Closing account and deleting post

Ben6899

I would imagine all posts are the property of Immediate Media.

reaperactual

Why is it important to close an account? I assumed it's as simple as deleting cookies etc, logging out and never logging back in again. Old posts will drop down the order where no one will look again.

Any posts that stay on there will show up in a general search for bike issues when browsing and could help people into the future without directly asking on this forum, this I would be fine with if I decided not to participate directly anymore.

Anyone else had issues with no email notifications? They worked fine and notification settings are the same but not worked since bikeradar went off line a few weeks ago?

coopster_the_1st

thecycleclinic said:

I logged to check if there was answer to my question. There isnt but there is argument again. Well one person has tried to start one. In fact when have i called anyone racist. Never on here as i know none of you. I may have used the word in context with views like that can look... as a way of discussing them. However i would have been quite careful in how i phrased that. I don't believe i dish out abuse. Also i thought whats in the brexit thread stays in the brexit thread. Everyone has to shout at one another. I don't talk to people like that in real life even if i can be a bit abrupt sometimes. I certainly don't want it here.

Still cant work out how to close my account. Should be simple really.

Someone has a guilt complex!

I commented some on this thread. Despite trying to play the victim, you were not one of them that I am referring to. At worst, your posts directed to me tried emotional blackmail and you play the victim.

However there are others, and they know who they are, who are happy to regularly dish it out but cannot take it. They are the worst type of posters!

Anyway, some helpful advice based on my experience of other forums. I believe under GDPR you can request all your posts deleted and any references to you removed. I would not be surprised if a few requests like this would force Immediate Media to close the forums as the forum reward would not be worth the maintenance effort.

me-109

You may be able to close your account and delete your profile, but your posts will not be redacted and any reference made within them to or by you does not count under the GDPR or DPA since they were made public by the individual (you).

imposter2.0

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying sh1t what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

DeVlaeminck

I'd do as Imposter suggests - just logout and never login again. It's a shame if you feel you can't pop in and offer advice/opinions occasionally I'm sure you do pick up business from it too although you may feel differently or have enough anyway I suppose.

I'm sure many have felt like it's not worth the bother occasionally - we may ourselves at times have made others think similarly - what I tend to do is just not look at a thread again if I don't want to get drawn into an endless argument with someone - occasionally I should do it earlier. Maybe they view that as a victory but really who cares.

First.Aspect

I'm not clear on why someone who is a bit hard of thinking warrants repeated bans in your opinion, as opposed say to people who collectively behave like playground bullies. There's a classic case of this going on in the "is the bianchi too small" thread, which read objectively is someone who may well be misguided being insulted and derided by a bunch of wee boys.

There are some pretty blatant double standards here chaps. People in glass houses...

kingstongraham

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

...

imposter2.0

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

Abuse, threats via PM, homophobia, blatant lies, deliberately dangerous advice, making jokes at the expense of dead cyclists, I think he's pretty much done the lot. Much of the really offensive stuff was removed at the time. It got to the point with his last few usernames that Josh would just delete all his content at the same time as issuing a ban to whatever username he was on at the time.

But if you like him, then that's fine...

mrb123

May I add my name to the list of those who would be sorry to see you go Malcolm. Your contributions to the forum are always of interest and you have provided a lot of people with invaluable advice over the years.

I am also someone who has been a satisfied customer of yours, having become aware of your existence due to your presence on this forum and the positive feedback you were given by other members.

First.Aspect

mrb123 said:

May I add my name to the list of those who would be sorry to see you go Malcolm. Your contributions to the forum are always of interest and you have provided a lot of people with invaluable advice over the years.

I am also someone who has been a satisfied customer of yours, having become aware of your existence due to your presence on this forum and the positive feedback you were given by other members.

Yes, but can we agree that it is okay to say that some of it is not correct (or, at least, as expressed doesn't make sense) without causing umbradge?

kingstongraham

imposter2.0 said:

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

Abuse, threats via PM, homophobia, blatant lies, deliberately dangerous advice, making jokes at the expense of dead cyclists, I think he's pretty much done the lot. Much of the really offensive stuff was removed at the time. It got to the point with his last few usernames that Josh would just delete all his content at the same time as issuing a ban to whatever username he was on at the time.

But if you like him, then that's fine...

Fair enough - I didn't know.

Constructive advice - didn't need the last sentence.

First.Aspect

imposter2.0 said:

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

Abuse, threats via PM, homophobia, blatant lies, deliberately dangerous advice, making jokes at the expense of dead cyclists, I think he's pretty much done the lot. Much of the really offensive stuff was removed at the time. It got to the point with his last few usernames that Josh would just delete all his content at the same time as issuing a ban to whatever username he was on at the time.

But if you like him, then that's fine...

Like KG I've no idea who this guy is or what he's supposed to have done. Fair enough to object to him being back on if it is true, but use the appropriate mechanism. What you actually do is round upon others who have no knowledge of it and for daring not to be part of the gang against him.

There isn't all that much moral high ground available from what I can see.

imposter2.0

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

Abuse, threats via PM, homophobia, blatant lies, deliberately dangerous advice, making jokes at the expense of dead cyclists, I think he's pretty much done the lot. Much of the really offensive stuff was removed at the time. It got to the point with his last few usernames that Josh would just delete all his content at the same time as issuing a ban to whatever username he was on at the time.

But if you like him, then that's fine...

Fair enough - I didn't know.

Constructive advice - didn't need the last sentence.

Perhaps you're right, Graham. I just assumed (wrongly, by the sound of it) you were being obtuse - given that you're a long-standing member on here and you might already have been familiar with a least one or more of his previous incarnations.

kingstongraham

imposter2.0 said:

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

kingstongraham said:

imposter2.0 said:

Milemuncher's re-appearance and continued trolling for the 11th consecutive time (after 10 previous account bans on here) suggests to me that whoever 'runs' these forums actually doesn't give a flying censored what happens or what is said.

The simplest way to 'close' your account is to just log out and not log in again. As for the historic content, I think the only way to get that removed is to go down the litigation route, which is probably a bit unnecessary, not to mention costly.

Have any of the milemunchers posted abuse? All I've seen are some rather far fetched tales. He's received some though.

Abuse, threats via PM, homophobia, blatant lies, deliberately dangerous advice, making jokes at the expense of dead cyclists, I think he's pretty much done the lot. Much of the really offensive stuff was removed at the time. It got to the point with his last few usernames that Josh would just delete all his content at the same time as issuing a ban to whatever username he was on at the time.

But if you like him, then that's fine...

Fair enough - I didn't know.

Constructive advice - didn't need the last sentence.

Perhaps you're right, Graham. I just assumed (wrongly, by the sound of it) you were being obtuse - given that you're a long-standing member on here and you might already have been familiar with a least one or more of his previous incarnations.

No worries, I only remember the threads about carrying about 15 litres of water and loading every ride on Strava three times.

me-109

Ha ha! I remember the water thread - classic!

If I took to not liking someone because of what they wrote or found them generally annoying and argumentative (a contrary position is not an argument, to paraphrase the Pythons), then I used to just put them on the block/foe list and you didn't even see their posts then. Useful - has it gone?

ugo.santalucia

me-109 said:

Ha ha! I remember the water thread - classic!

If I took to not liking someone because of what they wrote or found them generally annoying and argumentative (a contrary position is not an argument, to paraphrase the Pythons), then I used to just put them on the block/foe list and you didn't even see their posts then. Useful - has it gone?

Useful to a point... if the moron keeps getting quoted and the conversation relies on their posts, then you basically don't know what's going on.
Since said morons tend to be ubiquitous, then you might as well log out and not come back.

me-109

ugo.santalucia said:

me-109 said:

Ha ha! I remember the water thread - classic!

If I took to not liking someone because of what they wrote or found them generally annoying and argumentative (a contrary position is not an argument, to paraphrase the Pythons), then I used to just put them on the block/foe list and you didn't even see their posts then. Useful - has it gone?

Useful to a point... if the moron keeps getting quoted and the conversation relies on their posts, then you basically don't know what's going on.
Since said morons tend to be ubiquitous, then you might as well log out and not come back.

What was that you said @ugo.santalucia ?

😉

Yes, it wasn't infallible and might be a bit inconvenient with some if the threads, but at least you could maintain some semblance of board review and participation without the aggro.

I've been here donkey's years now but dip in and out to just what takes my fancy. There are some that seem to feel a need to comment on everything whether they can add any value or not.

ugo.santalucia

... yeah, they seem to be the same that preach the value of "working hard"

First.Aspect

You know, we can all occasionally disagree about things, or get a bit over-involved with trivial debates (which is rather the point of the forum really, and I'm aware I do this). But do we agree that taking on the role of self-appointed "forum police" is not acceptable? You know who you are.