You nailed it. Plenty of us are pro-vehicular cycling...our main points of contention with HH were his wacky theories and stubborn refusal to admit that facilities can have value to non-alpha dawg cyclists - but I am sure that JF will continue to carry that banner.

This notion that one side of the debate has been silenced is pure horsepucky - kinda like saying that the abolitionist movement was silenced by the execution of John Brown.

If your point of contention is only with HH"s theories and his "stubborn refusal to admit" that you are right then you're silencing him for not agreeing with you.

I can see that it can be irritating to go round and round in circles with someone, but it takes at least two to do the Horsepucky Hokey and it looks like he had plenty of willing partners all too eager to catch hold of his hands and give it a whirl. The only observable difference is that he disagreed on the technical and substantive issues with the majority in this forum.

You nailed it. Plenty of us are pro-vehicular cycling...our main points of contention with HH were his wacky theories and stubborn refusal to admit that facilities can have value to non-alpha dawg cyclists - but I am sure that JF will continue to carry that banner.

This notion that one side of the debate has been silenced is pure horsepucky - kinda like saying that the abolitionist movement was silenced by the execution of John Brown.

So if being a whacky stubborn PITA is grounds for banning, how have you managed to stay around so long Chip?:D

-D

The fact remains that the only two people banned are those that argue against most facilities -- although JF has multiple times posted that some facilities are acceptable if they meet particular standards.

And plenty of people that make that same argument, yourself included, haven't been banned. I used to think you were a fairly reasonable fellow. Apparently I was mistaken.

Huh? Cognitive dissonance much dude? "Only HH has been banned ... JF's ban has been lifted". Or when you said "Speaking of strawmen" were you introducing your post?

You're really trying hard to be contentious here, aren't you? :lol:

I thought it was pretty clear that I meant 'permanently banned' in reference to HH. Only someone looking for a fight would misconstrue that. :yawn:

If your point of contention is only with HH"s theories and his "stubborn refusal to admit" that you are right then you're silencing him for not agreeing with you.


Ooh. Now Chip's in on the conspiracy to 'silence' him. :lol: This just gets funnier and funnier.

That really begs the question, doesn't it? ;)

(Great link thanks!)

You're welcome and yes, I like that both parties can go back and forth like that and eventually, the sun explodes! (not that it's happening here from time to time :))

[snip]So either delete them and ban the abusers or else answer it fully instead of dancing around and allowing others to suggest that Serge/HH posted a link which caused someone's machine to explode. Responding as much as you have and allowing the discussion as much as you have without letting all of us have all the facts is sly.

I cannot be held responsible for anyone's lack of reading comprehension skills. No one on the moderation team suggested that Serge was banned for posting a link of any sort. That's been covered already, you're just trolling now.

Given your own appalling wish that some forum members might be killed by cars this selective behavior doesn't exactly surprise me though.

Did you make this up, or have you taken some ancient post out of context somewhere? Either way, you're trolling again.

I thought it was pretty clear that I meant 'permanently banned' in reference to HH. Only someone looking for a fight would misconstrue that. :yawn:

And I thought that it was pretty clear that I meant 'banned as in banned either permanently or temporarily'. Only someone looking for a fight would start ragging on me because only HH was permanently banned and JF was temporarily banned.

*rollseyeswhileyawningandscratchingheadandwinking*



Ooh. Now Chip's in on the conspiracy to 'silence' him. :lol: This just gets funnier and funnier.

Ah, there you go again, trying to dismiss the fact that the two most active detractors of dangerous facilities had sanctions applied to them. Hey! It never actually happened and you can prove it because you saw the footage taken from the grassy knoll.

Still, I suppose if you haven't got an argument then a little misdirection helps.

Did you make this up, or have you taken some ancient post out of context somewhere? Either way, you're trolling again.

Is your abuse so prolific and does it come so easily to you that you really cannot remember expressing a desire that some members of this forum would die in cycling accidents?

It's not trolling. I'm pointing out that your moderation is inconsistent to the point of being hypocritically laughable. I'm suggesting that if you are interested in improving A&S (instead of using toilet metaphors) then you might want to address that. It's up to you.

Is your abuse so prolific and does it come so easily to you that you really cannot remember expressing a desire that some members of this forum would die in cycling accidents?

It's not trolling. I'm pointing out that your moderation is inconsistent to the point of being hypocritically laughable. I'm suggesting that if you are interested in improving A&S (instead of using toilet metaphors) then you might want to address that. It's up to you.

I understand you realized your error about the link issue, but where is this post that you keep referencing?

I understand you realized your error about the link issue, but where is this post that you keep referencing?

Ah, another excellent example from our esteemed moderator of how to conduct oneself in A&S. ;)

Seeing as you're here wasting your precious volunteer time: what exactly did HH do to get banned?

Here's your unpleasant little post:

I am not exploiting a member's death, although I have certainly wished that certain others might meet a similar fate.

Ah, another excellent example from our esteemed moderator of how to conduct oneself in A&S. ;)

Seeing as you're here wasting your precious volunteer time: what exactly did HH do to get banned?

Here's your unpleasant little post:

I'm neither a volunteer nor a moderator. Link please.

It strikes me that the A&S forum resembles a good game of Whack-A-Mole (http://www.addictinggames.com/whackamole.html).

Or a tedious exercise in hair splitting. {maybe it's just this thread}

And I thought that it was pretty clear that I meant 'banned as in banned either permanently or temporarily'. Only someone looking for a fight would start ragging on me because only HH was permanently banned and JF was temporarily banned.

No, Walt, I only 'ragged' on you because you seem to think the mods have some sort of pro-facilities agenda going on. While I can't be certain, and I agree the stated reasons for Serge's banning are a bit vague, I'm fairly confident that's not the case. If there was some sort of established pattern in the mods behaviour, I'd not hesitate to agree with you, but I simply don't see it. In general I find the mods here to be fairly even handed, but if you disagree, no-one's forcing you to stay and suffer unecessarily. Or you could even volunteer for the job yourself. I'm sure they'd appreciate the help.

Ah, there you go again, trying to dismiss the fact that the two most active detractors of dangerous facilities had sanctions applied to them. Hey! It never actually happened and you can prove it because you saw the footage taken from the grassy knoll.


lulz

No, Walt, I only 'ragged' on you because you seem to think the mods have some sort of pro-facilities agenda going on.

We do. And in P&R, we're all liberals. That's why conservatives get banned there. It's never their actions, we just don't like them. :rolleyes:

No, Walt, I only 'ragged' on you because you seem to think the mods have some sort of pro-facilities agenda going on. While I can't be certain, and I agree the stated reasons for Serge's banning are a bit vague, I'm fairly confident that's not the case. If there was some sort of established pattern in the mods behaviour, I'd not hesitate to agree with you, but I simply don't see it. In general I find the mods here to be fairly even handed,

What you say sounds fair, but all I've seen is that two vocal proponents of a particular viewpoint have been removed while others with similar behaviors are apparently given carte blanche.

Are you saying that some of the other BikelanesGood vs. BikelanesBad protagonists displaying nearly identical tendencies been banned? If not then that's a bias.

I'm neither a volunteer nor a moderator. Link please.

Click the icon.

I understand you realized your error about the link issue, but where is this post that you keep referencing?

I have not looked for the source. But I do recall that for a while, that was a predominant theme in the thread: that HH posted malicious links.

Anyway ... Walt, I doubt that the angry tone is helping. Mind you, I think that others are "feeding the bear" but the point that the barring appears to have a bias has been discussed. Rather than trying to prove that there was or was no bias -- a fruitless task in my opinion -- perhaps we should talk about where we want to progress towards.

Personally, I have a difficult time permanently banning HH ... at least not for the transgressions for which he was charged. Particularly since -- I understand that many would feel that he did so in a perverted way -- he wanted to contribute to the community, IMO. And I do believe that the negative aspects of the forum that people attribute to HH are probably the result of many things. HH might have been a catalyst; but other community members -- both chiefs and indians -- played their role too.

I don't believe that the moderators want to discuss this in the public. I'll make the suggestion that instead of thinking of why HH was banned, consider what conditions would make HH's return acceptable.

Got to run ... perhaps Barry will have a better handle on his ideas tomorrow.

Are you saying that some of the other BikelanesGood vs. BikelanesBad protagonists displaying nearly identical tendencies been banned? If not then that's a bias.

No. Serge was unique.

Click the icon.

Oh, that was when I called you out for trolling with your circular arguments. Imagine that. Must still sting a bit, hey? Well, everyone is free to read that post in the context of the thread, although I'm not so sure they'll take it quite as harshly as you've tried to present it. And I'm so sorry that I didn't recall that post from 4 months ago. I'm usually good with dates. For instance, my friend Rodney died only a few days after that post, and my dad died a month later. So at this point, it's rather inconsequential to me. Seems like a scar to you.

I really wish I had time to write all my thoughts down on this put here a few:

Improved, by that do you mean boring? Ya sure it's pretty dull with one POV silenced.

As far as pissing on each others' shoes, this is a long standing tradition here and the mods have gone through several failed attempts to correct the problem. May I suggest the problem actually may be with the mods and how they have dealt with this problem (at least in the past.)

So before I get banned for being a pest to the mods all I am suggesting is try and standardize some procedures that make sense with the resources that you have and that gets results. You can't make a call for civility and then go on to ignore every single uncivil post after your call for civility. While this probably isn't what happened from the MOD's POV but it is what happened all too often from my POV. While I do not expect them to read every post I do expect a response to posts I report and way too often I hear nothing back and the offending post stays on the board, what am I supposed to think? If you show public tolerance for something then it is assumed that it is tolerated by everyone who reads the board and before you know it that same junk is coming from multiple individuals and it is no longer worth bothering to report (because nothing is perceived as being done) and the forums goes down the tubes because ether the mods are not doing a dam thing or what they are doing is not visible to the public.

What Brain recently did and publicly singled out an individual I think needs to be done more often here. And I think posts that violate forum rules should be corrected or noted in some way, you can't leave that stuff up and expect people to subliminally get the message "This post in particular is in volition of forum rules and something so terrible happened as a result that we cannot talk about it in public."

Anyway, do I like the forums better now? No.
Do I want them to go back the way they were? No.
Is there a way to keep all of us happy? No.

I respect that a hard decision had to made, but I am bothered by the mods part in this by saying report violations then banning someone (in part) for over reporting violations. I'll agree with the mods that there is something there that HH did not get that exasperated the situation but I will also assert that there is something there that the mods didn't get that exasperated the situation as well, and this bothers me as now that HH is baned you seem to have a better understanding of something that contributed to HH driving you nuts.

Anyway this seems like a weird situation and I think calls for a more creative solution then a permanent ban of HH, that's my 2 cents anyway.

I'm a relative newcomer to cycling and here to this board, but I've been reading this and similar topics with interest and I hope that I can be excused for offering comment. As a newcomer to the activity of course the matters of Advocacy and safety are ones of great interest to me, and whilst I've found the section to be an interesting and informative one I've also found this sub-section of the board to be a sometimes quite belligerent place, with contributions frequently seeming to go well beyond discussion and debate and into the territory of 'badgering'. That's a concern, and it's an off-putting circumstance to encounter.


Whilst I don't personally agree with all of the views and contentions in the quoted post, I think it's an admirable effort to provide a more comprehensive and balanced overview of the circumstances and actions taken. I don't accept, for example, that this circumstance is really an exercise in 'silencing' a particular point of view. That's co-incidence, and it's often the case on forum boards where badgering is occurring that the people doing it will be adherents to a particular point of view. C'est la vie!


Action has been taken, and it should now be "get on with it" but instead we see heated debate about decisions taken. That's not particularly 'healthy' IMO. Dispute about the decision is a private matter between board supervisors and the person(s) who has/have received administrative attention. A 'culture' of allowing/encouraging debate about those decisions is destructive rather than constructive. Except in one regard.

There really isn't adequate published 'guidelines' in place here on this board, to outline the approaches taken toward forum supervision and to address those issues and contentions members might raise. I've mentioned that previously, here, in the Forum Suggestions section. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6492585&postcount=6) Transparency in approach doesn't and shouldn't necessitate debates about decision on the open forum board.



This thread is not titled "Why was Serge banned?", nor is it titled "Let's all pick on Serge". But I guess you missed that. We have repeatedly asked that threads not be started about why members were banned, but it still comes up anyway. Are you suggesting that an administrator not respond at all? I didn't bring up why he was banned, but it's been asked plenty of times. And if I don't answer, then it's even more of an issue for some people. It doesn't help that he's sent who knows how many emails out to a bunch of members looking for support.

Go back and read the first two pages of this thread. Based on member comments, I will stand by the moderator's decision.

I'd suggest that, as forum supervisors, you have the answer to that dilemma right there at your fingertips. You'll never 'convince' each and every member to refrain from ever posting such topics, but it's not a particularly difficult task to make available more comprehensive guidelines, and then disallow the topics of that ilk posted. This type of topic and debate belongs rightfully in the 'Forum suggestions' sections, and it should address general principles and practices of board supervision rather than individual decisions/punitive measures undertaken.

Adopting that approach inevitably leads, over time, to a different 'culture' developing and lets the topic specific sub-sections proceed in an "on with the job" fashion, IMO.

Personally, I have a difficult time permanently banning HH ... at least not for the transgressions for which he was charged. Particularly since -- I understand that many would feel that he did so in a perverted way -- he wanted to contribute to the community, IMO. And I do believe that the negative aspects of the forum that people attribute to HH are probably the result of many things. HH might have been a catalyst; but other community members -- both chiefs and indians -- played their role too.

I don't believe that the moderators want to discuss this in the public. I'll make the suggestion that instead of thinking of why HH was banned, consider what conditions would make HH's return acceptable.

Probably if he only posted a little less this never would have happened. I still hope somehow he's allowed back.

Now, on the lighter side, a song...

"Miss you" by the Rolling Stones

I've been hanging 'round so long
They keep tellin' you you're wrong
Serge I miss you
I've been readin' all your posts
It looks like you have the most
Seems few will kiss you

Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh

A & S still looks the same
Bec probably still can't spell your name
Helmie we miss you
Your words have been called a wall
Thanks to VC you don't fall
Then PM rings...

It's just some friends of ours that say,
"Hey, what's the matter Head?
We're gonna come around at twelve
With some VC bikin' girls that are just dyin' to meet you.
We're gonna bring Donna and Brian
Hey, let's have fun and ride around
You know, like we used to."

Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah

Ooohhh, Why is Helmet's ban so long
Ohhh, Why'd they make it so darn long
Won't you come on! Come on!

This thread is not titled "Why was Serge banned?", nor is it titled "Let's all pick on Serge". But I guess you missed that. We have repeatedly asked that threads not be started about why members were banned, but it still comes up anyway. Are you suggesting that an administrator not respond at all? I didn't bring up why he was banned, but it's been asked plenty of times. And if I don't answer, then it's even more of an issue for some people. It doesn't help that he's sent who knows how many emails out to a bunch of members looking for support.

Go back and read the first two pages of this thread. Based on member comments, I will stand by the moderator's decision.

What do you mean? I read the first two pages again. There are comments from about 28 different members, of whom 12 seemed to oppose the ban and/or supported HH, seven expressed support for the ban. (Some even admitted to not being around much in the last few months and therefore had no way to judge HH's recent behavior) Nine appeared neutral. Of the seven that expressed support for the ban, all but one (making) have a notorious history of expressing personal animosity toward HH. They are, naturally, biased to be in favor of the mods decision.

Those who expressed approval of banning HH:
1. Allister
2. Lem in Pa
3. making "It seems the mods are doing well, at least for now." #25
4. KrisPistofferson - "HH was far too much like Tom Cruise to be a valuable contributing member, so good riddance." #29
5. patc
6. rando
7. zeytoun

Opposed permanent ban of HH, or expressed doubt:
1. The Human Car: "calls for a more creative solution then a permanent ban of HH" #185
2. Genec - "HH brought some ideas to the table... granted some may be a bit over the top, but he provoked discussion." #2
3. CommuterRun " If those two are gone there's a couple others that need to be. Fair is fair." #6
4. DCCommuter "I never found those two to be among the most objectionable members. I don't agree with a lot of their ideas, but I generally believe that honest disagreement about ideas is a healthy thing, and I feel that they have been scapegoated mostly for having unpopular ideas. " #13
5. derath "This has to be the lamest ban explanation I have ever seen" #17
6. Kerlenbach "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. " #18 ... "Yeah, but that shouldn't get you banned." #24
7. maddyfish "If this means [HH] was long winded, but had useful things to say, then I agree." #20
8. ghettocruiser "If there was a petition to un-ban them, I would sign it." #21
9. HoustonB " Metrics aside, "inability to be a beneficial member" is apparently grounds for a permanent ban, who would of guessed." #22 ... "we all need to be much more jolly and use more eloquent prose, lest our posts be deemed lacking in "benefit"" #28
10. jabowker "I won't likely be back" #34
11. Fear&Trembling " If I had to choose between HH and spoof-haiku, I'd choose the former..." #46
12. JohnBrooking "I hope HH wasn't kicked off only because of what we've seen of him publicly, as much as that may have riled some people or even turn off newbies." (#48)


Neutral
1. AlmostTrick
2. cooker
3. Ed Holland
4. dobber
5. closetbiker
6. BarracksSi
7. jakub.ner
8. crtreedude
9. Steve Hamlin (support of ban based on misunderstanding that HH created malicious links)

Moderator:
donnamb

Now what Brian?

Brian... I think it's time for a thread lock on this one. Time to move on folks.

If you haven't noticed, this forum is actually getting a fairly decent number of new threads about various topics started by people who were not here a couple weeks ago. And the traffic is picking up too. Proof enough for me that the solution is a good one.

Chipseal, Bek, invisible, allister, Walt... time to put it away. Move along now. If you want to talk vehicular cycling with Serge (HH), look to the chainguard mailing list. He's there and he frequently contributes. If you don't like the decision that the moderator made here, you are very welcome to spend your time perusing a different website. No one has an intrinsic right to the use of this forum. Instead, think of this forum as a coffee shop or bar. We are all welcome as long as we are in good standing with the owner. If the owner tosses a customer out, either live with the decision or move along to a different bar. That's just the way it is.

And so Ratliff spoke. And so it was done.

Please stop with the condescension.

Once I bought a Take A Look mirror, I started understanding a lot more about motorist behavior, and a lot what I learned jibed with Helmet Head's observations.

I wasn't paying enough attention to notice ad hominem attacks, preferring to focus on ideas that might keep me alive.

What do you mean? I read the first two pages again. There are comments from about 28 different members, of whom 12 seemed to oppose the ban and/or supported HH, seven expressed support for the ban. (Some even admitted to not being around much in the last few months and therefore had no way to judge HH's recent behavior) Nine appeared neutral.


I feel slighted, Whaa, Whaa, Whaa. I didn't make any of the lists - The Notorious Tormentors of the Noble Mon (i.e. the evildoers), The Neutral, the Moderators, or the Bold Defenders of Freedom (i.e. the Good Guys.)

Whatever do you mean by this personal insult ChipSeal? I clearly posted on msg #38. Whaa, Whaa, Whaa!

:)

I feel slighted, Whaa, Whaa, Whaa. I didn't make any of the lists - The Notorious Tormentors of the Noble Mon (i.e. the evildoers), The Neutral, the Moderators, or the Bold Defenders of Freedom (i.e. the Good Guys.)

Whatever do you mean by this personal insult ChipSeal? I clearly posted on msg #38. Whaa, Whaa, Whaa!

:)

I always thought you were a category that's uniquely just yourself. ;)

I always thought you were a category that's uniquely just yourself. ;)

And dang proud of it too! Thank you. ;)

If your point of contention is only with HH"s theories and his "stubborn refusal to admit" that you are right then you're silencing him for not agreeing with you.

I can see that it can be irritating to go round and round in circles with someone, but it takes at least two to do the Horsepucky Hokey and it looks like he had plenty of willing partners all too eager to catch hold of his hands and give it a whirl. The only observable difference is that he disagreed on the technical and substantive issues with the majority in this forum.

I silenced him? Wow, I didn't know I was the new owner of BF and could silence folks I don't agree with...but now that I know, I'll surely get rid of your whining 'da man is keeping us down' butt!

So if being a whacky stubborn PITA is grounds for banning, how have you managed to stay around so long Chip?:D

-D

Your the second person to confuse MY disagreements with HH with whatever reasons he was banned for.
I stay around because Brian is the guy in the film with Marilyn - and I got the missing frames. :eek:

I can see that it can be irritating to go round and round in circles with someone.

That would be first hand experience, right? You're one of the reasons I have no time for A&S. T&A maybe, but not A&S.

We do. And in P&R, we're all liberals. That's why conservatives get banned there. It's never their actions, we just don't like them. :rolleyes:

You know I have to cite this post in P&R now, but no worries, if the conservatives make a stink about it, you'll have an excuse to BAN 'EM DANNO!

Once I bought a Take A Look mirror, I started understanding a lot more about motorist behavior, and a lot what I learned jibed with Helmet Head's observations.

Heh, I remember when HH was opposed to mirrors...hmm, wonder who made him change his mind?

And dang proud of it too! Thank you. ;)

So am I on the list with you...or a totally other list of my own?
More importantly, does being on any list mean I get pie?

I stay around because Brian is the guy in the film with Marilyn - and I got the missing frames. :eek:

Flattery. But I'm not quite that old.

So am I on the list with you...or a totally other list of my own?
More importantly, does being on any list mean I get pie?

You are on a list of your own. ;)

Looking at that face, I'm guessing he don't get much pie.

Flattery. But I'm not quite that old.

You want flattery, go to Tom's P&R thread where they posted a pic of the Undertaker as their perception of you! :lol:

Now, on the lighter side, a song...

"Miss you" by the Rolling Stones

I've been hanging 'round so long
They keep tellin' you you're wrong
Serge I miss you
I've been readin' all your posts
It looks like you have the most
Seems few will kiss you

Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh

A & S still looks the same
Bec probably still can't spell your name
Helmie we miss you
Your words have been called a wall
Thanks to VC you don't fall
Then PM rings...

It's just some friends of ours that say,
"Hey, what's the matter Head?
We're gonna come around at twelve
With some VC bikin' girls that are just dyin' to meet you.
We're gonna bring Donna and Brian
Hey, let's have fun and ride around
You know, like we used to."

Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah

Ooohhh, Why is Helmet's ban so long
Ohhh, Why'd they make it so darn long
Won't you come on! Come on!

:roflmao:

And so Ratliff spoke. And so it was done.

Please stop with the condescension.

Once I bought a Take A Look mirror, I started understanding a lot more about motorist behavior, and a lot what I learned jibed with Helmet Head's observations.

I wasn't paying enough attention to notice ad hominem attacks, preferring to focus on ideas that might keep me alive.

Hello, my name is Brian. I don't believe we've met. I've been here for a while now and most of these people know me. Haven't seen you around, but you talk at me like we've been previously acquainted. I know this is the internet, but this is also a community. Standard rules of common courteous apply here, as in real life.

I am happy you learned something here. Many of us, including HH and myself, noisebeam, chipcom, etc., are extremely experienced cyclists. I, myself, do not use a mirror; neither did John Forester until very recently as he's gotten older and less flexible. Many people here do use mirrors. Many people, if given an option of speaking without having their "position" being dissected by an argumentative man, would tell you that many of the things that HH said were perfectly good observations.

However, HH would pursue absolutist positions that left no room from alternative interpretation or alternative experiences. If your experience did not fit with his, or you came up with an alternative expanation to his theories that fit his observations, he'd start questioning your reading comprehension, cycling experience, intelligence, etc. Anything he could to simply make you go away. He would not so much argue against you but shout you down until you gave up. Then his viewpoint would stand in the face of an argumentative war of attrition.

I left for a while because it got extremely boring here. It got to the point where I could literally write the standard reply that HH would make to an argument of one sort or another. I mean, a newbie would say something about bike lanes. Then I could predict the rest of the 15 page thread. HH would respond this way, and depending on the time of day, a couple of his supporters would jump on the band wagon. Then one of his counterparts, say genec, would respond with a point and HH would jump on the response with a standard one pulled from his quiver. It was all quite predictable and was getting quite mean spirited.

So, Lot's Knife, if you want to read about HH's views, use the search function of the forums. A browsing of the "Bike Lanes" thread stickied to the top of the page gives a good overview of HH's views and some of the discussions as well. Not much has changed from that time on. If you want to talk to HH directly, like I said, he is a regular contributer (under the name "Serge") to the ChainGuard mailing list (google it and you can subscribe, it's a yahoo group). If you are really into the politics of vehicular cycling, I'd suggest joining that mailing list and contributing. It is full of like minded people and strong personalities, if you are into that sort of thing.

You want flattery, go to Tom's P&R thread where they posted a pic of the Undertaker as their perception of you! :lol:

What page is that on? They called me Goldberg when I shaved my head.

What page is that on? They called me Goldberg when I shaved my head.

Hey, I called you the Pope! I wonder if the Pope smokes cigars?

East Hill

So am I on the list with you...or a totally other list of my own?
More importantly, does being on any list mean I get pie?

You are on your own list. Please note that I don't remember anyone even attempting a 'chipcom' character in Tom's thread.

Mostly because I think people figure your avatar is enough.

No pie.

East Hill

Probably if he only posted a little less this never would have happened. I still hope somehow he's allowed back.

Now, on the lighter side, a song...

"Miss you" by the Rolling Stones

I've been hanging 'round so long
They keep tellin' you you're wrong
Serge I miss you
I've been readin' all your posts
It looks like you have the most
Seems few will kiss you

Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh

A & S still looks the same
Bec probably still can't spell your name
Helmie we miss you
Your words have been called a wall
Thanks to VC you don't fall
Then PM rings...

It's just some friends of ours that say,
"Hey, what's the matter Head?
We're gonna come around at twelve
With some VC bikin' girls that are just dyin' to meet you.
We're gonna bring Donna and Brian
Hey, let's have fun and ride around
You know, like we used to."

Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah

Ooohhh, Why is Helmet's ban so long
Ohhh, Why'd they make it so darn long
Won't you come on! Come on!



^^^^^^^^ this.

"Miss you" by the Rolling Stones

I've been hanging 'round so long
They keep tellin' you you're wrong
Serge I miss you
I've been readin' all your posts
It looks like you have the most
Seems few will kiss you

Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh

A & S still looks the same
Bec probably still can't spell your name
Helmie we miss you
Your words have been called a wall
Thanks to VC you don't fall
Then PM rings...

It's just some friends of ours that say,
"Hey, what's the matter Head?
We're gonna come around at twelve
With some VC bikin' girls that are just dyin' to meet you.
We're gonna bring Donna and Brian
Hey, let's have fun and ride around
You know, like we used to."

Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah aaah
Aaah aaah aaah aaah

Ooohhh, Why is Helmet's ban so long
Ohhh, Why'd they make it so darn long
Won't you come on! Come on!

Now this is entertainment. :lol:

What page is that on? They called me Goldberg when I shaved my head.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6558572&postcount=114

Oh, that was when I called you out for trolling with your circular arguments.

What a rich fantasy life you lead.

Imagine that. Must still sting a bit, hey?

Yes, I find death wishes particularly nauseating especially when it's in the context of the discussion of safety and you're busy standing on the coffin of another forum member in order to stand above the crowd. You've never expressed the slightest remorse for what comes close to hate speech, so the probability that you really mean it as opposed to just trolling is high.

And I'm so sorry that I didn't recall that post from 4 months ago. I'm usually good with dates. For instance, my friend Rodney died only a few days after that post, and my dad died a month later. So at this point, it's rather inconsequential to me. Seems like a scar to you.

Yes, your expressed desire to see other forum members dead is completely excused by the fact that you had some personal tragedy in your life. You, and you uniquely alone are a sensitive feeling, human being and anything you do can be excused.

Your particular behavior on this, and I'm sure other incidents, is an example of how NOT to conduct oneself. To see you waffling on about other people's behavior while you shame yourself in this way is the primary reason why I'm leaving this forum. You, not HH, not even Bek are the reason that I couldn't be arsed spending more time here.

Your the second person to confuse MY disagreements with HH with whatever reasons he was banned for.
I stay around because Brian is the guy in the film with Marilyn - and I got the missing frames. :eek:

Dude! Check out the -->:D<-- in my post.

Not confusing anything.

-D

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6558572&postcount=114
Brian looks good in black. ;) Somehow I pictured him differently ... with sunglasses, sawed off shotgun or something. :p

Dude! Check out the -->:D<-- in my post.

Not confusing anything.

-D

I thought you were showing off your pearly whites to rub it in that my teeth are green...both of them!

You, not HH, not even Bek are the reason that I couldn't be arsed spending more time here.

Sounds like a win for The Man.

Brian looks good in black. ;) Somehow I pictured him differently ... with sunglasses, sawed off shotgun or something. :p

I'm more into textiles than leather.