How are we going to fix the forum? (serious)
Comments
-
DaveyL wrote:So that's the way you sidestep your blatant hypocrisy?
Unlike some, I can easily resist your goading and that of other Pro-Lance members.Contador is the Greatest0 -
This thread is a great example of what's going wrong & why.
It isn't LA at all that's the problem, it's just that a number of folk will not accept that they are in any way wrong & constantly seek to blame "the other side" which is frequently an individual creation (the last thread that had folk arguing about LA insisted that there were sides whilst the majority talked in neutral terms: this thread has already descended to the same level, it would be hilarious if it wasn't real).
This thread already sounds like a school playground argument, for that reason
Posters who don't enjoy this have been leaving in droves, leaving those who continue to appear even more prevalent.
Any solution based on, "it's their fault," won't work: it has to be about, "how can all of us make the effort to improve things."
&, seriously, if any one of us thinks that there's nothing that you, as an individual, can do, then you're probably part of the problem.
An agreed ethos with more moderation as a solution?
[/i]0 -
frenchfighter wrote:DaveyL wrote:So that's the way you sidestep your blatant hypocrisy?
Unlike some, I can easily resist your goading and that of other Pro-Lance members.
Who's trying to goad you? You have a moan about personal attacks on other users, yet you turned up on the Lance in Glasgow thread to sneer at a bunch of users for their low post count and therefore presumed lack of knowledge about cycling. Either this is fact or not - and it's very easy to check...
And PS I am not pro-Lance - try and find a post of mine which is.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Richrd2205 wrote:This thread is a great example of what's going wrong & why.
It isn't LA at all that's the problem, it's just that a number of folk will not accept that they are in any way wrong & constantly seek to blame "the other side" which is frequently an individual creation (the last thread that had folk arguing about LA insisted that there were sides whilst the majority talked in neutral terms: this thread has already descended to the same level, it would be hilarious if it wasn't real).
This thread already sounds like a school playground argument, for that reason
Posters who don't enjoy this have been leaving in droves, leaving those who continue to appear even more prevalent.
Any solution based on, "it's their fault," won't work: it has to be about, "how can all of us make the effort to improve things."
&, seriously, if any one of us thinks that there's nothing that you, as an individual, can do, then you're probably part of the problem.
An agreed ethos with more moderation as a solution?
[/i]
I wholeheartedly agree.0 -
How about a moratorium on discussions regarding Armstrong?0
-
I like to see pictures taken by members, like those posted the other day from the Tour of Ireland. I take great exception to the reproduction of photos from other sites, with an apparent disregard for copyright, and quite frankly am surprised the mods have allowed this to continue. What is even worse is the publication of photos that have been retouched in the most amateur way without the consent of the copyright holder. I find this quite disgraceful, and quite insulting to the photographer.jim one wrote:I want to stick up for FF and his picture posting. Its unique and as long as we dont all converse in pictures I think it adds another dimension to what we are discussing
.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
rockmount wrote:
I like to see pictures taken by members, like those posted the other day from the Tour of Ireland. I take great exception to the reproduction of photos from other sites, with an apparent disregard for copyright, and quite frankly am surprised the mods have allowed this to continue. What is even worse is the publication of photos that have been retouched in the most amateur way without the consent of the copyright holder. I find this quite disgraceful, and quite insulting to the photographer.jim one wrote:I want to stick up for FF and his picture posting. Its unique and as long as we dont all converse in pictures I think it adds another dimension to what we are discussing
Fair enough. Point taken 0 -
Why should the majority of forum members be denied the right to discuss one cyclist, who like it or not is one of the top names in cycling, both in the past, and present. I will not be held to ransom by a handful of spiteful googleophiles, with nothing constructive to add to the debate.Pokerface wrote:How about a moratorium on discussions regarding Armstrong?.. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
I think that the biggest problem is that the 'Lance fans' will insist on continually repeating the same old nonsense ('he is the most tested athlete ever’, ‘he has never tested positive and this proves that he was clean’, ‘he lost loads of weight after having cancer and this transformed his ability to climb’ etc. etc ad infinitum) no matter how many times they are presented with evidence showing they are wrong. It is this incessant irrationality / wilful ignorance of the available evidence that keeps me coming back to the topic, rather than anything to do specifically with Armstrong himself.0
-
rockmount wrote:with an apparent disregard for copyright, and quite frankly am surprised the mods have allowed this to continue.
Do your eyes miss everytime I credit a photo.
I will not debate the ins and outs of this particular subject with you.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Another forum I frequent has an ignore option, I've decided to introduce this feature here. It's purely down to self discipline but there are certain people on here I just ignore. That way I don't get to see the petty ever increasingly pathetic squabbling, and rampant homophobia, that some feel the need to resort to.
Try it, you might find it refreshing.0 -
Try telling that to a copyright lawyer ...frenchfighter wrote:rockmount wrote:with an apparent disregard for copyright, and quite frankly am surprised the mods have allowed this to continue.
Do your eyes miss everytime I credit a photo, with Getty etc.
I will not debate the ins and outs of this particular subject with you.
credit does not equal permission ! .. who said that, internet forum people ?0 -
DaveyL - if you consider observations as bad as the rude words you and other Pro Lance members insist on using then I feel sorry for you. It would only be hypocritical if I used abusive language which is what I have explicitly said I dislike. And I haven't.Contador is the Greatest0
-
markwalker wrote:Frenchie, who is the woman in your profile pic?
I think it is Audrey Tautou and I claim my prize!0 -
rockmount wrote:
Try telling that to a copyright lawyer ...frenchfighter wrote:rockmount wrote:with an apparent disregard for copyright, and quite frankly am surprised the mods have allowed this to continue.
Do your eyes miss everytime I credit a photo.
I will not debate the ins and outs of this particular subject with you. credit does not equal permission !
If this concerns you so much, I suggest you apply your opinions consistently, trawling this and the thousands of other forums where fans post photos for other members to enjoy, then making your views known and taking appropriate action.Contador is the Greatest0 -
andyp wrote:Another forum I frequent has an ignore option, I've decided to introduce this feature here. It's purely down to self discipline but there are certain people on here I just ignore. That way I don't get to see the petty ever increasingly pathetic squabbling, and rampant homophobia, that some feel the need to resort to.
Try it, you might find it refreshing.
I do this already and would recommend it. I have already replied to two people on this thread who I try to avoid most of the time and it has led to nothing of value or enjoyment for me. My error - I will now not reply to those people.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:DaveyL - if you consider observations as bad as the rude words you and other Pro Lance members insist on using then I feel sorry for you. It would only be hypocritical if I used abusive language which is what I have explicitly said I dislike. And I haven't.
You were not very explicit - you said there is nothing "bad" about your posts. I would say that your comments about those folk who posted about their LA ride experiences were bad.
And again, I am not pro-Lance, though I guess it is convenient for you to label me as such since we are ususally not in agreement.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
hommelbier wrote:markwalker wrote:Frenchie, who is the woman in your profile pic?
I think it is Audrey Tautou and I claim my prize!
hmmm foxy0 -
BikingBernie wrote:I think that the biggest problem is that the 'Lance fans' will insist on continually repeating the same old nonsense ('he is the most tested athlete ever’, ‘he has never tested positive and this proves that he was clean’, ‘he lost loads of weight after having cancer and this transformed his ability to climb’ etc. etc ad infinitum) no matter how many times they are presented with evidence showing they are wrong. It is this incessant irrationality / wilful ignorance of the available evidence that keeps me coming back to the topic, rather than anything to do specifically with Armstrong himself.
Neither side is going to change their opinion, so let's just move on. Quite a few members seem unable to do so!
I find it laughable that almost everyone falls into 2 camps (lover or hater). I think I can count on one hand the number of posts with LA-content that acknowledge the achievements AND less positive aspects of his career.0 -
After reading the title again I'm sort of the opinion that it doesn't need "fixing". People are allowed to voice their opinions(and troll at times). Some people are just plain contrary and it wouldn't matter what the subject was. I've seen arguments and, almost, name calling
on posts about "what's the best lube?". Some people may have some hidden agenda
behind their ideas. Some may, or may not, actually believe what they say and are just having fun with others, whom they deem as serious, when in fact the others may or may not even care about the subject. As for me, if I see something I don't believe in then I tend to take that person to "task"(for lack of a better word) on his / her ideas. I'm pretty much like the rest of you. My ideas are the RIGHT ones. As for the name calling. H*ll, I've done it myself. It happens. At least we're not drinking in a bar spouting off at each other. And if we were in a bar we would probably be talking bikes and not who doped, when and where. Interesting subject on the web, but would seem to be quite boring face to face. Not sure why but it seems that way to me.0 -
markwalker wrote:hommelbier wrote:markwalker wrote:Frenchie, who is the woman in your profile pic?
I think it is Audrey Tautou and I claim my prize!
hmmm foxy
Mmmm, I foresee a night in with Amelie and a box of tissues.....0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
I think everyone could benefit from not raising to obvious bait. Or learning the line "i respect your opinion".
I think limiting what people can say and where is stupid and would see me off (if anyone would care in the slightest!)
pretty much on the same page...
love or loathe it "you heard the mob""If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
frenchfighter wrote:DaveyL wrote:So that's the way you sidestep your blatant hypocrisy?
Unlike some, I can easily resist your goading and that of other Pro-Lance members.
Oh the irony ......simply put you are hypocrite who thinks he is much better than others for no other reason than you have a higer post count and can trawl the net for pictures . Your posts are barely worth reading and your constant stream of pictures usually to get at Lance are laughable . Back to the original point though a forum is what it is moderate it like some want to do and it dies.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
But issues such as Armstrong's pre and post cancer racing weight are not matters of opinion. Rather they are matters of documented fact, and yet the Armstrongites still keep on ignoring those facts!Monkeypump wrote:
Neither side is going to change their opinion, so let's just move on...BikingBernie wrote:I think that the biggest problem is that the 'Lance fans' will insist on continually repeating the same old nonsense ('he is the most tested athlete ever’, ‘he has never tested positive and this proves that he was clean’, ‘he lost loads of weight after having cancer and this transformed his ability to climb’ etc. etc ad infinitum) no matter how many times they are presented with evidence showing they are wrong. It is this incessant irrationality / wilful ignorance of the available evidence that keeps me coming back to the topic, rather than anything to do specifically with Armstrong himself.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:But issues such as Armstrong's pre and post cancer racing weight are not matters of opinion. Rather they are matters of documented fact, and yet the Armstrongites still keep on ignoring those facts!
In the same vein, the anti-Armstrongers still bang on about the 'failed' 1999 test for corticosteroids, when in fact it was a trace amount (about 4% of the allowable amount).
Both sides have their myths.
Personally I stay in the middle - he's just a bike rider after all.Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote:
But issues such as Armstrong's pre and post cancer racing weight are not matters of opinion. Rather they are matters of documented fact, and yet the Armstrongites still keep on ignoring those facts!Monkeypump wrote:
Neither side is going to change their opinion, so let's just move on...BikingBernie wrote:I think that the biggest problem is that the 'Lance fans' will insist on continually repeating the same old nonsense ('he is the most tested athlete ever’, ‘he has never tested positive and this proves that he was clean’, ‘he lost loads of weight after having cancer and this transformed his ability to climb’ etc. etc ad infinitum) no matter how many times they are presented with evidence showing they are wrong. It is this incessant irrationality / wilful ignorance of the available evidence that keeps me coming back to the topic, rather than anything to do specifically with Armstrong himself.
Thanks for pointing that out... again... and again... and again...
Just. Let. It. Go. (please).0 -
I'm quite happy to participate in rigorous debate and try and stick to the argument - I also don't mind the occasional 'off-piste' variations either. Sadly, there are a number who when they realise that are failing to win the argument, they resort to attacking the individual or question the ability of the individual to make any comment in the first place! I'm not going to pretend that I'm an impartial observer or try and hold some 'lofty stance' that enables me to pass judgement on others whilst firmly sitting on the fence, but generally it's got repeatative and frankly I just can't be bothered facing a whole new post on a subject that's be done to death for the last 5 years!Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Monkeypump wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
But issues such as Armstrong's pre and post cancer racing weight are not matters of opinion. Rather they are matters of documented fact, and yet the Armstrongites still keep on ignoring those facts!Monkeypump wrote:
Neither side is going to change their opinion, so let's just move on...BikingBernie wrote:I think that the biggest problem is that the 'Lance fans' will insist on continually repeating the same old nonsense ('he is the most tested athlete ever’, ‘he has never tested positive and this proves that he was clean’, ‘he lost loads of weight after having cancer and this transformed his ability to climb’ etc. etc ad infinitum) no matter how many times they are presented with evidence showing they are wrong. It is this incessant irrationality / wilful ignorance of the available evidence that keeps me coming back to the topic, rather than anything to do specifically with Armstrong himself.
Thanks for pointing that out... again... and again... and again...
Just. Let. It. Go. (please).
+1 I agree. Ya got to realize, BB, that there are some things YOU may CARE about but are alone in the world with this caring. Lance's weight????? Anybody out there give
a whatever? And if you do, why?0 -
andyp wrote:Another forum I frequent has an ignore option, I've decided to introduce this feature here. It's purely down to self discipline but there are certain people on here I just ignore. That way I don't get to see the petty ever increasingly pathetic squabbling, and rampant homophobia, that some feel the need to resort to.
Another forum I'm on had a "troll blocker" written for it. You could just create a list of trolls and you'd never see their messages. It could make things appear a bit surreal from time to time though.
Lately the forum has seemed like you can't move for mention of something getting someone out there all worked up. It's a forum so if we're going to debate people need to actually make a point rather than just going on the attack. It's supposed to be fun, isn't it?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
But the whole point about this 'positive' was not the amount of corticoid Armstrong had in his body, but rather the way the UCI broke their own rules in order to avoid having to sanction him.RichN95 wrote:the anti-Armstrongers still bang on about the 'failed' 1999 test for corticosteroids, when in fact it was a trace amount (about 4% of the allowable amount). Both sides have their myths.0
