Seriously, since Brian has given a temporary free pass on ranting on this subject:

*rant snipped*

ILTB needs a temporary free pass to rant? Now that's funny. :p

ILTB needs a temporary free pass to rant? Now that's funny. :p

You wouldn't be insulting/dissin' me would ya? Dat would not be respectful! ;);)

:lol:

Now that is funny. Yeah ... things will get better around here.

Yeah go for the Gusto with the Real Tom, as seen on Oprah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21i4j5_bs40

The Lesson: don't overdose on an epiphany be it Katie, Scientology, or John Forester's Good Book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0&feature=related
;)

... with (scientologists) VC, it's not like anybody else... if we go by an accident, we KNOW we can help... you know you are the only one who can really help..." ...We ARE the authorities..." "you're either in the game or you're on the sidelines..."




scientology meets VC-ology?

*shudder*

... with (scientologists) VC, it's not like anybody else... if we go by an accident, we KNOW we can help... you know you are the only one who can really help..." ...We ARE the authorities..." "you're either in the game or you're on the sidelines..."




scientology meets VC-ology?

*shudder*Been saying that for a while now.......

I've barely looked at A&S because of the crap HH started and propagated. In fact, I still doubt I'll become a regular here again.

I obviously haven't been as regular as I used to be either, but I've heard fiber helps... :D

Seriously, it just got too painful to even attempt to engage in a discussion in here...and I always liked Serge. Sure, we would argue like cats and dogs, trade barbs and sometimes get a little overheated, but hey, that's the way it works when the subject matter approaches the genre of politics...which A&S does. But I saw him change...and I think a lot of others like Diane and Gene and Brian R saw it too. I can't find the right word to describe it, maybe that Jekyll was becoming dominant over Hyde? I don't know what he did to finally get a perma-ban, but if it came from who I think it came from, he must have really went over the line.

But I saw him change...and I think a lot of others like Diane and Gene and Brian R saw it too.
Whatever happened to Diane? She was subjected to more abuse than anybody from the banned pair, especially misogynous insults from JF. Maybe she will want to participate again.

Here was one of HH's first posts on the subject back three years ago. His join date is just a month previous.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1097225&postcount=33

Watch how the thread progresses with HH playing a key role to keep tensions high. In the road cycling forum, for example, they would never let the aggression get going. They'd just start posting pictures of bunnys with pancakes on their heads or something. As harsh as the RC forum can be sometimes, they let differing opinions live and let their arguments stand on their own. HH would never just state his opinion and sit pat. He would persist. If somebody entered an opinion into the record that differed from his own, he'd answer back with his standard patter. If the same poster dared to clarify his opinion, HH would launch into him as if the poster were a complete Noob to cycling and didn't know how to read. I cannot tell you the number of times a new person would post, HH would respond, the OP would post a second time, HH would talk down to him/her, and then they'd leave, never to return.

Never changing, always trying to insert minor revisions of the first post I linked to here at every opportunity. Always singing the exact same tune. That was HH.

It was interesting for a while. But now it's not. Go back through that stickied "Bike lane" thread. You'll see that the forum has been stuck in time since then and the number of active participants have gone to as low as three or four people at times.

thank you Brian for a sane analysis of the situation.

Whatever happened to Diane? She was subjected to more abuse than anybody from the banned pair, especially misogynous insults from JF. Maybe she will want to participate again.

Having several times been on the receiving end of vicious attacks from Diane, provoked only by my opinion that bike lanes aren't always a good option in every situation, I have to say that she is one of the ones I have in mind when I say that HH was not the worst.

BTW, proof that the moderators are on the right track: 52 people on this forum at 9:00 at night. Unheard of in the past 3 years.

Now, of course, most are guests. But I'm seeing a lot more new names around here now that the smoke has finally cleared.

It seems that the controversy or bellicosity is what people are focused on. . . to re-iterate and directly quote one of hosts of our little party. . .

"Dobber, it's not the usual "RickRolling" that we're banning people over.It's when they post links to malicious sites that result in computer problems for the person who clicked on the link. And - it's not an automatic ban. We're only banning the ones who continue to link to malicious sites after they were asked to stop."

Bold, underline and ital added.

My opinion -- there's never call for and no defense of such behavior. Permanent ban is too kind, if anything.

My random thought for the day: maybe we should have a annual A&S spring cleaning and have a thread to constructively get some junk out of the forum.

My opinion -- there's never call for and no defense of such behavior. Permanent ban is too kind, if anything.

So you clicked on it? :D

Whatever happened to Diane? She was subjected to more abuse than anybody from the banned pair, especially misogynous insults from JF. Maybe she will want to participate again.

Wow, I hadn't even thought of her in a while. She always did have something interesting to put into the mix.

I obviously haven't been as regular as I used to be either, but I've heard fiber helps... :D

Seriously, it just got too painful to even attempt to engage in a discussion in here...and I always liked Serge. Sure, we would argue like cats and dogs, trade barbs and sometimes get a little overheated, but hey, that's the way it works when the subject matter approaches the genre of politics...which A&S does. But I saw him change...and I think a lot of others like Diane and Gene and Brian R saw it too. I can't find the right word to describe it, maybe that Jekyll was becoming dominant over Hyde? I don't know what he did to finally get a perma-ban, but if it came from who I think it came from, he must have really went over the line.

Hooray beer! Er...fiber!

I must have come in just as he was starting to change, as he really did have some decent arguments when I first joined. After that, it was just the ad homenim, venomous attacks which he's now infamous for.

Wow, I'm back for a 2nd day in a row. How...odd.

So you clicked on it? :D

No, but obviously somebody must have.

I tried to come up with some sort of analogy in behaviour at that one might encounter at a dinner or cocktail party, but so quickly veered into crass and vulgar territory I decided it was for nought.

It's one thing to dominate a conversation or be sort of belligerant with the other dinner guests, but a poison link? Maybe it's sort of like the Visine in the drink in the movie "Wedding Crashers"?

My random thought for the day: maybe we should have a annual A&S spring cleaning and have a thread to constructively get some junk out of the forum.

Not a bad idea.

Why don't we all just go to Burning Man instead? It serves the same purpose and is a lot more fun.

Why don't we all just go to Burning Man instead? It serves the same purpose and is a lot more fun.

Will there pot? Stopped in traffic today on my motorcycle, I smelled pot. From a car.

Will there pot? Stopped in traffic today on my motorcycle, I smelled pot. From a car.



That's nothing, I had to break out the Ozium today at work after a couple of customers left my workplace. Whatever they had must have been some really good stuff, or either they had a run in with Pepe.

Why don't we all just go to Burning Man instead? It serves the same purpose and is a lot more fun.

There's a purpose to Burning Man?

The idea of vacationing in the desert in August somehow has never impressed me as a fun time.

It looks like it's much nicer here now, but I'm still a lot more interested in the actual bikes. All well and good and I hope, as in any other forum that members who want to be here and prosper will be here...

I do a pretty good job of inadvertantly being a good suckup or something :D:rolleyes:

I'm wondering - now that Serge has gone, do we still need the VC sub-forum?

Why don't we all just go to Burning Man instead? It serves the same purpose and is a lot more fun.

I wish I could afford it... Heck, I can't even afford to go to the small regional events!

I'm wondering - now that Serge has gone, do we still need the VC sub-forum?

Don't forget JF is coming back.

I do a pretty good job of inadvertantly being a good suckup or something :D:rolleyes:

I like it. An would this be a nicer place if we were all a good suckup or something? Something like that should make it into the forum guide lines. :D:rolleyes:

Wow. I've been gone for months...Raiyn pretty much covered the reason for my departure...and that thread link makes me shudder - 52 pages of endless agony. Was that really 3 years ago? Has it been that long since the pre-Serge/HH days? Oof!

Anyway, I've got a slight smile on my face now and I just may reenter the Bike Forum world.

derath is correct. HH was overly verbose, but made good arguments. To say he had a "chronic inability to be a beneficial member of the Bike Forums community" is absolutely nuts.

Based on what I saw of his posts, I agree. But as genec noted, maybe there was something we don't know.

On the User Control Panel, near the bottom there is a Buddy / Ignore List item. Individuals (not necessarily you) that fail to use facilities like this and continue to interact with members they disagree with are merely fanning the flames. . . .

Too many people thought HH's posts were worthy of responding, and then blamed HH for their inability to avoid responding to him.

Less entertaining maybe... but give it time and A&S may become useful again. I gave up on posting here long ago, and I am happy to give it another shot if this level of moderation continues. Its not so much antagonism I objected to as disruption. When things get to the point where threads are yanked off-topic repeatedly, why bother posting?

There have been several local issues/events I felt like posting about this winter, but decided not to. Maybe next time I will.
Pot, meet kettle.

Ok, we've had the members that complain about Serge's posts.
We've had the members that pick on Serge for failure to consider a view other than his own.
We've had Serge complaining about other member's posts.

Who do we ban in order to minimize the disruption? What will it take to make A&S relatively peaceful again? Is there some common denominator here?
Yes. People who couldn't use the ignore function.

Interesting that Bekologist, who has started several threads just to be antagonistic towards HH and JF is still around.
Some members were a bit harder on him than others. That will be addressed.
That would be fair.

. . . Note: This is not about one member. We are very aware that it takes two to tango.
Yep. When I read many of the criticisms of HH, I wondered if the critics even read their own posts.
BTW, proof that the moderators are on the right track: 52 people on this forum at 9:00 at night. Unheard of in the past 3 years.

Now, of course, most are guests. But I'm seeing a lot more new names around here now that the smoke has finally cleared.

Even though I disagree with the permanent ban decision, I hope this trend continues.

HH was obnoxious at times (and I criticized him for that in some of my posts), but he added ideas and passion for those ideas to the forum. His ideas drove a few other forum members to emotional distraction, and then those members blamed HH for their own inability to use the ignore function or write a civil post. Sad and hypocritical.

I also don't feel all that sorry for people who are "terrified" of someone else's pixels-on-a-screen. Part of the price for expressing your ideas is that others can criticize them, sometimes harshly.

In the end, Brian Ratliff is right. I disagree with the ban, but we are guests in this forum, and the mods have the ultimate responsibility to maintain the forum. Hopefully, HH's harshest critics will look through this thread and the reasons for banning HH and modify some of their own behavior.

oh, well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Many of us saw HH as a disruptive element; the mods eventually banned him.

seems very straight forward.

Daily Commute. I can't assess whether your general assessment is correct or not, because there are so many members and so many threads, and you aren't referring to specifics.

However, HH certainly had strong critics who obeyed the forum rules.

I also think that it's interesting that HH would disrespect other posters, but then complain of the slightest injury himself. I think that there is room for interpretation of some of the forum rules, and that in general the higher your readiness to complain about others, the better your own behavior ought to be.

I think folks aren't reading all the posts on this thread. . .it's not about being verbose. Nor is it about being bellicose...

To take a snip from my post #112 which was a lift from the forum mod's:

"... to re-iterate and directly quote one of hosts of our little party. . .

"Dobber, it's not the usual "RickRolling" that we're banning people over.It's when they post links to malicious sites that result in computer problems for the person who clicked on the link. And - it's not an automatic ban. We're only banning the ones who continue to link to malicious sites after they were asked to stop."

Bold, underline and ital added.

It's the difference between Borat just being a weird guest at the dinner party and when he shows up at the table with a full plastic bag . . .

It's when they post links to malicious sites that result in computer problems for the person who clicked on the link. And - it's not an automatic ban. We're only banning the ones who continue to link to malicious sites after they were asked to stop."

Bold, underline and ital added.

Wait... I thought it was fixkid who was banned for posting malicious links, not HH. He was banned for other reasons.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6223625&postcount=2

Can a moderator please clear this up?

Wait... I thought it was fixkid who was banned for posting malicious links, not HH. He was banned for other reasons.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6223625&postcount=2

Can a moderator please clear this up?

I have no idea what Steve Hamlin is going on about. Does that help? The Rickroll issue has nothing to do with this thread.

Originally Posted by patc:
Less entertaining maybe... but give it time and A&S may become useful again. I gave up on posting here long ago, and I am happy to give it another shot if this level of moderation continues. Its not so much antagonism I objected to as disruption. When things get to the point where threads are yanked off-topic repeatedly, why bother posting?

There have been several local issues/events I felt like posting about this winter, but decided not to. Maybe next time I will.

Pot, meet kettle.


Want to clarify your comment? Do you feel I have been disruptive to A&S? If so how? I have barely posted in the past year. Do you feel I yanked threads off topic? I'm not aware of having done so, but I may have - I don't bite, anyone who feels I disrupt a thread and/or yank it off topic is welcome to PM me or bring it up in the thread. I have never received a moderator warning or complaint, so I don't think I've been getting out of line all that often!

Or, if you meant you feel I was contributing to the HH issues... I've had him on 'ignore' for a very long time, so no clue what you are talking about there!


More generally (to the forum as a whole) - 'disruption' may be an objective term, but don't kid yourselves trying to dig up gossip on why HH was banned. You may or may not agree that HH was disruptive, but a great many people felt he was - including many who left these forums back when he was posting under his other handle. Whatever else was involved, I think there was more than enough reason for a moderator to ban him, regardless of whether or not I agree with the decision.

I came back today (after quite a while) to see if anything on here has changed for the better. After reading this thread, I must say I'm sorely dissappointed. If a person such as donnamb can become a "moderator" and issue edicts, after trashing, pointlessly, most of my early posts years ago, then I have no choice but to discontinue my membership here.
HH was verbose, and somewhat antagonistic, but he was ALWAYS unwavering in his beliefs, and he was trying
to get to the point of helping people understand certain things.... I personally don't care about Forester, or his beliefs, never have--never will, but I do respect people's rights to put forth their theories.
Which is why I can't fathom people getting banned for saying what they think.
If this is what this forum has come to, then goodbye.

another senseless forumcide.
oh the humanity.

I came back today (after quite a while) to see if anything on here has changed for the better. After reading this thread, I must say I'm sorely dissappointed. If a person such as donnamb can become a "moderator" and issue edicts, after trashing, pointlessly, most of my early posts years ago, then I have no choice but to discontinue my membership here.
HH was verbose, and somewhat antagonistic, but he was ALWAYS unwavering in his beliefs, and he was trying
to get to the point of helping people understand certain things.... I personally don't care about Forester, or his beliefs, never have--never will, but I do respect people's rights to put forth their theories.
Which is why I can't fathom people getting banned for saying what they think.
If this is what this forum has come to, then goodbye.

You haven't read the whole thread, and you certainly have a biased view, given that you only see one half of the facts. But thanks for your participation.

Have I mis-read or misunderstood post #27?

Have I mis-read or misunderstood post #27?

Depends. If you think that post 27 has anything to do with HH, then you are certainly mistaken. But you'd hardly be the first member to take something out of context. No sarcasm intended.

I guess I misunderstood, I thought it had EVERYTHING to do with him. . .must've not quite understood where the pronoun was directed.

I can ignore (sometimes, even, weirdly enjoy) bickering, quibbling or whatever. Some take it too far, but I see the avatar and name and skip the post or just quit following the thread.

Someone who posts destructive links . . . you can't ban them fast enough or thoroughly enough in my opinion.

but he was ALWAYS unwavering in his beliefs
maybe unwavering in spite of any facts

he certainly wavered from one post to the next within a thread, when describing the meaning of his statements. He admitted in PMs to me that he was often just making up his position as he went along.

maybe unwavering in spite of any facts

he certainly wavered from one post to the next within a thread, when describing the meaning of his statements. He admitted in PMs to me that he was often just making up his position as he went along.

And how often are you 100% sure in any declaration you make? We often, in conversation, present a viewpoint that is refined as that conversation (whether verbal or on line) proceeds.

HH had some ideas that were a bit different from things others might have encountered... that doesn't mean he was always right or always wrong. Perhaps his way of "broadcasting" his concepts was a bit tiresome as he did have a tendency to go on and on.

But I think any of us should understand that this is a dynamic environment, and as such, one may change positions, or refine concepts as we go along.

But I think any of us should understand that this is a dynamic environment, and as such, one may change positions, or refine concepts as we go along.
Of course we can. And we ought to.

Let's just not pretend that, when we have refined, recrafted, and reformed our original idea, we've actually never changed anything, and that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

It reeks of a desperation to never let go of an original ideology. Every new fact must be framed to fit the dogma.

HH said frequently was that his goal was to advocate VC best practices, but look at how unpalatable the term has become around these parts. He sabotaged his own declared goals for the sake of his beliefs, because VC became an ends instead of a means.

I would think that pro-VC folk would be glad to see him gone, so that they can actually discuss methods productively.

maybe unwavering in spite of any facts

he certainly wavered from one post to the next within a thread, when describing the meaning of his statements. he admitted in PMs to me that he was often just making up his position as he went along

The opposition to HH would disingenuously misquote him (or, as in this case, not quote him at all) and twist the plain meaning of his words, motivating HH to laboriously explain things in greater detail. This is also true for JF. This illustrates that their opponents were not willing to act in an decent manner.

HH has been treated shabbily and shamefully. And now that he is gone you continue to slander him. Does your mother know you do this?

To answer the OP's question, there is no life in A&S since one side of the debate is kicked off the forum for stating and defending their position. Why would one expect a different outcome?

Well ... with respect to HH and the moderators, I think that the main objection is that he was treated differently -- i.e., with a different set of rules -- than other members. HH wrote to me and stated that he was given no warnings or "infraction points" -- I have never heard of these -- before his permanent banning. IMO, that is unfair.

From what I gather from our dialog, the moderators might have had other criteria for his banning. Namely that he took up a lot of their time and that the forum -- in their opinion -- would be a better place without him for various reasons. In other words, despite the unfairness the moderators thought that other considerations superseded it.

I have no intention of telling the moderators what they should do. Particularly since I am not volunteering my time. But as a community member, it seems like there were appropriate intermediary steps that could have been taken.

Well ... with respect to HH and the moderators, I think that the main objection is that he was treated differently -- i.e., with a different set of rules -- than other members. HH wrote to me and stated that he was given no warnings or "infraction points" -- I have never heard of these -- before his permanent banning. IMO, that is unfair.

From what I gather from our dialog, the moderators might have had other criteria for his banning. Namely that he took up a lot of their time and that the forum -- in their opinion -- would be a better place without him for various reasons. In other words, despite the unfairness the moderators thought that other considerations superseded it.

I have no intention of telling the moderators what they should do. Particularly since I am not volunteering my time. But as a community member, it seems like there were appropriate intermediary steps that could have been taken.

I was not privy to your conversation with him, so I cannot comment on that. But since you're making his comments public, I'm going to fill you in on the part he didn't mention. He is the only member that I know of that was asked by at least two moderators to just voluntarily take some time away from the forums, to go ride his bike, maybe spend time with his family, but get off the computer. He was getting way too wrapped up in the forums. There is no specific infraction that could be applied to his situation, but we certainly made attempts to work with him. In his absence, there has been a dramatic reduction in drama coming from A&S.

Does your mother know you do this?
Now who's being childish? :rolleyes:

I was not privy to your conversation with him, so I cannot comment on that. But since you're making his comments public, I'm going to fill you in on the part he didn't mention. He is the only member that I know of that was asked by at least two moderators to just voluntarily take some time away from the forums, to go ride his bike, maybe spend time with his family, but get off the computer. He was getting way too wrapped up in the forums. There is no specific infraction that could be applied to his situation, but we certainly made attempts to work with him. In his absence, there has been a dramatic reduction in drama coming from A&S.

OK. This is relevant.

Now who's being childish? :rolleyes:

I doubt your mother thinks slandering others is a virtue. Does she approve of how you treat HH?

Let me speak clearly, zeytoun. Misrepresenting HH's positions without attribution is wrong.

You slander HH with this statement; "I also think that it's interesting that HH would disrespect other posters, but then complain of the slightest injury himself." That is wrong.

It is shameful to attack someone who is unable to respond. It seems rather cowardly as well.

With that said, I will ask again; Is your mother proud of you for this behavior?

I doubt your mother thinks slandering others is a virtue. Does she approve of how you treat HH?

Let me speak clearly, zeytoun. Misrepresenting HH's positions without attribution is wrong.

You slander HH with this statement; "I also think that it's interesting that HH would disrespect other posters, but then complain of the slightest injury himself." That is wrong.

It is shameful to attack someone who is unable to respond. It seems rather cowardly as well.

With that said, I will ask again; Is your mother proud of you for this behavior?

Pet peeve: No one on here is slandering anyone. As Ralph would say, "Unpossible".