How do we improve the quality of debate on this site?

[Gentleman Cyclist]

I imagine that eight pages of debate might just suggest that there is at least some debate....be it acceptable or unacceptable. I detect a certain momentum behind the mob......but I must admit it has proved an entertaining distraction.......I can hardly wait to meet some of you in the flesh......do you think they do a kevlar tweed ensemble?

 

[Ravenbait]

Colour. The world and this forum needs and uses colour.

I consider it sad that we do not appear to welcome those operating outside the self-imposed norms of CC. GC was not impolite, he was not blasphemous, he was not disrespectful. Some may not have liked his approach or style, but not liking should not mean downright hostility and mocking.

I sincerely hope CC is not becoming the organ of an intolerant minority.

Yes he was!

He posted a long essay in which he declared that expletives and three-word responses were not worthy of the cycling fraternity. He also claimed that the members of this forum were all weight-weenies who despised him for riding a Pashley when nobody said a word about his choice of bicycle.

I'm not entirely sure how you classify that as not being disrespectful. Personally I find coming onto an established forum and telling people to clean up their act because they are not worthy to be pretty disrespectful.

Sam

 

[TheDoctor]

Wot she said^^
We have enough self-esteem issues as it is...

 

[Gerry Attrick]

None so blind as won't see, none so deaf as won't hear.

 

[Arch]

Colour. The world and this forum needs and uses colour.

I consider it sad that we do not appear to welcome those operating outside the self-imposed norms of CC. GC was not impolite, he was not blasphemous, he was not disrespectful. Some may not have liked his approach or style, but not liking should not mean downright hostility and mocking.

I sincerely hope CC is not becoming the organ of an intolerant minority.

I think he was impolite. He barged in and made unfounded and wrong assumptions about what people on the forum thought.

 

[Ravenbait]

None so blind as won't see, none so deaf as won't hear.

Would you care to clarify?

I'm pretty certain I'm more blind in the right eye (what with not having one) than I am in the left.

Do you agree with GC that we're all lycra-fetishists who refuse to so much as share time of day with anyone who doesn't ride something made of carbon fibre and it's all some misplaced worry that he might actually beat us up a hill?

To get completely childish for a moment [1], he started it!


Sam
[1] As Tom Baker once said "What's the use being an adult if you can't be childish sometimes?"

 

[Gerry Attrick]

How is it that some are so thin-skinned? Given the sparky battles on P&L and indeed other sections of the forum, I am surprised anyone is still here.

 

[Ravenbait]

How is it that some are so thin-skinned? Given the sparky battles on P&L and indeed other sections of the forum, I am surprised anyone is still here.

We're not thin-skinned.

We're argumentative

.

Sam

 

[Gerry Attrick]

Would you care to clarify?

I'm pretty certain I'm more blind in the right eye (what with not having one) than I am in the left.


Sam

I don't know you, have never met you so I was unaware of your condition, so please don't lay that on me.

My post merely attempted to illustrate the way some posters responded to GC. In my opinion, he has made some valid observations which some posters clearly don't want to recognise.

 

[Gerry Attrick]

We're not thin-skinned.

We're argumentative

.

Sam

Great.....I welcome healthy argument. Unfortunately I regard some of the "argument" concerning GC as unhealthy. That is destructive. I think that a sure way to repel new members.

 

[Gerry Attrick]

Would you care to clarify?

I'm pretty certain I'm more blind in the right eye (what with not having one) than I am in the left.

Do you agree with GC that we're all lycra-fetishists who refuse to so much as share time of day with anyone who doesn't ride something made of carbon fibre and it's all some misplaced worry that he might actually beat us up a hill?

To get completely childish for a moment [1], he started it!


Sam
[1] As Tom Baker once said "What's the use being an adult if you can't be childish sometimes?"

Ah you've edited your post.

I must be a lycra fetishist too then! Ask Arch, she has seen me in my, er glory.

 

[Ravenbait]

I don't know you, have never met you so I was unaware of your condition, so please don't lay that on me.

It's not a condition. It's a missing eye. It gives me the added skill of "awesome party tricks" and "my prosthetic right eye is cooler than your real one".

My point was that the aphorism you chose to pin to the end of the thread is, when considered logically, a stupid thing to say.

My post merely attempted to illustrate the way some posters responded to GC. In my opinion, he has made some valid observations which some posters clearly don't want to recognise.

Which points?

Maybe he did make some valid points. For me they were lost in pages of weird sentence structure and plenty of other points that were totally invalid. I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who would claim CC is full of weight-weenies who look down upon Pashleys:

They may well think I look an utter fool on my Pashley...that my choice of clothes to cycle in is ludicrous......and that in not giving the impression of attempting to burst a blood vessel at every turn of the pedal, I show my lack of dedication to “real cycling”.

Nobody came anywhere close to making any such claim. It's utter nonsense.

What is so striking to me, is that I hold the view that were we to meet in reality, and if I were to beat them up a hill, there might be a grudging respect for who and what I am, and even what I ride

If he'd just spent some time getting a feel for the place and making friendly conversation, rather than assuming we were all out to get him, there probably wouldn't have been any need for a hill or anything grudging about it.

There seems to be an internet divide, in the UK at least, between those who consider themselves the cycling cognescenti in their brand emblazoned lycra, who ride for sport on expensive carbon fibre creations dreaming in their heads that they will be mistaken for “real cyclists” and those of us who eschew the tight fitting nylon, value reliable practicality, and glory in our limitations.

In a post talking about CycleChat? Seriously?


No, sorry. He could thrash me senseless up the Bealach Na Ba on his Pashley several times over and I would still think he's a muppet for claiming that on the basis of this mob here.


Sam

 

[Ravenbait]

Ah you've edited your post.

I must be a lycra fetishist too then! Ask Arch, she has seen me in my, er glory.

She's seen me in the nude!

Sam

 

[Gentleman Cyclist]

@GC, on the assumption that you are still reading this, I feel I might make an observation or two.

I just went and read a couple of your blog posts. You know what? I liked them. I enjoyed the flowery language; the wordplay; the imagery. I even enjoyed your pseudo-Victorian outlook.

I imagine that if you had occasionally started a thread such as "Hey chaps, I just wrote a spiffing blog post about how this lady totally flirted with me, hope it's not impertinent of me to post the link" people would probably have responded positively. What has got people's goat rather (and I'm not privy to all of the ins and outs of the case) is that you have pasted the entire ruddy thing and then got yourself worked up and argumentative when asked not to.

We all disagree here from time to time; sometimes you'll find yourself agreeing with someone on one thread, and vehemently arguing with them on another. That's good and healthy.

Spamming the board with your blog, when you could just as easily have posted the link, is not conducive to quality debate.

Thank you for the compliment and for your suggestions as to how I might approach the forum. You combined good grace with pointed criticism in a manner difficult to ignore. While I may not agree with you, your comment seized my attention.

 

[Arch]

She's seen me in the nude!

Sam

<sprays bits of cereal bar over keyboard>

So I have.... And reciprocated.

Your examples are good ones, and I think the apparent mismatch between GC's view of the foum and our reality is explained by what it was that got people's backs up to start with - posting, verbatim, or very lightly added to, his blog. When that stuff is on his blog, it's aimed at people who are anonymous. He can write that some people despise his Pashley and lack of lycra, because we all know that it's true - SOME people would (and they aren't people I'd like to hang out with). But not, by and large, CCers. By slapping his point down here, he made it false.

If he'd come on and posted "I say chaps, aren't some people crass, they look down on my lovely bike", he'd have had legions of supporters. But he came in accusing us of being narrow minded. Us! Cyclechat! I don't think you could fine a broader church of cyclists (and indeed, some who barely cycle at all, but like the atmosphere).