What happened to the Wiggins thread

No_Ta_Doctor

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I thought wcf sometimes came up with so,e very valid points.

Any half-decent points he came up with were lost in a tidal wave of antagonism, straw-men, avoiding the point, bickering about totally tangential bullshit and claiming expertise he doesn't have. 100% pure troll.

weekendcyclingfan

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I thought wcf sometimes came up with so,e very valid points.

Any half-decent points he came up with were lost in a tidal wave of antagonism, straw-men, avoiding the point, bickering about totally tangential bullshit and claiming expertise he doesn't have. 100% pure troll.

And your contribution was?

No_Ta_Doctor

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I thought wcf sometimes came up with so,e very valid points.

Any half-decent points he came up with were lost in a tidal wave of antagonism, straw-men, avoiding the point, bickering about totally tangential bullshit and claiming expertise he doesn't have. 100% pure troll.

And your contribution was?

I avoided feeding the obvious troll. It's supposed to be an effective tactic in removing trolls from messageboards. Unfortunately it didn't work.

That's the last response you will get out of me. Now please f@ck off.

kingstongraham

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Thankfully it was put out of its misery.

There were some quite useful facts there, some good points and some less good points. Unfortunately it was derailed by one particular user who refused to actually read the answers in the thread and kept asking the same dumb questions over and over.

It was good to see some valid points being made and times have moved on from the standard bike radar response to anything potentially being dodgy with team sky etc which is a good thing.

Hopefully the moderator team will keep an eye on the poster and prevent them from ruining any more threads.

I spoke to the moderator. They praised some of the points I made but said stay away from criticising others. Just because you don't agree with another's point of view, doesn't mean they are wrong or that they are a troll.

My thoughts on the thread were that as soon as a point was made with regards to Sky and Brailsford not being forthright with the truth or looking not so good, many would attempt to derail the thread by posting silly pictures of cats, dogs, crying babies, stupid pictures with an arrow pointed to the head with a label "stupid". the Third Reich, cricketers etc.

If you are looking to point fingers perhaps look at those who do not want to discuss the finer points intelligently but just mock.

Hold on... You spoke to the moderator, listened to what they said and took their points on board?

Does that mean you might listen to what anyone else has to say?

webboo

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

I thought wcf sometimes came up with so,e very valid points.

Any half-decent points he came up with were lost in a tidal wave of antagonism, straw-men, avoiding the point, bickering about totally tangential bullshit and claiming expertise he doesn't have. 100% pure troll.

And your contribution was?

Possibly coming from a qualified professional background unlike yourself.

weekendcyclingfan

KingstonGraham wrote:

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Thankfully it was put out of its misery.

There were some quite useful facts there, some good points and some less good points. Unfortunately it was derailed by one particular user who refused to actually read the answers in the thread and kept asking the same dumb questions over and over.

It was good to see some valid points being made and times have moved on from the standard bike radar response to anything potentially being dodgy with team sky etc which is a good thing.

Hopefully the moderator team will keep an eye on the poster and prevent them from ruining any more threads.

I spoke to the moderator. They praised some of the points I made but said stay away from criticising others. Just because you don't agree with another's point of view, doesn't mean they are wrong or that they are a troll.

My thoughts on the thread were that as soon as a point was made with regards to Sky and Brailsford not being forthright with the truth or looking not so good, many would attempt to derail the thread by posting silly pictures of cats, dogs, crying babies, stupid pictures with an arrow pointed to the head with a label "stupid". the Third Reich, cricketers etc.

If you are looking to point fingers perhaps look at those who do not want to discuss the finer points intelligently but just mock.

Hold on... You spoke to the moderator, listened to what they said and took their points on board?

Does that mean you might listen to what anyone else has to say?

Sure, I was told that I make some good points, added value to the discussion and thread. I was told not to make it personal.

Sometimes I tended to call a person a banal, or slow to understand. Generally speaking it was a compliment, as I knew many were much more intelligence but let themselves down with playing to the audience and posting silly pictures. But I won't engage on a personal level any longer.

Finesilver24

I missed the thread. Could somebody summarise it?

salsiccia1

Finesilver24 wrote:

I missed the thread. Could somebody summarise it?

briantrumpet

Who is this Wiggins person anyway? Maybe he's on my 'ignore' list, along with other people whose names start with W.

mfin

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

Sure, I was told that I make some good points, added value to the discussion and thread. I was told not to make it personal.

Well, that worked then, telling you that you made some good points in order to make you feel a bit better about things for the sake of avoiding you getting all self-righteous and pissy.

The truth is, that whilst the amount of your posts that made good points could be described as being "some" (just by the nature of them being plural), they could just as equally and accurately be recorded as "barely any at all".

Oh well, onwards now to the next thread you can stop from being a considered impartial debate by filling it with crap.

weekendcyclingfan

briantrumpet wrote:

Who is this Wiggins person anyway? Maybe he's on my 'ignore' list, along with other people whose names start with W.

BikeRadar comedy?

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

There may have been a level of intransigence on both sides but there was valid opinion and even a smattering of fact.

I noticed a number of new posters in the last few days who took a more cycnical view than the forum longtimers,

Um, not sure if you're joking or if you didn't realise where the new posters came from

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12934419&start=2420

Basically a thread dedicated to finding arguments on the forum and fanning the flames!

Vino'sGhost

Pross wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

There may have been a level of intransigence on both sides but there was valid opinion and even a smattering of fact.

I noticed a number of new posters in the last few days who took a more cycnical view than the forum longtimers,

Um, not sure if you're joking or if you didn't realise where the new posters came from

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12934419&start=2420

Basically a thread dedicated to finding arguments on the forum and fanning the flames!

Ha I didn't realise, that's quite funny

Non the less......

yourpaceormine

This is going well. How long before the thread about a thread, continuing another thread gets deleted?
Maybe time to add the term 'Wiggins' to the swear filter so it automatically gets blocked.

tailwindhome

yourpaceormine wrote:

This is going well. How long before the thread about a thread, continuing another thread gets deleted?
Maybe time to add the term 'Wiggins' to the swear filter so it automatically gets blocked.

He said "Wiggins"

kingstongraham

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Does that mean you might listen to what anyone else has to say?

Sure, I was told that I make some good points, added value to the discussion and thread. I was told not to make it personal.

Sometimes I tended to call a person a banal, or slow to understand. Generally speaking it was a compliment, as I knew many were much more intelligence but let themselves down with playing to the audience and posting silly pictures. But I won't engage on a personal level any longer.

As that's not an answer to my question, I guess it's an answer of sorts.

joelsim

Surely the simplest thing is not to reply to this thread.

Just a thought.

yourpaceormine

TailWindHome wrote:

yourpaceormine wrote:

This is going well. How long before the thread about a thread, continuing another thread gets deleted?
Maybe time to add the term 'Wiggins' to the swear filter so it automatically gets blocked.

He said "Wiggins"

Sniggers, and points

salsiccia1

yourpaceormine wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

yourpaceormine wrote:

This is going well. How long before the thread about a thread, continuing another thread gets deleted?
Maybe time to add the term 'Wiggins' to the swear filter so it automatically gets blocked.

He said "Wiggins"

Sniggers, and points

DeVlaeminck

Blazing Saddles wrote:

[

In that case.....


.

I've got one of those dogs, one point to anyone who can name the breed.

blazing_saddles

Here's a better view.



I hope the photographer didn't write the accompanying blurb. Labrador indeed. :oops:

yorkshireraw

One of the Belgian Shepherd varieties? Malamois or something like that?

kleinstroker

There was no Wiggins thread. Bad reporting from forum members. Sad. Fake news.

Matthewfalle

Isn't Wiggins that Belgian bloke from Belgium with an Australian dad? Rides bi-cycles with that Kenyan dude from Kenya on that Australian owned and funded team?

Mikey23

Fanning the flames? I like to think of it as performing a valuable service by ensuring that discussions such as these reach a wider audience with a divergent range of opinions. Which has got to be good for democracy...

weekendcyclingfan

Mikey23 wrote:

Fanning the flames? I like to think of it as performing a valuable service by ensuring that discussions such as these reach a wider audience with a divergent range of opinions. Which has got to be good for democracy...

‘The cornerstone to effective government is a strong opposition’ I can't recite the actual quote right now, however democracy thrives on checks and balances and an alternative if the people do not like the manner in which current leaders lead and conduct themselves.

That's why discussion and debate is important. This forum at times appears very intent on not allowing discussion. It wishes to censor and close down reasonable debate which might lead to better understanding of the topics du jour.

blazing_saddles

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

That's why discussion and debate is important. This forum at times appears very intent on not allowing discussion. It wishes to censor and close down reasonable debate which might lead to better understanding of the topics du jour.

Funny.
That's exactly how I'd describe your usual haunt.

Rodrego Hernandez

weekendcyclingfan wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Fanning the flames? I like to think of it as performing a valuable service by ensuring that discussions such as these reach a wider audience with a divergent range of opinions. Which has got to be good for democracy...

‘The cornerstone to effective government is a strong opposition’ I can't recite the actual quote right now, however democracy thrives on checks and balances and an alternative if the people do not like the manner in which current leaders lead and conduct themselves.

That's why discussion and debate is important. This forum at times appears very intent on not allowing discussion. It wishes to censor and close down reasonable debate which might lead to better understanding of the topics du jour.

But asking the same questions ad-nauseum is very different to a discussion.

You seemed to be continually asking the same questions that no one had answers to, asking hypothetical questions that ignored the facts as were known or asking questions despite the answers being known.

Most of your questions were answered at least once yet you declined to read them or if you did, you chose to ignore them.

That's what got the thread killed off, it wasn't an attempt to censor or close down reasonable debate. You did not provide any reasonable debate. You repeatedly asked the same questions, ignoring previous facts and answers.

And I guess you are going to do the same again until this thread is put out of its misery.

secretsqirrel

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

[

In that case.....


.

I've got one of those dogs, one point to anyone who can name the breed.

Looks like a Groenendael to me. At last a decent subject in Pro Race.

Richmond Racer 2

SecretSqirrel wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

[

In that case.....


.

I've got one of those dogs, one point to anyone who can name the breed.

Looks like a Groenendael to me. At last a decent subject in Pro Race.

Belgian Shepherd!