Will Audax as we know it recover from this?

[Geriatricdolan]

If you don't like it you could always leave and come back again.

That would be the fourth time... can't stay away too long from this place... 

[Hot Flatus]

I can't remember why you left the last time, but I used to enjoy your posts about wheel building.

[Geriatricdolan]

I can't remember why you left the last time, but I used to enjoy your posts about wheel building.

Bullying... just like the previous time.

Fora have ups and downs, for instance Bike Radar used to be littered with trolls and bullies, now it seems to be a lot better and you can have a discussion of several pages before someone steps in to question your credentials or to discredit anything you say, just because... sometimes it doesn't even happen at all.

Over here, there appears to be a stronghold of undeterred internet warriors who make undermining others into their daily mission, you are one of them, not the worst one, I have to say. It could be because moderation is inexistent and if you complain about said individuals you don't even get an answer... hence you leave...
Then you realise it's the only forum where Audax is even a thing, so you come back... but then it doesn't take long before you regret it... and leave again
It's a vicious circle, eventually I will break it for good.

[Hot Flatus]

OT response to GD's post

(click to show/hide)

In other words you feel that other posters should unconditionally accept what you say. You don't like it when your views are challenged and you don't feel that you should have to provide evidence to back up your assertions. I didn't question your credentials.  How could I when you hadn't provided any, and you avoided the opportunity so to do?

Earlier you stated that virions up somebody's nose that had failed to enter the hosts cells were sufficient to both infect another person and trigger a covid test. Chris, a medical consultant, certainly refuted the last of these assertions. Can you not see why I asked you for your medical credentials and why?  You could just be bullshitting for all I know. I told you that I am a layman, which means that you can take my viriological assertions with a massive dose of scepticism because they will be purely my interpretation of what I have read elsewhere, I am highly likely to be wrong,  and I am willing to be contradicted  by others who hold some expertise in the subject. I'm trying to work out if that includes you but for some bizarre reason you won't tell me and you are casting this as bullying. It isn't.

Maybe you are referring to Jaded's post where you you had complained that the thread had gone off topic because somebody had brought up vaccination, and Jaded pointed out that this person was you. This isn't bullying.

Audax threads have a tendancy to get very hot-headed, which is why I generally avoid them. It is possibly to do with the nature of the people who post in them because sometimes they are fixated on their own point of view and unable move beyond it. For something as unimportant and inconsequential as audax, it is strange that these are the topics that generate the most ire. 

There really is nothing more that I can say about this.

[Geriatricdolan]

OT response to GD's post

(click to show/hide)

In other words you feel that other posters should unconditionally accept what you say. You don't like it when your views are challenged and you don't feel that you should have to provide evidence to back up your assertions. I didn't question your credentials.  How could I when you hadn't provided any, and you avoided the opportunity so to do.

Earlier you stated that virions up somebody's nose that had failed to enter the hosts cells were sufficient to both infect another person and trigger a covid test. Chris, a medical consultant, certainly refuted the last of these assertions. Can you not see why I asked you for your medical credentials and why?  You could just be bullshitting for all I know. I told you that I am a layman, which means that you can take my viriological assertions with a massive dose of scepticism and I am willing to be contradicted  by others who hold some expertise in the subject. I'm trying to work out if that includes you but for some bizarre reason you won't tell me and you are casting this as bullying. It isn't.

It is...
When you question someone's posts validity based on whether they are in a position to be believed or not, then it is bullying, I'm afraid.
The reason most of us use a nickname of some sort is because we don't want to disclose who we are with the rest of the world... there are plenty of reasons for that. I don't know who you are, other than you wear a pink YACF jersey, and frankly I don't care who you are. If I did, I would ask you privately.
The consequence is that you have to accept that you are talking about viruses with someone who could be an epidemiologist or a carpenter or anything in between and that's the way fora work.
Whether I have an association with the NHS or not is immaterial. As a matter of fact, I have spent most of my life in science, but never had to deal with viruses... where do I stand in your scale? Probably somewhere in between a doctor and a builder? Would that validate my reasoning or would that mean it's worthless? Or maybe somewhere in between... does it matter? It's a place for conversation and discussion, it's not a place to create knowledge.

This is no place to discuss our role in society... unless someone decides that they are quite happy for everybody to know their role...

[John Stonebridge]

One thing Ive learned over the years about YACF is that, as in life, on any given subject there are

(i) a surprisingly large number of people who think they know more about something than they really do and
(ii) at least one other person who actually does knows significantly more. 

The trick is to know which one you are on any given subject. 

If you are mostly a (i) then its possible you might feel systematically bullied on here as online tolerance levels for folk havering is likely to be lower than in other aspects of life eg work (*), bike rides, being a guest or host in somebody's home, the local cafe etc etc.   

Rather than pretend I know anything on useful stuff like Covid or IT or suchlike I embrace the tremendously positive feeling knowing that the subjects on which I can be considered expert are extremely limited and largely useless.  Edinburgh bus routes, the best way to cycle to Aberdeen, Scottish audaxes since 1982 and bakeries of east Central Scotland Im your man.  Anything else, I'll likely to be talking mince (not that it wil stop me, its not like posting on YACF = giving evidence under oath).           
   
(*) based on my white collar big company Head Office existence.  I hope that in other workplaces its more normal and acceptable to tell somebody straight that they are talking shite.

[Geriatricdolan]

One thing Ive learned over the years about YACF is that, as in life, on any given subject there are

(i) a surprisingly large number of people who think they know more about something than they really do and
(ii) at least one other person who actually does knows significantly more. 

The trick is to know which one you are on any given subject. 

No, the trick is to know that these are places where people come to kill some time, because if they wanted to be informed about virus transmission, they would go elsewhere.

[salar55]

Tell us about your white collar job🤭

[Hot Flatus]

OT response to GD's post

(click to show/hide)

In other words you feel that other posters should unconditionally accept what you say. You don't like it when your views are challenged and you don't feel that you should have to provide evidence to back up your assertions. I didn't question your credentials.  How could I when you hadn't provided any, and you avoided the opportunity so to do.

Earlier you stated that virions up somebody's nose that had failed to enter the hosts cells were sufficient to both infect another person and trigger a covid test. Chris, a medical consultant, certainly refuted the last of these assertions. Can you not see why I asked you for your medical credentials and why?  You could just be bullshitting for all I know. I told you that I am a layman, which means that you can take my viriological assertions with a massive dose of scepticism and I am willing to be contradicted  by others who hold some expertise in the subject. I'm trying to work out if that includes you but for some bizarre reason you won't tell me and you are casting this as bullying. It isn't.

It is...
When you question someone's posts validity based on whether they are in a position to be believed or not, then it is bullying, I'm afraid.
The reason most of us use a nickname of some sort is because we don't want to disclose who we are with the rest of the world... there are plenty of reasons for that. I don't know who you are, other than you wear a pink YACF jersey, and frankly I don't care who you are. If I did, I would ask you privately.
The consequence is that you have to accept that you are talking about viruses with someone who could be an epidemiologist or a carpenter or anything in between and that's the way fora work.
Whether I have an association with the NHS or not is immaterial. As a matter of fact, I have spent most of my life in science, but never had to deal with viruses... where do I stand in your scale? Probably somewhere in between a doctor and a builder? Would that validate my reasoning or would that mean it's worthless? Or maybe somewhere in between... does it matter? It's a place for conversation and discussion, it's not a place to create knowledge.

This is no place to discuss our role in society... unless someone decides that they are quite happy for everybody to know their role...

Sorry: you posted whilst I was editing the post you quoted so there are a few further points in there.

I agree with your points about prefering anonmymity. I do, because I don't want to attract spamming and trolling to the forum from the kids I teach, anymore than I want them to know more about my personal life than I choose to tell them. Plus I say rude things sometimes.

I think John Stonebridge has expressed the point about expertise succintly. If I start spaffing off about IT people will know to give little weight to my words because I literally don't know what the fuck I am talking about. Concomitantly, that poses a problem for me assessing the IT knowledge of others. See the problem?  They might sound authoratitive...but they could be bullshitting and I wouldn't be able to tell because of the paucity of my knowledge. So I am reliant on them either giving some sort of evidence of to back up their assertions, whether it be citations of credentials or other qualified people either agreeing with them or contradicting them. 

[Geriatricdolan]

I think John Stonebridge has expressed the point about expertise succintly. If I start spaffing off about IT people will know to give little weight to my words because I literally don't know what the fuck I am talking about. Concomitantly, that poses a problem for me assessing the IT knowledge of others. See the problem?  They might sound authoratitive...but they could be bullshitting and I wouldn't be able to tell because of the paucity of my knowledge. So I am reliant on them either giving some sort of evidence of to back up their assertions, whether it be citations of credentials or other qualified people either agreeing with them or contradicting them.

But it shouldn't matter, because this is Yet Another Cycling Forum and not Yet Another Epidemiology Forum. So I would expect to come here and get informed about cycling related issues, not viruses. If the conversation moves to viruses and vaccines, I don't expect this to be "the place" where all will be revealed. That is the mistake that people often make... talking about stuff which is completely irrelevant to the forum and pretending this to be a panel of experts.

I would be mildy annoyed to be given the wrong information about a particular Audax event on here, but equally I would only blame myself if I was to believe anything that is said here on Climate Change or... epidemiology.
This kind of behaviour is where all the fake news stem from... the solution is not to bully out those you think are not knowledgeable, but to stop relying on a cycling forum for anything that is not cycling related...

That would cut the crap quite considerably

[Hot Flatus]

Here's the thing...  some epidemiologists are also cyclists.

You'll hate this, but a lot of shite is also talked here about cycling.

Where does that leave the value of this forum?  You seem to be saying it has none, or little outside of audax. Most people here would disagree, because epidemiologists cycle too.

[jimmea]

One thing Ive learned over the years about YACF is that, as in life, on any given subject there are

(i) a surprisingly large number of people who think they know more about something than they really do and
(ii) at least one other person who actually does knows significantly more. 

The trick is to know which one you are on any given subject. 

If you are mostly a (i) then its possible you might feel systematically bullied on here as online tolerance levels for folk havering is likely to be lower than in other aspects of life eg work (*), bike rides, being a guest or host in somebody's home, the local cafe etc etc.   

Rather than pretend I know anything on useful stuff like Covid or IT or suchlike I embrace the tremendously positive feeling knowing that the subjects on which I can be considered expert are extremely limited and largely useless.  Edinburgh bus routes, the best way to cycle to Aberdeen, Scottish audaxes since 1982 and bakeries of east Central Scotland Im your man.  Anything else, I'll likely to be talking mince (not that it wil stop me, its not like posting on YACF = giving evidence under oath).           
   
(*) based on my white collar big company Head Office existence.  I hope that in other workplaces its more normal and acceptable to tell somebody straight that they are talking shite. 
 




 

 

And also calling them a bawbag

[Geriatricdolan]

Here's the thing...  some epidemiologists are also cyclists.

You'll hate this, but a lot of shite is also talked here about cycling.

Where does that leave the value of this forum?

And that's great... I am sure there is an epidemiology forum somewhere, where people can have a go at each other on the R0 value of Ebola and whether a vaccine will cut infection rates enough to get the Rt < 1.

The point of opening this thread was to hear about people's opinions of how Audax might change... that involves talking about the possible evolutions of the disease, but really this should not be a controversial subject, as it's asking for opinions not facts

Opinions, not knowledge,  just fucking opinions!

There is not a lot of value in this forum to be honest... unless you read Brucey comments, which are always on point...

[Hot Flatus]

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with your last point, but I'm not going to get sucked down into that tedious rabbit hole. Also disagree with you about knowledge vs opinion on this forum. An opinion without knowledge has little value.  Maybe that is where you are going wrong with your nihilistic view of this place.

[salar55]

A famous saying. When something becomes popular the party is over.
It used to be great looking at the weather on a Thursday night and saying i think that this Audax is on for me.
Turning up on the day and wondering if you have DNS card or just pay for the route sheet. When it changed to pre - book some of the magic was gone(knowing the route weeks before).

[Geriatricdolan]

An opinion without knowledge has little value.  Maybe that is where you are going wrong with your nihilistic view of this place.

But you can't filter it... it's pointless of you to ask for an ID that reassures that a comment is indeed coming from a valued source.
There is no practical way to double check, I could tell you any sort of bullshit. Then what happens is that you only trust the people you know and the place becomes a gathering of folks who know each other, trust each other and everybody else is out of the gang... reminiscing of the shared days on the road, when info controls were proper and brevet cards were the law!

oh, wait a minute... that's exactly what has happened on here! 

[John Stonebridge]

Tell us about your white collar job🤭

Naw. 

[Hot Flatus]

An opinion without knowledge has little value.  Maybe that is where you are going wrong with your nihilistic view of this place.

But you can't filter it... it's pointless of you to ask for an ID that reassures that a comment is indeed coming from a valued source.
There is no practical way to double check, I could tell you any sort of bullshit.

The only ID I asked for was if you had a background that included likely expertise in this topic, and I would have accepted it in good faith.Other people asked for citations. Maybe you could have cited the epidemiological forum to which you refer. I didn't want your name, who you work for, or anything else because that is private unless you choose to reveal it. I was trying to assess the value of your statement against that of Chris's. Chris could be bullshitting about his entire professional career, yes, but given his investment into the community of yacf I think that is highly unlikely. I guess this is the crux of it. You don't see any value in yacf as anything. Others do and act accordingly.

[John Stonebridge]

........
 I hope that in other workplaces its more normal and acceptable to tell somebody straight that they are talking shite.   

And also calling them a bawbag

[salar55]

Thought that. 😂

[Geriatricdolan]

An opinion without knowledge has little value.  Maybe that is where you are going wrong with your nihilistic view of this place.

But you can't filter it... it's pointless of you to ask for an ID that reassures that a comment is indeed coming from a valued source.
There is no practical way to double check, I could tell you any sort of bullshit.

The only ID I asked for was if you had a background that included likely expertise in this topic, and I would have accepted it in good faith.Other people asked for citations. Maybe you could have cited the epidemiological forum to which you refer. I didn't want your name, who you work for, or anything else because that is private unless you choose to reveal it. I was trying to assess the value of your statement against that of Chris's. Chris could be bullshitting about his entire professional career, yes, but given his investment into the community of yacf I think that is highly unlikely. I guess this is the crux of it. You don't see any value in yacf as anything. Others do and act accordingly.

Having read Chris comment... I struggle to see this big contradiction you point at, to be honest. When I said " the virus sits in your nose and throat" I never meant that it's there dorment and ready to be ejected... I meant it's not progressing any further, which is the same thing he said, admittedly better.
To which extent it replicates in situ is a matter for experts in the field, I assume it will to some extent... the life of a virus is replicate or die... maybe the extent to which it replicates before being wiped out determines how infective you are going to be... it seems reasonable, but again, it's a matter for experts in the field, and probably not even settled among them. It would seem unreasonable to digress this stuff on here!

Basically I don't think we should go any further than quoting stuff from the mainstream media on here, because it's not the place to have this type of conversation.

As I said, I have an extensive background in science and whilst I don't have any specific knowledge, I think I have a grasp of how things work, but I am not interested in proving anything.

[Ben T]

I don't think anyone who "is a medical [or any other] professional", or says they are, should have their opinion given any more weight on a largely anonymous internet forum than anybody else.
The forum, like any, doesn't have a recognized authentication method, so as a reader, I have no way of telling whether any given poster actually is a medical professional or simply claims to be a medical professional, and neither should I need/want one.

It's a bit like saying wikipedia should only be edited by "scholars". Maybe, but that massively restricts the pool of contributors. If you say some opinions should be given more weight on a forum and therefore that should override all others are those from "appropriate professionals" then you essentially stifle the discussion.

[Hot Flatus]

This isn't wiki. This is a community of people interacting over what is now 16 years. Many of whom have met, are friends, some have married or formed partnerships. It is absolutely fine for GD not to invest anything in the forum at all, but he has to accept that many others do. He wants to be a transient member, fine. He places no value at all in the forum, fine. At least I can weigh up his contribution with that in mind. I don't mean that as a snarky comment or an insult to him, just that it is likely that I won't view him as a poster in whom I place value in the way that I do in some others.  Maybe I'm not understanding him but he seems to be wanting to be an outsider, and then complaining that he is an outsider.

[FifeingEejit]

........
 I hope that in other workplaces its more normal and acceptable to tell somebody straight that they are talking shite.   

And also calling them a bawbag

It's not, but I do it anyway...

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Geriatricdolan]

I don't think anyone who "is a medical [or any other] professional", or says they are, should have their opinion given any more weight on a largely anonymous internet forum than anybody else.
The forum, like any, doesn't have a recognized authentication method, so as a reader, I have no way of telling whether any given poster actually is a medical professional or simply claims to be a medical professional, and neither should I need/want one.

It's a bit like saying wikipedia should only be edited by "scholars". Maybe, but that massively restricts the pool of contributors. If you say some opinions should be given more weight on a forum and therefore that should override all others are those from "appropriate professionals" then you essentially stifle the discussion.

yes, yes, yes... that's exactly it!