Thread locking

TheBigBean

I'm not a fan of Loctite on my bike. I prefer to grease everything as this provides more freedom in the future. Locked threads are annoying and somewhat unnecessary.

In extreme circumstances if a thread has been stripped of any of worth or fallen to pieces such that it is beyond repair, I can see the merit in permanent thread locking, but I haven't seen such a case in a while.

Just saying...

Coriander

For me locking a thread masks the symptoms rather than tackling the illness.

tailwindhome

Sometimes things get a bit seized up and what is really required is a thump with a ruddy big hammer.

dsoutar

I find it is often caused by a piece of sh!t getting caught in the thread. In which case, I find what is causing this, especially if it is a reoccurring problem, and then get rid of the offending item

I've tried ignoring the said piece of sh!t but unfortunately sometimes there's just so much of it and it gets everywhere that there's no other option

rick_chasey

Ok.

rayjay

Someone lock this thread ...... :roll:

Grow up

Richmond Racer

Rick, no problem from this poster on you making the call you did

dougzz

The madness just spreads to other threads, it's not the threads that are the problem.

Richmond Racer

dougzz wrote:

The madness just spreads to other threads, it's not the threads that are the problem.

+1

rayjay

I have the patience to put up with a lot of insults. I do not say anything offensive or abusive to anybody and as far as I have seen other posters who's views differ have not been abusive. You can ignore post's. It's the easy answer without being so rude and aggressive. I don't agree with a lot of opinions but I think some of the language and the feeling used on this thread is going to far. I am all for some lively debate etc but it's going to far IMO. Please mods can we delete this thread and move on.

RichN95.

rayjay wrote:

I have the patience to put up with a lot of insults. I do not say anything offensive or abusive to anybody and as far as I have seen other posters who's views differ have not been abusive. You can ignore post's. It's the easy answer without being so rude and aggressive. I don't agree with a lot of opinions but I think some of the language and the feeling used on this thread is going to far. I am all for some lively debate etc but it's going to far IMO. Please mods can we delete this thread and move on.

You seem to think this is about you?

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

I have the patience to put up with a lot of insults. I do not say anything offensive or abusive to anybody and as far as I have seen other posters who's views differ have not been abusive. You can ignore post's. It's the easy answer without being so rude and aggressive. I don't agree with a lot of opinions but I think some of the language and the feeling used on this thread is going to far. I am all for some lively debate etc but it's going to far IMO. Please mods can we delete this thread and move on.

You seem to think this is about you?

Rich ,I don't think it's about me.

I just don't think it's very nice and would like to see it removed.

ddraver

Funny how they always expect us to allow them to say anything but they ll shut a thread down or cry to the modmins quick snap when it suits...

ddraver

dupe

Yellow Peril

4 locked threads in 5 days and 3 of those in the space of 24 hours or so suggests a problem. I would suggest that the problem was derailment of threads into predominantly sky/doping issues was a problem a doping bin thread was set up for that I think.

Also some people want to debate but they misunderstand what debating is about as it includes being able to admit to a point without blindly drivelling on and steamrollering a thread.

whiteboytrash

Yellow Peril wrote:

4 locked threads in 5 days and 3 of those in the space of 24 hours or so suggests a problem. I would suggest that the problem was derailment of threads into predominantly sky/doping issues was a problem a doping bin thread was set up for that I think.

Also some people want to debate but they misunderstand what debating is about as it includes being able to admit to a point without blindly drivelling on and steamrollering a thread.

Everyone holds equal responsibility.

In my case per the Walsh thread I was asked no less than 3 times if I thought Sky were doping.

My mistake was to give my opinion. Just from that point of view it appeared many wanted to know where one stands on the Sky doping issue even when it wasn't a Sky thread!

Once I stated I was suspicious the flood gates opened and at times I was even abused.

I think most agree that the Walsh book is poorly written regardless if you agree with his viewpoints or not.

But those supportive of Sky also like to push threads into a Bushism of "you' are either with us or against us" vain.

Is it ok to be not so sure about a team?

I'm forensic by nature. I ask questions. But to be labelled a hater and a bellend was fairly demeaning and also dragged the threads way of course.

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

You're not wanted here not because of your views but because of your need to distrupt every thread.
You're someone who got permenantly banned by the Cycling News forum - and that takes a hell of a lot of doing

mike6

The mods rule. I have had a bollocking before, but it was warranted, my fault. There is ALWAYS a good reason for a thread being locked, If some don't like it and are not prepared to behave like adults they can always go elsewhere. Freedom of choice.

bompington

whiteboytrash wrote:

Everyone holds equal responsibility. I'm guessing that responsibility might correlate with, even if not be caused by, the sheer volume of, errr, certain posters...

In my case per the Walsh thread I was asked no less than 3 times if I thought Sky were doping. and you insinuate, present "evidence", and then backtrack when it suits you...

My mistake was to give my opinion. Just from that point of view it appeared many wanted to know where one stands on the Sky doping issue even when it wasn't a Sky thread! No, your mistake was to argue verbosely, illogically, tendentiously and disingenuously.

Once I stated I was suspicious the flood gates opened and at times I was even abused. No place for abuse, but frustration can do that to you.

I think most agree that the Walsh book is poorly written regardless if you agree with his viewpoints or not.

But those supportive of Sky also like to push threads into a Bushism of "you' are either with us or against us" vain. How many times have people pointed out, to your consistent blindness, that they are not particularly arguing for Sky - just responding to your ill-formed and (I presume deliberately, I can't think why else) tendentious arguments. If anything it's the opposite - people who have no brief for Sky (like me for example) wind up sounding like fanboys because they're opposing the extreme views. Sucking normal, rational, moderate people in that way has long been a useful tactic for extremists..

Is it ok to be not so sure about a team? But you're not "not sure", you're absolutely sure, aren't you?

I'm forensic by nature. I ask questions. But to be labelled a hater and a bellend was fairly demeaning and also dragged the threads way of course. Forensic, of course, means "to do with law". But in common use it generally implies a measure of logic and intelligence... :roll:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

No-one is complaining at your "beliefs"!!!! It is the appalling way you argue them which has got on the nerves of the normally very tolerant people here.

ddraver

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

You're not wanted here not because of your views but because of your need to distrupt every thread.
You're someone who got permenantly banned by the Cycling News forum - and that takes a hell of a lot of doing

You may wish to check your facts before you cast such aspersions. I was never banned from the CyclingNews website.

I was asked to use a new name. Fairly simple. I think was three years ago!

Do you investigate everyone on this forum?

tailwindhome

Could we get back on topic please?

Irritating noises on your bike. Can you block them out and just enjoy the ride or do you need to stop and sort it out?

Personally I think if you ignore them long enough they either go away or somehow sort themselves out.

So that's my top tip.

Nairnster

Loctite is good IMO. Dont some bolts such as those on stems/seatposts actually come with thread lock on them already.

whiteboytrash

bompington wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

Everyone holds equal responsibility. I'm guessing that responsibility might correlate with, even if not be caused by, the sheer volume of, errr, certain posters...

In my case per the Walsh thread I was asked no less than 3 times if I thought Sky were doping. and you insinuate, present "evidence", and then backtrack when it suits you...

My mistake was to give my opinion. Just from that point of view it appeared many wanted to know where one stands on the Sky doping issue even when it wasn't a Sky thread! No, your mistake was to argue verbosely, illogically, tendentiously and disingenuously.

Once I stated I was suspicious the flood gates opened and at times I was even abused. No place for abuse, but frustration can do that to you.

I think most agree that the Walsh book is poorly written regardless if you agree with his viewpoints or not.

But those supportive of Sky also like to push threads into a Bushism of "you' are either with us or against us" vain. How many times have people pointed out, to your consistent blindness, that they are not particularly arguing for Sky - just responding to your ill-formed and (I presume deliberately, I can't think why else) tendentious arguments. If anything it's the opposite - people who have no brief for Sky (like me for example) wind up sounding like fanboys because they're opposing the extreme views. Sucking normal, rational, moderate people in that way has long been a useful tactic for extremists..

Is it ok to be not so sure about a team? But you're not "not sure", you're absolutely sure, aren't you?

I'm forensic by nature. I ask questions. But to be labelled a hater and a bellend was fairly demeaning and also dragged the threads way of course. Forensic, of course, means "to do with law". But in common use it generally implies a measure of logic and intelligence... :roll:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

No-one is complaining at your "beliefs"!!!! It is the appalling way you argue them which has got on the nerves of the normally very tolerant people here.

I don't believe this is fair.

But won't argue the issue to send this one off track.

I read the Walsh book and made comment on what I thought were inconstancies.

It was a good discussion until I was asked about Sky and doping.

I guess I fell into a trap.

It doesn't appear to matter how many times I said I have no proof of doping but what I saw concerns me and gave reasons for that.

I don't expect people to agree with me but to be abused for holding that position? I don't think that was appropriate.

I've never risen to the bait or retaliated back. But that appears some became too incensed and decided to go after me. I keep getting statements like: " you are WRONG and xxxx poster is RIGHT".

How do you deal with a post like that? When everything is RIGHT and WRONG and I'm told in capitals letters that I'm WRONG.

Is that constructive?

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

You're not wanted here not because of your views but because of your need to distrupt every thread.
You're someone who got permenantly banned by the Cycling News forum - and that takes a hell of a lot of doing

You may wish to check your facts before you cast such aspersions. I was never banned from the CyclingNews website. ?

It says your Banned. While I don't doubt you joined again under a new name to get round it, your username is banned

whiteboytrash wrote:

Do you investigate everyone on this forum?

No. Just those that bleat on about transparency and their forensic questioning.

tailwindhome

I have reported the post 2 above for being off topic.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

You're not wanted here not because of your views but because of your need to distrupt every thread.
You're someone who got permenantly banned by the Cycling News forum - and that takes a hell of a lot of doing

You may wish to check your facts before you cast such aspersions. I was never banned from the CyclingNews website.

I says your Banned. While I don't doubt you joined again under a new name to get round it, your username is banned

whiteboytrash wrote:

Do you investigate everyone on this forum?

No. Just those that bleat on about transparency and their forensic questioning.

You mean those who disagree with your views on Sky?

RichN95.

whiteboytrash wrote:

You mean those who disagree with your views on Sky?

No. There's plenty of them.

I just thought, in the name of transparency, that mods should know that you have been permenantly banned from Future Publishing's other forum.

ddraver

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

If one is not wanted here for their beliefs then why not just say that?

You're not wanted here not because of your views but because of your need to distrupt every thread.
You're someone who got permenantly banned by the Cycling News forum - and that takes a hell of a lot of doing

You may wish to check your facts before you cast such aspersions. I was never banned from the CyclingNews website.

I says your Banned. While I don't doubt you joined again under a new name to get round it, your username is banned

whiteboytrash wrote:

Do you investigate everyone on this forum?

No. Just those that bleat on about transparency and their forensic questioning.

You mean those who disagree with your views on Sky?

No, he means those that bleat on about transparency and their forensic questioning. hence his use of the words, "No. Just those that bleat on about transparency and their forensic questioning"

See?

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

You mean those who disagree with your views on Sky?

No. There's plenty of them.

I just thought, in the name of transparency, that mods should know that you have been permenantly banned from Future Publishing's other forum.

But I haven't.

Happy to share the PM from 2010 with the mods. Or you if you'd like to see it?

ddraver

please...