Some guys really feel "perfect", "flawless" and "great", because of their extreme opinion about Lance and about whatever surrounds him.
This is exactly the same behavior I saw at Ullrich-haters and ultras some years ago. They sit comfortable on their throne of wisdom, while not really having achieved something, or having something like an own opinion.
It DOESN'T work like that. It's just the easiest way to success and just following the trend with blinders on.

And dear haters, ALWAYS keep in mind your hit-ratio.
Well, I won't list again now, what you predicted and actually never happened.

Just to add, because I am nice, that Mr.python himself would have less problems and trouble around here, if he would just stop his arrogant behavior and selfloving.
It's not just the avatar, while that Nowitzky-look matches really perfect.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Bringing in 2 posters with such an agenda and fixed opinion is quiet a clever move, not even starting to talk about my relation to them. ....

Thanks for making my point for me. You end up shuttling comments not as ridiculous as the one quoted off to a fail thread. To what end?

 

[python]

You end up shuttling comments not as ridiculous as the one quoted off to a fail thread. To what end?

isn't it obvious ?

as many have said before, including several mods, if we could only figure out what he said... (note he plaid the language card and the 'my momma is offended card" but was discredited each and everytime)


back to the facts of the thread (or whatever was left after the cobbledrake baiting and flaming was removed by the mods). start with the post #996 or slightly before...

pls witness the obnoxious interference into a polite conversation about the significant news, the rude name calling and the general attempts to derail.

clearly every fact posted there struck into the heart of the trolling matter. hence the reaction

a case book study of why the trolls should be....

 

[Hugh Januss]

I guess it's time to remind you of that saying about stones and glasshouses.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=447143&postcount=50

That was not first and last time you were trolling.
Must be hard for you that you didn't become a mod.
Ban the trolls, yeah, ban them all.

Trolling? That was just good old fashioned fighting.
Actually this would be the perfect thread for you because you could whine and moan to your hearts content about how all the stupid haters are always picking on you. The best part would be that you would be squarely on topic for the first time ever.
Granville was mulling over different names for his thread, maybe we could just call it The Why Is Everybody Always Picking On Cobblestoned Thread.

 

[Barrus]

Trolling? That was just good old fashioned fighting.
Actually this would be the perfect thread for you because you could whine and moan to your hearts content about how all the stupid haters are always picking on you. The best part would be that you would be squarely on topic for the first time ever.
Granville was mulling over different names for his thread, maybe we could just call it The Why Is Everybody Always Picking On Cobblestoned Thread.

And the fact that he is picked upon by the moderators

 

[python]

And the fact that he is picked upon by the moderators

well one reason is being discredited by the facts of his posting whilst being given the incredible graciousness and freedom to continue to attack everyone including the mods

second reasons is... well the guy may not be all right at the moment

 

[Hugh Januss]

And the fact that he is picked upon by the moderators

Well clearly he includes you guys in the haters camp, so I didn't bother to separate poster/haters from mod/haters.

 

[Granville57]

It sounds to me you would prefer to give some of these crazies an honorable way out, but then you open the forum up to something called the ratchet effect. It gives them space to maintain their kind of crazy and pollute discussion with no end in site.
http://smithbowen.net/linfame/stopme/chapter02.html

Shuttling bad reasoning off to a fail thread where all the other failures can encourage each other ends badly. See here: http://creationmuseum.org/

First off, thanks for those great links. I plan on getting a lot of mileage out of them with future use.

I think there are a couple of things going on here. Depending on one's perspective, the over-oxygenated crazy-bin that concerns Dirtyworks, could be just that. Or, from a different perspective, a containment vessel.
Would that be so bad? Better to have the meltdown all in one place, I would think.

How about:
The Clinic Cage-Match Challenge!

Anyone who dared could enter, and I have no doubt that they would find willing sparring partners. But, if they only offered senseless babble, they might just find themselves sitting alone in there with their corner-stool, bucket, and dangling mouth-guard. But that would be the only tolerated arena for such behavior.

But honestly, that's only part of the equation as I envision it. I really do believe that some useful debate could take place if someone is willing to offer an articulate argument. But that might require a more encouraging thread title such as:

Skepticism as applied to the currently held beliefs within The Clinic.

Seriously though, the debates "about" The Clinic already take place. But almost always at the expense of some other, pre-existing, debate or exchange. Very recent examples abound.

There has been the desire, expressed by some mods, for more of a balance of outside opinions. We certainly don't want to create a bubble, HOWEVER...

To me, much of what goes on in The Clinic is the counter-weight to the massively unbalanced amount of BS that has dominated the mainstream media for decades. So I don't know if it's fair or realistic to expect to have too much of a "balance of both sides" in here. The Clinic would appear to be the reaction to what goes on elsewhere.

But I think it would helpful to further establish some boundaries or guidelines. If an opposing viewpoint to the overall mindset is deemed to be important, then why not encourage it in a way that can flourish? One often recurring theme of the first-time attackers is "I've been reading the forum for some time." Outstanding! Then they would have no excuse for not airing their grievances in the proper thread instead of whatever thread happens to be hot at that moment. Because the grievance never seem to be directed at the topic of thread, but rather the mob mentality that they perceive. Which they very well may be right about sometimes.

On the other hand, if something like the devolution of the Gilbert thread were taking place (again), I would gladly take my own arguments (as I expressed them in that thread) to another, more appropriate thread that would then naturally be bumped side-by-side with the thread in question, in the interest of inviting any and all members to leap back and forth as they chose.

If, however, interrupting and/or disrupting a thread with grievances about that thread is not to be tolerated, and there isn't anywhere specifically to take such an argument, then let the heavy hand come crashing down!
You have a problem with The Clinic? Leave! No whining, no moaning...no crying in The Clinic. Period.

Deletions, bans, etc, should ensue. No more warnings to the repeat offenders.

But is that going to happen?
Should that happen?

That's what I'm trying to get at here.

This is one of those topics that could probably be sorted out in about twenty minutes sitting around a table. But on a forum? Quite a different ballgame altogether. Obviously, I don't have the answers myself.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

well one reason is being discredited by the facts of his posting whilst being given the incredible graciousness and freedom to continue to attack everyone including the mods.

Oh yeah, that always goes over really well.

Reminds me of the TV show "Cops" where you'll see some belligerent drunk try to punch a cop, while about six other cops and a couple K9 dogs are standing around.

 

[Yeahright]

I do note that the same posters who are the most vocal and dare i say it belligerent on both sides of the Lance fan club seem to have quickly gravitated here.

I must say that never having posted in the Lance thread, because I couldn't give a toss either way really, I find both sides as guilty as each other.

The whole thread seem like a massive feeding frenzy. The Lance lovers seeing no evil and the haters spouting off prophetic announcements of some descending doom that never arrives (or at least it hasn't yet). No matter what the actual topic things always descend into rabid name calling and accusations of trolling.

Of course the haters (forum terminology not mine!) outnumber the fanboys so they always shout the fanboys down and then the fanboys raise the cry that the world hates them.

Of course if the bun fight is moved to this thread, the Lance thread will really lose it's reason for existing. All that will be left is the latest innuendo or inside gossip snippet. Its a bit like the forums version of the Matrix.

The whole thing is a bit like Coronation Street or days of Our Lives. You can skip it for months and then go in there and see the same posters posting the same stuff and having the same inane arguments....priceless.

 

[DirtyWorks]

First off, thanks for those great links. I plan on getting a lot of mileage out of them with future use.

I think there are a couple of things going on here. Depending on one's perspective, the over-oxygenated crazy-bin that concerns Dirtyworks, could be just that. Or, from a different perspective, a containment vessel.
Would that be so bad? Better to have the meltdown all in one place, I would think.

Pay careful attention to that 'ratchet effect' it is used with great effect in American politics.

The meltdown contaminates reasonable discussion. Again, much of the 'crying foul' is just bad behavior. If there was a good logical argument that ran counter to the general opinions defended in the clinic, then it will stand on its own anyway. But there isn't.

How about:
The Clinic Cage-Match Challenge!

When the opponent's response is "la la la la la la la! I can't hear you" there's no way to call the match one way or the other. That's the caliber of people you are going to shuttle into a Cage Match. There isn't any logic or reason involved in their 'crying foul.' It's all faith. That's not an equivalent to discussion.

The Clinic would appear to be the reaction to what goes on elsewhere.

Exactly. As forums go, this one works pretty well. Poorly constructed arguments are a substitute for 'fair and balanced' media everywhere. Allowing it doesn't improve discourse.

If an opposing viewpoint to the overall mindset is deemed to be important, then why not encourage it in a way that can flourish?

I think that happens anyway except you don't see it. The boundaries in this forum are good enough. More in this situation is not better.

Because the grievance never seem to be directed at the topic of thread, but rather the mob mentality that they perceive. Which they very well may be right about sometimes.

I disagree. the 'mob' in this case takes facts into account and the most well behaved participants modify their opinion when presented with a preponderance of evidence. What you mistake as a 'mob response' is the justified merciless response to unshakable faith-based opinion represented as fact.

On the other hand, if something like the devolution of the Gilbert thread ....

Which was driven by faith-based opinion bad actors that needed to just stop. But wouldn't.

If you want to start a forum dedicated to logic an rhetoric and shuttle the bad actors (AKA Crazies) into that thread to show them the error of their ways, then I'm all for it. The result will be the same though. "la la la la! I can't hear you challenging my faith!"

If there was a good logical argument that ran counter to the general opinions defended in the clinic, then it will stand on its own anyway. But there isn't. I favor members getting warnings and then bans for flagrant proselytizing. It's not discussion! That would probably drive down the amount of traffic this forum gets though.

Yeahright, I disagree with your characterization. Excluding the faith-based post pollution, people are challenging each other to bring facts to make their case.

 

[Granville57]

As forums go, this one works pretty well. <snip>
The boundaries in this forum are good enough.

Thanks for the detailed and considered response. I think I pretty much more agree with what you're presenting here. This forum does work pretty well for the most part and maybe it's just as well to leave it the way it is—The Clinic serves a purpose, the "About the forum" serves a purpose, etc.

I suppose I'm just wondering whether of not we're missing any obvious solutions to making it better. When it comes down to it, the most "obvious" thing would seem to be just ignoring the trolling behavior of disruptors. But the fact of the matter is: that only really works if everyone has the same perspective, and happens to be in the same mood at the time of the trolling posts. That never happens, and it would be boring, not to mention unhealthy, if it ever did. If good forum discussion relies on diversity, then that same diversity is what will always provide some sort of fuel for the antagonizers—someone is always up for the "challenge" (and sometimes that someone is me, but I still try to refrain more and more, over time).

What you mistake as a 'mob response' is the justified merciless response to unshakable faith-based opinion represented as fact.

Just to clarify: I'm really only referring to a very few instances where I've seen potentially good counterpoints shot down. Otherwise, I'm just as much a part of that "mob" when it comes to blasting away at what I perceive to be utter ridiculousness.

(One other point I left out previously, even if slightly off topic: Your use of the term "guttersnipe" in the "Giro TV ad" thread is another reminder to me of a wonderful term that is vastly underused. )

You can't expect me beeing serious when I come to the clinic and see someone linking Lance's water consumption for his ranch in 2008, to the terrible fires in Texas going on now.

For once, you've actually presented something that I can...
A) Understand
B) Find reason to acknowledge

Seriousness is not required, 24-7. Some of the best humor I've ever seen in the forum has been at the expense of Lance.

A deliberately mocking (and IMO, highly entertaining) post does invite the same in response. Fair enough. I'll gladly give you that.
But your question also begs another:
When can we expect you to be serious or to offer any substancesive argument, or to actually address the topic being discussed as opposed to attacking the messenger?

That is what seems to be in short supply here.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Thanks for the detailed and considered response. I think I pretty much more agree with what you're presenting here. This forum does work pretty well for the most part and maybe it's just as well to leave it the way it is—The Clinic serves a purpose, the "About the forum" serves a purpose, etc.

I suppose I'm just wondering whether of not we're missing any obvious solutions to making it better. When it comes down to it, the most "obvious" thing would seem to be just ignoring the trolling behavior of disruptors. But the fact of the matter is: that only really works if everyone has the same perspective, and happens to be in the same mood at the time of the trolling posts. That never happens, and it would be boring, not to mention unhealthy, if it ever did. If good forum discussion relies on diversity, then that same diversity is what will always provide some sort of fuel for the antagonizers—someone is always up for the "challenge" (and sometimes that someone is me, but I still try to refrain more and more, over time).

Just to clarify: I'm really only referring to a very few instances where I've seen potentially good counterpoints shot down. Otherwise, I'm just as much a part of that "mob" when it comes to blasting away at what I perceive to be utter ridiculousness.

(One other point I left out previously, even if slightly off topic: Your use of the term "guttersnipe" in the "Giro TV ad" thread is another reminder to me of a wonderful term that is vastly underused. )


For once, you've actually presented something that I can...
A) Understand
B) Find reason to acknowledge

Seriousness is not required, 24-7. Some of the best humor I've ever seen in the forum has been at the expense of Lance.

A deliberately mocking (and IMO, highly entertaining) post does invite the same in response. Fair enough. I'll gladly give you that.
But your question also begs another:
When can we expect you to be serious or to offer any substancesive argument, or to actually address the topic being discussed as opposed to attacking the messenger?

That is what seems to be in short supply here.

What do you expect from me ?
Join you guys getting of on Lance ?

You expect me to argue that Lance is clean - just for some haters entertainment ?

What you call "discussing" is actually just some haters agreeing each other and celebrating a hatefest.

What you call humor is sometimes just disgusting BS.

And you should take your blinders of while judging me. Perhaps you should leave the Armstrong threads and the clinic more often. And please, just for me, you could make it just shorter and come to a point.
I sometimes have to slap myselft to stay awake while reading your posts.
They are as interesting and useful as these business meetings.

"blablabla....can we go on working now ?"

btw, you can keep your fukking unique A and B, and your gladful givings for yourself, Floyd-fanboy.

 

[Granville57]

You expect me to argue that Lance is clean - just for some haters entertainment ?

Perfect illustration. Thanks for that.

 

[JeffreyPerry]

Forums

Ok I remember the first few times I posted in the forums. Heres the run down:
I visit cyclingnews.com to get my daily info regarding cycling races, results, etc... but what do I see at the bottom? What appears to be a links to topics going on in a cycling forum. I was unaware that from the main page, all that is shown is the most frequented/posts on a topic. I automatically thought the forum was nothing more than bashing whoever for whatever reason.
Naturally, those links were the only ones I went to. The majority of these links brought me to the shark infested waters of the Clinic. Where I found virtually hundreds of posts about drugs and baddies. Well, of couse I tried to convey my thoughts on the matter. Big mistake. It was a quite a while before I realized there was other sub forums on the site, and that everyone was not just yelling and fussing about doping. I think that as a new user, someone looking for cycling info discovers the forums though the links. Therefore you tend to see alot of the "its my frst post" syndrome. I have since learned my way around these forums and laugh quite often at the ridiculous statements posted by some.

 

[Granville57]

I am quoting this from a thread in the Clinic because all of this "don't call people trolls because it is against forum rules" is interesting in light of the admission presented here:

Well said Chris, its more of a entertainment value for your posts. 1 pro LA post draws several heated responses of how stupid the post was, how bad a person LA is, and the worlds biggest cheat and fraud to walk the face of the earth. And the whole time the pro LA poster is laughing ,because he doesn't really care.

I am not trying to antagonize the mods here, I am merely pointing out that there are several people who get called trolls, and are then defended as only having counter opinions who are now admitting that they are merely posting things to incite a reaction and not to actually have a discussion...

I'd like to add one more example of the same, from the "Victims" thread:

What do you expect from me ?
Join you guys getting of on Lance ?

You expect me to argue that Lance is clean - just for some haters entertainment ?

Isn't that just another admission that no useful debate or discussion will ever be forthcoming?

The tolerance of this mystifies me.