Should FLYER be reinstated

TiMan said:

I vote yes :o

Doesn't this belong in the doping forum?

Oooops sorry auto response when I see flyer and Tin man in the road racing forum. 😄

wilmar13 said:

Doesn't this belong in the doping forum?

Oooops sorry auto response when I see flyer and Tin man in the road racing forum. 😄

Actually, it looks to me like there are two identical threads. I just left one and then found this one.

Reinstated?

Was he banned for doping on the internet?

TrekDedicated said:

Reinstated?

Was he banned for doping on the internet?

Yeah he tested positive! 😄

IMO, while he can be annoying by posting the same thing over and over and over, he is totally innocuous, and if you don't like reading his posts, add him to your ignore list. Banning should be reserved for spammers, and those that needlessly harass members or disrupt the continuity of the forum. All of flyers posts have been civil so I think the ignore option is better... of course perhaps he did something else to warrant banning, but historically he has been annoying at times (haven't we all) but harmless.

wilmar13 said:

Yeah he tested positive! 😄

IMO, while he can be annoying by posting the same thing over and over and over, he is totally innocuous, and if you don't like reading his posts, add him to your ignore list. Banning should be reserved for spammers, and those that needlessly harass members or disrupt the continuity of the forum. All of flyers posts have been civil so I think the ignore option is better... of course perhaps he did something else to warrant banning, but historically he has been annoying at times (haven't we all) but harmless.

I agree, besides with all this free time on his hands (assuming Flyer is a he) he is probably doing a "Cliff Clavin" at his local bike shop, "Hey Sammy, did I ever tell you the time Lance Armstrong and me were drug tested ? " 😄

LW

wilmar13 said:

IMO, while he can be annoying by posting the same thing over and over and over, he is totally innocuous, and if you don't like reading his posts, add him to your ignore list. Banning should be reserved for spammers, and those that needlessly harass members or disrupt the continuity of the forum. All of flyers posts have been civil so I think the ignore option is better... of course perhaps he did something else to warrant banning, but historically he has been annoying at times (haven't we all) but harmless.

Here, here! Since adding him to my ignore list, I've found him much easier to tolerate. 😄

If he's chosen this forum as a way to vent his frustrations, then that's better than many other alternatives. I say keep him here, where he's harmless.

Actually, I have the straight story, from a most reliable source - my imagination.

Flyer tested positive for BS!

Yes, it's true. I know all of you are shocked, or just can't believe it because he was such a nice person and his dog died, but a random dung test came up brown, and well, that's that.

Still, I'd prefer to let bygones be bygones, forgive, and let him back in. Online forums are the foundation of free speech and democracy. If we are going to pick and choose who we allow to speak, then we are no better than Flyer's worst predictions.

wilmar13 said:

Yeah he tested positive! 😄

IMO, while he can be annoying by posting the same thing over and over and over, he is totally innocuous, and if you don't like reading his posts, add him to your ignore list. Banning should be reserved for spammers, and those that needlessly harass members or disrupt the continuity of the forum. All of flyers posts have been civil so I think the ignore option is better... of course perhaps he did something else to warrant banning, but historically he has been annoying at times (haven't we all) but harmless.

I have to respectfully disagree. Certainly not all of Flyer's posts were civil. If you agreed with him or offered a somewhat neutral position then he was civil. If you disagreed then he would unleash a verbal attack which offered nothing close to a civil tone.

Beastt said:

I have to respectfully disagree. Certainly not all of Flyer's posts were civil.

You dare to disagree with me?? OK who votes to ban Beastt? 😄

Nah in all seriousness, I guess when I said he was civil that didn't mean he didn't insult people and the other things your were referring to... more that he didn't say things like "I will find out who you are and kill you", or really below the belt kind of things that I have seen other posters say to him. I won't lose sleep either way as I personally found him to be pretty one-dimensional, but I agree with John-O, I never saw him do anything that would warrant taking away his right to free speech or your right to disagree with him.

TiMan said:

I vote yes :o

How do you guys know he was banned???? And does anyone know for what exact reason??? I vote to let him back in ...... I didn't care for his methods of presenting his arguments but he didn't seem to be nothing but a harmless "chicken little' type. And if he would have used a different approach some of the stuff he brought up might have more truth in it then we want to admit.......
Maybe the administrator will let us know why he was banned .....

wilmar13 said:

You dare to disagree with me?? OK who votes to ban Beastt? 😄

Nah in all seriousness, I guess when I said he was civil that didn't mean he didn't insult people and the other things your were referring to... more that he didn't say things like "I will find out who you are and kill you", or really below the belt kind of things that I have seen other posters say to him. I won't lose sleep either way as I personally found him to be pretty one-dimensional, but I agree with John-O, I never saw him do anything that would warrant taking away his right to free speech or your right to disagree with him.

Not to spread hearsay, but since it's posted elsewhere on the forum and can be credited to the original poster, one member here stated that they received some threatening PMs from him. Again, I haven't seen these and I don't know the exact nature of the threats, if indeed he made threats. But I would say that if he did, that's well over the line and cause for a ban.

I guess will never know...........

Beastt said:

Not to spread hearsay, but since it's posted elsewhere on the forum and can be credited to the original poster, one member here stated that they received some threatening PMs from him. Again, I haven't seen these and I don't know the exact nature of the threats, if indeed he made threats. But I would say that if he did, that's well over the line and cause for a ban.