View Poll Results: Is it OK to discuss/speculate about crash causes in a cyclist death thread (see OP)?
Yes. It is appropriate and not disrespectful to have such discussions.
67
58.26%
No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash.
28
24.35%
Other (specify in post).
20
17.39%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll
Forum etiquette - cyclist death threads
06-14-07, 01:46 PM
#151
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLIZZ
The jack-ass poster wouldn't have life, much less grow into a 600 pound gorilla, if you wouldn't give it to him so freely.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.
I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.
I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.
I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.
I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.
06-14-07, 01:59 PM
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
it's a challenge, ladies and gentlemen!
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
06-14-07, 03:09 PM
#153
Dubito ergo sum.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,735
Bikes: Bessie.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLIZZ
The jack-ass poster wouldn't have life, much less grow into a 600 pound gorilla, if you wouldn't give it to him so freely.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.
I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.
I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.
If he was ignored, he would go away, or change his tactics.
I did not vote, as I don't vote in HH generated polls.
I have not been on A&S for a while, but I see it hasn't changed a bit......probably never will.
If it wasn't HH there would just be someone else frosting your nuggets.
Its part and parcel to forums like this, grow up and deal with it.
06-14-07, 03:35 PM
#154
Perineal Pressurized
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In Ebritated
Posts: 6,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The results of this poll seem to have been forgotten, so I'm bumping this thread/poll.
__________________
This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.
This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.
06-14-07, 03:40 PM
#155
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
HH, you confuse baseless speculation on "facts" you fabricated with commenting on safety when a cyclist dies. I don't think anybody here would object to genuine discussions of safety.
With perhaps one or two exceptions, EVERYBODY here objects to your insensitive, cyclist-blaming barrage of words based on your manufactured "facts."
With perhaps one or two exceptions, EVERYBODY here objects to your insensitive, cyclist-blaming barrage of words based on your manufactured "facts."
06-14-07, 03:43 PM
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Texas
Posts: 1,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
After reading all the ranting on this thread, I've come to at least one conclusion: Chocolate.
06-14-07, 03:45 PM
#157
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 336
Bikes: Scott CR1-Gary Fisher Sugar-Litespeed Ultimate
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by patc
Wow, you responded to a post from NINE months ago, and that's the best you could come up with?
But also sad how in NINE months all the hand wringing and name calling has changed nothing for the good.
That was my point.
It can't all be blamed on one person.
06-14-07, 08:06 PM
#158
Dubito ergo sum.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,735
Bikes: Bessie.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLIZZ
Yeah......pretty lame.... I know.
But also sad how in NINE months all the hand wringing and name calling has changed nothing for the good.
That was my point.
It can't all be blamed on one person.
But also sad how in NINE months all the hand wringing and name calling has changed nothing for the good.
That was my point.
It can't all be blamed on one person.
In a public forum, the "just ignore him" thing becomes pointless - even if only a handful of people do not ignore the problem poster, threads and conversations can be disrupted.
06-15-07, 10:02 AM
#159
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 41
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I can't honestly remember how I voted on this poll. I try to live my life believing in the general goodness, tact and decency of people, especially my friends in cycling communities, so I quite possibly could have voted with the "majority". I'm not quite sure it matters which way I voted -- the meaning behind the vote is what I care about.
I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for *****exuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.
HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.
While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for *****exuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?
Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?
I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you bastardize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.
If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.
I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for *****exuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.
HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.
While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for *****exuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?
Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?
I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you bastardize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.
If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.
06-15-07, 10:10 AM
#160
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MSPD
I can't honestly remember how I voted on this poll. I try to live my life believing in the general goodness, tact and decency of people, especially my friends in cycling communities, so I quite possibly could have voted with the "majority". I'm not quite sure it matters which way I voted -- the meaning behind the vote is what I care about.
I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for *****exuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.
HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.
While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for *****exuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?
Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?
I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you bastardize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.
If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.
I would like my vote to be understood clearly. Of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
Just as I feel that in America, it's perfectly acceptable to use events to discuss and speculate about our country's level of tolerance for *****exuality and the outcomes of our collective social norms.
HOWEVER, it is the MANNER in which the discussion is held, and the respectfulness of the conversation that matters.
While it is within the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to lift a photo of a dead soldier's face as an example of God's hatred of and punishment for America's tolerance for *****exuality, do we really want that manner of discussion ruling the way we conduct our lives?
Do we really want to reconsider our cycling philosophy and behavior based upon empty, baseless CONCLUSIONS made in "discussing and speculating" the perceived wrongdoing of a dead father, son, friend, and/or clubmate during that person's grieving period?
I say again, of course it is appropriate, in a cycling advocacy and safety forum, to discuss and speculate about the circumstances of an accident, near accident, unusual event or other event with potential learning value to help save the lives of others.
But when you begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you bastardize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people, or when "discussion and speculation" devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating, it becomes CLEARLY inappropriate.
If voting, "No. it is inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." is the only way of delivering that message to the original poster, then I would like to ensure that my vote, whatever it was, is changed to/confirmed as such.
Well said.
Obviously, the problem is differences of opinion about what constitutes crossing the line over into the area of "begin to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn, or you bastardize speculation and unconfirmed facts in a way that victimizes a whole new set of people". For example, I believe I don't cross that line, but others clearly believe that I do, challenge me accordingly, and the result of that debate is "'discussion and speculation' [that] devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating". Certainly I am at least partially responsible for that result, and I'll try to improve.
06-15-07, 11:25 AM
#161
Rider in the Storm
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 736
Bikes: LeMond Zurich, KHS Fiero (Fixed), Centurion Ironman Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kjmillig
After reading all the ranting on this thread, I've come to at least one conclusion: Chocolate.
)?
06-15-07, 11:39 AM
#162
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,946
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'd like to make an attempt to be an honest broker here, and offer a suggestion.
Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:
Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original poster, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.
My 2¢.
Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:
Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original poster, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.
My 2¢.
06-15-07, 11:46 AM
#163
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Laika
I'd like to make an attempt to be an honest broker here, and offer a suggestion.
Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:
Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original post, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.
My 2¢.
Clearly, there's a significant group who feel that post-incident tactical analysis is worthwhile. I'd like to suggest the following:
Unless the cycling techniques or tactics of the victim of a fatal collision are specifically mentioned in the initial post by the original post, if you have an interest in discussing that topic, post a separate thread in the VC subforum about it. Label it clearly, maybe with something like "TACTICAL ANALYSIS: Fatal Accident on MainStreet, Anytown, USA." And then limit your post in the original thread to an invitation with a link so that all interested parties can join that discussion if they so wish.
My 2¢.
I would add that if the original story clearly provides details, for example, "the cyclist was wearing dark clothing, riding against traffic, and had no lights", then it would be appropriate to comment on the obvious safety problems.
On the other hand, if the original story only says "cyclist was killed," it's inappropriate to launch into an analysis of what the cyclist did to cause the accident. It should be in a separate thread. And because these threads always devolve into Helmet Head's ridiculous analyses of speculation presented as "fact," the cyclist's name or other identifying details (date of accident, location of accident) should not be used.
06-15-07, 11:49 AM
#164
*****es love tarck
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 3,301
Bikes: so many
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
For example, I believe I don't cross that line, but others clearly believe that I do, challenge me accordingly, and the result of that debate is "'discussion and speculation' [that] devolves into proselytism and ceaseless browbeating". Certainly I am at least partially responsible for that result, and I'll try to improve.
Laika, I really like your suggestion. I will always be happy to move posts after the fact too, so if a discussion has begun in a thread and you'd like to see it in a thread of it's own, I can move the posts and add a link to the new thread.
__________________
06-15-07, 11:51 AM
#165
*****es love tarck
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sandy, UT
Posts: 3,301
Bikes: so many
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChezJfrey
Who's up for some cake (pie's been played out )?
)?
__________________
06-15-07, 12:18 PM
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
Good suggestion.
I would add that if the original story clearly provides details, for example, "the cyclist was wearing dark clothing, riding against traffic, and had no lights", then it would be appropriate to comment on the obvious safety problems.
On the other hand, if the original story only says "cyclist was killed," it's inappropriate to launch into an analysis of what the cyclist did to cause the accident. It should be in a separate thread. And because these threads always devolve into Helmet Head's ridiculous analyses of speculation presented as "fact," the cyclist's name or other identifying details (date of accident, location of accident) should not be used.
I would add that if the original story clearly provides details, for example, "the cyclist was wearing dark clothing, riding against traffic, and had no lights", then it would be appropriate to comment on the obvious safety problems.
On the other hand, if the original story only says "cyclist was killed," it's inappropriate to launch into an analysis of what the cyclist did to cause the accident. It should be in a separate thread. And because these threads always devolve into Helmet Head's ridiculous analyses of speculation presented as "fact," the cyclist's name or other identifying details (date of accident, location of accident) should not be used.
You know, just so we all know when "facts" are being invented to support the desired conclusion.
06-15-07, 12:33 PM
#167
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
Actually, upon thinking about it, I've changed my mind. Any tactical analysis thread must have a link to the original news story.
You know, just so we all know when "facts" are being invented to support the desired conclusion.
You know, just so we all know when "facts" are being invented to support the desired conclusion.
https://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/309954-tactical-analysis-thread-cycling-related-fatalities-serious-injury-incidents.html
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
06-15-07, 12:41 PM
#168
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
There is also a cyclist memorial thread now stickied here in this forum
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
03-05-08, 06:31 PM
#169
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Apparently, it's time to remind people again that a majority (67) of a large number of respondents (114) in this forum voted that it was appropriate to speculate about crash causes in threads about cyclist deaths. That was probably the most controversial thing I ever did in this forum with respect to what was considered "disruptive".
I'm raising this issue again because of this recent discussion:
show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.
For the record, I was never even warned by any mods about any of my allegedly disruptive behavior in A&S prior to the creation of the VC subforum. Here, by the way, is the disruption guideline:
None of my posts were intended "to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news." You and a few others may have considered my posts speculating about causes and promoting anti-crash habits and techniques accordingly in threads about cyclist deaths to be "completely off topic messages", but others disagreed (and pardon me for seeking to save the lives we still have with us). This question was so controversial we even had a poll about whether it was appropriate to post in that manner in such threads, and the majority (67 out of 114) agreed with me. Link. But those who disagreed caused enough of a ruckus when they didn't get their way that the mods decided to create a VC subforum.
This kind of personal attack and dredging up of the past is not only wrong and totally uncalled for, but in blatant violation of the guidelines, disruptive, disrespectful, insulting and not conducive to a pleasant place to discuss bicycling. Please stop. Enough already.
I'm raising this issue again because of this recent discussion:
I don't think of it is as war, to the contrary. The purpose of complying with rules is to induce peace, not war. The rules in this case are the forum guidelines, and if I slip, by all means report me.
But, for the sake of the moderators, and to comply with the guidelines (treating fellow members with respect), I would ask that you first try to resolve any issues directly with me (or whoever the poster is of whatever post you feel is out of compliance).
And, for the record, I did not ask simply to be told if someone thinks I'm diminishing the quality of this forum. What I wrote was:
if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.Specifically, please let me (not everyone, thus please use PM) know if I'm doing anything to diminish the quality of this forum, and, of course, what it is you think I'm doing. After trying that, if you're not satisfied, then, yes, please get the others and ultimately the mods (if forum guidelines are violated) involved.
But, for the sake of the moderators, and to comply with the guidelines (treating fellow members with respect), I would ask that you first try to resolve any issues directly with me (or whoever the poster is of whatever post you feel is out of compliance).
And, for the record, I did not ask simply to be told if someone thinks I'm diminishing the quality of this forum. What I wrote was:
if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.
Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news. Disruption can include harassment, multiple user profiles, multiple posting of the same post and posting completely off topic messages.
This kind of personal attack and dredging up of the past is not only wrong and totally uncalled for, but in blatant violation of the guidelines, disruptive, disrespectful, insulting and not conducive to a pleasant place to discuss bicycling. Please stop. Enough already.
03-05-08, 06:42 PM
#170
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Can't you even keep your drivel contained to the thread it stared in?
03-05-08, 07:36 PM
#171
Immoderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: POS Tennessee
Posts: 7,630
Bikes: Gary Fisher Simple City 8, Litespeed Obed
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
This thread was initially started because Serge used to spam threads about 12 year old cyclists being killed with posts about whether or not they should have been using new-and-improved Powerweave, and basically attempting to turn the thread into his own VC soapbox. Since Serge has no discernably human emotions it was always baffling for him when people would get upset.
Now he is resurrecting this thread in an attempt to "prove a point" made in another thread, quite possibly in another forum entirely. I would use the roll eyes emoticon, but it really would not convey how I feel about this.
Now he is resurrecting this thread in an attempt to "prove a point" made in another thread, quite possibly in another forum entirely. I would use the roll eyes emoticon, but it really would not convey how I feel about this.
03-05-08, 07:50 PM
#172
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not the first time he's done it either, nor probably the last.
03-05-08, 08:06 PM
#173
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 16,056
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 22 Times
in
17 Posts
Topic closed
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche
"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
