The vast majority of the feedback I got was of the “don’t ever post on this again” and the “leave poor Ted alone” variety. Ted even posted that he’s not a journalist. So, I laid off. However, if you want it, I’ll print it.

AT

I was really looking forward to the John Fisher interview thing… I think the more we get him on the record, the better.

That’s all I have to say on this topic, this exchange has been a huge waste of everyone’s time as it is.

Saying I’ve attacked Fisher based on “rumor and innuendo” does not make it so. My opinions — which is exactly what my post, and every post I write is — were formed on the basis of six months of talking to cyclists, city officials and people within LADOT. When, and if, you make your case, I’ll gladly make any necessary corrections to my post; however, merely because you have a different opinion doesn’t make anything I’ve written wrong.

Merely because you’ve chosen to attack me does not mean that I need to get in the mud with you. However, I hope you’ll bear in mind that it’s your credibility that’s on the line here, not mine. You’ve created a huge jury that’s waiting for you to make your case. If you fail to do so convincingly, it’s your reputation that will suffer, not mine.

I find it ironic that you are so offended by this post when you absolutely attacked Mr. Fisher on the basis of rumor and innuendo.

Amanda – actually, you wrote that. Rogers did not use that phrasing. Do you not espouse the view “we all have a responsibility to make our community strong by encouraging and helping each other out” ?? Just be clear and say yes or no – that you espouse and endorse that view.

I don’t see how your blog being personal exempts you from a basic responsibility to tell a complete story. You slammed Kitchen, and then a derivative organization from the same culture did right by you, but you didn’t praise it.

You wrote that I go about “ripping apart anyone who has a differing view or opinion.” That’s just not true. I differ in opinion with people throughout my day, everyday, and the response I most often choose is to withhold my opinion. If I don’t If I really did what you suggest, I wouldn’t be an elected member of a neighborhood council, or an elected member of the Bikerowave board, nor would Bikerowave have ever made it = I would have destroyed it with hyper criticism.

The truth is I criticize selectively, and I’ve chosen to criticize Rogers. But it’s not fair, and it’s a misrepresentation of fact by you, to say that I criticize everyone I disagree with.

As Amanda points out, I related her experience, which I tried very had to suggest could have happened anywhere, as shown by my own experience. If that didn’t come across, it is either a failure on my part as a writer, or a failure of the reader to fully grasp what is being said.

However, if anyone objects to anything I’ve written, that’s what the comments are for. Or you can email me directly, as many others have done; when someone points out a valid error, I make a point of changing it. If it’s a difference of opinion, I welcome the differing perspective; I can learn very little from those who agree with me.

Alex, so your personal attacks on me are okay, but what you perceive as an attack on you is off limits? Seriously?

You are, of course, more than welcome to criticize anything I write, as I have told you more than once in the past. But to suggest that this post was not a personal attack is clearly disingenuous, as many others have pointed out.

As for referring to our obviously former friendship, I have no intention of using it as a shield. In the email exchange you refer to — you know, the one you said was “off the record,” then openly discuss here — I was merely attempting to keep that door open. Trust me, I won’t make that mistake again, and I will never again refer to you as a friend, former or otherwise.

As for the reference in my post the other day, that was more along the lines of “Et tu, Brute?”

Then he simply could have done something like this: “I ran across this blog (linking to your Kitchen entry) the other day and it reminded me that we as a community need to be more supportive of new cyclists…” instead of spending more than half his blog entry validating your version of your experience at the Kitchen. If he was only using your story as a jumping off point then he needed to use only a sentence or two to get to his major point.

My post about the Bicycle Kitchen was about the Bicycle Kitchen alone. I did not talk about bike co-ops in general nor do I anywhere mention the Bikerowave. Once again, I ask you to take a reading comprehension course along with a writing course so you can learn some tone. And yes, so you don’t have to guess, I’m being harsh here.

Furthermore, my blog is a PERSONAL blog about my PERSONAL experiences. I do not claim to be a journalist nor am I a lobbying organization that claims to speak on the behalf of the cycling community while ripping apart anyone who has a differing view or opinion. Nope, Alex, that’s you.

By your own measures you don’t measure up. You had a bad experience at the Kitchen, and you were perfectly willing to blog that. Then you had a good experience at Bikerowave . . . but you never wrote that up. You say that “we have a responsibility to make our community strong by encouraging and helping each other out” yet you have been more discouraging to the volunteers of bike repair collectives than anyone else in recent memory.

You still have an opportunity to make right, but I think it behooves you to acknowledge your failure to be positive as regards the bike repair collectives.

The discussion you and I are having now is far more constructive than Alex’s dramatic sweeping article leveling charges at Ted. Civily debating the issue gets us a lot farther in understanding each other and our diverse opinions.

Without talking to the volunteer in question he paints the Kitchen as just one grand disappointment with their alleged lack of encouragement to a new cyclist. That’s not a criticism? He doesn’t think there is more to the story? Did he even bother trying to find out who the volunteer was and whether anything in your blog is even true?

He’s being disingenuous when he says this isn’t a criticism.

“Now, don’t get me wrong.

This isn’t a criticism of the Bicycle Kitchen. Until I read Amanda’s letter, I’d heard nothing but good things about them. And I wasn’t there either night, so I can’t comment on what really happened, or who was right or wrong.”

Then he offers a call to arms to the entire cycling community (which, in case you didn’t know) is a lot larger than the 3-4 bike co-ops scattered through out. He says this:

“It’s a reminder that if we really want to build our bicycling community, we need to take a situation like this and turn it into an opportunity to encourage less experienced riders. Whether that means offering advice on how to ride in traffic, how to buy a bike or where to get the parts they need.

And whether we write a blog, work in a bike shop or serve on the board of a biking organization. Or just encounter a rider having a little difficulty on the road.”

Ted doesn’t criticize anyone, he merely reminds us all that we all have a responsibility to make our community strong by encouraging and helping each other out. Exactly the thing Alex has chosen not to do here.

Probably not. The fact that Rogers painted the conflict as betrayed friendship in his post makes it unequivocally NOT a personal attack – I based my remark on that post. The comments I removed were unequivocally personal attacks, to the point where one wrote “you sir are a douchbag (sic)” in ref to me.

The point is the principle; implementation and issues of implementation will be handled at will and ad hoc.

The principle is that Bikeside’s discourse will henceforth exceed a certain minimum level of civility. This will not be an environment for unsophisticated trolling. Bring your A-game trolling if you want to troll on Bikeside.

[edited to change "posts" to "comments" to avoid confusion]

Greg Thomas posted something very mean about me, but I never mentioned it to you or even cared, because this is a public blog/forum, or at least I understood its intent to be a public blog/forum (wait, are you going to censor me now because that could be interpreted as speculating your motivation in an attempt to undermine you?).

Even on my personal blog I allow people to criticize me (and very harshly) without censoring them unless they posted obscene or threatening remarks. If you think it’s gone far enough and want to redirect the conversation, then close the comments or post a comment and redirect it.

Nice name. It’s not speculation. Rogers and I have had private communications in which a similar refrain was present. Rogers also wrote a post in which the central theme is that I’m a former friend who blindsided him. The presumption is that as a (former) friend I should have notified him that I would be critical of his work. Friendship – meet shield.

that sounds like a speculation on his motives. DELETE that post!

obviously, you have a different take on some of the finer grain matters out there. but isn’t it painfully obvious that you and ted have much more in common? that you share a common vision of moving los angeles bicycling forward? (big picture)

from a tactical POV – how is doing a four-part bomb on bikingla better than doing a four part bomb on on some freaking tool like this guy:
http://www.dowdmuska.com/2010columns/col060310.htm

seriously, i would love to see you go after this guy and everyone would love it.

please – use that sharp noggin of yours to attack those who are truly deserving it, and unify (or at least ignore) those who don’t perfectly align with every jot and tittle of your bike doctrine.

- speculates about another person’s motivation, intentions, or character in order to undermine that person
- derogatory remarks about a person’s personal life or appearance

- unequivocal personal attacks will be removed

I have therefore removed 5 comments – two by Patrick Miller, two by The Dude Abides, and one by Greg Thomas.

The point that some of my article could be perceived as personal attacks is well taken. In particular, the remark that Rogers piece is bullshit, the remark that I believe Rogers has never been to a bike repair collective, and the remark that Rogers drives I think some perceive as personal attacks. I think that they were fair game and relevant, but in the interest of becoming more of statesmen by acting as if, I’m setting a new standard for my writing:

- no remarks that could be perceived by a reasonable person in a calm state of mind as a personal attack.

I believe that it’s shameful to shut down valid criticism by framing it as a personal attack. I see a lot of that in these comments and on the comments on Rogers’ blog. Those who seek to do that should be afraid, because I am going to march forward with fair and accurate criticism that they will be unable to frame as a personal attack, and that I doubt Rogers will be able to answer.

Josef Bray-Ali – I don’t think I’ve made a mistake here. However, next time you call something I’ve done stupid I encourage you to remember that although I sometimes make mistakes, I have never done anything stupid – I always apply intelligence to my actions. Once “mistakes = stupid” one loses their ability to take risks and learn from them.