>>>> Please explain what Clive & I did to "bring our own doom" & why we
>>>> deserve collective punishment.
>>> That's another straw man Adam. What did the Japanese do to deserve a
>>> tsunami? Some urcm regulars went a-trolling, the trolls came home to roost.
>>> That's the way of life.
>> Well, with that analogy, your attitude seems to be "I hate
>> Japanese/cyclists so I'm opposed to any rescue attempts, even for the
>> innocent ones."
> No, another straw man. I'm not at all sure what you think the current RFD
> does. It does not say destroy URCM.
No, the RFD doesn't, but I think you'd be quite happy to have URCM
deleted.
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> On 2012-09-12 15:46:32 +0000, Steve Firth said:
>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-12 02:25:29 +0000, Steve Firth said:
>>>>>> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> You did - "current core of URCM members" includes the mods by most
>>>>> people's definition.
>>>>> Even by your standards that's an impressive wriggle.
>>>>> There has been a half-hearted attempt to have a partially constructive
>>> discussion here. Your posts stand out as among the most unconstructive and
>>> confrontational. It's a free countrly, but if you are as interested in
>>> the hierarchy as you claim perhaps you should not try to wreck any
>>> attempt at serious discussion.
>>> I'm not "wrecking" any discussion.
>>>> No doubt you feel that x "started it".
>>> Yet another straw man. Will you be going for "tu quoque" later do that you
>> can get a full house of cyclists' fallacies?
> AFAIK most identified logical fallacies predated the invention of the
> bicycle. The burden of your argument seems to be "some cyclists started
> being rude first so I am going to be tediously and endlessly rude to
> anyone I can identify as a cyclist, or a suspected cyclist" . If you
> look carefully you will see a logical fallacy in that argument. As well
> as it being a bit of a childish policy, generally speaking, even if the
> two sets were identical.
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/09/2012 16:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>> That's not what URCM is. It is a private playground (bad for uk usenet) in
>> which only fawning agreement with the views of the Chief Moderator make it
>> through moderation (very bad for uk usenet).
> That's bollocks in so many ways. It's what some people on here like to
> pretend, but the truth is a long way from it.
But you constantly have your tongue up Whacko's arse. The only bigger
sycophant is Wm.
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2012 16:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> That's not what URCM is. It is a private playground (bad for uk usenet) in
>>> which only fawning agreement with the views of the Chief Moderator make it
>>> through moderation (very bad for uk usenet).
>> That's bollocks in so many ways. It's what some people on here like to
>> pretend, but the truth is a long way from it.
> But you constantly have your tongue up Whacko's arse. The only bigger
> sycophant is Wm.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's bollocks of course, but you're unable to believe that other people can have a different opinion to yours independently of other people's.
>>>>> Please explain what Clive & I did to "bring our own doom" & why we
>>>>> deserve collective punishment.
>>>> That's another straw man Adam. What did the Japanese do to deserve a
>>>> tsunami? Some urcm regulars went a-trolling, the trolls came home to roost.
>>>> That's the way of life.
>>> Well, with that analogy, your attitude seems to be "I hate
>>> Japanese/cyclists so I'm opposed to any rescue attempts, even for the
>>> innocent ones."
>> No, another straw man. I'm not at all sure what you think the current RFD
>> does. It does not say destroy URCM.
> No, the RFD doesn't, but I think you'd be quite happy to have URCM
> deleted.
Back to that straw man again. What you think is neither here nor there. Nor
is it what I think.
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 10:55, Steve Firth wrote:
>> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2012 16:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> That's not what URCM is. It is a private playground (bad for uk usenet) in
>>>> which only fawning agreement with the views of the Chief Moderator make it
>>>> through moderation (very bad for uk usenet).
>>> That's bollocks in so many ways. It's what some people on here like to
>>> pretend, but the truth is a long way from it.
>> But you constantly have your tongue up Whacko's arse. The only bigger
>> sycophant is Wm.
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's bollocks of course, but you're
> unable to believe that other people can have a different opinion to yours
> independently of other people's.
You're entitled to hold whatever incorrect opinion you like. None tenths of
your comment about me relates to you imagining something then acting as if
your imagination were real.
>>>>>> Please explain what Clive & I did to "bring our own doom" & why we
>>>>>> deserve collective punishment.
>>>>> That's another straw man Adam. What did the Japanese do to deserve a
>>>>> tsunami? Some urcm regulars went a-trolling, the trolls came home to roost.
>>>>> That's the way of life.
>>>> Well, with that analogy, your attitude seems to be "I hate
>>>> Japanese/cyclists so I'm opposed to any rescue attempts, even for the
>>>> innocent ones."
>>> No, another straw man. I'm not at all sure what you think the current RFD
>>> does. It does not say destroy URCM.
>> No, the RFD doesn't, but I think you'd be quite happy to have URCM
>> deleted.
> Back to that straw man again. What you think is neither here nor there. Nor
> is it what I think.
Go on then, state unambiguously that you would not be happy to URCM
deleted.
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2012 10:55, Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2012 16:46, Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>> That's not what URCM is. It is a private playground (bad for uk usenet) in
>>>>> which only fawning agreement with the views of the Chief Moderator make it
>>>>> through moderation (very bad for uk usenet).
>>>> That's bollocks in so many ways. It's what some people on here like to
>>>> pretend, but the truth is a long way from it.
>>> But you constantly have your tongue up Whacko's arse. The only bigger
>>> sycophant is Wm.
>> Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's bollocks of course, but you're
>> unable to believe that other people can have a different opinion to yours
>> independently of other people's.
> You're entitled to hold whatever incorrect opinion you like. None tenths of
> your comment about me relates to you imagining something then acting as if
> your imagination were real.
That applies to you. You hold incorrect opinions, make stuff up then act as if it were real.
>>>>>>> Please explain what Clive & I did to "bring our own doom" & why we
>>>>>>> deserve collective punishment.
>>>>>> That's another straw man Adam. What did the Japanese do to deserve a
>>>>>> tsunami? Some urcm regulars went a-trolling, the trolls came home to roost.
>>>>>> That's the way of life.
>>>>> Well, with that analogy, your attitude seems to be "I hate
>>>>> Japanese/cyclists so I'm opposed to any rescue attempts, even for the
>>>>> innocent ones."
>>>> No, another straw man. I'm not at all sure what you think the current RFD
>>>> does. It does not say destroy URCM.
>>> No, the RFD doesn't, but I think you'd be quite happy to have URCM
>>> deleted.
>> Back to that straw man again. What you think is neither here nor there. Nor
>> is it what I think.
> Go on then, state unambiguously that you would not be happy to URCM
> deleted.
I would not be happy to see URCM deleted. I am not happy for it to continue
with current moderation policy. If the moderation policy does not change
then deletion is the lesser evil.
>> However you want to look at it URCM was set up by Jackson and
>> friends so that it could be a nice little club for Jackson and
>> friends.
>If all Ian wanted was a private newsgroup he could just have created
>chiark.cycling without needing to have any discussion or votes at
>all...
>(S)
Good point - why doesn't he?
Have a look down the list of people who voted for the original creation of the
group who have never previously voted in any unn matters and who have never
before or since posted in URCM.
I wonder where they came from and how they knew that there was going to be a
vote?
>> However you want to look at it URCM was set up by Jackson and
>> friends so that it could be a nice little club for Jackson and
>> friends.
>If all Ian wanted was a private newsgroup he could just have created
>chiark.cycling without needing to have any discussion or votes at
>all...
>(S)
Good point - why doesn't he?
Have a look down the list of people who voted for the original creation of the
group who have never previously voted in any unn matters and who have never
before or since posted in URCM.
====================================
Do you think the current chief moderator privately canvassed for votes amongst cycling club friends? Yes, it is notable that many of the people who voted for the formation of the group have never been seen since. Or even before the voting for that matter. Strange ...
>> You did - "current core of URCM members" includes the mods by most
>> people's definition.
> Even by your standards that's an impressive wriggle.
There has been a half-hearted attempt to have a partially constructive
discussion here. Your posts stand out as among the most unconstructive
and confrontational. It's a free countrly, but if you are as
interested in the hierarchy as you claim perhaps you should not try to
wreck any attempt at serious discussion.
No doubt you feel that x "started it".
===============================
Usenet is a public resource - Steve has every right to be concerned about any misuses of public Internet resources.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:22:27 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you think the current chief moderator privately canvassed for votes > amongst cycling club friends? Yes, it is notable that many of the people > who voted for the formation of the group have never been seen since. Or > even before the voting for that matter. Strange ...
I think that is quite typical for group creation. I've voted Y to group
creation with no intent to use the group. I just recognised that there
seemed to be enough interested people that the group is likely to have
enough traffic to sustain itself.
-- Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
> Is it really surprising that people interested in cycling might vote
> in favour when given the opportunity, despite taking no other interest
> in UNN matters?
No, it's not at all surprising that ballot box stuffing took place,
because there's a history of appeals for ballot box stuffing from within
URC/URCM. Look at recent demands for cyclists to respond en-masse to
surveys about the wearing of helmets for example.
>>>> However you want to look at it URCM was set up by Jackson and
>>>> friends so that it could be a nice little club for Jackson and
>>>> friends.
>>>If all Ian wanted was a private newsgroup he could just have created
>>>chiark.cycling without needing to have any discussion or votes at
>>>all...
>>>(S)
>>Good point - why doesn't he?
>>Have a look down the list of people who voted for the original creation of >>the
>>group who have never previously voted in any unn matters and who have never
>>before or since posted in URCM.
>>====================================
>>Do you think the current chief moderator privately canvassed for votes >>amongst cycling club friends? Yes, it is notable that many of the people >>who voted for the formation of the group have never been seen since. Or >>even before the voting for that matter. Strange ...
>Is it really surprising that people interested in cycling might vote
>in favour when given the opportunity, despite taking no other interest
>in UNN matters?
No, not when you factor in the canvassing that went on.
Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:48:30 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> considered Thu, 13 Sep 2012
>> 22:22:27 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>> Do you think the current chief moderator privately canvassed for
>>> votes amongst cycling club friends? Yes, it is notable that many
>>> of the people who voted for the formation of the group have never
>>> been seen since. Or even before the voting for that matter.
>>> Strange ...
>> Is it really surprising that people interested in cycling might vote
>> in favour when given the opportunity, despite taking no other
>> interest in UNN matters?
> No, not when you factor in the canvassing that went on.
It isn't in the least surprising that people interested in cycling might vote for a cycling newsgroup, and never be seen in the management groups again.
I took the question to mean people who had not appeared in usenet before, or the shiny new group for which they voted, since.
>> Is it really surprising that people interested in cycling might vote
>> in favour when given the opportunity, despite taking no other interest
>> in UNN matters?
> No, it's not at all surprising that ballot box stuffing took place,
> because there's a history of appeals for ballot box stuffing from within
> URC/URCM. Look at recent demands for cyclists to respond en-masse to
> surveys about the wearing of helmets for example.
Didn't you make at least one post to irrelevant uk.* groups trying to
drum up no-votes to the creation of URCM?
> I would not be happy to see URCM deleted. I am not happy for it to continue
> with current moderation policy. If the moderation policy does not change
> then deletion is the lesser evil.
OK, I'll trust you on that, although it's rather different from the
tone you've taken in the past. I hope you can understand my point of
view, however: as someone who just wants a civil place to discuss
cycling, I'd rather have URCM as it is than nothing.
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 05:48:30 +0100, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Is it really surprising that people interested in cycling might vote
>in favour when given the opportunity, despite taking no other interest
>in UNN matters?
You are right - all these people who voted yes - and had never ever been seen
before or after the group was created must all have been psychic. Those dozen
or more or who have chiark homepages : pure chance.
Come back Dickon Reed - all is forgiven.
> Unfortunately that will probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Judith > clearly has a short fuse and reacts adversely when people attack her.
Unfortunately her definition of being attacked seems to include "not
agreeing with her". It was, IIRC, ~30 minutes from her first posting in
urc to her calling people fuckwits.
> You're attacking her. She will react, and she's better at it than you > are. Whatever slight hope there might be will have gone.
There was almost certainly no hope anyway. If she wanted to prove that
she could post in a reasonable and civil manner she could've done it any
time over the past couple of years - create a new email address, post in
a reasonable & civil manner for n weeks/months and then "come clean"
about who was behind the ID ...
-- These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> We were about to embark at Dover, when ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> (Ian Jackson) came up to me and whispered:
> > I will see about fixing it in my CFT
> > but TBH it's not very high up on my priority list.
> As its a requirement of the RFC, welcome to RFC-Ignorant.org
Ah yes, the site that includes lists some domains as being rfc non-compliant which actually aren't.
-- These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:57:41 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
<palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tim Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
>> Unfortunately that will probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Judith >> clearly has a short fuse and reacts adversely when people attack her.
>Unfortunately her definition of being attacked seems to include "not
>agreeing with her". It was, IIRC, ~30 minutes from her first posting in
>urc to her calling people fuckwits.
You are indeed partially correct.
I made my first post in URC having seen a post by an Ian Jackson in ULM where
he quoted an article.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
A key point from that article seems to be that cyclists want to pick
and chose when they use cycle lanes; indeed, to me the accident which
is discussed in that article is a clear example of why cyclists
*should* use facilities provided for them. (Note the photograph of
the cyclist who is not in the cycle lane being caught by the car: note
position of cyclist).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
The very first words of response to me were: "Oh dear.
Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed."
I thought - "What an interesting place"
Some time later another regular made the following reply to the point I had
made
> Why would the cyclist not be using the cycle lane?
Why didn't the car use the Motorway, after all they are provided by taxpayers for their use, and they are much safer than urban roads?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
I replied:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
"I thought that there would a fuckwit be along shortly - thanks for
your contribution.
(Thanks to the serious answer and references given by others.)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
I then found out that URC was actually full of fuckwits.
My first post to URC (or at least the replies) have much to answer for:-)
Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-13, Steve Firth wrote:
>> I would not be happy to see URCM deleted. I am not happy for it to continue
>> with current moderation policy. If the moderation policy does not change
>> then deletion is the lesser evil.
> OK, I'll trust you on that, although it's rather different from the
> tone you've taken in the past. I hope you can understand my point of
> view, however: as someone who just wants a civil place to discuss
> cycling, I'd rather have URCM as it is than nothing.
There never was a need for URCM. Use of kill files could have kept the
trolls in their boxes. That was my point at the time of the vote and ever
since. The main point of URCM was to let the pompous prat Ian Jackson have
something to feel even more pompous about. As a side effect it gave trolls
like Phil Lee somewhere to bolt to after they have trolled in other
newsgroups. Sadly the mods then permit the prats to continue to insult the
people they attack within URCM. It's that aspect that causes me to consider
it a canker.
