Sub55

BillyBlass

A qoute from Sub55 on the CC forum, the Beauce thread:

"Ed hangs out on "Cycling Forum" and has wonderful conversations with himself. Looks like he made up a couple of "responders" and they for some strange reason always agree with him. Go figure. It's pretty funny.

His typical rants generally elicit anywhere from zero to three responses - all from himself!"

To prove that I am not Ed Arzouian, I will register on CC. They can identify my IP address for verification.

Lets get something perfectly clear. I did not want to go on CC Forum due to the fact that the administrators were irresponsible in regards to protecting the posters from abuse from cowards. (They did now. I thank them. I also thank Ed). When Mr. Arzouian advertised this forum, I came here. This is a good setup. I have been involved in cycling almost as long as much as Eddie. I have very good friends that have dealt directly with Eddie. They have said that there is no one more passionate for the sport than Ed. By the way, "these friends" do not know each other, but say the same thing. Who am I to listen to: good friend who I endear, or you, a nobody. Hmmm. I have questions to ask that most are unwilling to answer. Ed answers them. A few good posters on other popular forums came on here and gave me great answers.

What about you? I looked at your summary of posts on CC. To say the least, rather pathetic. Time to ante up Sub55. Do not come on here to slag anyone considering your contribution to forums. You are speaking out your A-hole.

BillyBlass

Just to prove that I am not Ed, quote me on this:

BillyBlass: I have viewed PVDW commentary back in the good old days during the Canadian Tire sponsorship era on TV. I like the fact that he did not "spoon feed" the audience. I have met both Patrick (directly) and Ed (indirectly). I realize these two do not get along. But BOY do they get threads fired up. These two should be reviewing movies together. I am sick of the "two thumbs up" angle any ways. Maybe, "lets take this out into the parking lot you .....

So there you go. I will register. I plead no allegiance. I want to see road racing advance.

Van de Wille

The problem with this is twofold:

1) Ed does not respect the opinions of others - I (and you, presumably) can disagree with someone without branding them with epithets. Ed can't.

2) When Ed is unhappy, he threatens nuisance lawsuits, and has a history of carrying them out.

3) Ed has made posting his full-time job, to the extent that even someone like me, who works from home and bills 20-25 hours per week can't keep up.

I'm only posting this to you because we've met (apparently?!) and I want to make my stance clear. And I also dislike this whole thing being positioned as a me vs. Ed battle, because although Ed seems motivated to archive my stuff for eventual quoting, I simply can't be bothered with the reverse. If Ed could a) stop posting slander; b) stop attacking individuals; c) reduce his volume so that others have an opportunity to provide their opinions, I assume he'd be welcome anywhere as a poster. The same way that if he could stop imagining conspiracies, creating enemies and learn to work with others and respect their contributions, he'd probably be accepted as an employee in cycling somewhere. But he can't.

BillyBlass

I wanted to make sure that posters did not think I was Eddie because of Sub55's post. I should not have mentioned you on this thread. That was a mistake. I want to remain focused on cycling not on personal battles.

From what I read on the other forums, there is not much difference, that is, the abuse. What difference there is is that others hide behind the guest name and are always ready to derail a post or thread in a rather vile fashion. No thanks. This is on pedalmag and until recently, CC.


I want to read what Eddie has to write in regards to cycling. Is what he writes in regards to the state of cycling wrong? Looks right to me. I welcome other views. I go on CC and read how Jet Fuel or Symetrics sucks. Pathetic.



You have to admit, when you two get on a thread, the view stats jump. Yes sometimes things go overboard. Not much I can do about that. Someday Eddie and I may disagree, but probably not about cycling. Some other subject I guess. I will have to deal with him and with anyone else for that matter.

Eddie Arzouian

I think if you follow any thread I have participiated in on any forum you will find I never start the perosnal attacks, though indeed, I may finish them.


Often I will disagree with others without any type of personal attack at all. Often I will defer to others with more or better experience or knowledge (but frankly,m there are not many people around here with that). I have often deferred to Lister Farrar on matters of rider development especially youth development which I have not done nearly as much as Lister.

On other matters I will vehemently defend my point of view. As it happens I have about 33 years of experince at almost every level and every type of position there is in competitve cycling other than officiating. I have criss-crossed the continent and the ocean for cycling. I'm not about to be persuaded by somebody new to the sport who has never seen anything more than a local provincial level race unless they have a damn good argument.

Finally, people seem unable to differentiate between a professional criticism such a saying so and so is incompentent and personal attack which has nothig to do with this sport. There is a difference. If you can't see it, maybe you should look more closely.

Van de Wille

I too like to focus on cycling, but the reason I can't tolerate Ed is that his preferred method of defending his opinions is akin to the Michael Jackson defense: forget what people are actually saying, and tear down the witness. I'm happy to read what he has to say about cycling, even though I question its constructiveness. And he is not always wrong. However, nor is he never wrong, which is his basic stance.

I realize view stats jump, and that may matter to Ed but it's of no concern to me: I want to encourage reasoned and respectful discussion among people who enjoy cycling, not be an attraction in a freak show.

But relax and enjoy these forums: given that Ed doesn't have a personal hate for you, he will in all likelihood not threaten you with lawsuits, subpoenas to have your IP and whereabouts discovered, nasty personal messages, threatening e-mails, etc. Myself, I'm not so lucky, and you can see how it dampens the motivation to involve him in a discussion.

Cheerio. Where did we meet, by the way? Were you rider, organizer or watcher?

Eddie Arzouian

Patrick, you are being disingenuous.

First, How can you accuse me of forgetting what people have to say, you wanted me banned BECAUSE I REMEMBERED WHAT YOU SAID, I won't pull your quote again but you wanted me banned because I kept track of some of the more silly things you had written.

So how can you say I ignore what people say? If anything, it would appear I pay to close attention.

Why did I look at a lawsuit at youi? Because you spread outright lies about me for which you apologized. I accepted your apology and dropped all talk of any suit.

You are still spreading lies. Please post here any threatening email I may have sent to anybody? Demanding from Pedal the IP address of a person who was on record as harassing me simply for the sake of doing so is NOT threatening anybody.

So, again, stick to the facts. You know damn well I never threatened you. Don't try to say I did.

You are supposed to be a journalist. You should be more careful with what terms you use. You say "threatening emails". Show us one.

If I have ever stated one lie about you please let us know that. If it was intentional I will certainly apologize. If it was an honest mistake then point it out. I will apologize for that too.

You make these bogus claims with nothing to back them up.

Van de Wille

I'm not sure which meaning of "disingenuous" you're grasping, here. I can assure you my statement above is perfectly sincere.

I call a threat of lawsuit a threat. It certainly had the desired effect - destroying discussion. And while I don't keep an archive, some statements I remember qualify as misstatements at best. Certainly your assumption of what my motives might be for discussing cycling were off the mark. As were many of your statements regarding my experience level. Various other things, too, and I'm not alone in being targeted by you with incorrect statements. Like the others, when it came to defending myself or correcting your statements, all of which were made in bad faith anyway, I simply can't make forum-posting a part-time occupation, as you seem to have done.

And please don't give me any lessons about journalism. Perhaps if you were more willing to learn and less obsessed with forcing your opinions down everyone's throat, your own journalism career might have been more successful.

Anyway, I'm not interested in a discussion with you, because you draw them out to the point where there's no finish line. I just wanted BillyBlass to know the reasons why I grew tired of our idiotic little wrestling match: I don't think you fight fair, and I already have a full-time job and don't need a part-time one. Nor a harassment lawsuit.

BillyBlass

Boy did I mess up my last post. Back here to do some back-pedalling and damage control.
Sorry about the font guys. I did not have immediate access to my internet, so I cut&pasted from Word.

I read my post again after you two (E & P) responded. What I wrote was not necessarily what I was thinking. I was inaccurate.

Eddie, I should have written something like “if Ed banned from the other forums, then quite a few others should also be banned as well. THEIR abuse still continues, not with just expletives, but also with character assassinations”

I used the word “abuse” with a wide paint brush. That was wrong. It was not directed towards you.

In your post;

“Finally, people seem unable to differentiate between a professional criticism such a saying so and so is incompentent and personal attack which has nothig to do with this sport. There is a difference. If you can't see it, maybe you should look more closely."

Some people will take offence to this, but it was my sweeping statement that produced it. I am not offended and do not need to look further. I understand.

Patrick, I see how previous forum set-ups could instigate the problems you state. This is one reason I will avoid those set-ups to my best ability. I believe Eddie is far more reasonable here. I hope not to get involved with the baggage you two carry in regards to each other. So again, I apologize for referencing your name here.

Where we meet? I will test your memory. I was racing. Before a race start, both of us were protecting ourselves behind a van from a strong cold rainy wind. We talked about Marinoni and Cyclop bicycles. You termed them as “good meat and potato bikes”. You do not know my name by the way. But obviously I know you through TV.

Van de Wille

I believe Eddie is more reasonable here because he knows why he was banned from the Pedal and CC forums, both of which are run by fine people (though he won't admit it), and he is trying to prove that he's the reasonable one. There also is less traffic here, hence less opposition, and it's views that diverge from his own that he can't tolerate.

Hmmm. You won't give me a city, even? Cold, rainy start. No lack of those... Calgary? Maritimes? Gatineau? I remember Gatineau, Mike Klaus got a piece of rock in his eye, rode with it for something like 4 hours, I had to walk him to the medical van, blind as a bat... I know nothing about Cyclops bikes, but "meat & potato" seems like a good description of the steel Marinonis at the time, no, especially considering some of the questionable but fancy stuff on the market then (early Looks, Vitus, Kestrel, Softride, etc.).

Eddie Arzouian

Van de Wille

Like I said, I don't need a part-time job.

Eddie Arzouian

Looks like I called that one!

"Tell us what you have done other that watch and report, if I am off the mark. (Right about now, when pressed for specifics is when you can expect Van de Wille to say he has had enough of this and avoid answering the questions. Watch.)"

I've known Van de Wille a long time. Too long. He is like many guys you will see on TV, all style, no content.

The reason Van de Wille doesn't like me is that I know he's winging it most of the time. Public Relations is ideal for him, all hype and fluff, no real content.

He tells you I short-changed him in his cycling experience and knowledge but when asked to be specific, he offers a one-line and runs. Take note of that.

Van de Wille wrote, "Certainly your assumption of what my motives might be for discussing cycling were off the mark. As were many of your statements regarding my experience level. "

So what is your cycling experience Patrick, if I'm off the mark?

This is what Van de Wile wrote when he first got to Pedal Magazine, this is the truth."Whoa boy, I think it's silly to say I have better knowledge of cycling than Ed. My own list of racing accomplishments is very, very scarce (though I did win one of the two races I entered, riding Chris Firek's too-tall bike and dressed up in the Ultramar Bear suit for the celebrity race). My only claim is spectator- and journalist-side. Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:07 am


Just keep it in mind when Van De Wile delivers those pronouncements of his. They are not sermons from the mount they are quips from the peanut gallery.

Van de Wille

And I called it too. You see, Billy? A part-time job.

Ed's opinion is that only people who've filled all possible roles in the sport for a number of years are entitled to an opinion. He uses the same yardstick in evaluating potential candidates for CCA positions, and the result is the same: himself, and only himself.

The rest is just moronic pissing-contest stuff. Ed says that I overvalue my opinions. That assumption is rooted in the fact that he overvalues them himself, but he's simply unwilling to admit it. I don't make the same mistake: my opinions are not more valuable than those of others, nor are they less valuable.

I became a successful and respected cycling journalist and commentator, and a respected journalist and communications person generally - in other words, what Ed would dearly loved to have become, and what he still probably feels was owed to him. But I did it by observing, listening, and learning, which Ed is unable to do. So Ed now sits at his pooter and bangs off mean-spirited posts on the Media in Montreal chat group and the few cycling forums that will still have him. If that is rewarding to him, stokes his self-image as a rebel journalist, blogger extraordinaire, media watchdog/maverick, etc., more power to him. He is a maverick because the mainstream wouldn't have him, despite his massive efforts to belly up to the trough.

So, to sum up, I trained and raced, but not much and never mention it unless pressed by Ed. I also helped out friends at races, but not too much. The rest was just journalism and commentating, watching, listening, and then writing and talking. If that's not good enough for Ed, tough bananas: it was good enough for my readers and viewers, and for the companies, administrators and general media who were kind enough to invite me to share my opinions on cycling matters.

Anyway, I have gainful employment to bend myself to - cheerio!